House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Justin Tomlinson)
Our new JETS scheme has started rolling out across the country and blasted off in my hon. Friend’s constituency on 5 October. The scheme has £238 million of funding that is dedicated to helping people who have been out of work for three or more months and may be at risk of long-term unemployment. JETS will see a variety of providers work at our local jobcentre networks to offer a range of bespoke services, including important advice on how people can move into new, growing sectors, as well as help with CV building and interview coaching.
Miriam Cates
I am glad that the scheme is already helping my constituents in Penistone and Stocksbridge, many of whom are now struggling to find work as a result of the pandemic. However, getting people back into work will require a national effort, so will he provide a broader update on the roll-out of the scheme?
Justin Tomlinson
My hon. Friend is right to suggest that tackling the impacts of covid will require a national effort, and the DWP stands ready to deliver this with our network of local jobcentres, which we will be expanding. The JETS scheme started two weeks ago and is now live right across England and Wales, and we are contracting anew in Scotland. We anticipate that as JETS continues to roll out across Great Britain, it will help 280,000 of our claimants to find work and build the skills to pivot into new sectors if required.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question, because he gives me the opportunity to highlight again what we are doing to help people in the sectors worst affected by the covid-19 outbreak. I have worked with my colleagues across government in forming and delivering our £30 billion plan for jobs to increase employment support, protect jobs and create new opportunities. He will be aware of the kickstart scheme, which particularly focuses on young people, but we will continue to help people of all ages to get back into work.
Chris Elmore
May I raise the specific issue of the support that is available to single parents when their child has to self-isolate? They are not able to claim statutory sick pay if their child is having to self-isolate at school age. In addition, if they were to apply for universal credit, they would have to restart the process each and every time. I have constituents who have had to self-isolate on multiple occasions because their school-age children have been told they have to stay at home and cannot stay at home on their own. Can the Secretary of State either tell me now, or come back to me on it in writing, what specific support can be directed towards constituents who need that additional support as single parents?
Dr Coffey
I will certainly ask the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work to look into that detailed issue on SSP. If a person is required to self-isolate as a consequence of somebody in their household having symptoms, then, in my view, they should be eligible for SSP. But given that it is such a legal and technical issue, I will ask my hon. Friend to write to the hon. Gentleman specifically.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) [V]
Ending the furlough scheme early is going to put livelihoods at risk, so will the Secretary of State provide an update on her discussions with the Treasury about extending the covid-related increase to universal credit and ensuring that it is expanded to legacy benefits? While she is in those discussions, will she raise extending the furlough scheme and ask that the covid self-isolation grants be tax-exempt, as called for by the Social Security Secretary in Scotland, Shirley-Ann Somerville?
Dr Coffey
There are multiple questions there. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has already responded by introducing the new job support scheme, which he updated for particular sectors, thinking of tier 3 in England, to extend even further the furlough scheme. It is clear that this Government are doing what is needed. In terms of the other things that the hon. Gentleman mentions, he will be aware that I continue to have regular discussions with my Treasury colleagues on the best way that we can help to support people during this pandemic.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Will Quince)
This Government’s unprecedented support package has supported the poorest working households the most, with Her Majesty’s Treasury’s analysis showing that the poorest 10% of working households have seen no income reduction, owing to the fast action taken by this Government in responding to the pandemic, including a £9.3 billion injection into the welfare system.
Alison McGovern
The problem with the Minister’s answer is that this crisis is only revealing problems with policies that we knew were there already. Members of this House are against it; members of faith communities are against it; leading charities are against it; and now Marcus Rashford is campaigning against it. So what is the Minister going to do to end the two-child policy for universal credit once and for all?
Will Quince
The two-child policy in universal credit is one of fundamental fairness, and it means that those who are in receipt of benefits should be in the same position as those who are not. I am not a particular football fan, but I certainly know Marcus Rashford’s name now, and I congratulate him on his MBE. We welcome the establishment of the taskforce and will carefully consider its recommendations as we approach the spending review.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
We already know that child poverty rates have been rising across north-west England, and that is before the economic impact of the restrictions consequent upon tier 3. The Chancellor talks about the way that the job support scheme and universal credit protect income, saying that it leaves households with 90% of their income, but many households will get nothing like that, and those who lose their jobs entirely sometimes go on to universal credit at 30% of income. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of the restrictions on child poverty in the north-west and how that compares with a local furlough scheme that protects all jobs that are at risk?
Will Quince
I will look carefully at the points that the hon. Lady raises, but I stress that this Government have implemented an unprecedented support package, including the job retention scheme and the self-employment income support scheme, which has helped families to cope with the financial impact of covid-19. For those most in need, we strengthened the welfare system with an additional £9 billion this year. That is in addition to the around £5 billion increase to benefit rates as part of the 2020-21 uprating, including around £400 million more on children’s benefits.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies) [V]
This Government are working hard to help people into work with our £30 billion plan for jobs. Kickstart will provide a high-quality paid work placement for young people across the UK, and our new job entry targeted support scheme—JETS—will help those who have been unemployed for more than three months move into new and growing sectors. Our additional job finding support service will provide targeted support for the newly unemployed, with local provisions available now and a national contract due in place from 21 January.
Elliot Colburn
In Carshalton and Wallington, we know that the self-employed are the risk takers, and the pandemic has shown that we need to be there for them. Work coaches have done a good job of knowing what is fair and reasonable and are able to apply discretion when setting work search requirements, so will my hon. Friend assure me that self-employed claimants will also benefit from this personalised, discretionary approach as the minimum income floor is reintroduced?
Mims Davies
I can assure my hon. Friend that claimants will always be contacted before the minimum income floor is applied to them. Universal credit claimants who were subject to the minimum income floor prior to the pandemic will be given the opportunity to review their self-employment status and activity, ensuring that their current circumstances are reflected and their business continues to be viable before any reintroduction of the MIF. My hon. Friend will be aware that the regulations to relax the MIF are in place until November, and I will update the House on arrangements beyond that in due course.
Jason McCartney
I joined my caseworker on a recent covid-safe visit to Huddersfield jobcentre, which is rolling out a seven-day-a-week operation to support jobseekers. Will the Minister join me in thanking all the team at Huddersfield jobcentre and continue to give them all the support required as they recruit the extra staff they need to support my constituents into work via kickstart and other schemes?
Mims Davies
I am more than happy to extend my great thanks to the DWP team in Huddersfield, as well as their new colleagues. They have done sterling work in setting up a new youth hub with Kirklees Council, as well as other activities involving kickstart, using sector-based work academy programmes—SWAPs—and mentoring circles and working with local employers to help more people in Huddersfield back into work.
Mark Fletcher
Does the Minister share my concern that young people in Bolsover and elsewhere are at risk of being held back by the coronavirus pandemic? Will she commit to doing everything possible to ensure that opportunities are available to enable them to move forward in their careers and ensure that they reach their potential?
Mims Davies
In September 2020, we started the implementation of our new DWP youth offer for all 18 to 24-year-olds making a claim for universal credit who are in the intensive work search group. We are on track in our ambitious plan for young people to open around 100 DWP-led youth hubs nationally, and many are already in place, supporting our young people to progress.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman) [V]
As my hon. Friend knows, we want safer, better and greener pensions. This Government were the first in a G7 country to legislate for net zero by 2050. We lead the way on environmental regulation of pensions, and we are introducing transparency of climate-related financial disclosures in the Pension Schemes Bill that require schemes to take account of climate change goals, including net zero.
Christian Wakeford
I thank the Minister for his response. Climate change is the single biggest threat not only to mankind, but to the planet. Does he agree with me that if we are to meet the climate change targets set out in the Paris agreement, more needs to be done to ensure that large financial institutions, including institutional investors such as pension funds, channel more investment into areas that do not actively harm our environment and contribute to climate change?
Guy Opperman
I agree with my hon. Friend. The Government are setting a regulatory framework and enabling pension funds to make sustainable investments happen, whether that is through the Bill itself or through our illiquid investments proposals, which will see renewables, hydrogen and potentially new nuclear. We do not believe in divestment, but we welcome the change in investment practice that is already beginning to take place, although we want to see more.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab) [V]
With David Attenborough urging pension funds to move away from fossil fuels, it is hugely welcome that the Government have joined Labour to incorporate in legislation, for the first time ever, climate change commitments on pension funds. Now we must translate our ambitions into action. Previously, the Minister has received positively our proposal for a pension fund summit. Will he now agree to work with us—across party and bringing together the world of pensions to save our planet—to organise a cross-party climate change summit, because this is the biggest form of investment potentially worldwide in climate change pension funds?
Guy Opperman
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are already working with a large number of pension funds and also with companies. We all want to see a safer, better and greener pension system. I am happy to work with him on an ongoing basis, and I am happy to reach out on a collaborative basis on this particular issue, which matters to all of us.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Will Quince)
My Department continually reviews its processes and the service it provides to claimants using a long-standing test and learn approach. In July, we introduced a two-week run-on of DWP income-related benefits, which is in addition to the existing two-week extension of housing benefit that is already payable to eligible claimants. Claimants who believe they may be better off on universal credit should check their eligibility before applying, as legacy benefits will end when they submit their claim and they will not be able to return to them in the future.
Jo Gideon
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. With difficult times ahead for Stoke-on-Trent families hit by the economic downturn caused by coronavirus, does my hon. Friend agree that it is more important than ever for universal credit to offer any necessary flexibility to ensure people get the support they need to return to work, particularly those affected by local lockdown restrictions?
Will Quince
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Universal credit is designed to support people into work. It supports those who need help and is fair to everyone who pays for it. Throughout the pandemic many, sadly, have lost their jobs or seen their incomes reduced. Thankfully, universal credit and the Government’s £9.3 billion investment in the welfare safety net have been there to help catch many of those affected, and that has been vital for the 3 million people who have made a benefit claim since March.
Mark Jenkinson
Our plan for jobs will help people get the skills they need at every stage of their lives and delivers on our promise to level up opportunity across the country. Work coaches will play a crucial role in delivering that agenda and helping people back into work, so will my hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the brilliant work coaches of Workington jobcentre, and commit to increasing the number of work coaches across the jobcentre network?
Will Quince
I too pay tribute to the brilliant work coaches in Workington Jobcentre Plus, who I know have done an incredible job in particular around partnership working, and I can point to the Maryport GP surgery outreach work, the youth hub, the sector-based work academy programmes and the virtual mentoring circle by Workington jobcentre. That is brilliant work and, yes, I can absolutely confirm that we are investing £895 million in doubling the number of work coaches and Jobcentre Pluses by March 2021.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab) [V]
The £20-a-week uplift to universal credit has been a lifeline for many during the pandemic, yet this vital extra support continues to be denied to legacy benefit claimants, many of whom are disabled. I raised this with Ministers in the Chamber on 11 May, again on 29 June and yet again on 14 September, each time getting a non-answer. To date, the uplift could have given legacy benefit claimants £600 of extra support. Minister, can we please have a straight answer today: will anything be done to rectify this?
Will Quince
The hon. Lady is right is that she has asked this question on three occasions, and she has had three answers. The legacy benefits were increased by 1.7% in April 2020, following the Government’s announcement to end the benefit freeze. It has always been the case that claimants on legacy benefits can make a claim for universal credit if they believe that they will be better off. There are special arrangements for those in receipt of the severe disability premium, who will be able to make a new claim to UC from January 2021. But it is important—I stress this—that claimants should check their eligibility before applying to universal credit as legacy benefits will end when they submit their claim and they will not be able to return to them in the future.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies) [V]
Evidence suggests that active labour market policies can be even more effective during recessions. We will continue to encourage claimants to prepare and look for work where it is safe to do so. Claimants will not be subject to conditionality until they have agreed a new or updated claimant commitment. We firmly believe the best way to support claimants is through empowered work coaches who engage proactively with claimants to help them identify the options they need to build on their skills, increase their confidence and return to employment.
Kim Johnson
Non-existent jobs. Liverpool has had the second highest unemployment increase in the country since March 2020. Our claimant rate has more than doubled from 12,000 to 32,000, and we now have the highest unemployment rate in the country. There are a further 27,000 people on furlough in our closed hospitality sector who will either be let go or have to survive on 67% of their wages come November. With benefits sanctions being reintroduced and welfare conditionality being reinstated, what evidence do the Government have that this is benefiting claimants and preventing a return to the high unemployment of the ’80s?
Mims Davies
I stress to the hon. Lady that sanctions are only used when claimants fail to meet their conditionality requirements without good reason. As I said in my previous responses, work coaches will work to ensure that any requirements set are reasonable, taking into account the claimant’s circumstances and, crucially, the situation in the local labour market, while allowing them to adhere also to public health advice. We are absolutely determined to help people back into work, giving them the power to do that, and the way we can do that locally in Liverpool is through the flexible support fund and other measures.
Jeff Smith
In Manchester, Withington there are 3,000 more people needing to claim unemployment benefits than this time last year, and unemployment is rising and will get worse at the end of the furlough scheme, so there are not 3,000 jobs for those people to go to. Suspending sanctions and welfare conditionality was the right thing to do in the crisis, but we are still in that crisis. Does the Minister not accept that we need to be more supportive and less punitive at the moment?
Mims Davies
I hope the hon. Gentleman and his constituents will acknowledge that, despite the reintroduction of conditionality and sanctions, we fully recognise that these are difficult times. New jobs are being created in the digital, green and logistical sectors that can be carried out safely in line with social distancing and public health rules. There is a recognition that in some sectors there will be challenges, while in others there are opportunities, but we will always make sure that jobcentres respond suitably to local alert levels and always set that conditionality in line with individuals, helping them to progress and always listening to them; if they have a good reason and cannot adhere, we will support them and take that individual approach.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
In July, the Government chose to reinstate benefit sanctions and conditionality, against the advice of experts. We are now in the covid second wave, with businesses closing, unemployment rising and vacancies halved since March, but last week the Government said that the clinically extremely vulnerable and those they live with could have their benefits cut if they refuse a job that puts them at risk from the virus. Is that really the Government’s policy? Is it not time to end the threats and re-suspend benefit sanctions, or are we no longer in this together?
Mims Davies
I understand the hon. Lady’s point, but if someone cannot work and must stay at home, there are ways of getting additional support, and I would urge anybody concerned to use the benefits calculator on gov.uk. I again remind the House that work coaches will always work to ensure that requirements are reasonable, always taking into account the claimant’s circumstances and the situation in the local labour market, and continuing to adhere to public health advice. Claimants who fail to meet the conditionality requirements without good reason may be sanctioned, but as I say, the rates are extraordinarily low—in fact, they have never been lower—and we are determined to help people back into work with the right individual support, based on their individual circumstances.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
The 2020-21 universal credit increase was included in a package of welfare measures worth around £9.3 billion this year to help people with the financial consequences of what has happened with the covid-19 pandemic. I continue to work with the Treasury on the best ways to support those receiving benefits. I share the view of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor that we must act in a way that recognises social justice, and that is the motivation of those on the Government Benches.
Rosie Cooper [V]
Does the Secretary of State still intend to end the suspension of the minimum income floor for self-employed universal credit claimants, which is due to expire on 13 November?
Dr Coffey
That policy is still under review. Clearly, this is a matter of discussion, because the regulations do come to an end. It is important to recognise that we have different measures happening around different parts of the country. We do need to try to take a national approach to the overall policy, but as ever, we trust and empower our work coaches to make the best decisions for the claimants they are helping, usually to help them get back into work.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, Stephen Timms.
Stephen Timms
The Select Committee’s report published today calls for new starter payments to claimants of universal credit to help tide them over the very difficult five-week wait for their first regular benefit payment, and for the £20 a week increase, which the Secretary of State has referred to, to be made permanent. How can it possibly be justified for people claiming jobseeker’s allowance and employment and support allowance to receive £20 a week less than people in identical circumstances who happen to be claiming universal credit?
Dr Coffey
On what happened with legacy benefits and universal credit, I think the rationale was set out clearly at the time; in particular, it was also about having a rate that was quite similar to statutory sick pay. We will look carefully at the report that the right hon. Gentleman and his Committee have issued to us today, but I remind him that of course people do not need to wait five weeks for a universal credit payment; they can get a payment within a matter of days, and that payment is then spread over the entire year.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Justin Tomlinson)
Earlier this year, we suspended face-to-face assessments. That suspension is still in place and is kept under review in line with the latest public health guidance.
Owen Thompson
The Joseph Rowntree Foundation estimates that 1.3 million people across Scotland will lose out if the DWP does not make the £20 increase to universal credit permanent and extend it to legacy benefits. The Resolution Foundation also reports that one in three working-age families in the so-called red wall constituencies will be £1,000 a year worse off if the planned cuts to universal credit go ahead. How exactly is that levelling up?
Justin Tomlinson
I refer the hon. Member the answer that the Minister for Welfare Delivery has already given. The Government have introduced a package of temporary welfare measures worth £9.3 billion this year to help with the financial consequences of the pandemic.
Kirsten Oswald [V]
More than ever, with millions facing unemployment and reduced hours or earnings, our social security system must be properly funded. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has rightly pointed out that cutting social security takes money out of the economy by reducing consumer spending. If the Minister is not yet convinced that cutting universal credit is grossly unjust, will he at least consider making this permanent to stimulate the economy?
Justin Tomlinson
As I have just set out, we as a Government, through our £9.3 billion-worth of temporary support, which we continue to keep under review, have shown throughout these unprecedented times that we will be flexible and provide the support, including our comprehensive £30 billion plan for jobs, to make sure that we are standing side by side with those who are navigating the challenges of covid.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Will Quince)
There are currently no plans to extend the suspension of benefit deductions. Action to restart deductions commenced on 6 July and should be completed by mid-November. We recognise that there will be some people who may be experiencing financial difficulty, and anyone unable to afford the rate of recovery proposed is encouraged to contact the Department.
Peter Aldous
I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. These suspensions have provided a lifeline to many vulnerable people over the last six months. Unfortunately, there is at present no reason to believe that we will be in a better position in April 2021 than we were in April 2020, thus I urge my hon. Friend to consider extending the suspensions and working with local authorities to put in place fair local support arrangements that will operate in conjunction with the national welfare system and complement the Chancellor’s initiatives to get people back to work.
Will Quince
It is right that those claimants who owe the Department money are able to resume payments to reduce their debt. We continue to apply a flexible approach to recovery and endeavour to recover without causing undue financial hardship. Anyone unable to afford the rate of recovery proposed is encouraged to contact the Department so that an affordable rate of repayment can be negotiated. In May, we will be launching the breathing space scheme to help to prevent problem debt and provide support to people who fall into that problem debt.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies) [V]
Our plan for jobs includes suitable interventions for people of all ages to support people back into work, including employment support delivered by our jobcentres, where we are doubling the number of work coaches across our national network. Last week, I held my latest meeting with our older workers champion, alongside employer organisations, focused on our fuller working lives agenda and opportunities for the over-50s.
Tom Randall
In the current pandemic, people of all ages are suddenly being made redundant. I was recently contacted by a 57-year-old constituent in Gedling, who is now looking for work and retraining. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is particularly important to help this sector of the population, and what help can I offer to my constituent to ensure that her skills are utilised?
Mims Davies
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this concern in his constituency. I assure him that the Government recently announced, in the plan for jobs, new funding to ensure that more people, including our older workers, get tailored Jobcentre Plus support to help them to find work and build the skills they need to get into new work, including the sector-based work academy programme and our new online job-finding support service. On 29 September, the Prime Minister announced a major expansion of post-18 education and training to prepare all workers for a post-covid economy, including a lifetime skills guarantee to give adults the chance to take free college courses by valued local employers.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Justin Tomlinson)
By law, benefit levels must be reviewed annually to determine if they are at the appropriate level. The most recent review resulted in the uprating of 1.7%. On disability benefits specifically, spending this year has increased by almost 5% from £19 billion to £20 billion.
Dr James Davies
Recently, I was pleased to meet my constituent, Tony Davies, who sadly lives with motor neurone disease. On behalf of Tony and the MND Association community, will the Minister kindly announce when he is likely to publish the outcome of the review into access to benefits for the terminally ill?
Justin Tomlinson
We have been clear, following our comprehensive review, that there will be three themes: we will change the six-month rule, we will improve consistency and we will raise awareness of the support available. Only last week, I met the MND Association and the Minister for Prevention, Public Health and Primary Care as we work at great speed to bring forward those much-needed changes.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Will Quince)
The latest statistics from 2018-19 show that the rates and numbers of people in absolute poverty were lower than in 2010. Since those statistics were published, we have injected a further £9.3 billion into our welfare system, including an increase to universal credit of up to £1,040 for this financial year.
Alan Brown
The reality is that that is not enough. Thanks to the efforts of the Scottish Government to mitigate the worst impacts of austerity, Scotland has the lowest child poverty rates, but the impact of UK Government policies means that 4,600 children in my constituency are estimated to be living in poverty, which is absolutely shameful. Will the Minister listen to the calls of the End Child Poverty coalition and the likes of Macmillan Cancer Support and pledge to keep the £20 a week universal credit uplift to avoid putting more families and children into poverty?
Will Quince
One child in poverty is one child too many. We at the Department are continuing to work with Her Majesty’s Treasury and other Government Departments to monitor the evolving economic and labour market situation and identify the most effective ways to help people to stay in or close to work, both now and in future. It is important to stress that Her Majesty’s Treasury published a distributional analysis that assessed the impact of covid-19 on incomes compared with the incomes of working households in May 2020. That analysis showed that the Government’s interventions have supported the poorest households the most.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Justin Tomlinson)
As a Government, we are proud that 1.3 million more disabled people are in work since 2013—a record high. We continue to offer support through the Work and Health, intensive personalised employment support, Disability Confident and Access to Work programmes.
Rob Butler
The disability employment gap in my constituency is 25.4% and there are concerns that it will widen as the economy suffers from the impact of covid-19. What reassurance can the Minister give me that disabled people will get the specific help they need to find work —for example, through tailored support or the funding of reasonable adjustments on the kickstart scheme?
Justin Tomlinson
It is absolutely the case that Access to Work is available and works hand in hand with schemes such as kickstart so that reasonable adjustments can be made for disabled employees. I have written to Disability Confident leaders to encourage them to sign up to kickstart.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Will Quince)
During the pandemic, several economic support measures have been announced by the Chancellor, including supporting the retention of 9.6 million jobs through the furlough scheme. Additionally, 2.2 million individuals have claimed £5.6 billion under the second self-employment income support scheme grant announced by the Chancellor as part of his winter economic plan. The Department has spent £9.3 billion on additional support, including the increase of the universal credit standard allowance by £20 a week. Together, those measures provide a safety net for almost everyone who needs it, but eligibility for the different support packages is set out clearly on gov.uk.
Mr Davis [V]
Small businesses account for about 13 million people employed, which is about 60% of the workforce, and many of them are in trouble. When I spoke this weekend to ForgottenLtd, which represents people who are not in receipt of benefit, it told me that its latest survey showed that 70% of its members receive no benefit whatsoever. Do the Government intend to do something about that? If so, will the Minister meet me to discuss the criteria for improvement?
Will Quince
I know that my right hon. Friend has campaigned hard on the subject. The question may be better directed at the Chancellor of the Exchequer or Ministers from Her Majesty’s Treasury, as I know he has also done.
Universal credit is an in-work and out-of-work benefit. It is also available for those who are self-employed. As the Secretary of State set out in her letter to the Work and Pensions Committee last month, we plan to proceed with the reinstatement of the minimum income floor, and claimants will be contacted as it is reinstated for them. Notwithstanding my right hon. Friend’s point, more than £13 billion of support has already been provided for more than 2.6 million self-employed individuals through the first two stages of the self-employment income support scheme and the scheme has now been extended.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Will Quince)
The Department does not take benefit fraud lightly, and we are committed to using the full range of powers and penalties at our disposal. As part of our response to covid-19, we have established our integrated risk and intelligence service to prevent high-risk claims from going into payment. Our investigations have successfully led us to correct and suspend serious and organised claims fraud in large numbers, and we continue to review our processes and to anticipate new attacks, which will make it even harder for people to defraud the taxpayer in the future.
Sarah Jones
A constituent of mine, a mother of three children, recently had her universal credit and housing benefit stopped for over two months because of a fraudulent claim made in her name. She was completely innocent, but she and her young family suffered significant financial hardship. We know that benefit fraud, in universal credit in particular, is increasing, and I know of several other MPs who have had similar cases. What will the Government do to stop innocent families suffering for months just because this Government are failing to detect and investigate fraud?
Will Quince
I would be very happy to meet the hon. Lady to receive more details about that individual case, but first let me apologise, because that should not have happened. In effect, Ministers had to make decisions about the redeployment of staff in order to process the unprecedented number of claims, which went up from 2.2 million to 5.7 million claims. That meant deploying staff away from counter-fraud and into the processing of claims, but I am pleased to say that that has now changed and more staff are going back into fraud. We have to take fraud incredibly seriously, because it is individuals such as the hon. Lady’s constituent who are often the target of serious organised crime.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies) [V]
The latest official statistics show the level of employment at 32.6 million. We recognise that there are difficult times ahead, but our ambitious £30 billion plan for jobs will support people during this next phase of our recovery as we push to build back better and greener. We are working with other Government Departments, external organisations and our local partners to support people into work, to react to changes in local labour markets and to work with our local Jobcentre Plus provision to help communities to thrive.
Emma Hardy
When one of my constituents, who was working as a cleaner, was recently furloughed, she was recommended to move to universal credit and away from working tax credit. I wrote to the Department on 7 July and again on 7 August. I have just had a reply, on 12 October, telling me that because my constituent earned £666.21 in a month, she was entitled to nothing whatsoever from universal credit. Not only that, but she had to repay the advance loan that she had had at the beginning. This system is failing her, and she is in a desperate situation. When will the Government look at allowing people to return to working tax credit and move away from this unfair system of universal credit?
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Lady for raising what sounds like a concerning situation for that family. We recognise that we are currently in an unusual and challenging economic period, and I am sure that the Minister for welfare delivery, the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince), will have taken note of that particular case. I am sure we will be able to look at that once again, and I thank the hon. Lady for raising the matter.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies) [V]
This Government have made clear their commitment to supporting both paying and receiving parents, especially during this difficult period. Around three quarters of paying parents are paying towards their liability. The Child Maintenance Service will continue to pursue all cases where appropriate, and I stress that anyone found to be abusing the system risks being subject to the full extent of our enforcement powers.
Sir Robert Neill
I am sorry to say that the Minister’s words do not sit with the experience of some of my constituents, who feel that the Child Maintenance Service has failed them in pursuing outstanding claims. I shall give the House one example. In an appeal against a CMS decision to the tribunal in February, it was discovered that a private pension had not been disclosed. The CMS should therefore have recouped the shortfall, but there was no contact until May. When the CMS was asked how much it would recoup for my constituent, she again heard nothing until she got a letter saying that the CMS was writing off historic debt and would not pursue it. That is letting that person down, not supporting them.
Mims Davies
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue, and I stress that those found abusing the system are subject to the full extent of our enforcement powers. The CMS will pursue these people, where appropriate. Our key partners are in communication with us to make sure that we secure the appropriate court dates for cases impacted by the covid-19 pandemic and that we are establishing our full and normal range of enforcement services. Where payments have been missed we are taking action to re-establish compliance, and I am happy to look at the issue for him.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Unfortunately, we have run out of time, so we are going straight on to topicals.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
The Government’s new job support scheme being launched next month to protect viable jobs and businesses that are facing lower demand is yet another part of how my Department and the Government are standing ready to try to help people stay in work and to prepare to get back into work. [Interruption.] We will continue to do whatever it takes to make sure we are reaching people of all ages. In particular, I want to make sure that people who may newly be looking for support from the welfare state use the Government-funded help to claim service, administered by Citizens Advice. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order—apologies, Minister. Let me just say to the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) that there was not time to call him. There was another Member before him on the call list, so there was not a chance that I could have called him before moving on; I do apologise. If he wants to hang around, I will try to get him into topical questions if he wishes to speak.
Duncan Baker
I was pleased to see my right hon. Friend’s announcement that almost 1 million pensioners in receipt of pension credit will be receiving £140 off their energy bills through the warm home discount scheme. My constituency has a very elderly demographic, so that is a great lifeline for so many. Will she confirm that, alongside it, the Government will continue to make winter fuel payments to support our pensioners this winter?
Dr Coffey
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct, and I praise him for raising this issue on behalf of the many people he represents. This Government are committed to tackling fuel poverty, particularly among pensioners, and will continue to deliver winter fuel payments this year. I was pleased by the work done by my Department to make sure that those on pension credit, including in your constituency, Mr Speaker, received the £140 from the warm home discount scheme, without lifting a finger.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
As the Government place millions of people across the country under new covid restrictions, they will be asking many people to undergo significant cuts to their income. Last week, the Prime Minister said that due to the job support scheme and universal credit
“nobody gets less than 93% of their current income.”—[Official Report, 14 October 2020; Vol. 682, c. 368.]
Unfortunately, that is just completely wrong. The reality is that a person employed by a business that the Government are ordering to close could still lose a third of their income, and for an unspecified length of time. Their rent, mortgages and food bills will not be any lower, so how does the Secretary of State expect those people to get by?
Dr Coffey
The Government have taken unprecedented action in the design of their new schemes, recognising that some businesses right around the country are still experiencing a loss in demand. As a consequence, we have developed two different schemes, one of which is “a third, a third, a third” in terms of helping people with their cost of living. Where we believe, in conjunction with local leadership, that it is the right thing for certain sectors to be closed in areas, the two-thirds support of wages is important. Of course if people do come under a certain threshold, they may well be eligible for UC, which would help top up their ongoing income during these difficult times.
Jonathan Reynolds
Secretary of State, this is important, because it is the barrier to additional restrictions being introduced. As the Government know, people who are eligible for the job support scheme and may be losing only a third of their income are, comparatively, the lucky ones, as people in receipt of UC or jobseeker’s allowance will be left on just a fraction of their current income. With that in mind, I have a straightforward question for her: it is clear that we are not going to be out of this crisis by April next year, so will the Government do the right thing and scrap their plans to cut UC to an even lower amount next April?
Dr Coffey
What is different from the regime we had earlier in the year is that then the strong message was very much for people to stay at home and retail was closed, along with a number of different sectors. That is not the case anymore: we have now had to intervene in a much more limited number of sectors, often in conjunction with the local leadership. As a consequence, we will continue to review the best ways to support people through the welfare system, as well as through the plan for jobs and the measures that the Chancellor has introduced.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
Dr Coffey
One element of the kickstart scheme, a £2 billion investment in the future of our young people, is designed to help people to get on the first rung of the ladder with a proper job. It is a way for those people who have recently left school or university and are at risk of long-term unemployment to get experience and financing, which does not just have to be through private organisations and could be through local government or charitable or other sectors. It is a specific way to ensure that those people get not only a job but the extra training and wraparound support that they need to help them further on in their lives.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) [V]
For some time, the SNP has led the campaign to end the universal credit five-week wait. We think that is best done by the introduction of grants, so we welcome today’s Work and Pensions Committee report. We also agree with the idea of renaming advances as “new claim loans” to make clearer what they actually are. Will the Secretary of State look favourably on the report’s findings and accept its recommendations?
Dr Coffey
I will look carefully at the report. Select Committee members will know that I have spoken to them on previous occasions, as have other Ministers, to explain that advances are a way to spread the payment of universal credit over a year—in fact, in future it will be over two years, if that is how long people want to spread that initial support—and it is not our intention in any way to introduce a grant at the beginning. The grant is there in the benefits—that is exactly what they are there to do—so I do not see how we will be responding positively to the Committee’s report in that regard.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Will Quince)
The hon. Lady is absolutely right—this issue is a concern for me and has been for some time. I am working closely with my counterpart at MHCLG and would be delighted to meet the hon. Lady to discuss progress.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
Dr Coffey
My hon. Friend is right to point out that the kickstart placements are six-month-long jobs, but the skills that people will learn and the experience they will gain will put them in good stead to secure future employment. We are investing in our young people in recognition of this difficult time, but of course if they do not secure a permanent job at the end of that time—although the placements may be a gateway to apprenticeships and similar—we will continue to support them until they find a job.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Justin Tomlinson)
My hon. Friend is always a champion of his local organisations and constituents. Yes, absolutely; many local authorities, charities and organisations, such as North Yorkshire County Council, have agreed to act as gateways or have submitted bids for funding.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Justin Tomlinson
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Our forthcoming Green Paper will look specifically at the importance of advocacy in the system, and at increasing it. That need should have been identified at the initial application. If he sends through the details, I will be happy to ensure that the claimant is not lost from the system.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
Dr Coffey
My understanding is that the policy relates to people who have had child maintenance arrangements for a very long time. There comes a point when there is an element of understanding the different debts. My hon. Friend will be aware that, in a way, this is a very odd arrangement, with the state effectively becoming the arbiter between two parents. The only people who lose are the children. That is why I encourage everybody who has a responsibility towards their children—currently 111,000 children are owed £187 million by parents who refuse to pay up—to get on and do the right thing by them. We should not end up having to rely on the state to arbitrate between two parents.[Official Report, 16 November 2020, Vol. 684, c. 2MC.]
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Dr Coffey
The £500 self-isolation payment administered by local councils was devised to achieve compliance with public health guidance. That is why the Department of Health and Social Care is leading on the matter. I am conscious that there may be local arrangements that need to be addressed. Often, the best way to tackle those is through the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, which has local funds that have been topped up by this Government to help with local welfare issues.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con) [V]
Dr Coffey
My hon. Friend is right to praise hard-working DWP staff at her local Jobcentre Plus and across the network. The team in Barnstaple have worked with the National Careers Service to help with interview technique and build transferable skills among people who become unemployed, and great work is already under way at the North Devon youth support hub in Bideford and Barnstaple. I look forward to visiting the south-west. As she knows, the DWP jobcentre is a covid-secure environment and I look forward to joining her there in due course.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) [V]
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Justin Tomlinson)
I am very much aware of this. As the hon. Gentleman will understand, we suspended face-to-face assessments across all disability benefits following the public health guidance. We are working as quickly as we can to roll out telephone assessments for IIDB where possible, and as soon as it is safe to do so, we will return to face-to-face assessments.
Mr Speaker
In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business, and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for three minutes.
Petition
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of the residents of High Peak calling for a railway station to be built in Gamesley. My long-standing petition, both online and on paper, has received strong local support, with over 30% of Gamesley’s adult population signing it. The people of Gamesley were first promised a railway station 52 years ago. I believe it is time to deliver on that promise.
The petition states:
The petition of the residents of High Peak,
Declares that the people of Gamesley were promised a railway station in 1968 to help residents commute on the Manchester to Glossop line; notes that a railway station would improve local transport connections by easing parking pressures at Dinting, shortening commuting times to Manchester, and reducing traffic around Glossop and Tintwistle; and further declares that the cost of a railway station would be modest for the Government and transformative for the life chances of residents.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to prioritise the reallocation of funds to build a railway station in Gamesley, transforming the lives of Gamesley’s residents.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002611]
EU Exit: Negotiations and the Joint Committee
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House on the Government’s negotiations with the European Union on our future trading relationship and also the work of the UK/EU Joint Committee established under the withdrawal agreement.
First, on the talks on the new trade agreement, we had hoped to conclude a Canada-style free trade agreement before the transition period ends on 31 December this year but, as things stand, that will not now happen. We remain absolutely committed to securing a Canada-style FTA, but there does need to be a fundamental change in approach from the EU if the process is to get back on track. I have come to the House at the first available opportunity to explain why and how we have reached this point.
We have been clear since the summer that we saw 15 October—last Thursday—as the target date for reaching an agreement with the EU. The Prime Minister and the Commission President Ursula von der Leyen agreed on 3 October that our negotiating team should work intensively to bridge the remaining gaps between us, and we made clear that we were willing to talk every day. But I have to report to the House that this intensification was not forthcoming. The EU was willing to conduct negotiations only on fewer than half the days available and would not engage on all of the outstanding issues. Moreover, the EU refused to discuss legal texts in any area, as it has done since the summer. Indeed, it is almost incredible to our negotiators that we have reached this point in the negotiations without any common legal texts of any kind.
On 15 October, the EU Heads of State and Government gathered for the European Council. The conclusions of that Council reaffirmed the EU’s original negotiating mandate. They dropped a reference to intensive talks that had been in the draft and they declared that all—all—future moves in the negotiation had to be made by the UK. Although some attempts were made to soften that message by some EU leaders, the European Council reaffirmed those conclusions as authoritative on Friday. That unfortunate sequence of events has, in effect, ended the trade negotiations because it leaves no basis on which we can actually find agreement. There is no point in negotiations proceeding as long as the EU sticks with that position. Such talks would be meaningless and would take us no nearer to finding a workable solution.
That is the situation we now face, and that is why the Prime Minister had to make it clear on 16 October that the EU had refused to negotiate seriously for much of the past month or so. The EU had now, at the European Council, explicitly ruled out a free trade agreement with us, like the one that it has with Canada, and therefore this country should get ready for 1 January 2021 with arrangements that are more like Australia’s, based on simple principles of global free trade.
Now, if the EU wants to change that situation—and I devoutly hope it will—it needs to make a fundamental change in its approach and make clear it has done so. It has to be serious about talking intensively on all issues and trying to reach a conclusion, and I hope it will. But it also needs to accept that it is dealing with an independent and sovereign country now. We have tried to be clear from the start that we would not be able to reach an agreement inconsistent with that status. I do not think that we could be accused of keeping that a secret. Yet the proposals that the EU has discussed with us in recent weeks, which it presents as compromises, are simply not consistent with our new sovereign status—certainly not yet.
While I do not doubt that many on the EU side are well intentioned, we cannot accept the negotiators’ proposals that would require us to provide full, permanent access to our fishing waters, with quotas substantially unchanged to those that were imposed by EU membership. We cannot operate a state aid system which is essentially the same as the EU’s, with great discretion given to the EU to retaliate against us if it thought that we were deviating from it. More broadly, we cannot accept an arrangement that means that we stay in step with laws that have been proposed and adopted by the EU across areas of critical national importance.
In a nutshell, we have been asking for no more than what has been offered in trade agreements to other global trading countries, such as Canada—terms that, of course, the EU said last year it had no difficulty offering to us. We are not even asking for special favours reflecting our 45 years as a member state—during which we paid in every day more than we took out—quite the reverse. But even if this new arrangement is impossible for the EU, I must inform the House that we will be leaving on 31 December on Australian-style terms and trading on the basis of WTO rules.
With just 10 weeks left until the end of the transition period, I have to emphasise that that is not my preferred outcome and nor is it the Prime Minister’s. We recognise that there will be some turbulence, but we have not come so far to falter now, when we are so close to reclaiming our sovereignty. We have to be in control of our own borders and our fishing grounds. We have to set our own laws. We have to be free to thrive as an independent free trading nation, embracing the freedoms that flow as a result. So it is important that I turn to the preparations that we are now intensifying for the end of the transition period. These apply whether we have a free trade agreement or otherwise, of course.
I am not blithe or blasé about the challenges ahead, particularly given the additional problems that we have dealing with the covid-19 pandemic. However, leaving the EU on Australian terms is an outcome for which we are increasingly well prepared. Ever since the UK decided it would leave the single market and the customs union on 31 December, Government and businesses alike have been working hard to prepare for the new procedures that were the inevitable result. I congratulate businesses on the resourcefulness they have shown so far. We want to work with them so that they continue responding as energetically, flexibly and imaginatively as possible to the challenges of change. We also want to work with them to prepare for the opportunities ahead, including those stemming from our new free trade deals, such as the agreement with Japan struck by the Secretary of State for International Trade, which, of course, grants us far more favourable access to the world’s third biggest economy than we had as an EU member.
I would like to put on record my particular thanks to the road haulage industry, customs intermediaries and others for their constructive engagement with Government, including at our extensive roundtable last week.
This week, the Prime Minister and I will be speaking again to business leaders to discuss preparations for life outside the EU. We will continue to listen to their concerns, and we will redouble our efforts to help them to adjust and prosper. The XO Cabinet Committee—the EU Exit Operations Committee—meets daily and will intensify its operational focus on business readiness. We continue to work closely with our partners in the devolved Administrations because we want to ensure that every part of the UK is ready for the end of the transition period.
In these final 10 weeks, we are intensifying our public information campaign. Every firm will find the information it needs on new rules which govern trade between Britain and the EU at gov.uk/transition. Today, HMRC is writing to 200,000 traders that do business with the EU to reinforce their understanding of the new customs and tax rules. We are also putting in place IT systems to help goods flow across borders. We are giving business access to customs professionals to help with new ways of working and we have also planned how to fast-track vital goods in the first few weeks to get around EU bureaucracies. We have already published and indeed updated our border operating model. We have announced £705 million-worth of investment in jobs, infrastructure and technology at the border. We have also strengthened our maritime security to protect our fishing fleets and safeguard our seas.
In addition to the steps we are taking, we are also continuing our work with the EU in the Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee. I would like to update the House on its latest meeting, which took place earlier this morning. Coming only three weeks after the last meeting, I am pleased to report that in this forum the approach from the EU is very constructive. There is a clear imperative on both sides to find solutions and we remain committed to working collaboratively with the EU through the Joint Committee process.
At our last meeting in Brussels I agreed with my co-chair, Vice-President Šefčovič, that we would intensify discussions to implement the withdrawal agreement, primarily around citizens’ rights and the Northern Ireland protocol. Our officials have since held numerous sessions and today in London I reiterated the UK’s commitment to upholding all our obligations under both the withdrawal agreement and the Belfast agreement. We agreed that we will publish a joint update on citizens’ rights and I am pleased to confirm that almost 4 million EU citizens in the UK have now received status under our scheme. We have also discussed our work to implement the Northern Ireland protocol. We are taking steps to implement new agrifood arrangements. We also acknowledge the EU’s concerns about appropriate monitoring of implementation. We now have a better understanding of its requests and the reasoning behind them. We have confirmed that the specialised committee will work intensively to ensure that we can make progress in this area, and with respect to Gibraltar and the sovereign base issues.
A lot remains to be resolved before the end of December, but we have made substantial progress on implementation. I look forward to further engagement with Vice-President Šefčovič in the weeks ahead. I want to put on record my personal appreciation for the constructive tone and the pragmatic spirit with which he and his team have approached our discussions.
In his statement on Friday, the Prime Minister looked ahead to 2021 as a year of recovery and renewal when this Government will be focused on tackling covid-19 and building back better. We are getting ready to do now what the British people asked of us: to forge our own path and not to acquiesce to anyone else’s agenda. On the negotiations, our door is not closed. It remains ajar, and I very much hope that the EU will fundamentally change its position, but, come what may, on 31 December, we will take back control. I commend this statement to the House.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement this afternoon.
At the last general election, the Prime Minister said that he had an oven-ready deal ready to go. The withdrawal agreement was the starter course, but we are still waiting for the main meal: a trade agreement with the European Union. At the weekend, the right hon. Gentleman was reminded of some of his previous remarks in 2016 when he assured the country that the one thing that will not change is our ability to trade freely with Europe. Even at this late stage, Labour expects the Government to reach an agreement with the European Union that honours that commitment. It is a question of competence and it is a question of trust; it is what this Government promised the British people.
Of course we were supposed to have a deal by now. This is the third deadline that the Prime Minister has set himself, and it is the third deadline that the Prime Minister has missed. Initially, he said that a deal with the EU would be sorted by July. Then he said by September, and then he said by last week. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House why the Government find it so hard to meet their own deadlines and so hard to achieve their own promises?
Yesterday, when the Minister toured the television studios, he was asked what the chances were now of securing a deal, and he said it was less than two thirds. Can he tell businesses and this House the current probability, given that he has just said that events have, in effect, ended the trade negotiations? Over the past three days, we have heard more posturing than solutions, more excuses and explanations. It is time for the Government to take responsibility.
Of course everyone needs to prepare as best they can, but it is a bit rich for the Government to lecture businesses on getting ready when the Government cannot even tell them what they are getting ready for. Let us be clear: if the talks have run out of road, many industries will face prohibitive tariffs—from 10% for exporting cars to at least 40% for exporting lamb—to Britain’s biggest market in just 10 weeks’ time. I ask again: is that what the Government want businesses to get ready for, and is it even possible for those businesses to do business on those terms?
The Minister will recall that I raised the concerns of the car manufacturing industry on 1 October at Cabinet Office questions and the possibility of tariffs, and also on rules of origin. He agreed to meet the automotive industry and trade unions. The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders and Unite followed up with a joint letter on the same day—1 October. However, I am now informed that, 18 days later, that letter has not been replied to and that meeting has not happened. At what point did the British Government give up on British industry, and when will the Minister be meeting those businesses? It is all well and good to say prepare, but he cannot even be bothered to get round a table with them. I ask again: what are they supposed to be preparing for and what support are the Government giving them?
In his statement today, the Minister thanked the road haulage industry for its efforts, but you will also remember, Mr Speaker, that, at Cabinet Office questions, he said that the road haulage industry had been far from constructive, so I welcome the thanks that he gave them today. Earlier this month, I was with a haulage firm in Hull with my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy). It was a fantastic business, established more than 100 years ago, yet it does not know how many of its fleet of lorries will be able to operate in the EU come 1 January. How are they supposed to prepare for that?
Ministers have blithely referred to leaving with no trade deal as trading on “Australian terms”. This morning, the Business Secretary was pressed on the difference between an Australian deal and leaving with no deal, and he admitted that it was “semantics”—semantics! They can call it no deal. They can call it an Australia-style deal. They can call it a Narnia deal, as far as I am concerned, but let us be honest about what that means and how damaging it is for this country. [Interruption.] Someone says from a sedentary position that it is not damaging—10% tariffs on British cars being exported to the European Union is damage; 40% tariffs on lamb being exported to the European Union is damage. If any Member wants to stand up and tell their constituents, British industry and British farming that that is not damaging, they can be my guest, but it is not the truth.
The Prime Minister promised that the UK would “prosper mightily” without a trade deal with the EU. Given that confidence, will the Government publish their full economic impact assessment of the implications if no trade deal is achieved, broken down by industry and by the regions and nations of our United Kingdom? That may at least help us to understand what we are supposed to be planning for.
While the Government lecture businesses about being match-fit, their own preparations are badly off pace. In late July, the Government announced £50 million of funding for customs intermediaries. Could the Minister update the House on how much of that fund businesses have drawn down and give us the latest figures for the number of customs agents trained up to be ready for 1 January? The Government have given authorisation for a number of lorry parks, so how many of these “inland border facilities”, as the Minister likes to call them, have had work started on them, and how many are now completed? Can he list how many of the IT systems needed are on track and whether the crucial goods vehicle movement system has been tested with all haulage businesses? He mentioned business preparedness. What is happening in terms of security and data sharing?
This Government must deliver a deal that provides guarantees and safeguards on workers’ rights, environmental standards and animal welfare, protects jobs and does nothing to jeopardise the Good Friday agreement. That was all promised last year. Time is short, so my message to the Government is blunt: stop posturing, start negotiating and deliver the deal that you promised to the British people.
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her questions. With respect to an oven-ready deal, the withdrawal agreement was concluded happily and voted on by the House of Commons, so we had a deal—a deal which many on the Labour Benches opposed, but a deal which means that our destiny is certain and that we are fulfilling the wishes of the British people. In the same way as 52% of the population of the United Kingdom and 53% of the population of Leeds West—her constituency—voted to leave, we will leave. We are honouring our commitment to the British people.
The hon. Lady was kind enough to refer to some of the past statements I have made that were quoted on the television briefly at the weekend. I have to say—and this is no reflection on her—that if she is going to talk about past statements, she had better clear that with the Leader of the Opposition, who in the past has favoured EU membership, then said he would accept the referendum result, then said that we needed a second referendum in order to satisfy the first, then said that we should have an extension of our membership of the European Union and the transition period, and is now silent on all those questions.
Mr Speaker
Order. This is a statement on Government policy, not the policy of the Opposition.
Michael Gove
I was merely pointing out, Mr Speaker, that we had an oven-ready deal, and from Labour we had an indigestible dog’s breakfast and a Leader of the Opposition who will not eat his words.
The hon. Lady asked about the various deadlines. Those are deadlines that the UK Government have set but that the EU has not met. In any negotiation, both sides have to honour their commitments. As I pointed out in my statement—and she did not, of course, acknowledge this—we were available to talk every day in the weeks preceding the European Council, and the European Union was not. But our firmness on this proposition is now bearing fruit. As we were exchanging thoughts across the Dispatch Box earlier, my colleague David Frost was in conversation with Michel Barnier. I now believe it is the case that Michel Barnier has agreed both to the intensification of talks and to working on legal texts—a reflection of the strength and resolution that our Prime Minister showed, in stark contrast with the approach that the Opposition have often enjoined us to take, of simply accepting what the EU wants at every stage.
The hon. Lady asked about preparation. It is absolutely right to say that we should talk to the automotive sector. That is why, as I pointed out in my statement, the Prime Minister has a business roundtable tomorrow with business representative organisations. She also asked about inland sites. I can confirm that we will have two inland sites at Ashford—Sevington and Waterbook—and one at Ebbsfleet, one at Thames Gateway, one at North Weald, one at Birmingham, one at Warrington, one at Holyhead, one in south Wales and another at White Cliffs in Dover. All those sites will bring extra jobs and investment to the UK as we forge a confident path ahead.
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. The Government appear resigned to the prospect of no deal, yet one area in which they should not be resigned to the prospect of no deal is security. I note that my right hon. Friend made no mention of security in his statement this afternoon, and the Prime Minister made no reference to security in his letter to parliamentarians on 16 October. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, if the UK walks away with no deal, then our police and other law enforcement agencies will no longer have the necessary access to databases such as PNR—passenger name records—to be able to continue to identify and catch criminals and potential terrorists in order to keep us safe?
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend makes a very important point about security. I would say three things. The first thing to say is that significant progress has been made in respect of security co-operation, but it is the case that the EU is insisting that, before we have access to systems such as the Schengen information system II, that we have to accept the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. We cannot accept that.
The second thing I would say is that there are many areas in which we can co-operate more effectively to safeguard our borders outside the European Union than we ever could inside. Through a variety of methods and arrangements open to us, open to Border Force and open to our security and intelligence services, we can intensify the security that we give to the British people. The third thing I would say to my right hon. Friend is that I agree with her. When it comes to everything—security and other matters—no deal is better than a bad deal.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP) [V]
So here we go. The coveted no deal is now within touching distance. The dance of the no-deal seven veils is now down to its Brexit underwear. The easiest deal in history will now mean the UK leaving on Mongolian terms. The absolute rubbish we had to listen to about oven-ready deals and holding all the cards is now just the stuff of grotesque bad jokes. And whose fault is it? Well, not the Minister’s or that of this cabal of Tory anti-EU obsessives. It is all the fault of these Europeans. How dare they ask the Tories to stand by what they agreed, and how dare they ask for a level playing field and to retain the integrity of the single market! The EU must have the patience of saints to try to negotiate with these clown shoe-wearing goalpost shifters. As we have just heard, the EU has once again offered to have intensive talks, so it is back in your court, Minister.
The Minister somehow expects Scotland to go along with this disaster. Well there is a saying that he will know as a proud Scot, which will be Scotland’s response to this: he can go awa’ an’ bile his heid. Independence is now the settled will of the Scottish people, with 58% of Scots now in favour, so here is a proposition for the Minister: why does he not just go off and get his no-deal Brexit if that is what England indeed wants, and in Scotland we can now secure our independence—what our people want—which will allow us to design our own future European relationship? Surely there is nothing wrong with that. He gets what he wants and we get what we want. Will he agree to that at last, and say goodbye to his rotten Union and his rotten no-deal Brexit?
Michael Gove
As ever, I am in awe of the hon. Member’s ability, in a very short period, to bring so many metaphors together in what one can only describe as a car crash of similes. The Government, according to him, is wearing seven veils and clown shoes while also shifting goalposts. I have to say that I would love to see that circus performance, but I suspect that I will have to wait, because the SNP conference has I think been cancelled this year.
The second thing I would like to say in response to the hon. Member is that he refers disparagingly to this deal as a “Mongolian deal”. I do not know what Mongolia has ever done to offend the people of Scotland, but we in the UK value our friendship with the people of Ulaanbaatar and others. Certainly, we do not believe that this looking down on other peoples in other nations is appropriate. It may be appropriate for the atavistic nationalism which some SNP supporters avail themselves of, but those of us who believe in the Union, believe in friendship among all nations.
On the hon. Member’s final point about working together, I absolutely agree. The devolved Administrations must work with us and we must work with them to make sure that, as we leave the European Union, the communities of all parts of the United Kingdom prosper. One of the things I do regret is that, even though I value my close working with his colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Economy and Tourism, Fergus Ewing, unfortunately, Scottish Government policy would mean that we would be back in the common fisheries policy. That would mean the people of Scotland’s coastal communities would lose out. I am sure he would not want that, and that is why I hope we can continue to work together to reap the benefits of the sea of opportunity that Brexit will bring.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. I think he is right, because it was clear in the whole agreement that both sides needed to negotiate in good faith with a view to reaching an agreement. Yet it has been quite clear throughout that, for example, the refusal of those on the EU side to engage on financial services, which are 80% of our economy, but their determination to get a deal on the majority of theirs, which is trade in agri-products, is not good faith. How exactly does he intend to go forward with regard to the problems in the withdrawal agreement that will now be outstanding even if we make no trade deal?
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend makes two very important points, the first of which relates to the approach that the European Union has taken. As I mentioned, even while I have been at the Dispatch Box it has been reported that there has been a constructive move on the part of the European Union, and I welcome that. Obviously we need to make sure that we work on the basis of the proposed intensification that it proposes. I prefer to look forward in optimism rather than necessarily to look back in anger. However, as he says, the difficult period that we have had over the past two weeks has been the result of some on the EU side not being as energetic as we have been in trying to reach agreement. He also makes an important point about making sure that we iron out all the difficulties in the withdrawal agreement. That is part of my role in the Joint Committee. I am grateful to him and to others for the advice they have offered as to how we should approach these difficult issues.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
Despite what the Minister said in his opening remarks, it is quite clear that negotiations are continuing, and the war of words now needs to stop. Both sides need to get together and agree a deal, recognising that both will have to compromise. On preparations for 1 January, given that businesses do not know exactly how trade between GB and Northern Ireland is going to work—the pharmaceuticals industry does not have a clue—and given that the goods movement IT system is not yet in operation because it is not ready, while nowhere near enough customs agents have yet been recruited, why is it the Government’s approach to say to firms that they have their head in the sand and are not ready, when the Government cannot tell them exactly what they are meant to be getting ready for?
Michael Gove
I actually think that is a fair question that contains at least two very important pieces of wisdom. On the first, the EU took a position last week and in the weeks beforehand that was, as was widely acknowledged, not constructive, not designed to achieve progress, and not engaging with the detail. If, as a result of our clear view that we could not proceed on that basis, there has been movement, as it seems as though there has been today, then no one will welcome it more than me. But we cannot have from the EU the illusion of engagement without the reality of compromise: I completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman on that.
On the second point, yes, both with regard to trade in Northern Ireland and more broadly, there are aspects that need to be worked out. That is why we want to intensify these negotiations. If occasionally, in the crossfire between different parts of business, Government and others, different people express their frustration, that is fine. The most important thing is that we make sure that we work together in order to deliver.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. If the EU does not want to complete negotiations by this time, then we have to ensure that the whole country is ready for the consequences, so nothing is more important than keeping our ports working efficiently and effectively. Will he join me in commending the work of the local resilience forum in Hampshire on plans to ensure that Portsmouth, which has particular local transport challenges, can continue to support EU-bound freight? Will he update the House on funding available to help make sure that resources for these very important plans are in place?
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. Both the local resilience forum in Hampshire and the authorities in the port of Portsmouth have been working incredibly hard to make sure that they are ready for every eventuality. New facilities are being built at the port of Portsmouth. The port of Portsmouth is putting in an application to the port infrastructure fund for them. I had the opportunity to meet the leader of Portsmouth council and the chief executive of the port alongside my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General last Thursday. It is the case that some additional resource will be required to make sure that we can avoid any potential traffic congestion near Portsmouth, and we are working with the local authority to achieve just that.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
The Government are planning to break the withdrawal agreement they signed only last year, thereby breaking international law and sending us into economic self-isolation. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster knows that a Canada deal is possible if he agrees the protections that are required for workers’ rights and our environment. Will he go back and agree those protections and, with them, a tariff-free trade agreement so that we can avoid the self-infliction of a no-deal Brexit alongside a raging pandemic, which would be a complete disaster for everyone in the UK?
Michael Gove
I have great affection for the hon. Gentleman, but he gets three things wrong. He says that we are planning to resile from the withdrawal agreement, he says that we will go into economic self-isolation, and he suggests that we should accept EU rules in all the areas that he mentions. My reply is: no, no, no.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
As my right hon. Friend mentioned in his statement, Warrington is set to be the location of a new inland border facility on a former coach interchange in my constituency. Will he tell us a little more about what that will mean for jobs in my local area? What assurances can he give to local residents who are concerned about lorries clogging up village roads?
Michael Gove
My colleague Lord Agnew, the Cabinet Office Minister, has been in touch with my hon. Friend and with the local authority to stress that there will be additional investment, which will mean more jobs in Warrington. We expect that there will be an additional 375 jobs created in Warrington, split between new jobs for colleagues in the Border Force, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, Mitie and the haulage firm Wincanton. The current expectation is that that number will rise to around 460 jobs by December next year. We are also working to make sure that there is appropriate additional funding to ensure that there is no additional traffic problem for him, his constituents or those in neighbouring villages.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
I have known the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster all his political career. May I urge him not to keep the door ajar but to open the door to continuing negotiations? Not to have a deal would be a historic, shameful failure. It would hurt my constituents and his, with broken businesses and unemployment, and blight the future of a new generation and generations to come. Please, I beg him to try again for all of us.
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. We sincerely want an agreement, but we cannot have an agreement on any terms. I know that his constituents, like mine, voted to leave the European Union—
Michael Gove
Oh, a curious absence, then, in Yorkshire. Whatever our disagreements, the hon. Gentleman and I agree that we should work together in the best interests of all the citizens of the United Kingdom. I am always grateful for his wisdom. Ever since I first arrived in the House, he has been a good friend and a wise head, and whenever I have gone wrong it is because I have not paid too much attention—sorry, it is because I have not paid enough attention to his words.
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)
The UK will prosper mightily as an independent free trading nation with control over our money, laws and borders. What support has my right hon. Friend put in place to help business leaders in West Bromwich East prepare for the changes and opportunities that that will bring when we leave the transition period at the end of this year?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Fundamentally, whatever turbulence may occur, whatever bumps in the road there might be in the months ahead, the strengths and resilience of our economy mean that we will prosper mightily. The manufacturing leaders in her constituency in West Bromwich and more widely across the Black Country and the west midlands are benefiting directly from the investment that we are making in customs intermediaries, in new IT processes and systems, and in our Prime Minister’s broader commitment to levelling up. We must make opportunity more equal across the United Kingdom, and my hon. Friend’s championing of business in West Bromwich is a critical part of that.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
Protecting the Good Friday agreement means protecting Northern Ireland’s place as an integral part of the United Kingdom, for that is the settled will of the people of Northern Ireland exercised through the principle of consent. Will the Secretary of State give us an update on discussions in the Joint Committee on the issue of export declarations and the fact that they are not required for goods travelling from Northern Ireland to Great Britain? Will he also give us an update on the issue of goods at risk and the EU attitude on this, to ensure that goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland that are not passing on to the Republic of Ireland are not subject to unnecessary and costly disruption?
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend makes three very important points. On the first, about exit declarations, he is absolutely right: the protocol is there both to help us safeguard the EU’s single market, but also to affirm Northern Ireland’s integral place in the United Kingdom and within its customs territory, and there is no need for customs declarations for goods coming from Northern Ireland to the rest of Great Britain. As for his point about goods at risk, he is absolutely right about that as well: bread that is baked in Huddersfield and goes into a supermarket in Ballymena should not be subject to tariffs, because it is trade within the United Kingdom. And his final point is right as well: the Belfast agreement was a balanced agreement, and sometimes some of the rhetoric we hear about the Belfast agreement seems to me to be inadequate in its understanding of the vital importance of the fact that the majority of people in Northern Ireland have voted to stay part of the United Kingdom. Their rights, their views, their loyalty needs to be respected.
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
The toughest negotiators in this country are the farmers in my constituency, and my farmers recognise at this moment that my right hon. Friend and Lord Frost are excellent negotiators. That is borne out by the news that the talks are intensifying, including on legal texts. May I ask my right hon. Friend to meet me to talk about business engagement, especially in the agricultural sector in the devolved Administrations environment, since the devolved Administrations seem hostile to us getting any kind of successful deal?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: I have met farmers in his constituency, and a tougher bunch of negotiators we would be hard-pressed to find. But he is absolutely right also that their interests need to be protected, and not just by the UK Government but by the devolved Administration—by the Government in Wales. We need to work together to ensure that we are supporting them. In the event of an Australian-style exit, one of the sectors that we will need most energetically to support is the sheepmeat sector, and we will—and to be fair to the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), she made that point.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) [V]
The UK imports 37 million packets of medicines from the EU every single month. The pharmaceutical industry has highlighted the difficulty in rebuilding full stockpiles for the end of transition due to the impact of covid, so, with just 74 days to go, how will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that there are no drug shortages, particularly of insulin, which the UK does not produce, and radioisotopes, which cannot be stockpiled?
Michael Gove
The hon. Lady brings formidable expertise to this area, and she is absolutely right to highlight the fact that we need rapid access to both insulin and radioisotopes. That is why the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Transport have put in place contingency arrangements should there be any risk of disruption, but we are also confident that the steps we have taken more broadly will ensure that we have freight flowing freely between the UK and the EU, including in this critical area.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
First, I should pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), for her exemplary communications with my constituents who live near the Sevington lorry park; I am very grateful.
I still hope and expect that we will get a deal, but either way, may I ask my right hon. Friend how confident he is that the smart freight system will be fully operational by 1 January, and if it is not, what does he think will happen?
Michael Gove
I join my right hon. Friend in praising the efforts of the Transport Minister, who has been incredibly energetic and determined to make sure that colleagues in Kent from all parties are kept informed on the progress of our preparations. The smart freight portal is being shared with hauliers and others as we speak. It is currently in its beta phase and we want to ensure that it is further refined, but the straightforward approach that it should provide should enable us to minimise any disruption that my right hon. Friend or his constituents face. I am absolutely confident it will be in place; if it were not, other measures would need to be taken, but they would not be as helpful as the smart freight system.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
We have heard it all now: it is just, according to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, “an unfortunate sequence of events”, otherwise known as the Lemony Snicket defence—all the fault of evil uncle Olaf and his foreign friends. But on the serious point about this, consider how it will affect, for example, our musicians who go on tour. They are usually not part of large operations. They might take their instrument, fly on a budget flight, try to sell some of their merchandise, cross a few borders in the European Union—that is how they scrape a living. They are making no money now. Will he please consider the consequences of no deal, admit that this is not a frivolous issue but a matter of people’s livelihoods, and seriously engage with it rather than take this frivolous and superficial approach?
Michael Gove
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I certainly would not take a frivolous approach towards the livelihoods of anyone, whether they are freelance musicians or anyone else who contributes to the health, prosperity and economy of this country. That is one of the reasons why we are so anxious to secure an agreement with the European Union and why we have been working so hard and in such a dedicated fashion in the Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee. I mentioned earlier that as a result of the progress that we have made with Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič, the rights of 4 million EU citizens in the UK are now guaranteed, as are the rights of over 1 million citizens of the UK in the EU. More needs to be done to ensure that we can have a free trade agreement, but I absolutely take seriously the rights of citizens—whether they are, as I say, freelancers or others—to continue to be able to work and live freely.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Has my right hon. Friend seen how much popular and excellent quality fresh food there is in our supermarkets with the Union flag on the packaging? Will he confirm that if the EU insists on high tariffs on food trade, where it sells us massively more than we sell it, that would be a huge opportunity for our farmers to grow and rear more for the domestic market and get back the huge amounts of market share stolen from them under the common agricultural policy?
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend makes three very important points. The first thing is that UK producers are doing a fantastic job in increasing production in a sustainable way. Championing the quality of UK produce is something that we should all do and recognise, whether it is Orkney cheddar or Welsh lamb, that the UK flag is a symbol that connects quality not just to our consumers but worldwide. The second point that he makes, which is absolutely right, is that the common agricultural policy has been harmful, and our escape from it will ensure both that our farmers can prosper and that our environment can improve. His third point is that we should be confident not just that we can sell more excellent produce here in the UK but that, as we emerge into the world as a global free-trading nation, new opportunities to sell our excellent produce are available to our farmers, and he is absolutely right to be optimistic.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The Minister has acknowledged the issue of the free flow of medicines into this country. Will he respond to the urgent appeal today from the pharmaceuticals industry to find a deal, and will he accept the approaches from the European Union and do everything in his power to ensure that my constituents, like those across the country who need medicines such as insulin, will have the deal that ensures that they can rely upon it?
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
My right hon. Friend knows from our time in Cabinet together that I have nothing but the greatest possible respect and admiration for his negotiating skills and abilities. Given that we are advised that fish and state aids are the main stumbling blocks to a deal, will he draw to the attention of Monsieur Macron, the President of France, the fact that if there is no deal on fishing, there will not be any French boats fishing in British waters, and that the size of the British fishing industry is approximately 1.7% of the size of the British car and automotive industry? Finally, will my right hon. Friend remember that one of the reasons that Mrs Thatcher imposed a three-line Whip in support of the European single market Act was to stop false competition as a result of the unfair use of state aids?
Michael Gove
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for the three important points he makes. First, I am sure that the French President and others are increasingly aware of the point he makes about the consequence of no deal. Secondly, the automotive sector is vital not just to the economy of the west midlands but to the whole UK, and we need to make sure that we invest in it for the future. And his third point is right: we need to have our own state aid regime, not the European one, but we also need to make sure that it is consistent with our market principles.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
The Road Haulage Association is afraid that trade will grind to a halt if there are insufficient customs agents to help goods to cross the border in January. Some 50,000 customs agents are needed. On paper, the Government have allocated £84 million to the task of training the necessary people. I know the Minister has good attention to detail, so will he tell me how many customs agents have been trained from the allocated money?
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
What preparations are being made by the Royal Navy to provide requisite support in a potential no-deal situation to our fishery protection vessels to prevent what would then be the illegal plunder of our seas by an armada of French and Spanish trawlers?
Michael Gove
We have a series of assets to make sure that we can safeguard our waters, such as the offshore patrol vessels—the River class fishery protection vessels that are at the disposal of the Royal Navy—and other assets, including aircraft and drones. Of course, the joint maritime security centre in Portsmouth provides us with maritime domain awareness so that we can safeguard our waters.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP) [V]
We have 73 days to go here and businesses, deep in the middle of a pandemic, are trying their best to prepare, but there are many unanswered questions that add up to costs that Northern Ireland cannot afford. Firms and families here desperately want a deal, but we are hearing only about a blame game, brinkmanship, deflection and jingoism. People in Northern Ireland are more anxious than they have been in decades, with absolutely no sense that the Government understand that, given the misrepresentation of the agreement even in the last hour. I ask the Minister whether there is any upper limit to the damage that he thinks Northern Ireland should have to sustain for a Brexit that it has rejected at every possible opportunity.
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her points. In my statement, I made the point—I hope that she will forgive me for making it again—that we made significant progress today in the Joint Committee, thanks to the constructive approach taken by Vice-President Maroš Šefčovič. We are lucky that he and his team are so committed to making sure that the protocol works. I remind her that the protocol is there to give effect to the Belfast agreement, which is about agreement across communities, rather than a culture of grievance.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
My right hon. Friend may not have known it before December 2019, but Carshalton and Wallington residents voted to leave the European Union and are keen to see us get on and return to being an independent, free-trading global nation. Although we hope that the EU will return constructively to the table, will he confirm that, irrespective of whether a deal is struck, we will continue to go out into the world to seek free trade agreements, such as the one we recently secured with Japan?
Michael Gove
Absolutely. A cloud lifted from Carshalton and Wallington in December last year, and we were able to see at last that the people of that constituency who voted for Brexit had a representative who believed in them.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC) [V]
The Government say that they just want the terms that Canada enjoys with the European Union. Last year, exports to the European Union accounted for more than 60% of Welsh trade; Holyhead alone accounts for more than 400,000 freight movements each year across the Irish sea. Wales’s relationship with the European Union is nothing like that of Canada. Do those facts not demonstrate that, for Wales, the Minister’s preferred Canada-style agreement is just not good enough?
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I think that Government and Opposition Front Benchers recognise that a Canada-style agreement is entirely consistent with how people voted in the referendum, including the people of Wales, who did vote to leave. It provides us with an opportunity to trade freely with the European Union but to chart our own destiny.
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)
I share my right hon. Friend’s disappointment in the EU’s continued intransigence. It is right that we do everything we can to prepare for all outcomes on 31 December, but it remains the case that it is in the best interests of both the UK and the EU to reach a long-term trade deal. Can he confirm that if the EU does shift its position and return to the negotiating table, the Government stand ready to talk and that we are prepared to consider individual deals or agreements on specific areas such as haulage and security?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I was not party to the telephone call that took place earlier between Michel Barnier and Lord Frost, but if it does presage a change of approach on the part of the EU and a proper intensification, no one would welcome that more than I do. It would mean that we could make progress, but obviously the proof of the pudding remains. On my hon. Friend’s second point, if we leave on Australian-style terms, we will be negotiating and discussing with our friends and neighbours to ensure that we have effective interim arrangements, particularly in areas such as freight transport.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I am pleased that, at least on the face of it, the Government appear to be standing up to the bullying tactics by Brussels and have indicated that we will not leave on the basis of an agreement that compromises our sovereignty or our independence. On the Joint Committee, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned two things. First, he said that the Government had outlined what steps they had taken to deal with the new agrifood arrangements. Secondly, he said that the Government now understood the EU’s position on monitoring those arrangements. Will he tell us whether the EU has agreed that the goods at risk will not include those goods that stay in Northern Ireland and that those goods will therefore not be taxed or subject to controls? Secondly, has the EU demanded that the implementation of that monitoring will require EU officials to be present in Northern Ireland?
Michael Gove
On the first point, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, but I think that the EU has a very good understanding of exactly the points we make. On the second point, we want to have a pragmatic approach whereby the UK is responsible for the administration of these controls, but we want to provide the EU with reassurance wherever possible.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)
I voted to leave in the referendum, and I strongly agree with my right hon. Friend that we have to have the right deal, but does he agree, given the economic challenges and the common security threats that we are facing from Russia, China and the middle east, that a deal is still the best outcome for both the UK and EU?
Michael Gove
Absolutely. The broader point that my hon. Friend makes about the need for solidarity among democracies at a time of increasing insecurity across the globe is an important one. We cannot agree to a deal at any price—we have been very clear about that—but the broader context that he provides is very helpful.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
My very first question in this place was to ask the then Prime Minister whether she would consider separately negotiating access to Erasmus and Horizon, which did not need to be part of the wider agreement, because of the risk of a deal falling down. Now that the deal has fallen down and all predictions about this incompetent Government have come true, will the Government consider a separate track to negotiate Erasmus and Horizon entry—which they can do and which the European Union was willing to do—so that our students and universities can have security on this issue?
Michael Gove
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and we would like to continue participation in both those programmes, but obviously that depends to a significant extent on conversations that are still going on.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Can my right hon. Friend elaborate a bit more on his point about state aid? Is there state aid that we wish to give to UK companies that we were not able to do under the EU regime, or is the dispute more about the retaliation mechanism, as he put it in his statement?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that this is significantly about the retaliation procedures, but it is also about the mode of governance by which we would report and notify the state aids that we might wish to issue.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The Prime Minister promised the nation an “oven-ready” deal, and it was avowedly going to be
“one of the easiest in human history”
to negotiate. Instead, this Conservative Government have shown that they are happy to rip up an agreement only months after signing it, thereby breaking international law, and they are now hurtling us towards a disastrous no-deal Brexit. So, on behalf of the Prime Minister, would the right hon. Gentleman like to apologise to the British people for having made false promises? Will he tell us what changes he will be making to his approach to prove that the UK can be taken seriously and act in good faith, despite the best efforts of this incompetent Government?
Michael Gove
First, as the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge, since last Friday, since the Prime Minister’s statement and since the preparation of my statement earlier, we have seen a welcome indication of movement on the part of the EU. I think that those who were prepared to criticise the Prime Minister on Friday and over the weekend should perhaps, in fairness and with appropriate humility, recognise that he has been standing up for Britain, and therefore no apology is required.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
As the clock ticks down, the pressure will undoubtedly mount on the British Government and on the EU government. It would be reassuring to hear from my right hon. Friend some assurance that he will not go wobbly and reach for any deal on offer at that time just because it is on offer, and that as the likelihood of not securing a free trade agreement with the EU rises, he and his Department are working on a plan of retaliatory fiscal, tax and government state aid actions that could then be put in place.
Michael Gove
First, may I say that I wish I had my hon. Friend’s lean physique, because I am afraid that bits of me are wobbly? That is not the case with him. On the substance, he is right: we both need to be firm in these negotiations, as the Prime Minister has been, and ready for any eventuality. That means that if we do go to Australian terms, we need to use the freedoms that that affords.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
In 2019, £300 billion of UK exports went to the EU, which was 43% of our entire total, and not even 2% went to Australia. This is the Minister who told us that these would be the easiest negotiations ever, but businesses in Southwark tell me that they have lost patience with the Government, that uncertainty is costing them and that their employees face losing their jobs as a result of his failure to secure a deal. The simple question is: why do my constituents face losing their jobs as a result of his inability to do his?
Michael Gove
I think that is what we call a leading question, but the hon. Gentleman misattributes the earlier quotation—I think someone else, rather than me, made that point. More broadly, however, prosperity for his constituents and mine depends on making sure that we embrace the free trading, outward-looking approach that the Prime Minister has outlined. That is the best way of making sure that can export not just to Europe and Australia, but across the world.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
At the Munich security conference last year, the term “westlessness” was first coined, meaning an absence of what the west now stands for, what we believe in and what we are willing to defend. I hope my right hon. Friend agrees that European defence and security must sit above the politics of Europe, because the threats are increasing, no longer recognising state borders or indeed membership of international institutions, but the Galileo project illustrates how EU politics is weakening collective European resolve. I hope he will reconfirm our commitment to joint European security, not least through NATO.
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend makes a very important point; NATO is the keystone of our defence architecture. More broadly, I hope that whatever occurs in the next couple of months as we resolve our economic relationship with the EU, the strong bilateral and multilateral ties we have with European allies, from Estonia to France, remain and are strengthened in order to make sure that the west is strong and democracy is reinforced.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance) [V]
More than 40% of UK external trade is with the EU27, whereas about 10% of the EU27’s trade is with the UK, so clearly the UK badly needs a deal. If we end up with a World Trade Organisation rules outcome, there still needs to be agreement in the Joint Committee about goods at risk, so will the right hon. Gentleman give businesses and households in Northern Ireland a firm guarantee that in no circumstances will any tariffs be levied down the Irish sea interface?
Michael Gove
Yes, and that was an admirably Unionist intervention from the hon. Gentleman .
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
Businesses in Dudley South and across the Black Country trade with countries in every part of the world. Further to the earlier question from my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Nicola Richards), what support is available for businesses to understand the changes to customs and tax rules, so that they can prepare to take advantage of those opportunities as we become an independent trading nation again?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is the case that we are intensifying our communications campaign. On the Government Digital Service gov.uk website, the transition page outlines some of the information required. The Prime Minister and I are meeting business representative organisations tomorrow in order to reinforce that, but I would be very happy to talk to him and other colleagues in the west midlands, in our manufacturing heartland, to reinforce exactly what it is that we can provide businesses to support them to take advantage of these new opportunities.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
As the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster knows, his earlier pessimism that the talks had broken down was misjudged, because in fact we know that, while he has been on his feet, the European Union has said that it is happy to talk about any legal texts. Therefore, his pessimism that we were headed towards an Australian-style deal was misjudged, but can he just confirm for my constituents why he would be so pessimistic about an Australian deal, because his own Brexit analysis in 2018 said that such a deal would cost 8% of GDP, or £2,500 per person in layman’s terms. Are those figures still correct? Is that the price of this failure?
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point. She is absolutely right. As a result of the Prime Minister standing firm in defiance of criticism from some in this House, it appears—it appears—that, at this stage, the EU has moved in a way that intensifies talks and sees legal texts being exchanged. I sincerely hope that that is the case. We will find out more in the days ahead. As for the analysis that she quotes, that was not mine.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
My right hon. Friend recognised earlier the importance of, if at all possible, obtaining continuing arrangements for security co-operation and access to the very important Europol, Eurojust and related databases. All of those matters require an agreement on data sharing, as does much access for the financial services business. What specific advance has there been in relation to data adequacy and data sharing?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we need to secure data adequacy in order to have the best possible set of arrangements for business and for security. It is an autonomous process, but we believe that the EU should grant us adequacy on the basis of the information that we have provided. More broadly, there are a variety of security and law enforcement tools to which we believe we will have access, but, because of European Court of Justice jurisdiction, there are one or two that remain difficult.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) [V]
We have heard the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster basically blame the EU for the breakdown in the talks, but the EU has not walked away from the talks despite the Government setting out a course of action that will break international law and the withdrawal agreement that was reached less than a year ago. Has the right hon. Gentleman considered that his Government bear responsibility for any collapse in negotiations, given their obligations to respect the rule of international law?
Michael Gove
I know the point that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make, but I think that it is misconceived, and recent events underline that.
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
The Government should be congratulated on their trade deal with Japan, the world’s third largest economy. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, irrespective of a deal with the EU, the UK will continue to pursue trade opportunities with the world’s biggest and fastest-growing economies, including those that might benefit exporters in Stockton South?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and the credit should go to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Trade. She has not just concluded a free trade agreement with Japan, but has made progress on free trade agreements with Australia, on our accession to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, and on other opportunities for businesses, including those in Stockton South, for which he is such a brilliant advocate.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I have been listening patiently for the past hour and I am still not certain whether we are heading for a no-deal Brexit or for a deal Brexit. Business always says that it wants certainty. What certainty can the right hon. Gentleman offer business at this very late stage now for 1 January 2021?
Michael Gove
The certainty that I can offer is that we will be out of the customs union and out of the single market, and that as a result we will be able to take our place as an independent free trading nation. Businesses in Bath and elsewhere know what it is that they need to do. That is certainty. It is very different from the proposition that the Liberal Democrats put forward at the last general election, which was a second referendum or a third referendum—I have no idea how many referendums the Liberal Democrats wanted. One thing I do know is that they returned fewer than a dozen MPs, which shows what the country thought of that.
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con) [V]
If what my right hon. Friend has told the House today is accurate—that the EU has realised at the eleventh hour that it is in its best interests to reach an accommodation with the United Kingdom and it can no longer dictate to this country—can he tell me what will happen with those businesses that have not prepared for the end of the transition period? The permanent secretary of his Department told the Public Accounts Committee last week that 36% of our small businesses had not made preparations. Has that figure now been reduced? What further communications are planned to ensure that all businesses are ready for the end of the year, whether we get a deal or not? May I say that I very much hope we do get a deal?
Michael Gove
I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend: we do very much want a deal. We hope that developments this afternoon are moving us in the right direction. She is also absolutely on the button when she says that, with or without a free trade agreement, businesses need to prepare. The number that are getting prepared is increasing all the time, and it is my Department’s responsibility, along with HMRC, to make sure they have the information they require, whatever happens. Outside the single market and the customs union, there will be new procedures. I look forward to working with her and others on the Public Accounts Committee to ensure that we communicate the detail required through our new intensified campaign.
Mr Speaker
In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I suspend the House for a few minutes.
Covid-19 Update
Monday 19th October 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 View all Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 19 October 2020 - (19 Oct 2020)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
I would like to make a statement on coronavirus. As winter draws in, the virus is on the offensive: 40 million coronavirus case have now been recorded worldwide. Weekly deaths in Europe have increased by 33% and here in the UK, deaths have tragically doubled in the last 12 days. The situation remains perilous.
While the disease is dangerous for all adults, especially with growing evidence of the debilitating consequences of long covid, we know it is especially dangerous for older people. Cases continue to rise among the over-60s, who are most likely to end up in hospital or worse. I am very worried that the cases per 100,000 among the over 60s is 401 in the Liverpool city region, 241 in Lancashire and, in Greater Manchester, has risen over the past week from 171 to 283. That is why the Government have been working so hard to act, and I am very glad that we have been able to agree, across party lines, the necessary measures in Liverpool and Lancashire, and we are working hard to reach such an agreement in Greater Manchester.
We are doing everything in our power to suppress the virus, support the economy, support education and support the NHS until a vaccine is available. That is the right strategy, charting a path that allows for the greatest economic and social freedom while protecting life. The director general of the World Health Organisation said last week:
“Allowing a dangerous virus that we don’t fully understand to run free is simply unethical.”
I agree. I know that this is difficult and I know that it is relentless, but we must have resolve, see this through and never stop striving to support the science that will one day make us safe.
I was at Chelsea and Westminster Hospital this morning meeting NHS colleagues who are caring for patients with such dedication, as they always do. I heard from them how important it is for everyone to support the NHS by keeping the virus down so that the NHS is not overwhelmed by covid patients and it can deliver all the essential non-covid care that people need. I am glad to report that the number of people experiencing a long wait for cancer treatment has been brought down by 63% since its peak in July. I want to thank all the cancer teams who are working so hard to ensure people get the cancer screening, diagnostics and treatment that they need, even in these difficult circumstances, but the best way to protect cancer treatment and all the other treatments in the NHS is to keep the prevalence of coronavirus down.
In doing this, of course, we are taking as localised and targeted a way as possible. Our local code alert level system means that we can have different rules in places such as Cornwall, where transmission is low, and Liverpool, where transmission is high and rising. On Thursday, I updated the House about several areas of the country that we are moving into the high alert level and today I would like to inform the House at the earliest possible opportunity that Lancashire has now moved into the very high alert level. Infection rates in Lancashire are among the highest in the country and are continuing to rise rapidly, including in the over-60s as I mentioned. Both the number of cases and the number of hospital admissions are doubling almost every fortnight, and the number of covid patients in intensive care beds in Lancashire has already reached nearly half the number seen at the height of the pandemic earlier this year. So we knew we had to take rapid action to suppress the epidemic in Lancashire.
We have always said that we stand side by side with any local area that agreed to move into this third tier and offer substantial support to local authorities, including for testing, tracing, enforcement and business support. I would like to thank local leaders in Lancashire who have been working with us so constructively, and I am sure that their willingness to put politics aside in the national interest, and in the interests of the people whom we serve, will save lives and protect livelihoods at this difficult time.
Following the successful introduction of measures in Liverpool and Lancashire, talks continue this afternoon with Greater Manchester, led by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. This week, further discussions are planned with South Yorkshire, West Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire, the north-east and Teesside.
Sadly, over the weekend, we have seen very directly the impact of this disease. I was shocked to learn on Saturday of the sad death from coronavirus of Bill Anderson, the brother of Liverpool Mayor Joe Anderson. My heart and, I am sure, the sympathies of the whole House go out to the Anderson family and the people of Liverpool, who have lost a brother. All our thoughts are with our colleague, the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), who is in hospital with pneumonia after testing positive for covid-19. We wish her a speedy recovery and send all our support to the NHS in Greater Manchester, which is caring for her and so many others.
I would also like to provide an update on testing—another vital line of defence. We are testing more people than any other country in Europe. We are now doing over 300,000 tests a day, up from 2,000 a day in February, and we have opened over 500 test sites, including new walk-in centres in Dundee on Friday, in Edinburgh on Saturday and in Newcastle this morning.
Alongside that important work, we are working hard to discover and evaluate new testing technologies that are simpler, faster and cheaper. Some of these tests can produce a result as quickly as in 15 minutes, and we will make them available to local directors of public health as part of our strategy for local action, starting with areas in the very high alert level. We are rolling them out across hospitals and care homes, to test patients and residents yet more regularly and keep people safe, and for schools and universities, so that we can keep education open safely through the winter. These tests have shown real promise, and we are both buying them now and ramping up our ability to produce them at scale here in the UK. We will stop at nothing to support this extraordinary scientific and logistical endeavour, which can give us hope on the path back to normal life.
Finally, I would like to inform the House that on Friday, we laid regulations to support the roll-out of both the flu vaccination and any covid vaccination. While, of course, no vaccine technology is certain, we must be prepared to deploy a vaccine as soon as one is safely available. The new regulations provide for a wider range of clinically qualified people to administer vaccines and for the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency to grant a UK licence for a vaccine before the end of the transition period, should that be necessary. We wish all our scientists well in this vital work, and we will give them all the support they need.
We are once again at a decisive moment in our fight against coronavirus. While our scientists work round the clock on the solutions that will finally bring this crisis to an end, we must all play our part, come together and work together to keep people safe, suppress the virus and save both livelihoods and lives. I commend this statement to the House.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
May I start by sending my party’s condolences to Joe Anderson for the sad loss of his brother from this horrific virus? I also send our best wishes to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) for a speedy recovery.
As always, I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. The virus continues to grow nationwide. The R rate is between 1.3 and 1.5. An increasing number of care homes across the country have seen outbreaks, with 214 in the last week. Admissions to critical care continue to rise nationwide—yes, at a slower rate than in the first wave, but at this stage in the first wave, critical care admissions were starting to fall because of the lockdown. They currently continue to rise.
We welcome the progress that is being made on saliva testing and LAMP—loop-mediated isothermal amplificationn —testing. It will allow us to introduce wider mass testing, which is a vital tool in taking on this virus. I pay tribute to the universities that are developing great testing innovations, such as Southampton University, and Leicester University in my constituency. What is the timescale for the advances in testing that the Secretary of State is talking about? Is the plan still for millions of tests a day? There was speculation back in September that his plan was for 10 million tests a day by February, so can he tell us what the daily testing capacity will be by the end of the year? We have seen delays in the pilots. Salford was supposed to be testing 250 people a day using saliva testing, but that has now been refocused. It is vital that testing of all frontline healthcare workers is now introduced to help the NHS get through the winter, so will the Secretary of State urgently speed up the validation of pooled polymerase chain reaction testing in the Lighthouse labs? It is not yet happening in those labs, and we really need it to be.
This virus spreads with speed, so testing must be quick, yet results are still not turned around in 24 hours. Again, when will they be turned around in 24 hours? Contacts must be traced quickly, and those who are traced must be given support to isolate, yet we have—to be frank—a badly designed system that is failing to trace sufficient contacts, costing £12 billion and paying consultants £7,000 a day. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) justified these failings yesterday on “The Andrew Marr Show”, saying that when the virus is accelerating,
“any test and trace system of whatever kind has less utility”.
After spending £12 billion, Ministers now just shrug their shoulders and say, “Well, the virus is accelerating, so contact tracing is less useful.” It is simply not good enough. The country is facing further restrictions because test and trace failed, so again, I urge the Secretary of State to fund local public health teams to do contact tracing everywhere and follow international best practice, such as Japan’s, where they focus on investigating clusters using retrospective contact tracing. We need that backward contact tracing everywhere, not just in the places that are hotspots.
This virus exploits clustering and social interaction, and I have always accepted that socialising in closed spaces, especially with poor ventilation, is a driver of transmission. However, for interventions to be effective, the consent of local people is needed and economic support is vital, yet we are now in a situation where the Bishop of Manchester—a bishop, for goodness’ sake—describes Liverpool as “feeling cheated”, Lancashire as “feeling bullied”, and Manchester as “angrily determined”. If the Secretary of State is seeking to impose greater restrictions on Greater Manchester, surely it needs financial support so that people’s livelihoods are not put at risk, so can he tell the Chancellor to spend less time admiring himself on Instagram and instead deliver a financial package to safeguard jobs across Greater Manchester?
The Prime Minister has promoted the tier 3 restrictions because they mean that, in his words, “there is a chance” to bring the R number down, but how do these restrictions in the north arrest growth in the virus across the rest of the country? The R number across the south-east is 1.3 to 1.5; across the south-west, it is 1.3 to 1.6; and across the east of England, it is 1.3 to 1.5. Cornwall, Devon, Suffolk, Somerset and Ipswich have recorded covid rates per 100,000 in recent days that are higher than the average rates across Greater Manchester when it went into lockdown in the summer, so to get the national R number below 1, more intervention will be needed than is currently proposed. Is it not in the national interest to now follow the advice of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, and adopt a two to three-week circuit break?
Last week, when asked about a circuit break, the Prime Minister said, “I rule out nothing”. He also said that he “stands ready” to apply those measures if necessary. However, the Minister for the Cabinet Office yesterday ruled out a circuit break, so for clarity, have the Government now completely ruled out a circuit break in all circumstances? The cost of delay could be a deeper, longer, fuller lockdown. Is the Secretary of State now ruling that out?
I say to the Secretary of State that we have a window of opportunity. For much of the country, it is half term next week. If it is politically easier for him, he does not have to call it a circuit break: he can call it a firewall or a national moment of reset. Whatever he calls it, we need something, because the longer the Prime Minister dithers, the harder it becomes to take back control of this virus, protect the NHS and save lives. We urge him to act before it is too late.
Matt Hancock
I absolutely will address the questions that the hon. Gentleman raised. On the first set of questions about testing, I might have missed it, but I think he omitted to support and congratulate the work of everybody involved in getting more than 300,000 tests a day delivered—on track to a capacity of more than half a million tests a day by the end of this month. He rightly asked about batch testing, which is currently being trialled.
The hon. Gentleman asked us to fund local contact tracing everywhere. We have put those funds into each local authority, but of course we put the most support into the areas that need it most. The Government’s approach of targeting the support and measures on the areas where they are needed most is at the core of how we—as he put it—retain the consent of people while we go through these difficult actions.
To be truthful, the hon. Gentleman is far closer to and more supportive of the Government’s position than he feels able to express at the Dispatch Box, not least because he asked for economic support. Let me just leap to the Chancellor’s aid and defence. The Government have put in unprecedented economic support to help people through these difficult times—billions of pounds of aid and further aid forthcoming. The hon. Gentleman asked in particular for economic support when an area goes into tier 3, which is exactly what I announced in respect of Lancashire. That is of course part of the discussions that we have with local authorities when further actions are needed.
So, there absolutely will be more economic support from the Government, yes; more work with local authorities to deliver the local approach that is needed, yes; and more testing capacity, yes. These are all the things that the Government are delivering and it behoves the hon. Gentleman to acknowledge and support them, as clearly we are all trying to deliver the same thing, which is to suppress the virus and save lives.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
I congratulate the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care on the news about LAMP—loop-mediated isothermal amplification—and lateral flow testing, which is potentially the most significant news about the fight against the virus that the House has heard for many weeks.
Given the dangers of conflicting public health messages when local leaders and national leaders say different things, is it not time to consider aligning incentives by saying that local leaders have the responsibility to bring down the R rate and giving them the powers and resources to do that if necessary, but also saying that if they fail to do that, they will be stripped of those powers to allow the Government to—to coin a phrase—take back control?
Matt Hancock
The approach we are taking, which is working effectively in almost every local area, is to work with local leaders. We are doing that across party lines, whether in Liverpool or Lancashire, as I mentioned, or in South Yorkshire, the north-east and Teesside, where the discussions are collaborative and consensual. That is the way we need to deliver the public health messages that are best delivered with everybody speaking with one voice and all working together to tackle the virus. That is not to mention London, where there has been a similar approach.
I would merely point out that over the past week in Greater Manchester the rate of infection among those aged over 60, which is the group most likely to end up in hospital, has risen from 171 per 100,000 to 283, so it is absolutely vital, from a public health perspective, that we act.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) [V]
The economic impact on areas under the tightest covid restrictions is significant, particularly for the hospitality industry, where many young workers are employed. Covid will be with us for some considerable time, so we need to learn to adapt and live with it as safely as possible. As I have highlighted previously, covid is spread by airborne particles as well as droplets, so ventilation is key to reducing the risk of spread. There are ventilation systems that incorporate antimicrobial technology, which could reduce spread in indoor settings. Last week, I asked the Secretary of State whether he would speak to the Chancellor about promoting their installation by removing VAT and making them tax deductible. He did not answer, so I ask him again: does he recognise the importance of ventilation in the battle against covid? If so, will his Government use their taxation powers to help to make hospitality settings more covid-secure and avoid their being repeatedly shut down?
Matt Hancock
Absolutely we will support hospitality businesses and all the sectors of the economy. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has supported the hospitality industry more than any other. In fact, the UK Government are supporting businesses right across the whole country. When the Scottish Government take action on public health grounds in a devolved way, the UK Government then come in with the economic support. That is yet another example of how much stronger we all are working together. I will take away the hon. Lady’s detailed point and talk to the Treasury. It is, of course, a question for the Treasury rather than for me as Health Secretary, but I just underline the importance of us all working together across Scotland and across the whole of the UK, and of the economic firepower of the UK Exchequer supporting people right across this land.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
In Hyndburn and Haslingden—and, in fact, across Lancashire—we have some of the strongest people I have ever met. We will do everything we can to get our infection rate down, because that is what we do when times are tough: we come together. However, morale is low and mental health is suffering as people cannot see their families and some have been unable to see their loved ones in care homes since March. Will the Secretary of State outline what the Government are doing to mitigate that situation, and what steps are being taken to try to facilitate safe visits, given that there is no clear end date?
Matt Hancock
My hon. Friend has shown real leadership in Hyndburn in very difficult times. This has not been easy for the people of Lancashire. In Hyndburn, there have been restrictions for some time and I appreciate how hard that is, but I think everybody will look to the way my hon. Friend has tried to support people as much as possible, contacting me day and night with the cases of individual constituents, and has put herself at the service of her constituents. The people of Hyndburn are very well represented.
On the specific point that my hon. Friend makes, absolutely we must ensure, just as places have to go into level 3 restrictions when we are concerned about the ability of the NHS to cope if things get further out of hand, that so too will we reduce those restrictions as soon as we can safely. We will do that not necessarily across a whole county, but on a district-by-district level if that is what the data says should be done. That is something we are constantly looking at. For now, the single most important message to everybody in Hyndburn and across Lancashire is: let’s pull together, follow the rules and get this under control.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab) [V]
I thank the Secretary of State for the meeting he had with north-east MPs on Friday. I can tell him that, if the data is accurate, the signs over the weekend are that we are moving in the right direction.
I understand that SAGE highlighted that the impact of further potential restrictions will be felt very differently by different communities. SAGE suggests the need for immediate planning to refine measures to minimise potential harms and to mitigate impacts on vulnerable groups. Given the Government’s commitment to the levelling-up agenda, what are the Government’s plans to reduce the real risk that measures taken to respond to covid will continue to increase inequality and worsening levels of poverty and deprivation? In the north-east, we are not out of the woods by any stretch of the imagination, but can I urge the people of the north-east to carry on doing the right things?
Matt Hancock
The hon. Gentleman speaks for everyone across the north-east. The cross-party working has been first rate and I pay tribute to all colleagues from the north-east who have been working so hard. The message to everybody in the north-east is that there are early signs that the measures are starting to work, but we are not there yet, so let us all stick with it, work together, support each other, support the NHS and absolutely we will bring in the economic support to ensure both that we help businesses as much as possible, help employers and help individuals through this crisis. After that, the levelling-up agenda is vital to unite the whole country.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
How correct my right hon. Friend is that the most effective actions are those that are local and targeted. Will he confirm that he will look at tier 2 reviews in the light of regulation 8 in part 4 of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Local COVID-19 Alert Level) (High) (England) Regulations 2020, so that we can target on a local basis? Given that so many cases are asymptomatic, could he say when he expects the new test to be more widely available across the community?
Matt Hancock
My hon Friend makes an incredibly important point, which is that the regulations are written on a borough-by-borough basis, and if we can take specific boroughs out of the regulations sooner, based on the data, then we will do so, and we have done. In fact in some cases we have taken part of a district or a borough out of the regulations when that is what the data has shown. I can give him that assurance.
On the testing, we are rolling out the tests as fast as we can. The use case is one of ensuring that more NHS staff are tested on an asymptomatic basis; there is more testing in care homes, where it is important to protect the most vulnerable; there is more support in education, to make sure we can keep education as open as effectively possible; and there is asymptomatic testing in areas where there is a big outbreak. All of that will be there to support outbreak control and get this virus under control.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
The Welsh Government have today announced a stringent two-week firebreak to try to bring the R number down. Central to the strategy, of course, must be sufficient economic support for businesses and livelihoods. Will the Secretary of State press the Chancellor to ensure that the Welsh Government have sufficient financial flexibility to pursue their chosen public health policy?
Matt Hancock
Yes, of course. The Welsh Government respond to the circumstances in Wales as they see fit, according to the devolution settlement. As I was saying to the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), we are absolutely prepared, ready and engaged in supporting communities and businesses right across the UK and in supporting individuals who, through no fault of their own, fall on what can be incredibly hard times because of the impact of coronavirus.
Sir Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)
The Secretary of State knows that pubs, bingo halls and gyms have gone to enormous lengths to ensure that they offer a safe environment, and many of us in Greater Manchester and elsewhere are sceptical that closing those institutions would make a significant difference to the spread of the virus, but can I ask him why the Government will not extend the additional resources for Test and Trace independently of those measures? Surely, it would be beneficial to do so.
Matt Hancock
Across Greater Manchester and across Trafford, we had extended further support for Test and Trace before the tier system came in. We have engaged to make sure that we get the benefits of local teams accessing and, because they have boots on the ground, finding people whom the national team simply cannot find, and that will continue. Of course, the negotiations and the discussions about the future of what extra we need to do in Greater Manchester continue. I know that my hon. Friend requires further persuasion that some of the actions that appear to be starting to work elsewhere should be put in place. I would gently point him to the fact that we did manage to level off the increase in infections in Bolton when we brought in firmer measures, but they have since then started to go up again after we removed those measures. Nevertheless he is absolutely right—absolutely right—that the best way we can tackle this is by people taking personal responsibility for reducing their social interaction to reduce the risk of spread, and I hope that we can all metaphorically link arms and get that message across.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Small businesses in a tier 2 area such as Newcastle may not be asked to close, but they will face severe reductions in revenue due to local restrictions affecting football, for example, in the centre of our great city. The Secretary of State talks about unprecedented support, but these are unprecedented challenges for viable jobs in our city centre. In addition to what he has already mentioned, what local economic support will he offer to businesses in Newcastle?
Matt Hancock
If we do need to bring in further measures in Newcastle, then there is absolutely further support that is available, and there is already the unprecedented economic support that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has set out.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Most of the MPs in Essex have reluctantly felt the need to support the tier 2 measures that are now being applied, but we are very concerned about the effect of this on the hospitality sector, in particular. Is it not very important that we align the economic interests of our constituents with the public health interests instead of polarising the debate such that one is either in favour of the economy or in favour of controlling the virus? May I also emphasise that one of the reasons why public confidence in the Government’s strategy is somewhat in decline is that we have yet to see the transformation of the leadership of test and trace, which I have discussed with the Secretary of State many times?
Matt Hancock
Where I agree with my hon. Friend is that there is no trade-off between health and economic measures, because if the virus gets out of hand, then we will end up with a worse economic hit as well. I know he agrees with that because we have discussed it many times. He, like other Essex MPs, may not like the fact that we have to collectively put in place these measures in Essex, but it is the right course of action.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
As Warrington’s neighbouring Liverpool city region and Lancashire are in tier 3, with Greater Manchester expected to follow shortly if financial support is agreed, we need confidence that if we are asked to follow suit, there is robust evidence for the required closure of hospitality businesses, leisure businesses and salons. Will the Secretary of State commit to publishing the specific UK transmission data for these sectors compared with other workplaces—or are they merely a soft target?
Matt Hancock
We published further data late last week on exactly the question that the hon. Lady asks. We have the backward contact tracing in place that the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) asked for—I apologise for not answering his question on that—and we have seen the evidence from that. The critical thing, though, is for us all to recognise that in places like Warrington and the surrounding area, where the number of cases is going up—and the number of cases among the over-60s is going up, which is particularly worrying—we do need to act, and to act together if at all possible.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
The October 2020 “World Economic Outlook” published by the International Monetary Fund clearly states that
“the short-term economic costs of lockdowns could be compensated by stronger medium-term growth, possibly leading to positive overall effects on the economy.”
The Government clearly disagree with the IMF’s assessment, but can the Secretary of State tell me whether he or his colleagues have carried out any analysis of the economic impact of a national circuit break?
Matt Hancock
Of course we look at all the impacts of all the policies, but we know that the more targeted a policy can be, both in terms of the measures and the geography, then the less disruption it will have. If the hon. Gentleman’s concern is with a national circuit break, that is not the policy of the Government; the policy of the Government is to have a localised approach. He might therefore want to have a word with his own Front Benchers.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State quite rightly finished his statement by saying that we must all play our part in getting the virus down. Does he think it was that shared population-wide commitment in Wuhan in China that has seemingly got life back to normal? What lessons are there from what China has done that we could usefully apply here in the UK?
Matt Hancock
I would be cautious about some international comparisons, because life is not exactly back to normal and there are restrictions still in place. For instance, we have seen today Sweden introducing restrictions on a regional basis, which is similar to the approach that we have here. There is a lot of debate about international comparisons, and we do look across the board, but I am not sure it is true to say that life is back to normal in in Wuhan. We need to get the science to come to our aid and help us to get life back to normal here as quickly as possible.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
This weekend, I spoke to pub landlords, café and bar owners and staff across our towns, and they all said that business had plummeted since Wednesday, when we became a tier 2 area. They were all cutting staff hours, some were considering closing completely, and none of them was getting additional support, because the tier 2 job support scheme simply does not work for them. Does the Secretary of State not understand that in order to sustain support for additional health measures, he has to listen to the people who are most affected by them? Will he look again at support for tier 2 and tier 3 and make sure that jobs and businesses get the support they need?
Matt Hancock
Again, I am going to come to the defence of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, who has put in these support packages on a scale that has never been seen before. The right hon. Lady is right to raise the concerns of those in her constituency, but the combination of all the schemes that are available to businesses is something of a scale that this country has never had.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Ind)
How many separate covid vaccines are undergoing trials at present in the United Kingdom, and what is the planned duration of the trial period for each?
Matt Hancock
There are three vaccine trials under way in the UK: the AstraZeneca trial, which is frequently discussed; the Imperial College trial; and a trial of the Novavax vaccine. The period of the trial is dependent on the clinical results and on the data. Of course, of those three, the AstraZeneca trial is the most advanced and is in phase 3 trials. We are closely in contact with all of them to ensure that they get the support they need.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I was alarmed, as were many public health experts, to read reports over the weekend that test and trace data is being shared with the police. Even a source in the Secretary of State’s own Department said that that will put people off getting tested. I hope the Secretary of State agrees that that is the exact opposite of what we need. Public trust and confidence in test and trace is critical, and transparency of the use of personal data is central to that, so will he publish today the memorandum of understanding that he and his Department have signed with the National Police Chiefs’ Council?
Matt Hancock
It is very important that people come forward for testing. As the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said yesterday, of course, the vast majority of people not only come forward for a test, and want to come forward for a test, when they have symptoms, but want the isolation arrangements to be enforced fairly so that everybody isolates when they need to. That is the reason that we have taken the approach that we have, which I set out to the House several weeks ago.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
Since the beginning of the pandemic, there has been no recorded covid-19 outbreak in public houses in my constituency. Taking into account low national rates of transmission in pubs, when my right hon. Friend is in negotiations with colleagues from Greater Manchester, will he think very carefully before closing these covid-secure environments, which have spent thousands to ensure that they are secure, and cease introducing extra restrictions that will make trading an impossibility?
Matt Hancock
Nobody has stood up for the pubs and hospitality businesses in Bury more than my hon. Friend, and he makes an important argument about outbreaks. We also have to look at the backward contact tracing data, and at where measures to bring the virus under control have worked. I will happily have a further discussion with him to try to make sure that we can get the right set of measures and the right balance.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his regular attendance in the Chamber and for his responses to questions. Will he outline the procedures and criteria for the vaccination schedule, bearing in mind that news reports state that a fully tested vaccine will be available in the near future? Does he agree that frontline workers in shops need to be part of the list of priority recipients, after the medically vulnerable, NHS staff and those in the caring profession?
Matt Hancock
Of course, no vaccine technology is certain, but the longer we go without bad news, the better things are, because we would hear if things had not gone well, so things are therefore progressing. The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation produces a prioritisation based on clinical advice and its clinical judgment on who ought to get the vaccine in what order. This is a really important question to ensure that we roll out the vaccine fairly and on an agreed basis. I will ask the Committee to look at the hon. Gentleman’s specific request to make sure that is taken into account. The Committee’s advice is very important for the Government decision that I hope the whole country can then get behind.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
I make no apology for again bringing up the question of co-trimoxazole since I believe the drug can help very much in the fight against covid. Following the successful trials in India and Bangladesh, has there been any progress here?
Matt Hancock
My hon. Friend is right to raise that question, and I will write to him with a full update once I have taken advice from my clinical advisers and from Professor Jonathan Van-Tam, who leads on this area.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
At the weekend, Mrs Helen Perry, one of my constituents, contacted me to say her son and three of his flatmates at Northumbria university had tested positive for covid. They are all self-isolating, but despite that are being bombarded up to 10 times a day by NHS Test and Trace. It is the same story for Mr Brian Sayer and his family, who are self-isolating because a family member has tested positive. In Brian’s words, “We’re not stupid people; we don’t need pointless telephone calls every other day”, and Mrs Perry says, “What a waste of time and money.” When will the Secretary of State admit that the national system has failed, and when will he hand over testing and, more importantly, tracing to local directors of public health, who know their areas and their communities and know how to do test and trace properly?
Matt Hancock
The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong on two fronts. This has been a very consensual statement so far, and the hon. Gentleman—
Matt Hancock
The right hon. Gentleman has played a constructive part in getting the public health messages across in Northumberland, but he is wrong on two fronts. First, when NHS Test and Trace contacts people to remind them to self-isolate, that is based on the analysis we have done of what helps to ensure that people stay self-isolating.
Matt Hancock
Yes, because the isolation of people and their staying isolated is important. The right hon. Gentleman can complain that we are doing too much, but that is not normally the complaint I get from the Opposition.
The second point is that that must be, in the right hon. Gentleman’s words, handed over to local authorities. No, no, no; there has got to be teamwork with local authorities. It is teamwork that will help us get through this, not this attempt to separate people and say, “One side’s good, one side’s bad.” We are all on the same side in this fight against the virus.
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
Further to this consensual statement, we are all keen to be guided by the science, so what scientific behavioural assessment has been made of the effects of closing covid-secure venues on the likelihood of people meeting in one another’s homes instead, thus spreading the illness further? If my right hon. Friend has not got the information immediately to hand, perhaps he would care to write to me, as is the fashion.
Matt Hancock
I can answer the question. My hon. Friend makes an important point. The indirect evidence is that the number of hospital admissions due to people being over-inebriated has reduced since we brought those measures in, which is one indication that people are generally following the rules and, as I did, going home at 10 o’clock to make sure. The vast majority of people are following the rules.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on cancer, I thank the Secretary of State for a recent meeting regarding the Catch Up With Cancer campaign. I, too, pay tribute to those delivering frontline cancer services throughout the pandemic, but the 63% figure that he mentioned does not reflect the totality of the backlog, as the NHS has announced new figures since then. In August, the number of people waiting more than 52 weeks in England continued to surge to more than 110,000—the most in 12 years. The only way that the backlog will go away is through action and resources being deployed to tackle it. What progress has he made to address the need for a boost to cancer services, so that cancer does not become the forgotten “c”?
Matt Hancock
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise that issue. In my statement, I said that we have managed to reduce the backlog among the longest waiters, those who wait more than 104 days, by more than 63% and among those waiting more than 62 days by 44%. There is further work to do—of course there is—but the NHS has made significant strides on the backlog of people waiting for cancer treatment, and I pay tribute to all the work that it has done.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
The concern that many of us have is that restrictions can be imposed in a day, but take months to lift. In London, the restrictions were imposed not because of a higher level of infections, admissions to hospital or deaths, but because of a rapidly increasing rate of infection. If it turns out, when the Secretary of State conducts his fortnightly review next week, that the rate of increase of infection is no greater in London than in places in a lower tier, will he rescind those restrictions and return it to a lower tier?
Matt Hancock
My right hon. Friend makes an important point and, in a way, highlights that it is not just the case rate that matters; it is also the rate of change of the case rate, the over-60s case rate and the impact on hospitals. In the case of London, cases are over 100 per 100,000, which is a worrying level, but I really hope that the measures, and the people of London and all those who work here, can bring the case rate down so we can get out of it as fast as possible. Team London is, in fact, working on a proposed strategy for coming out of level 2, but the first thing that everybody in London has to do is follow the rules to get the rate of increase down, because it is only then that we can even start to consider the next steps.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
Earlier this year, at the start of the pandemic, the Government committed to give the NHS whatever resources it needed to deal with coronavirus. The NHS has that money for dealing with covid-19, but it will need more to enable it to catch up on all the conditions that need to be treated now that treatment is taking place. Will the Secretary of State commit to provide the funding and resources needed to carry out those vital treatments?
Matt Hancock
We have put in the extra resource that the hon. Lady mentions, which is important. Not only has the extra resource gone in, but we are hiring people to do the work and building the buildings in which it can be done. She raises an important point about the need to recover the backlog. I am really glad that in areas such as cancer and many others, the backlog is being worked through, but there is still more work to do.
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
I support my right hon. Friend’s targeted approach. It is absolutely wrong, in my view, to close businesses and lock people in their homes in a broad-brush way in areas where the risks are much lower than elsewhere. He is following the right strategy.
I echo the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) about London. Many of my constituents have businesses across the border in south-west London, where it is not the case that the rate is over 100 per 100,000. There are large swathes of south-west London where it is well below that. Can the Secretary of State make sure that it is possible, as quickly as possible, to disaggregate those areas of London where the problems are less and to move back to a situation where those businesses can operate normally?
Matt Hancock
As my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), who is no longer in his place, said at the start of this session, it is important to take a borough-by-borough approach, and I commit to doing that. Unfortunately, there are parts of south-west London, such as Richmond, that have an elevated case rate above 100. In London, this work has been done effectively and across party lines, working with the leaders of local councils and boroughs, as well as with the Mayor, but I will absolutely take into account the point that my right hon. Friend makes.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) [V]
A number of families in my constituency are worried about the impact that isolation is having on their family members with dementia who are living in care homes with no visits allowed. In one case, a constituent’s mother phones her daily and threatens to take her own life because of the lack of contact with her family. The Minister for Care, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), told the Select Committee on Health and Social Care last week that there would be a pilot for visiting in care homes, but that could be months away. The Secretary of State has talked today about visits when restrictions are reduced, but this situation is desperate for some families, so can he tell us when we can have regular meaningful visiting for every care home resident?
Matt Hancock
The hon. Lady raises a point that is heart-rending and important, as is the protection of care home residents from this disease. The situation is not quite as she said, in that we have different restrictions in different areas according to local circumstances, with a great deal of delegated authority to the local director of public health to make judgments on the extraordinarily difficult balance between allowing visitors—for exactly the sorts of reasons she set out—and protecting people who live in care homes from catching the disease. When the case rate is high in the community, that naturally increases the risk in care homes, not just because of visitors but because the staff working in care homes live in the community. I am sure she will agree that the best thing we can do is to keep the prevalence of coronavirus down, because that will help to protect the people in care homes as well.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
This time last week, I think the whole House welcomed the introduction by the Prime Minister of the three covid alert levels to provide some certainty about the levels at which measures would be introduced and what measures would apply in a given area. Rugby is currently on a downward trajectory, with fewer than 100 cases per 100,000, so can my right hon. Friend reassure my constituents that by sticking to the rules, we will remain in tier 1?
Matt Hancock
Yes. One of the advantages of the tier system is that it not only involves a clear set of actions that need to be taken if the cases go up, as happened in London last week, but also helps to motivate people in level 1 areas that in order to stay in level 1, the best thing to do is to follow the rules, to respect social distancing and to play their part in the reduction of the spread of the virus. Everybody who is living in a level 1 area can help to do their bit to stay in level 1 by following the rules on hands, face and space and following social distancing. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point that out for Rugby, but the point applies right across the whole of England in areas covered by level 1.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP) [V]
Given that the national minimum wage already falls far below the real living wage, does the Minister think that people will be able to survive this winter with their workplaces closed and receiving only two thirds of that amount? Will the Government not give consideration to the calls from the Scottish Government and English regional leaders to do the right thing and offer more assistance?
Matt Hancock
I am really proud to have been part of the Government who introduced the national living wage to increase the level of support for the lowest paid across the whole United Kingdom. That is one example of the UK Government working to improve the support and pay available for the lowest-paid people in Scotland and across the whole of the rest of the United Kingdom, alongside the unprecedented economic support that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has put in during this crisis.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
I wholly applaud my right hon. Friend’s approach of localised lockdowns, but does he agree that in an area such as Gloucestershire, where, mercifully, the number of cases is still relatively low, the tracking and tracing and advice on self-isolating could be improved by involving both national and local resources?
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
The Secretary of State said at the Dispatch Box last Tuesday, in support of the new three-tier system, that
“we are now acting to simplify and standardise the rules at a local level.”—[Official Report, 13 October 2020; Vol. 682, c. 198.]
At that point, Liverpool was put into tier 3, and the gyms were closed in Merseyside and Halton, but when Lancashire went into tier 3 on Friday, gyms there were allowed to remain open. What is the reason for that difference? He should straight away authorise the reopening of gyms in Merseyside and Halton. There is no evidence to support keeping them closed.
Matt Hancock
That decision was taken in consultation and agreement with the local area. Part of the work with local areas on this has been to agree the exact details of the package in level 3.
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con) [V]
At the moment, the only defence against the virus is modifying people’s behaviour. Cases of covid are rising in Buckinghamshire, and we want to stay in tier 1. Our NHS trust and council have taken the initiative and filmed a strong local public health message, which is now on YouTube and social media and is recorded by Dr Tina Kenny, our medical director, asking local people to follow the rules to reduce the spread of this highly contagious virus. Will the Secretary of State commend this communication from our local health trust and council and encourage other health authorities and clinicians—who people trust and have confidence in—to engage directly with their populations to send these vital messages out?
Matt Hancock
Yes. I applaud the work that has been done across Bucks to deliver public health messages and try to get the whole community to support the action that we all can play our part in and that my right hon. Friend rightly raises.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab) [V]
The Health Secretary really should admit that Serco has failed. If it was shared fairly across the country, the £12 billion for Serco would mean £300 million for the Liverpool city region alone. When will he give that level of funding to local public health teams, and when will he instruct Dido Harding to give local teams the data that is currently held by Serco, so that they can do the job that Serco has failed to do?
Matt Hancock
Given that we hit 300,000 tests a day for the first time over the weekend, I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman might have looked at the data and the improvement that is happening. [Interruption.] Opposition Members say, “not testing”. They used to complain about testing, and now that is going well. Contact tracing is getting better, and last week—[Interruption.] Last week, contact tracers in this country contacted more than double the number of people than the week before. Instead of having a go at all the people who are helping to solve this massive problem, the Opposition should get in support of them.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
It has been demonstrated that far-ultraviolet C light emitted by krypton-chlorine lamps inactivates covid-19 on surfaces, as well as when coronavirus is airborne. Some fantastic research is being undertaken to look at that, notably by St Andrews University in Fife and Ninewells Hospital in Dundee, but also by a business in my constituency. Could my right hon. Friend outline how this potentially game-changing mechanism for inactivating the virus has been explored at Government level?
Matt Hancock
I have seen that research, and I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss how it might be applied.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC) [V]
Diolch, Madam Dirprwy Lefarydd. Wales is to go into lockdown on Friday. Scotland, Northern Ireland and regions of north England are already in similar measures. The firebreak restrictions in Wales are tailormade for the health needs of Wales, but the Treasury’s support schemes are based on political considerations and what best serves the south of England. Will the Secretary of State commit to bringing forward the job support scheme by eight days—only eight days—and increasing the level of support to that of the first furlough scheme, so that more people in Wales can afford to stay safe?
Matt Hancock
Of course, the furlough scheme continues until the end of the month and the job support scheme replaces it. That is the reason for the timing. It is the premise of the right hon. Lady’s question that the job support scheme, like the furlough scheme, supports every single part of these united isles. It supports the whole UK, including Wales. It is the UK Government coming to the aid of every single person in difficult times. That is the approach we should be taking—supporting everyone, wherever they live in this great country.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) [V]
I thank the Secretary of State for yet again coming to the House to update us on the situation. I should think the whole House would like to congratulate him on being on target for 500,000 tests a day—that is quite remarkable. Some scientists say that 1% of those tests are false positives. In other words, 5,000 people a day who are reported to have covid-19—up to a quarter of them—might not have the disease. Does the Secretary of State have any suggestions for how that might be improved?
Matt Hancock
My hon. Friend asks an important question. The false positivity rate for the current technology—the PCR test—is much lower than that. The analysis of the false positivity rate published by the Office for National Statistics says that the impact of that rate is small. One of the exciting things about the new generation of technologies is that the false positivity rate is yet lower, further reducing the problem my hon. Friend sets out.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has had a good relationship with local authorities in the north-east and Sunderland, which I represent, but once again the request for funding for Test and Trace and for financial support has not been answered. He gave me a commitment last week that he would get an answer, as did the Prime Minister, and it still has not happened. In the meantime, people are nervous and businesses are on the brink of going under in the north-east. It is a very worrying time. Will the Secretary of State please talk to local authorities in tier 2 about the support that is needed on the ground to help communities and businesses survive this terrible crisis?
Matt Hancock
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government is having exactly the discussions that are needed to respond to the circumstances in, for instance, the north-east. The hon. Lady will understand that it is for him, rather than me, to discuss council finances with the councils. We are putting in extra support for Test and Trace, and linking up the data systems within the north-east. I will again leap to the aid of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor about the extent of the support he has put into areas that are particularly affected by the virus, including those with level 2 and 3 restrictions, and areas right across the country.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
Last week, the borough of Barrow in my constituency went into the high tier. I thank my right hon. Friend and his team for the work they have done to engage with local leaders. South Lakeland in my constituency remains in the medium tier. Constituents and businesses in towns such as Ulverston are concerned that people are travelling from one tier to the other and not sticking to the guidance and the rules. What advice would my right hon. Friend give on the importance of sticking to those rules in order to turn the tide on the virus for all of us?
Matt Hancock
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point: everybody needs to follow the rules to give Barrow the best chance of coming out of level 2 restrictions. If people live in a level 2 area, those rules apply to them even if they travel to a level 1 area. If people live in a level 1 area and travel to a level 2 area, when they are there the level 2 restrictions apply. I hope that is very simple for everybody to follow. He has provided great leadership in Barrow in describing so clearly why it is important for everybody to follow the rules. If we do, we can get this virus under control and get Barrow back into level 1, where I am sure everybody who lives there will want to see it.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
I have heard the Secretary of State say that he welcomes the Chancellor’s support, and he refers Members to that, but does he understand the impact on the ground, especially on small businesses? A constituent of mine in Clapham is a supplier to the hospitality sector and more than 50% of his business is with pubs, restaurants and hotels. He says that if there is a further downturn in this tier 2, he will not be able to stay afloat. The Government must listen to these small businesses and understand the real-world impact the situation is having. So will he ask the Chancellor what additional provisions the Government are going to put in place right now to help the hospitality sector?
Matt Hancock
Of course I will speak to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor about that. I come from a small business background, so I fully understand the challenges people face, including the cash flow ones. Nobody wants to have these restrictions in place for a moment longer than is necessary. If she has the concern that she understandably raises, perhaps she can help to explain why this localised approach of having only the restrictions needed for that area in place is the right one.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
Burnley has had additional restrictions in place for longer than most areas and is now in tier 3, the very high level. Although that is really difficult for residents and businesses, everyone wants to do the right thing, in order to bring the infection rate down. To do that, we need a sense of optimism and light at the end of the tunnel, so will the Secretary of State outline what the exit strategy is from tier 3 into tier 2 and then into tier 1? Will he also offer some reassurance that once the rate is down we have a way of containing it so that we do not move back up?
Matt Hancock
Yes. My hon. Friend has spoken for Burnley with such passion throughout this crisis. It has been very difficult for Burnley, which has now seen the highest case rate among the over-60s in the whole country. It is so important, to protect people in Burnley, that everybody follows the rules there. First, we have to get the case rate and the cases among the over-60s falling. Once that starts to happen we can talk about when we can start to relax the restrictions—I do not want to have them in place for a moment longer than is necessary. With the expansion of testing that we are seeing, I hope we will be able to have more tools at our disposal to hold the virus down once we have got it down again.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Rebuilding confidence in Test and Trace is critical, yet the Secretary of State has taken the potentially counterproductive step of arranging for data to be shared with the police for enforcement. That could deter people from getting a test in the first place, as the chief medical officer has reportedly indicated. So will the Secretary of State acknowledge that a more effective strategy would be to ensure that people have the financial security they need in order to be able to follow the rules in the first place? Following on from the question from the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), will he answer on whether this memorandum of understanding exists? If it does, will he publish it? If he will not do so, will he explain what he is hiding?
Matt Hancock
There is no health data that is transferred, but of course once this House has voted for an enforceable rule, it is important for all of our constituents and communities that we enforce it. So that is a necessary consequence of the House having voted for the self-isolation rules to be made mandatory, which I think was the right decision. On the financial support that the hon. Lady asks for, we have put in place £500 per self-isolation to support people on low incomes to make sure that they are able to do the right thing.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
To prevent further restrictions being placed on York, we have to lock down this virus, not lock down people and the economy. We know that the key to this is local contact tracing, and the reality is that the shadow contact tracing undertaken by my local authority has been more accurate, more effective and more responsive. That is the key to getting on top of this virus, so when will the Secretary of State release all the data to local authorities and give them the resources they need so that they can do the job properly and get on top of the virus?
Matt Hancock
We are absolutely putting more resources into contact tracing in York. It is only because of the combined effort of the national and local team that we are able to do the work that she describes, because the national system can deal with the cases who are easy to get in contact with, or who prefer to do contact tracing over the internet, rather than on the phone, which is a lot of people. That means that the local authority, as in the case that the hon. Member describes, can do its work locally, so it is about having a team effort.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab) [V]
People will have seen images of packed rugby stadiums in New Zealand last week after the country announced that it had effectively ended domestic transmission of coronavirus. It followed a zero-covid strategy and has had a tiny number of cases over the recent period. As we face another wave of unnecessary deaths here, life is returning to normal there, so is the Secretary of State embarrassed that other countries have managed to drive down cases while his Government are failing?
Matt Hancock
We are doing everything we possibly can to suppress this virus. There have been some countries, and there have been some parts of this country, that have explicitly followed an eradication strategy. Unfortunately, there is not anywhere where that has worked permanently, and we have seen flare-ups in all parts of the world that have pursued an eradication strategy. The critical thing here is to suppress the virus, to get it under control, to keep it under control and for everybody to play their part.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
A further week has passed without agreement with Greater Manchester. However, Stockport Council has set up a pandemic response team working in the community, promoting covid-safe behaviour at pubs, bars, businesses, hairdressers and so on. Last week, it visited hundreds of businesses and found very good covid compliance. As the Secretary of State works to reach an agreement in Greater Manchester—I wish him the best of luck with that and hope it goes well—will he also consider a borough-by-borough approach and take into account the work done by local authorities with the leisure industry to try to get transmission rates down?
Matt Hancock
I know that many of the local authorities in Greater Manchester—in fact, all of them—have taken very seriously their statutory responsibilities to get the virus down, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has been assiduous in her work to support her local community to do the right thing. I just hope now that we can come to an agreement with the GM leadership in the same way that we have come to an agreement with the Liverpool leadership and the Lancashire leadership. We are working with the West Yorkshire leadership, across the different boroughs there, with the South Yorkshire leadership, with the leadership in the north-east and with the leadership in Teesside in a highly constructive way, and I hope that we can do the same with Greater Manchester.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has heard across the Chamber the real challenges that the hospitality industry is facing, especially in tier 2. Further to the comment from my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore) about emerging technology in air sanitisation, especially using UV, will the Secretary of State go further than in the promise to my hon. Friend and get a roundtable together as quickly as possible, so that we can work together and bring this technology forward—I have constituents who are ready to bring it forward—so that we may be able to get it into the hospitality sector more quickly and hopefully give the sector some relief?
Matt Hancock
Nobody has done more to support the pubs of Leeds than my right hon. Friend, and he is doing it again today, so let us turn the meeting into a roundtable. I will make sure that that happens in the next fortnight, and we will do all the work to bring this new technology to bear.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
Can I return the Secretary of State to care homes? He knows the utter dilemma that the care homes, their staff, their residents and all of their families face between allowing the infection into the home and causing such damage to the welfare of residents by not allowing visitors. He said earlier, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), that he was empowering directors of public health, which in some ways is welcome, but it needs a much more thought through plan than that and the Department of Health should be offering much more policy support. The Opposition have worked hard on a plan for care homes, so will he say what his Department is proactively doing?
Matt Hancock
The hon. Lady puts the sensitivity of this dilemma very appropriately. We have published a winter plan for care homes, which sets out our approach in this area and we are working on the implementation of that plan. I would be very happy for the Minister for Care, who leads on this, to meet her to discuss how we can make sure that that is best done most effectively in her area.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
Having been out in my Colne Valley constituency this weekend, it is clear that local people want the tier system to work, but that does mean that we need more financial support for tiers three and two, especially for hospitality, where custom is really down. Will the Secretary of State also lay out a clear framework for timescales and for how areas move within tiers so that businesses and communities in West Yorkshire can plan ahead?
Matt Hancock
I would love to be able to give timeframes, but, unfortunately, one thing about this disease is that it moves fast and sometimes we have to move fast, too, so it is better to say that I will always keep that under review. The critical thing is that, once this House has voted for an area to go into tier three, there will be an automatic review of that legislation after 28 days, and it will need to be proposed again—it is sunsetted after 28 days—which means that people can have confidence that it will be reviewed, but, of course, if we can review it quicker than that, then absolutely we will. I take my hon. Friend’s point on the financial support, and, again, I will discuss it with the Chancellor.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
Why are the Government still forcing people arriving in this country from countries with far lower covid rates than us into a compulsory 14-day quarantine when it is absolutely crucifying the travel industry? Those people are far more likely to be infected here than they are in the countries they are arriving from.
Matt Hancock
We keep the countries on the quarantine list under review—absolutely we do—and that is a weekly exercise that is led by my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
There is now compelling evidence to suggest that vitamin D may be useful in reducing mortality and morbidity from this disease. It is safe, it is cheap, and it is already recommended by the Secretary of State’s Department for certain groups. Given our need to tackle this disease, and given that vitamin D requires three months to build up sufficiently to protect against respiratory infections, what advice will he give urgently on the use of this particular intervention?
Matt Hancock
We are increasing the communications to people about the benefits of vitamin D, and as I said to the House on Thursday last week, we are also instituting further research into the points that he, as an experienced and qualified medical professional, sets out so clearly.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
I am sure the Secretary of State will agree with me that to be effective, rules must be understandable and simple. Why in Merseyside, which is currently in tier 3, were all the gyms forced to close, but soft play was left open, and in Lancashire all the gyms were left open and soft play was closed? Surely that does not make any sense at all. Will he publish the evidence that he has and be consistent across tiers? Either all the gyms are open or they should all close. Which is it to be?
Matt Hancock
The baseline for tier 3 is set across the board, and then further measures are set out in consultation and agreement with the local area.
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
Following on from that question, the gyms in Lancashire are open, but the gyms in Merseyside are closed. The deal that was struck for us was not a good deal for my constituents in Southport. Will the Secretary of State review these restrictions as soon as possible and get our gyms open? They are part of the solution, not part of the problem.
Matt Hancock
Nobody has stood up for the gyms of this country more than my hon. Friend, and he has made this argument endlessly to me. He stands up for Southport, and I will take that point away. As I said to the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), those decisions were taken in agreement with the local area, and we want—as much as possible—to make agreements with local areas so that we can all give out the same public health messages that if everybody follows the rules, we are more likely to get this under control and get the Liverpool city region out of tier 3 altogether.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his kind words about Bill Anderson, the brother of the Mayor of Liverpool, who sadly died of covid. He was my constituent and was a doughty campaigner for the livelihoods and welfare of seafarers, and he will be very sadly missed by many of us.
In Liverpool, the Government’s Test and Trace system is reaching only 59% of contacts and in Knowsley, 57%—both well below the 80% target. The percentage of contacts reached has fallen over the last month by 3.5% in Liverpool and 9% in Knowsley, just as both areas have been placed in the very high tier 3 restrictions. Why are those figures so low, why are they declining and what will the Secretary of State do to improve that performance, because we really need it to be better?
Matt Hancock
The proportion of contacts that are reached that are in what are called complex settings in the system—for instance, in care homes it is relatively easy to find all the contacts by the nature of the setting—has itself fallen, as the number of cases has risen. If we look at the effectiveness of the system as a whole, both national and local, at reaching people in the community, we see that it has been broadly flat, as has the proportion reached in those complex settings where it is much easier and often the proportion is close to 100%. The challenge has been that as the number of contacts in the community has risen, so the overall proportion of those who are harder by their nature for the contact tracing system to reach has gone up. That is the direct explanation for the figures that the hon. Lady describes. The best solution to that problem is the combination of the national and local systems working together, and we are putting in place closer connection and extra financial support, both in Liverpool and Knowsley, as she sets out.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend for overseeing 300,000 tests a day across the country. Will the Minister thank care workers who do such tremendous work in care homes in Wealden? He will know our concerns about winter flu coming to care homes as well. I had a long meeting with care home providers across the constituency and they are incredibly pleased with the access to testing, but one care home in Uckfield complained that 25% of tests were not picked up by a courier—I know that my right hon. Friend will want to nip that in the bud immediately.
Matt Hancock
Throughout this, and even with the challenges with demand for testing that we saw last month, we kept the tests going to care homes because people who live in care homes are the most vulnerable. No matter what we do to protect care homes from coronavirus, the higher the number of cases in the community, with staff living in the community and, of course, people visiting where visits are allowed, there is more likelihood of a case getting into a care home. It is a sad fact of life. We do everything we possibly can to prevent that, as do the brilliant care staff who work in her constituency, to whom I pay tribute. On the particular point about a courier being late for a pick-up, I will look into that immediately and see if we can resolve that.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
On the Wirral, over a third of the people who have been in contact with someone with covid-19 have not been contacted by Test and Trace. Will the Secretary of State concede that outsourcing of Test and Trace is simply not working, and its responsibilities should now be given to the local public health teams?
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
Although many of my constituents recognise that the decision to place Lancashire in tier 3 was indeed justified on public health grounds, it will nevertheless leave many of them, and those who own businesses, significantly worse off. There has to be a clear pathway out of tier 3 for those local authorities currently under such restrictions, so will my right hon. Friend clarify the basis on which the continuation of the restrictions will be reviewed and how often it will take place?
Matt Hancock
We will formally review the restrictions that are in place in Blackpool, alongside the rest of Lancashire, every 28 days, but that is a maximum, because if we manage to get the cases coming down before then, we will take areas out of level 3 restrictions. The goal for everybody in Blackpool should be to do their bit, play their part and follow the rules. Let us try to get the number of cases down so that we can restore some of our freedoms and, of course, support the businesses across Blackpool that are understandably struggling.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab) [V]
I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) and thank the Secretary of State for his tribute to my dear friend Bill Anderson, who will be a great loss to my whole region and to the maritime community.
The specific geography of Chester means that many of our businesses, which were viable until only a couple of weeks ago, are now being damaged on one side by the restrictions and the lockdown on the other side of the river—the Welsh border—which runs through Chester, and on the other side by the imposition of tier 3 in Merseyside. Chester is being crushed from both sides, but both Wales and Merseyside are being heavily supported financially, whereas that support is not available to businesses in the middle in Chester. Will the Secretary of State consider that effect and provide financial support so that we do not get crushed between two lockdowns?
Matt Hancock
Of course I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. I know Chester well, and it has more pubs per head of population than any other city in the country, so the hospitality industry there is incredibly important. We are giving as much support as we possibly can, but we always keep these things under review. I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman to support the people of Chester.
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his work. Will he give an update on the availability of the Roche reagent that Scunthorpe has seen a shortage of? Can he reassure me that those who need an urgent blood test can get one and that the lack of reagent will not affect covid tests?
Matt Hancock
Yes, I hope I can reassure my hon Friend on both points. First, we have largely resolved the problem of the supply of Roche kit for non-covid tests—mostly blood tests. There has been a huge amount of work on that and I thank my team and the Roche team for solving the problem with the warehouse in Kent. Secondly, I absolutely reassure my hon. Friend that the situation does not affect covid tests: although Roche supplies around 5,000 covid tests a day, they were protected throughout.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
At the beginning of last week, my constituents in Lancashire were already bound by local restrictions. Last week, the Secretary of State made it clear that Lancashire was being put into tier 2 restrictions, which was a relaxing of the restrictions that my constituents had been under at the beginning of the week; by Friday, my constituents were told that we were going into tier 3. This hokey-cokey of restrictions has left my constituents, who want to play by the rules, really confused as to what the rules are, even though they want to abide by them. I level with the Secretary of State: the communications that come from his Department need to be clearer.
I wish to ask the Secretary of State about support for businesses. Viable businesses in Lancashire are now knocking on the doors of our district councils to ask for financial support, but those district councils have not been told under what criteria they will be able to distribute that support and have not had the cash released from Government. When will the Secretary of State get a grip on this situation?
Matt Hancock
Again, I will defend the honour of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, who has put in huge amounts of economic support. On the first point, one of the reasons to go to the tier system and one of the reasons I think it was, at the time, widely welcomed across the House, was to have a system where people can much more straightforwardly understand the rules. I say to everybody living across Lancashire that the very high alert level in Lancashire is because we urgently need to get the case rate down. The thing everybody should do is follow the rules and restrictions that are in place. They are there for good reason and they are agreed across Lancashire. What we can all best do together is work together to get those rates down.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and for recent private meetings. The good people of Lancashire and South Ribble get that this is all about saving lives—full stop. However, they are weary of restrictions that have been going on for weeks and they are worried about their jobs. Can he assure me and them that we will be in the tier 3 restrictions for only as long as it takes to save lives?
Matt Hancock
The tier 3 restrictions are put in place when the local NHS is at risk of being overwhelmed. We will not keep people in restrictions for one moment longer than we need to. Nobody wants to have the restrictions in place. They are there for a reason and that reason is clearly set out, which, as my hon. Friend said, is to save lives with the minimum negative impact while protecting the economy and education, and supporting the NHS as much as possible. That is the strategy and I think it has very widespread support both in this House and among the public. The measures we put in place to deliver that have been put in place with the deepest reluctance. The single best thing that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend or anybody in this country can do is abide by the rules and be cautious about social interaction—hands, face, space. That way, we can all help to restrict the spread of the virus and get it under control while we support our scientists to come forward with the innovations that will eventually get us out of all this.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. There will be a suspension of some minutes to allow safe exit and entry.
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill
Monday 19th October 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 View all Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 19 October 2020 - (19 Oct 2020)
21:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 335 / Noes: 254 - Question accordingly agreed to.
21:16 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 330 / Noes: 262 - Question accordingly agreed to.
21:30 - The House divided: - Ayes: 327 / Noes: 264 - Question accordingly agreed to.
21:44 - The House divided: - Ayes: 331 / Noes: 260 - Question accordingly agreed to.
21:58 - The House divided: - Ayes: 328 / Noes: 264 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendments 4 and 5. If any Lords amendment engaging financial privilege is agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.
After Clause 1
Impact of section 1 on the social care sector
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Lords amendment 2, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 3, and amendment (a) thereto, and Government motion to disagree with Lords amendment 3.
Lords amendment 4, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 5, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 6, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 7, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 8, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 9, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 10, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 11.
I am sure colleagues will see that a large number of Members wish to contribute to this debate. We have had two quite lengthy statements, so there is pressure on time. That means we will be imposing an initial six-minute limit on speeches from Back Benchers. I hope that Front Benchers will keep their remarks as brief as possible in the circumstances to allow others to contribute.
Kevin Foster
This Bill delivers on a key manifesto commitment to end the EU’s rules on free movement, and to deliver our fairer and firmer points-based immigration system. I am pleased the Bill has passed its Third Reading in the other place, led by my colleague Baroness Williams of Trafford. For such a short Bill, there has been substantial debate on a wide range of immigration issues. There are issues on which Members disagree with the Government, but we must now enact this Bill and deliver on our promise to the British people. I will speak to each amendment in turn.
Lords amendment 1 requires publication of an independent report on the impact of ending free movement on the social care sector. Although it is well intentioned, the amendment is unnecessary because we already have independent reporting in this area through Skills for Care and the Migration Advisory Committee, which is now free to work to its own commissions in addition to those given to it by the Government.
The Department of Health and Social Care funds Skills for Care to deliver a wide range of activities to support the Government’s priorities for the social care sector. This includes programmes to support employers and the workforce with skills development, promote and support recruitment into the sector, and support leadership development. The Department of Health and Social Care uses the data produced by Skills for Care and the trends identified to inform its policy development to support the adult social care sector to recruit, train and develop its vital workforce.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The social care sector is a typical example of where cheap EU labour has been brought in to undercut our own labour force. The public are really worried that, as EU migration has declined, so migration from other parts of the world has increased. I want the Minister to give a categorical assurance that, whatever happens with these negotiations, we will get a grip on migration from other parts of the world and we will not undercut our own workforce.
Kevin Foster
We have been very clear that we will have a points-based system that will respond to the needs of the United Kingdom’s labour market and workforce, and that our migration system will not provide an alternative to investing in and rewarding those who work in critical sectors such as social care.
As Members will know, I have previously spoken at length about the role of the Migration Advisory Committee, which now has an expanded remit to examine any aspect of the immigration system and to provide annual reports that Parliament can, and almost certainly will, debate. I have also outlined the Government’s continued commitment to keeping all policies, including the skilled worker route, under review. We do have the flexibility to adapt and adjust on the basis of experience and evidence. Hon. Members will have heard me say before that the immigration system cannot be the solution to issues in the social care sector. We must not continue to rely on people coming to the UK when the focus should be on the domestic workforce to address shortages in the sector. As was just touched on, migration policy should not be an alternative for employers to offering the type of rewarding packages that care staff deserve.
To deliver change to the social care sector, we need to make changes to the way that we train, recruit, attract and retain staff. The Government are focused on working alongside the sector, including through Skills for Care, to ensure that the workforce can meet the increasing demands and continue to deliver quality, compassionate care. Immigration must be part of our overall strategy for this sector’s workforce, not a handy alternative for employers to—
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
The Migration Advisory Committee has effectively recommended a significant increase in the pay of social care staff, which they urgently need—and they have been under immense pressure this year. Will the Minister accept that recommendation from the Migration Advisory Committee?
Kevin Foster
The right hon. Member will have seen the recommendations of the Migration Advisory Committee, and I know that my colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care will consider them closely. I certainly hope that if she is keen on the MAC, she will support the Government’s position on the amendment in the Lobby later.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Does the Minister accept that paying people from the local labour force better, and paying for their training, is a much cheaper solution than building lots of houses to invite migrants in, and a much more popular one?
Kevin Foster
My right hon. Friend points out that in a time when we have large numbers of people affected by the current economic situation, we need to focus on our own UK-based workforce when it comes to filling needs.
Kevin Foster
I am conscious that I need to make progress.
Lords amendment 2 seeks to continue certain family reunion arrangements provided by EU law—the so-called Surinder Singh route. It would require us to provide lifetime rights for British citizens resident in the European economic area or Switzerland by the end of the transition period to return to the UK accompanied or joined by their non-British close family members on current EU free movement law terms. In effect, that means that these rights would continue perpetually. Family members of British citizens resident in the EEA or Switzerland at the end of the transition period are not protected by the withdrawal agreement in terms of returning to the UK. However, we have made transition arrangements for them. British citizens living in the EEA or Switzerland will have until 29 March 2022 to bring their existing close family members—a spouse, civil partner, unmarried partner in a long-term relationship, child or dependent parent—to the UK on EU law terms. The family relationship must have existed before the UK left the EU on 31 January 2020 and continue to exist. Those family members will also then be eligible to apply to remain in the UK under the EU settlement scheme. Now that we have left the EU, we have to be fair to other British citizens, whether they are living overseas or in the UK, and to UK taxpayers who can be called on to pay the costs when family life is not established sustainably in the UK. In the long run, the same rules should apply to all, not continue indefinitely to give preferential treatment to those relying on past free movement rights that have been abolished. This is what a global immigration system means. However, I respect the points that my right hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) has made to me, and, as with other things, we will continue to keep this area under review.
Lords amendment 3 provides for children in care and care leavers who lose their free movement rights to obtain indefinite leave to remain. I pay tribute to the noble Lord Dubs, who sponsored this amendment in the other place. The Government agree on the importance of protecting the rights of children in care and care leavers, and other vulnerable groups, as we end free movement. I have also appreciated the points made in a letter I replied to from my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). We are providing extensive support to local authorities, which have the statutory responsibilities for this cohort, to ensure that these children and young people, like other vulnerable groups, get UK immigration status under the EU settlement scheme. This support includes the settlement resolution centre and grant funding of up to £17 million, to cover last year and this year, to organisations across the UK to support all vulnerable groups in applying to the scheme.
A survey of local authorities by the Home Office has so far identified fewer than 4,000 children in care and care leavers eligible for the EU settlement scheme, with over 40% of those having already applied for status under it, and with most of those who have applied having already received an outcome of settled status. The Government have made it clear, in line with the withdrawal agreement, that where a person eligible for status under the EU settlement scheme has reasonable grounds for missing the 30 June 2021 deadline, they will be given a further opportunity to apply. We have also made clear that those reasonable grounds will include where a parent, guardian or local authority does not apply on behalf of a child. Therefore, if a child in care or a care leaver misses the deadline, they will still be able to obtain lawful status in the UK. There is no time limit to what may be reasonable, so an application today from a person who is a child aged eight would be reasonable if they discovered at age 18 that their local council had not applied for them.
The Government are not, therefore, persuaded of the need for this amendment. Applicants under the age of 21 are already granted immediate settled status under the EU settlement scheme where a parent has that status. The idea of applying such a provision retrospectively runs counter to the general operation of the immigration rules.
Kevin Foster
I have to make progress.
I will now turn briefly to Lords amendment 4, which relates to family reunion and unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. I understand the important issues that this amendment seeks to address, and confirm the Government’s commitment to the principle of family unity and supporting vulnerable children. The Secretary of State for the Home Department, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), recently announced at the Conservative party conference our intention to reform our broken asylum system to make it firm but fair, and we intend to bring forward legislation next year to deliver on that intention. Our reformed system will be fair and compassionate towards those who need our help by welcoming people through safe and legal routes; it will, though, be firm in stopping the abuse of the system by those who misuse it— especially serious or persistent criminals—simply to prevent their removal from this country.
We have a proud record of providing safety to those who need it through our asylum system and resettlement schemes, and we have granted protection and other leave to more than 44,000 children seeking protection since 2010. The UK continues to be one of the highest recipients of asylum claims from unaccompanied children across Europe, receiving more claims than any EU member state in 2019 and 20% of all claims made in the EU. However, now we have left the European Union, it does not make sense in the long term to have a different set of provisions for those in fundamentally safe and democratic countries than for those in the rest of the world, unless those provisions are based on effective reciprocal agreements relating to returns and family reunification. We have made a credible and serious offer to the EU on new arrangements for the family reunion of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, and it remains our goal to negotiate such an arrangement, but the UK does provide safe and legal routes for people to join family members in the UK through existing immigration rules, all of which are unaffected by our exit from the European Union, such as the provisions under part 11 of the immigration rules.
Lords amendment 5 would require the Secretary of State to offer a physical document free of charge to any EEA citizen who applies for leave or has been granted leave under the EU settlement scheme. As announced earlier, this amendment engages financial privilege, so I will not debate it specifically, but I will point out that the House has considered that proposal on a number of occasions, and has declined it each time. We have made such a move across our migration system: in particular, we are looking at the British national overseas visa route, which will also use an electronic system. Again, that is similar to other countries: for example, Australia has had such a system since 2015.
Kevin Foster
I am going to have to start making some progress.
Lords amendments 6, 7 and 8 relate to detention time limits—an issue that is not directly relevant to the purpose of the Bill, which is to end free movement. In addition, at the heart of the Bill is a commitment to a global system and equal treatment of immigrants of all nationalities as we exit the transition period. On the broader point, imposing a 28-day time limit on detention is not practical and would encourage and reward abuse, especially of our protection routes. No European country has adopted anything close to a time limit as short as that proposed in these amendments, and comparable nations have not gone down this route at all.
However, I recognise the point made by those who are concerned about this issue. As I said when we discussed a very similar amendment tabled on Report, we want to reform the system so that it makes a quicker set of decisions, and for our position to be clear that detention is used when there is no alternative, or when there is a specific need to protect the public from harm.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
My hon. Friend will be aware that many of us across the House are concerned about the fact that there is not a limit. He is absolutely right that what is required is an international convention and international agreement on this issue. Nevertheless, for some people to be detained indefinitely having committed no crime is a matter of concern, and I would like my hon. Friend’s commitment that he will keep this matter under review within the Home Office.
Kevin Foster
I thank my right hon. Friend for his constructive intervention. We will absolutely keep it under review. I gently say that it is not possible to detain someone indefinitely as such; they can apply for immigration bail, and we have to meet a test that says there is a reasonable prospect of their removal. My right hon. Friend will appreciate that, similarly, there are instances where it is out of the Home Office’s hands, or even this jurisdiction’s hands, and we cannot immediately remove someone by a particular day.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Will the Minister give way?
Kevin Foster
Very briefly, because I am conscious of the number of Members waiting to speak.
Mr Carmichael
Last year, the Government had to pay out £7 million to 272 people who were wrongfully detained. Was that good value for money?
Kevin Foster
I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the law on detention is very similar to that pre-2015, when he was in the Cabinet. Immigration detention is part of our rules, but we have been reducing its use over recent years; again, it should be a last resort when other methods cannot be used. However, I say again with regret that introducing a 28-day limit would allow people to exploit the system and would actually run contrary to our ability to run an effective system.
I turn to Lords amendment 9. I appreciated the chance today and over the weekend to have significant conversations on this subject with my right hon. Friends the Members for Maidenhead (Mrs May) and for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), who have had a strong passion and commitment to this area over a long period. Lords amendment 9 would require arrangements to be made in the immigration rules for the granting of leave to remain to confirmed victims of modern slavery who are EEA citizens, in specified circumstances. We believe that the amendment is unnecessary, for reasons that I will briefly set out.
Currently, confirmed victims of modern slavery who are foreign nationals from non-EEA countries and who do not already have immigration status are automatically considered for a grant of discretionary leave to remain. By “automatically” I mean they do not have to apply for it. Our national referral mechanism arranges for that consideration if, after a decision has been reached, there are conclusive grounds to believe that someone is a victim of modern slavery. EEA citizens are not automatically considered in that way, as many are likely to be exercising free movement rights and therefore do not require a grant of discretionary leave under UK immigration rules. They may, however, apply for discretionary leave if they wish.
However, to address some of the points that have been made, following the end of free movement, EEA confirmed victims who do not already have permission to stay in the UK, for example though our EU settlement scheme, will be treated in the same way as other foreign national victims and therefore receive automatic consideration for a grant of discretionary leave. The published policy will be amended to make that clear beyond 1 January 2021; the recent publication reflects the guidance that needs to be followed today, with free movement rights still in place.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
My hon. Friend knows that I spoke overnight to the Home Secretary and we agreed that this was an anomaly and needed to be sorted, so I am pleased that he now commits to doing it. Will he also, however, commit to having a full and proper set of discussions with Lord McColl, me and others about the possibility of introducing modern slavery victims support legislation to iron out many of these anomalies?
Kevin Foster
I thank my right hon. Friend for his constructive intervention. Yes, certainly; I am more than happy to engage with him about how we can look at this process. He will realise that it is not just in this area where there has traditionally been a difference, because EEA nationals have freedom of movement rights, so it would be odd to grant them status under immigration rules, but I am certainly happy to have that conversation. I also reassure Members that we would consider someone’s being held as a modern slave as reasonable grounds for a late application to the EU settlement scheme. I say gently that it would be unhelpful to have two very similar sets of criteria, one under the immigration rules and one under policy, so we do not accept Lords amendment 9.
Having been through the more contentious areas, I hope that Members support Lords amendment 11, which was introduced in reaction to feedback in the other place. I hope that Members accept the reasons I have outlined why the Government cannot accept the Lords amendments that we ask the House to disagree with, but I hope that they have a sense of the Government’s commitment to the issues raised.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to be at the Dispatch Box for the return of this incredibly important piece of legislation. I thank peers in the other place for their detailed work on the Bill. We welcome the amendments that have been secured, most of them with significant majorities; several of the improvements before us today demonstrate cross-party support.
Lords amendment 1 would require the Secretary of State to commission and publish an independent assessment of the impact of ending free movement on the social care sector. The Government’s intransigence on this matter has been beyond disappointing. This Bill has been an affront to those migrant workers working on the frontline in social care. To have clapped them on a Thursday night and then told them that they are unskilled and therefore not welcome on a Monday is both disrespectful and shameful.
Members on both sides of the House have witnessed the vulnerabilities across our health and social care sector, which, despite the best efforts of its dedicated workforce, has been pushed to the limits over the course of the pandemic. Unison, the UK’s largest trade union, represents our dedicated public sector workers, including social care workers, across the UK. We have worked closely with Unison, which has supported and represented workers throughout the pandemic. With its in-depth knowledge of the sector and foresight, it has articulated its vision of social care in its “care after covid” campaign to address the fault lines that were so exposed throughout the last six months. To propose a Bill that will make radical changes to the recruitment of social care workers without considering the impact is simply negligent and careless governance.
The Minister referred to the Migration Advisory Committee; in its recent report, commissioned at the request of the Home Secretary, it expressed concerns about the social care sector and argued that if necessary funding and pay increases do not materialise urgently, it would expect the end of freedom of movement to increase the pressure on the social care sector. That would be particularly difficult to understand at a time when so many care occupations are central to the covid-19 pandemic frontline response.
These remarks should unsettle the Government and spur them into action, and I fully expect that if the Government do not listen, on the day that the new points-based immigration system is implemented we will still be deeply entrenched in the battle against coronavirus. If we do not do our due diligence by adopting this amendment, the Bill is set to undermine social care recklessly at a time when we can least afford it, so we urge the Government to reconsider their position, commission the impact assessment and understand the impact of the Bill on the social care workforce, on visas and on the consequences for recruitment, training and staff terms and conditions.
Amendment 4 would ensure there are safe refugee family reunion routes after Dublin III ceases to be available in the UK following the end of the UK-EU transition period. I want to place on record my thanks to the brilliant and inspirational Lord Dubs for his tireless work and leadership on this amendment in the other place.
A great deal has been said about immigration over the summer and we on the Labour Benches want in the strongest possible terms to distance ourselves from the Home Secretary’s dangerous rhetoric and to thank those lawyers who play such an important role in ensuring that the UK is upholding its international and legal obligations. The amendment demonstrates the future for one of the safe and legal routes we have all advocated for over the summer.
The Dublin III regulation is for family reunion and represents legal routes to safety from Europe for children seeking to come to the UK. Family reunion under Dublin III is currently the only legal pathway to reach the UK from the EU for the purposes of claiming asylum. It will no longer apply after the transition period. If we do not seek to address this issue, I fear that we will see more images of people making precarious and life-threatening journeys on dinghies across the channel.
The Government will say that they have a draft proposal for family reunion; however, it is apparent that their proposal is woefully inadequate. The proposals remove all mandatory requirements to activate family reunions. They remove the child’s right to appeal against refusal, and some children would not be covered by the narrower definition of family which Parliament passed in a 2017 Act.
Other safeguards have been removed, too, such as deadlines. According to one non-governmental organisation, 95% of people helped by NGOs to obtain a right of passage would fail the test proposed by the Government. Existing immigration rules also fail to cover this specific area, and therefore this amendment gives Parliament a chance to enshrine in law the basic principle of family reunion.
This issue is incredibly salient and our thoughts are still fixed on the suffering and horrors caused by the fire at the Moria refugee camp in Lesbos. The scale of that tragedy could have been minimised.
We all heard the pleas before the incident to the Greek Government for help with numbers at the camp, yet the calls were ignored by the people in power.
It is worth noting that the number of people who have come in under Dublin III has historically been very small. Up to 2014, there were 10 or 11 a year, and since 2016, a little over 500 have come in under it. We hear about the Government’s proposed fairer borders Bill on asylum, but those children cannot wait. We are asking the House to use its power to give transformative opportunities to innocent children who, through no fault of their own, have found themselves fleeing persecution and destitution.
Matt Rodda
Does my hon. Friend agree that having physical proof is deeply reassuring to many older people in particular, some of whom might not be familiar with IT and might feel that an IT-based system alone does not give them the security they so want?
Bambos Charalambous
My hon. Friend is exactly right. Many people have been confused about what status they have because of the emails they have received.
Dr Julian Lewis
I warmly endorse the last intervention the hon. Gentleman took. Governments of all stripes surely have enough experience of digital disasters to know that people need to have something tangible on which they can rely if they request it and if they feel insufficiently confident that a digital system guarantees that they can prove their status.
Bambos Charalambous
The right hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. We need to ensure that there is documentation, because we have seen the failings of other IT systems in the past and cannot allow that to happen again, especially on an issue as important as people’s rights.
Although we are open to the Government’s aspiration to move towards a digitally-focused system for all UK immigration, we are also aware of the internal failings that prevail within the Home Office. With that in mind, we urge the Government to think again about adopting Lords amendment 5.
Lords amendment 9 would give EEA and Swiss nationals who are victims of trafficking at least 12 months’ leave to remain and access to benefits during their period of recovery after being confirmed as victims of modern slavery. I thank Lord McColl for all his work on this issue and congratulate him on garnering considerable cross-party support. There is an unfortunate absence of domestic statutory provision in England and Wales for confirmed victims of human trafficking on their rights to support and assistance. Over the years, that deficiency has been filled by EU law.
As things stand, following the end of the UK-EU transition period on 31 December, human trafficking victims will be left in an undefined legal vacuum. Following the end of the EU settlement scheme, victims of human trafficking who are EEA or Swiss nationals will be able to apply only for discretionary leave to remain. The criteria for that are very narrow and it is unclear whether the same treatment as that for non-EEA nationals will apply.
Lords amendment 9 would provide much needed refuge and support to people who have suffered unimaginable uncertainty and abuse. We hope that the Government will support it. We must tackle the systemic factors that lead to modern slavery, provide support to those who are affected, and encourage more people to come forward to end the perpetual cycle of abuse and crime. I heard what the Minister said, and we wait with interest to see what the Government will come up with, particularly in respect of support for victims of modern day slavery.
To conclude, this is a bad Bill: it is reckless and ignores the evidence. The Lords amendments, many of which have cross-party support, are a genuine attempt to address those failings. If passed unamended, the Bill will lead to staff shortages in our care system at a time when it is perilously close to collapse; encourage dangerous crossings, as it fails to address safe family reunion routes after Dublin III; and lead to a lack of safeguarding and support for victims of modern day slavery. The amendments have been well debated both here and in the other place, and I urge the Minister to accept them.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
We now have a time limit of six minutes.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I am grateful to be called to speak at this particular point, Madam Deputy Speaker. It was the Centre for Social Justice, which I set up and had the fortune to chair, that published the original document that pushed the Government into passing the first modern-day slavery legislation, a matter of which they are rightly very proud, and that made the UK the first country in the world to bring forward such legislation. That legislation now needs overhauling. That has been the case for some time. The recent report, “It still happens here: Fighting UK Slavery in the 2020s” states:
“For many, having no recourse to public funds poses further barriers to moving people on safely, putting victims at risk of homelessness and destitution, and making it more likely that they will fall back into exploitation and trafficking.”
The one thing that we can learn from recent events in places such as Leicester, where we have uncovered the most appalling abuse of individuals who have been victims of slavery, working for a pittance and living in terrible accommodation, is that we really do not want to see that repeated in the UK. That is the point that I want to make in my speech today.
There must be some kind of recourse to public funds for victims of modern slavery, which will make them more secure than they are at the moment. We need to make that case in legislation. I am pleased that the Government have moved on the issue of European economic area nationals and recognised that there was some contradiction in what they were proposing in their guidance. I notice that a paragraph was inserted into the guidance after Lord McColl’s amendment had been passed, which, had it been there originally, might have meant that there would have been no need for this particular amendment. Two contradictions were made but I do not have the time to go through them now, so Members will have to read about them themselves. None the less, I am pleased that the Minister said from the Dispatch Box that the Government have now rectified that matter and that non-EEA and EEA nationals will now be treated the same when it comes to discretionary leave to remain. That is a really important move. Having spoken to the Home Secretary and got that guarantee from her, it is a great pleasure to hear it from the Dispatch Box.
There has always been a problem with discretionary leave to remain and it was made worse by a Minister back in 2017 saying that there must be exceptional or compelling reasons to justify granting it. The bar has been set too high, and it is really important for us to recognise that people who come here having suffered the real persecution of slavery need to have a little more consideration shown for their position. They are not in the same boat as pure asylum seekers. In fact, those people can get a much longer period of time; whereas somebody who has genuine problems and who has been abused finds their time curtailed. That is why we need to look further than just at what the Government are doing here. I recognise that, perhaps today, this Bill is not the right way to try to press this matter forward, but I do say to the Government that there is another way.
I recognise also that the problem on that score is that a confirmed refugee can get five years’ leave to remain, but a confirmed—I repeat “confirmed”—victim of modern slavery gets no leave to remain at all. It seems to me that we have got ourselves in a twisted position, not because the Government—or any Government—want to be there, but because we have an anomaly, which we now need to rectify. That is the point that I really want to make in the short time available.
It is expensive for us to take someone through the national referral mechanism, conclude that they are genuine victims of modern slavery, but not provide adequate care. Those people remain very vulnerable and are quickly re-trafficked. As I said earlier, Leicester is a very good example of that, but there are other cities in the UK where people are drifting into these terrible conditions because they have nowhere else to go, or, for that matter, going into the national referral mechanism but facing uncertainty over ongoing care. They do not have the capacity to give evidence in court against their traffickers and that is the one thing that we want them to do. We need to be able to prosecute the traffickers to make sure that they never do it again. We need to think about this very carefully, so I have an ask of the Government—I said this when I intervened on the Minister. He needs to make sure that the change to the guidance is included and seen in the other place and that, critically, Lord McColl and others recognise that this has been done and that it is not just a gesture.
Secondly, I ask the Minister seriously—he said he was prepared to do this—to bring all this together in a new Bill that deals with the problems that we have now found. This is a good Bill, but we now find problems coming through relating to the abuse of people who are confirmed as having been brought in under modern-day slavery conditions and who we need to give support. I recognise that the Government are worried about people using modern-day slavery provisions as a route in, but the numbers coming in and getting a claim are so tiny that we can surely manage this. I understand the position in respect of failed immigration and people on asylum, but this is a very peculiar group that needs our care. If the Minister can commit to a discussion about future legislation with myself, Lord McColl and others in this place who would wish to be part of that, we may be able to make some progress on that.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who always speaks so expertly on issues of modern slavery.
The Lords amendments ask three important questions of MPs. First, are we going to protect and promote fair treatment for families and family unity? Secondly, will we look out for the most vulnerable? And thirdly, do we listen to legitimate concerns raised by communities impacted by migration policy? If the answer to those questions is yes, as it should be, we must oppose the Home Secretary’s motions and support the amendments made in the House of Lords.
Let me start my whistle-stop tour with Lords amendment 2, which is designed to protect families. The fact is that in the UK we have some of the most restrictive family visa immigration rules in the world, splitting up tens of thousands of British citizens and children from their spouses and parents. Sadly, that regime is now to be extended to British citizens and settled persons who happen to fall in love with European nationals. There is now little we can do to stop that, but we can stop the rules applying to British citizens who are already living elsewhere in the EEA with non-UK spouses and their families.
When such citizens left here and established family life elsewhere in the EEA, they had absolutely no reason ever to suspect that their ability to return would be restricted. This is not, as the Government have tended to suggest in some debates, about avoiding or circumventing rules; it is about British citizens having a legitimate expectation of an unrestricted right to return with their family. The Government should respect that expectation. On the one hand, the Government have, to an extent, recognised the particular circumstances of this group by providing a grace period, which is good in so far as it goes, but the grace period does not solve the problem; it simply postpones this deep unfairness for a couple of years. Basically, the Government are saying to many families, “You need to decide by March 2022. You can come back before then, uprooting your family, even in the most difficult of circumstances; otherwise, you will need to stay away altogether.” What the Government should do instead is simply remove the unfairness altogether and exempt this fixed and finite cohort from the rules forever. I really cannot see why that is such a difficult ask of the Government.
Lords amendment 4 is also about the importance of family unity. It is about protecting some of the most vulnerable people out there: people, including unaccompanied children, seeking asylum. It is not just common sense but common decency that says that this is the right place for an asylum claim to be considered if the applicant has a family connection here or if it is in the best interests of a child. As Lord Dubs said in the other place, this is not about the UK taking responsibility for all unaccompanied children; it is about taking our fair share of responsibility.
The Dublin system is far from perfect, but so many families have benefited from it, and indeed the UK has benefited from the system as well through the contribution that those asylum seekers and refugees have made. Alternative options in immigration rules, such as the exception route, are way too limited in scope and just will not do as an alternative. Whatever is or is not happening with negotiations, these people should not be the victims or the latest bargaining chips.
Lords amendment 3 would benefit another vulnerable group—children in care and care leavers—by fast-tracking their access to the settled status scheme. It would allow all children in those groups to proceed to fully settled status, rather than creating another cliff edge for a later date with pre-settled status. The Government have themselves acknowledged—the Minister acknowledged it today—that fewer than half of eligible children in those categories have applied to the settlement scheme with just eight months left to go.
The new approach in the Lords amendment is a practical, reasonable and now, I would say, urgent compromise, after Government arguments against an earlier iteration of the amendment that referred to deemed leave. It is just a practical way to assist the Government in achieving as broad a reach as possible for the EU settlement scheme. Having said that, I echo what Lord Dubs said when moving the amendment, which was that local authorities and the Home Office must also make sure that children entitled to British citizenship have full access to that without unnecessary fees and barriers. Although welcome, it is not enough for the Government to state that late applications from these groups would be accepted; although that is better than not accepting such late applications, we should be doing everything possible to avoid any period of their being undocumented, and all the huge difficulties and stresses that that can entail. So we support this amendment, and my amendment (a) would simply increase its scope to include another group of care leavers under legislation in Scotland, something that the Scottish Government have written to the Minister about.
Lords amendment 9 relates to a group of people who could not be any more vulnerable: the victims of the awful crimes of modern slavery. I pay tribute to Lord McColl and various other members of the all-party group on human trafficking and modern slavery, including the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green, for their relentless pursuit of this issue. Our party will always support immigration leave being granted where that is required for such victims to put their lives back together, and that is exactly what Lord McColl’s amendment seeks to do. I agree with the observations of the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green—I was listening to the exchange between him and the Minister, and we will follow the progress in that regard—that we need to go further still. There are rights being lost for the victims of modern slavery from the European economic area, and we have not got ourselves into a place yet where those rights are being adequately replaced.
On the detention amendments, too many victims of modern slavery, far from being given a short grant of leave to remain to help rebuild their lives, end up instead in our hideous immigration detention estate, along with scores of others who should never be there. During the pandemic the numbers detained have dropped significantly and we should be aiming to keep numbers as low as possible. As the Minister said, detention should be a matter of last resort, and it should be for the absolute minimum period necessary, but the figures show that a majority of people detained are simply released again into the community. It is a badge of shame that the UK continues to be an outlier in failing to place any defined limit on detention. We are dealing with basic but fundamental principles: the right to liberty and the requirement for speedy judicial oversight of any deprivation of liberty.
Lords amendments 1 and 5 highlight the Government’s failure to listen to serious concerns. As we have heard, Lords amendment 1 flags up the huge danger that an end to free movement and the design of the future immigration system pose to the care sector. It is similar to an amendment tabled when this Bill was first in this place by my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara). It is totally wrong to talk of cheap labour undercutting the resident workforce here; we should be expressing our gratitude for the amazing work that EEA citizens are doing in our social care workforce. The danger to the care sector has been spelled out by the sector and by the Government’s own Migration Advisory Committee, not just last week but repeatedly. Yes, the long-term future of care will require greater investment and better pay, but the Government have shown no indication or inclination to suggest that they are going to fix that any time soon, never mind in the two and a half months between now and the end of free movement. So to take this step in the middle of the coronavirus pandemic is just jaw-droppingly reckless. As the MAC said, ending free movement will
“increase the pressure on the social care sector, something that would be particularly difficult to understand at a time when…care”
is so
“central to the… pandemic frontline response.”
The Government are not listening to the MAC, but perhaps a review that would follow this amendment would force them to listen.
Finally, let me close by discussing Lords amendment 5 and paying tribute to those in the3million campaign group for their perseverance, even when it seems that the Government do not listen. Now their modest ask is that they are not used in the Home Office’s moves to go digital; they are simply asking that, like everybody else, they are provided with the physical means of proving their status here. The Minister referred to the example of Australia, but it spent five to 10 years trialling that system with a physical document as back-up. This is first about technology: the fact that someone’s legal status and rights can be verified only by a Home Office system, and all the risks inherent in that.
Dr Julian Lewis
In support of what the hon. Gentleman is saying, let me say that it is not that millions of these documents would have to be issued; they would be issued only to people who felt the need to request them.
Stuart C. McDonald
Absolutely, and it would be the perfect trial of the Home Office system; if it really works as the Home Office anticipates, there will not be a demand for it. If the Home Office has confidence in the system, it should have nothing to fear from this. It is about not just technology, but human nature. We know that discrimination is a feature of the hostile environment policy, as private citizens are forced by the Government to do checks. They face harsh penalties if they get those checks wrong, so they will, as a result, play it safe. The danger is that a property will be let to, and a job will be offered to, a person with a passport and a visa, instead of to a person with a piece of digital code, all other things being equal. The3million is simply asking to have the same reassurance that everybody else has access to, and we should provide that.
The amendments could have a transformative effect for many marginalised and vulnerable people. They would enhance family unity and provide additional reassurance for those most directly impacted by Brexit. They could be a small silver lining on what we regard as an awful Bill. We should stand by the House of Lords’ amendments.
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I rise to speak to a number of amendments. I declare my interest as co-chair of the all-party group on human trafficking and modern slavery, which I chair with the noble Baroness Butler-Sloss from the other place.
I will not repeat what my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) said, because I agree wholeheartedly with every word, but, if I may, I will add to his comments. Just today, the organisation ECPAT published a freedom of information request which found that just 28 children who were confirmed victims of trafficking were granted discretionary leave to remain in the UK between 2016 and 2019. I therefore say to the Minister that the statistics do not stack up with the words we are hearing from the Dispatch Box. I know he is a good man and he wants to do the right thing, but we need to deliver as a Government so that the statistics back up what is being said.
The key point here is that we want to see prosecutions. We will not break the cycle of this horrendous crime if we do not bring the perpetrators to justice. That means having victims here in the United Kingdom who are able to testify, able to give evidence and able to bring the perpetrators to justice. It is incredibly important that the Government bear that in mind, because, as with all hidden crimes, without support given to the victims, who are the most vulnerable people imaginable and who have been through the most hideous experiences, we will never break the cycle and bring the perpetrators to justice.
I urge the Minister not just to support what my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green said about support for victims, but to implement all measures from the Modern Slavery Act 2015. That was an excellent, groundbreaking and world-leading Act—we are using lots of clichés—but so much of it has not yet been implemented. If it was implemented fully, we would see so much more success with prosecutions, which is what we all want.
I will speak very briefly on Lords amendment 3. I urge the Government to deliver on this matter. Communication is absolutely key. We need to ensure that people who are entitled to claim settled status know about it. The international reputation of the United Kingdom is at risk here. Getting this wrong will not enhance the view of us by others in the world. We need to make sure that we get it right.
I want to focus the majority of my time on Lords amendment 4. I thank all Ministers for their engagement over the weekend. I spoke to Minister on the Front Bench—the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster)—and to other Ministers in the Home Office. I know there is concern to make sure we get this right, but again it goes back to the point that we must help the victims, because we can never break the cycle of crime that is getting people to the point where they are in Calais, Dunkirk and Zeebrugge unless we can help the victims.
I gently say to the Minister—he is not guilty of this, but I gently say it to all Ministers—that we must not think of victims as good victims or bad victims. When a constituent who has been the victim of a fraud or other crime comes to our surgery, we might well think to ourselves, “Well, buyer beware, and you should have realised when this too-good-to-be-true offer was put in front of you. Maybe you should not have accepted it or given your bank details,” or whatever else it might be. However, we do not judge. We do not say, “We are not going to take your case, because you’re a bad victim who brought it on yourself.” Instead, we say to our constituents, “Of course we will take your case to Parliament. Of course we will raise it with Ministers. Of course we will take it to the highest authorities.” The same applies to the victims of traffickers. If somebody has been trafficked to Calais, Zeebrugge or Dunkirk, it is because they believe there is a chance of a better life. Whether they are educated and should have known better or whether they are very vulnerable victims, they are still entitled to be listened to and heard. It is clear from so many hidden crimes that until victims are believed and listened to, we cannot break the cycle.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I am very pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), and I agree with the points that she made.
Last month, the Home Office published its comprehensive improvement plan in response to the Windrush scandal, with a big focus on listening to what outside organisations say, presumably with the intention of taking some notice of it. Simply ignoring the concerns that people have raised and ploughing on regardless is the reason why we ended up with the Windrush scandal in the first place.
In her foreword to the comprehensive improvement plan, the Home Secretary said:
“Today, the Home Office is already a very different place. We are listening to community leaders and organisations and urgent change is underway”.
I was hoping that that was not just hot air, but there is absolutely no hint of that change of heart in what the Minister has said to us this afternoon. He has rejected out of hand all the Lords amendments. He was speaking for the old Home Office, not the new Home Office that we have been promised in the comprehensive improvement plan.
I will focus my short remarks on one of the amendments in particular—Lords amendment 5—which was raised in the excellent opening remarks from my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous), as well as by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), the SNP spokesperson, and it was supported in interventions by Members on both sides of the House. Support for the amendment has been underlined by a community organisation in my constituency. I will refer to that in a moment but I underline again that, as elsewhere in the Bill, community organisations, trade unions and businesses all agree. I quote in particular what the business group, London First, said about Lords amendment 5:
“With so much immigration control now being delegated to banks, landlords, and employers, the complicated system being proposed (involving websites, emails, passport numbers, passcodes, and security questions to prove one’s status) leaves everyone in an uncertain position. Legitimate migrants will struggle to prove their status and employers, service providers, and landlords will be reluctant to take part in, or to trust, such a convoluted procedure. A piece of physical proof that can be produced on demand would give everyone the certainty they need.”
London First is absolutely right. Why is the Minister, contrary to the assurance in the comprehensive improvement plan for the Home Office, not taking a blind bit of notice? This is purely about administrative convenience for the Home Office.
Support for Lords amendment 5 has been highlighted to me by the Roma Support Group, a long-established organisation doing excellent work in my constituency. The EU settlement scheme statistics show that Newham, the borough I represent, had a total of 91,000 applications submitted—the biggest number of any local authority—and within that, Romanians account for the biggest cohort, at about a third of the total.
The Roma Support Group pointed me to the European Commission’s digital economy and society index 2018 country report on Romania, which shows that by 2018 only 61% of Romanians were regular internet users—the EU average is 81%—and, looking at basic digital skills, the figure is 28% for Romanians compared with 57% for the EU average. The assessment of the Roma Support Group is that only 3% of its clients, and it has over 5,000 in my borough, are able to complete an online EU settlement scheme application independently, and it also estimates that only 20% of the families it deals with have an IT device, such as a tablet or laptop, available to them at home.
The Roma Support Group has told me about a Newham resident, Nicoleta, a single mother working in the hotel industry. She paid somebody to help her make the EU settlement scheme application in 2019. She did not know that free support was available. After she was granted status, the third party she had paid gave her a confirmation letter from the Home Office and told her that that paper would be the confirmation she needed. In July this year, she realised that the status she has is only digital and that she does not have the details needed to access her online account. She had to get somebody to call the Home Office and change the details on it.
Nicolaie works in the construction industry. In April this year, his work stopped due to the pandemic and he was told to make a universal credit application. He was asked to provide his EU settlement scheme details, for which he had applied with help from a local organisation, and he got into trouble as well because he could not access his digital status statement.
Of course, everybody can see the benefits of moving in the direction the Government want to, but the fact is there is a large number of people—thousands of people—who will not be able to make this work in the short term. I do say to the Minister that he should heed what he has signed up to in the comprehensive improvement plan, and accept Lords amendment 5.
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
It is a privilege to follow the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms). I declare an interest as a barrister who has worked within the care system for many years.
I am delighted to be speaking in this debate at all, because it is further evidence of the fact that this House is making the necessary laws and arrangements for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union. The Government were elected on a mandate to deliver departure from the EU in clear terms, and reform of the present broken immigration system is very much part of that mandate. I receive many emails from my constituents in Derbyshire Dales who are pressing for such reform.
The primary purpose of this Bill is to end the free movement of persons in UK law, and to make EU citizens and their families subject to UK immigration controls. It is the Government’s clear intention that, at the end of the transition period, citizens of the EU and their families will require permission to enter and remain in the UK. For me, this is the logical result of our leaving the EU and becoming independent once more. I should mention that the Bill protects the immigration status of Irish citizens once free movement ends. This is only proper, and it is enshrined in a long-standing Ireland Act 1949 and subsequent legislation.
As is often the case, the Lords amendments seek to water down or negate the purpose of this important and good piece of legislation. I am of the view that if the amendments are passed, I would be letting down my electorate in Derbyshire Dales. I therefore oppose the amendments and wholeheartedly support the Government this evening. It is time for a clear and logical reform of the present broken immigration system.
I would like to turn to the impact of ending free movement on the social care sector. Lords amendment 1 requires the Secretary of State to publish an independent assessment of the impact of ending free movement on the social care sector within six months. This is wholly unnecessary. The Government already work with Skills for Care, which carries out independent reporting, and rely on the information of the independent Migration Advisory Committee, which will be providing annual reports on our new immigration system will be working. I am of the view that immigration is not the solution to the challenges the care sector faces. The solution to those problems rests at home. The Government are investing vast amounts of money, including £1.5 billion more funding in adult and children’s social care, and have launched a national recruitment scheme in this sector, which I support. The covid-19 pandemic has shown us how important this sector is and how important it is to treasure, train and retain social care workers in this country.
Miss Dines
No, I will not give way. Our focus needs to be investing in this country for more young people and older people to be retrained to work in this sector and to be valued with proper wages. We have a fantastic resource at home. In Derbyshire Dales, I have spoken to several care workers. They all work incredibly hard and we treasure them. For those reasons, I oppose Lords amendment 1.
Lords amendment 2 would amend clause 4 of the Bill. I cannot go into as much detail as I would like because of time constraints, but the change suggested would provide preferential family reunion rights under EU free movement law indefinitely. The people of this country did not vote to leave the EU to go on to grant such indefinite rights. It would provide an unfair situation for all other UK nationals who wish to live in the UK with family from outside the EU. The suggested creation of a lifetime right for one group of nationals over another—UK nationals living overseas who have families from other parts of the world—would be grossly unfair to our citizens. We are not leaving the EU and taking the EU’s broken immigration rules with us. European Union free movement simply needs to end.
Lords amendment 3 relates to children in care. The proposal is over emotive and simply not necessary. The Government are providing extensive support to local authorities, which have a legal responsibility already for applying on behalf of eligible children in care to get UK immigration status under the settlement scheme. In my practice at the Bar representing guardians, children, parents and local authorities, I witnessed such circumstances frequently. Furthermore, the Government have made it clear that they will accept late applications. The amendment is just political and wholly unnecessary.
I am not going to be able to spend much time talking about Dublin III, but it is worth remembering that this country is now a sovereign country and we can make our own laws. We have a strong record of supporting vulnerable children, refugees and asylum seekers, and we will do that. We have an admirable record internationally, and I do not accept the naysaying and doom that we hear from the Opposition. The fact is that we have an electoral mandate to fix the problems that exist in our broken electoral system, and I very much look forward to the great ideas of the Government for new legislation in that area next year. We will continue to provide a safe haven to those fleeing persecution and oppression and tyranny, but we will not allow organised criminals to continue to exploit people, and we will have to stop what is happening in bringing people who are exploited across the channel.
Briefly on Lords amendment 5, I say that we do not need to rely solely on written documents. Physical documents can get lost, stolen and are often tampered with. The online scheme is safer and more reliable. I therefore oppose the amendment. As I am running out of time, I cannot go into detail, save to say that a time limit is necessary to be able to control immigration, and any suggestion otherwise is fanciful. I have no hesitation in supporting the Government in opposing the amendments today.
Yvette Cooper
Can I say to the Government that I am disappointed that they are resisting all of the amendments from the Lords? Clearly, immigration legislation is needed, and new immigration rules are needed in time for January when the transition ends, but the purpose of Lords amendments is to try to improve those rules and the legislation.
I would say to the hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (Miss Dines) that that is what this debate is all about—for the UK to decide what principles it wants to embed in the immigration system for the future, and many of the Lords amendments are about establishing principles around compassion and drawing on the history the UK has long had of supporting refugees and also supporting the vulnerable.
It is disappointing that the Government are not responding to the mild request to have a social care impact assessment. It is only a limited request, but it is the right response to the Migration Advisory Committee’s recommendation that something needs to be done. It recommended a pay increase, which I would strongly like to see. In the absence of that, it said that social care should be added to the shortage occupation list to make sure that that vital service is not overstretched as we go through another difficult winter. The Government have provided no response to that at all.
Mr Carmichael
It is a pleasure to follow the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper). Like others, I would like to thank all those in the other place for their time and their attention to the Bill. The amendments that they have sent to us are undoubtedly significant improvements and, like the right hon. Lady, I regret that all we have had from the Government is a de plano refusal of them. There are not even any amendments in lieu, which would have shown a level of engagement.
This is particularly true in relation to Lords amendment 1, an eminently modest proposal that has elicited the quite remarkable assertion that, somehow or another, the purpose of immigration is to keep wages and salaries low in the British care sector. I have to say that I struggle with that somewhat. I just do not buy the idea that, if we were to increase the level of pay in the care sector, we would see a flood of local labour going back into it. Notwithstanding that, it is quite remarkable to think that the Government would not want to have an impact assessment for an area of public policy with whose financing we have struggled for almost as long as I have been in this House. Indeed, I cannot remember a time, in any part of the United Kingdom, when we did not struggle with its finances.
I want to touch briefly on Lords amendment 5, which was promoted in the other place by my noble Friend Lord Oates. Various points on this were made exceptionally well by the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms). The promise made by the Government at the election last year was that there would be some sort of evidence-based settlement scheme, but now we are told that it will be enough just to rely on a digital provision. I strongly suspect that, inside the National Audit Office, there are alarm bells and lights that flash every time a Minister stands at the Dispatch Box and says that there will be a digital solution to a problem. In my experience, any digital solution generally creates a new problem, especially for those who are older and those who are digitally excluded, for whom this is going to create a further and unnecessary level of exclusion.
I want to focus the bulk of my remarks this evening on Lords amendments 6 to 8 and 10, which were promoted in the other place by my noble Friend Baroness Hamwee. Subject to your agreement, Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope that we might test the opinion of the House in relation to these amendments later this evening. It is worthy of note that the United Kingdom is the only country in Europe that locks people up indefinitely for immigration purposes. Detaining people for months on end without giving them any idea of how long they will be there is clearly inhumane, but it is also expensive and unnecessary.
I have long since given up trying to plead with Home Office Ministers on the basis of humanity and compassion, but I would have hoped that a case based on economy and efficiency would find some favour. However, even that seems not to be the case. When I made an intervention on the Minister, he deftly ignored my point that £7 million was paid out last year and that there were 272 cases of wrongful detention. That is the scale of the crisis in this area. It really worries me that there is so little concern about the fact that no fewer than 272 people were detained wrongfully. That is wrong, it is inefficient and it is expensive. Surely for those reasons at least, the Government should be looking to find a better and more humane basis for doing this.
Stephen Timms
I very much agree with the right hon. Gentleman. He says that he has given up asking the Home Office for compassion, but I wonder whether he has seen, in the comprehensive improvement plan, that theme 2 involves a more compassionate approach.
Mr Carmichael
That is indeed the case. However, the rhetoric and the reality do not always provide a perfect match in this regard. But in fairness, and at the risk of playing with semantics, it would not be that difficult to achieve a more compassionate system because we are currently starting from an exceptionally low base. At the end of June this year, even in the midst of the pandemic, there were 40 people who had been in detention for over a year and four people who had been in detention for more than two years. This has particular importance when one considers the other areas that we have discussed, such as the right to family reunion for child refugees. To pick up the point from the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) in relation to amendment 9, I endorse his views on human trafficking. The problem in all these cases is that we do not get upstream because we do not get the necessary co-operation from the victims themselves. If the focus in our system was on catching those who are responsible for the trafficking, and not those who are the victims of it, we would be in a much stronger position. The issue of unlimited detention goes right to the heart of that. It is about which end of the telescope we see the problem through.
The amendments that are before the House this evening are all significant improvements. I hope that the Government, on reflection, will find a way to engage with this in a more constructive and compassionate way.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
It is difficult, in six minutes, to do justice to such an important piece of legislation, with such a diverse set of amendments. I want to speak primarily to Lords amendment 3—the old new clause 2 that I proposed on Report—and Lords amendment 4, which is the old new clause 29 on the Dublin replacement. However, I also support Lords amendment 6, previously proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), and Lords amendment 9, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) spoke so eloquently about.
On Lords amendment 3, we had previous arguments about lots of children in care going under the radar. There are now just eight months to go until the end of the EU settlement scheme. The Home Office originally told us that it estimated that there were some 9,000 EU children in care and care leavers in this country, but now, after a survey completed by 90% of local authorities, it suggests that the figure is under 4,000. Why the drop? At a similar time, it estimated that the number of EU adults who would register to qualify for the EU settlement scheme would be 3 million, but it has turned out to be over 4 million. Why does the number for children in care go down and yet the number for adults has gone up?
These children are of course already in this country. Not a single additional child will be brought into this country under this legislation. It is about regularising status and giving those children safety and giving confirmation to children already in this country. That is why the amendment is still very important. We risk another Windrush scandal for a particularly vulnerable set of children growing up in care who inevitably have more chaotic lifestyles than most people.
Recent research by the charity Coram, “Children left out?”, highlighted the mixed practice among local authorities in identifying and supporting children in care through the EU settlement scheme, with fears that some authorities are making no attempt to identify children in their care who need to regularise their status. Of course, there is no incentive for authorities to regularise that status through citizenship when it costs £1,012, for every child, to do that.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
My hon. Friend is drawing attention to a very important issue. Does he agree that the crucial point is that a local authority may have the statutory duty as the corporate parent, but if the child does not have documentary evidence proving their nationality—not their residence, which the local authority can prove easily, but their nationality—the local authority is unable to take forward the application at all? I hope the Minister will be able to address that issue when he responds to the debate.
Tim Loughton
That is absolutely right. It is very difficult to replace documents, and many people come here without any documents. We are relying on the timescales of high commissions and embassies in various EU countries, and it is not exactly a priority of social workers, who are snowed under with all the other safeguarding work they have to do.
This is a really important amendment. Interestingly, there was a judgment by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman against Liverpool Council. A care leaver complained that the council had failed to regularise his immigration status and failed to secure him British citizenship and a passport, which meant he could not travel or work. That complaint was upheld. The Government did not vote against the amendment in the Lords, so what has changed between then and tonight? This is a great opportunity for the Government to show why such a provision is necessary, without adding a single additional person to the immigration figures, if that is what they are actually worried about.
Karen Bradley
It is often said that these are older children aged 14, 15 or 16. I have a 14-year-old, and if my 14-year-old did not have me, I would want to know that they could go to one of my family, be that my brothers or my in-laws. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Tim Loughton
My right hon. Friend is right. I have met many of these children in camps in Calais, in Zaatari in Jordan and in some of the less well-run camps in Greece. These are real children, bereft of parents in many cases, with just a link in the UK. Without this amendment—without a replacement for Dublin III—those children have no obvious safe and legal route to get to the UK.
The Minister rightly says that we have been very generous in this country through various other schemes, and I agree. Some 7,400 family reunion visas were issued in the year to March, and there is also the vulnerable persons resettlement scheme and the hugely successful Dubs scheme, under which 480 children have come here. Like everybody, I pay tribute to Saint Alf Dubs for the fantastic work he does for this cause. It was a privilege to go to the United Nations and the Zaatari camp in Jordan with him. Of course, the Dubs scheme is full, and none of those other schemes is currently operating. From 1 January, there will be no effective mandatory family reunion scheme either, and there will be no safe and legal route for these children to come to the UK.
I am tough on the illegal migrant channel crossings. I think many of those people who can afford to pay people smugglers are effectively jumping the queue ahead of those who are in refugee camps, who are going through due process and who are abiding by the rules. If we are going to be tough—and, gosh, we need to be tougher on those routes, which line the pockets of people smugglers—we need to make sure we have alternative safe and legal routes for those genuine vulnerable refugees, particularly children, to whom we have a duty of care and can offer a safe haven in this country.
Of course, this has come at the worst time, as we heard from the Labour Front Bencher, after the fires in Lesbos at the beginning of September, in camps that were already five times over capacity, with over 13,000 people residing in a centre built for 2,757. There are now more than 1,600 unaccompanied children on the Greek islands, many whose basic needs are not being met, and many of these children have chronic illnesses. As of last week, there were more than 300 covid cases on Lesbos alone, with a hospital that has capacity for just 50 people. These are deeply vulnerable children, dangerously exposed to people traffickers and other exploitation.
Some 7% of these children are under the age of 14, yet we have no scheme to deal with them, despite having taken many reunification cases earlier in the year for such children. France has taken 350, Portugal 500, and Belgium, Croatia, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovenia are taking these children. What are we doing about it, Minister? The Government have said we do not have places for them, but more than 30 local authorities have identified 1,400 places if the Government will make the scheme work and will pay the cost of it.
We need a Dubs 2, and we need a family reunion scheme, regardless of Brexit. We need it. We have a great tradition of saving these children; if we do not have it in this Bill, come 1 January, we will have no safe and legal route for very, very vulnerable children.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. After the next speaker the time limit will be reduced to four minutes. I give that warning in advance so that Members can prepare if necessary.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who made a powerful contribution not only on amendments 3 and 6 but right the way through his comments. It is a testament to the House that almost every contribution thus far has been on the right track and has exuded the compassion that we want to show as a country, and none more so than that of the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley); I was greatly enthralled by what she had to say and agree with the sentiments she expressed.
On amendment 5, the Government have engaged financial privilege. They are asking this House to disagree on the grounds of the financial implications of the proof of status document and for no other reason: engaging financial privilege means that is the rationale for asking us to disagree to amendment 5. I ask the Minister to reflect on that in his comments. If the only issue is finance—if he recognises that a biometric residence permit, for example, is available for less than £20—I hope that, should there be a subsequent attempt in the other place to insert a similar amendment without proposed subsection (2), the Government will agree to it, because the argument is not only about digitalisation and the difficulties associated with online information, but about people’s sincere desire to hold a permit outlining their status. The Government should engage with this issue thoughtfully.
I have spoken on a number of occasions in this House on indefinite detention, and the Minister knows that I have quite a rigid position on the issue. I supported more keenly amendments that were previously before this House that at least gave the opportunity for an extension of an additional 28 days. I thought that gave Government more latitude in exceptional circumstances, but I still believe that indefinite detention is immoral and unjustified. I have not heard a justifiable rationale for it yet; it is unjustifiable.
We hear about the difficult and hard stories and we hear about the excessive cases. If someone breaks the law in this country, then we should arrest them and put them through due process. If somebody is going through an immigration application process, we should not put them in custody without any sense of how long the process will take. We should treat them as we would wish to be treated: humanly and humanely.
I will use the remainder of my speech to touch on amendment 9. I am pleased to speak in support of this amendment, which was supported in the other place through a powerful speech made by my colleague Lord Morrow, who as a private Member in the Northern Ireland Assembly brought through our seminal Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Criminal Justice and Support for Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2015. To those who talk about the United Kingdom Government bringing forward modern slavery legislation that is the best in the world, I say that it started in Northern Ireland. We are proud of that record. We are the first devolved Administration to bring forward such legislation, and we are proud of what was achieved.
I listened carefully to the opening remarks made by the Minister. I am grateful to him for a telephone conversation we had earlier today, and for the subsequent correspondence that he has shared. I think he knows from the tenor of contributions made by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and others that there is still work to be done on amendment 9, and on changing the terms of the guidance available. I recognise the development that he has brought forward this afternoon, but I am still not sure from what we have heard that we should be convinced that that is a good enough reason for this House to agree with the Government and disagree with the Lords amendment.
The challenge is that any trafficked person from an EEA territory who arrives in the UK after 31 December will only have one long-term route to recovering discretionary leave to remain, whereas today, they have two. While the commitment to automatic consideration is progress, it does not change the fact that the then Government Minister spoke to the Select Committee on Work and Pensions in 2017 as part of that Committee’s inquiry on victims of modern slavery, and said that there must be
“exceptional or compelling reasons to justify a grant”
of discretionary leave to remain. One has to go through freedom of information requests—it should not be so difficult to get this information from the Home Office—to establish that 8% to 9% of applications from those certified as victims of modern slavery get discretionary leave to remain. That is far too low, and it is something that the Government need to consider. I fail to see why confirmed victims losing their right to recovery through treaty rights will be particularly reassured by the commitment that they will automatically be considered for something that, unlike recourse to public funds through their treaty rights, is only given in an exceptional situation.
The other difficulty with the idea that the introduction of automatic assessment for discretionary leave to remain is an effective replacement for recourse to public funds through treaty rights is that discretionary leave to remain is discretionary. It is not a right, but clause 12 makes it a right; Lords amendment 9 makes it a right. If a confirmed victim of modern slavery who is an EEA national meets the criteria in subsection (2), their access to leave to remain will no longer be discretionary, and that is what we should strive to achieve.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. The time limit is now reduced to four minutes.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and to follow the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), who speaks with such compassion. As a child, I remember being told, “Virginia, life just isn’t fair”, but why can life not be fair? I believe in fairly rewarding people for the hard work they do. I believe in using our hard-earned taxpayers’ money fairly and responsibly to honour the effort that has been put into generating it, and I believe we must fairly give our gratitude to those who help others, such as Roy Fyles and the many hidden heroes who do so much for others in my constituency.
While we have been a member of the EU and have been abiding by the principle of free movement of people, we have been unable to make our immigration system fair, but that is now changing. As we near the end of the transition period, we are greeted with many new opportunities: from 1 January, we will give priority to those with the highest skills and the greatest talent—scientists, engineers, academics and other highly skilled workers—so that we are better equipped to deal with the challenges of the 21st century, whether those be the need for increased numbers of science, technology, engineering and mathematics professionals, or of doctors.
As the Member of Parliament for Ynys Môn, I receive many letters and emails from my constituents who simply cannot get an appointment with a doctor in Holyhead. These services are vital for their health and wellbeing. One of my constituents, Mr Barry Smith, wrote in desperation: “There are two GP surgeries in Holyhead, Longford and Cambria, who for some time have not had consistent or regular doctors. Is there anything you can do to bring forward a solution to the dire shortage of GPs in Holyhead?”
What is the solution? Keith Amos, head of service for managed practices, and his team at Betsi Cadwaladr have been working hard to ensure that my constituents can access the healthcare support that they need on the island, whether that is e-consultation, paramedics or occupational therapy, but there is an ongoing struggle to recruit GPs. Today, he told me: “In north Wales we are desperately short of GPs. The key is that we recruit doctors with the right qualifications.” However, a long-term solution is in sight. I am pleased to say that Bangor University’s new four-year graduate entry medical degree with Cardiff University is unique, and the pro vice-chancellor for learning and teaching said that she is delighted to be working with Cardiff on that step change. But what about the here and now? How can I help my Ynys Môn constituents get access to a GP?
Let me conclude by saying that we have one of the best healthcare systems in the world, and I pay tribute to everyone in it. The Bill will give us flexibility to recruit medical professionals from abroad and in specific areas.
Nadia Whittome
It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie), who speaks with expertise and passion about healthcare in her constituency. It is a privilege, too, to speak to Lords amendment 1, which would require an independent assessment of the impact of ending free movement on the social care sector.
It was not so long ago that everyone in this House hailed our key workers as heroes and we stood on our doorsteps and clapped for our carers. It is care workers, cleaners, cooks and delivery drivers who keep this country running, but they are also the people this Bill would keep out of the country. One in five health and social care workers was born outside the UK. When I was a care worker, I worked alongside talented and dedicated carers from Zambia, Spain, Italy; we worked long hours to look after elderly people, yet the Government have the cheek to call them low skilled and to say that they do not belong here.
When I went back to work during the pandemic, I had to retrain. My day would look like this: getting up at five; making notes during handover; administering medication; dealing with someone who had had a fall; hoisting someone twice my size, and being alert at all times to small changes that might indicate a serious medical problem. I would try my best to brighten someone’s day and make them feel valued, knowing that I would probably be the only person they saw that day, all while meticulously recording everything that happened on every call.
Our key workers are not low skilled; they are underpaid. They should be rewarded with a pay rise, not threatened with deportation. The purpose of the Bill is to close our borders with Europe. Those who make over £25,600 a year will be allowed in, and those who are paid less will be kept out. That is what a points-based system looks like. It is free movement for those who can afford it and a hostile environment for everyone else.
This Bill will not solve the problems my community faces. It is not foreigners taking away jobs; it is this Government refusing to extend the furlough scheme. It is not migrants running the NHS into the ground; they are keeping it going. If the Minister is so committed to increasing wages, I urge him to listen to the Migration Advisory Committee and increase the wages of care workers to at least £10 an hour. Whether you are a retired miner from Mansfield, a Deliveroo rider in Nottingham or a Bulgarian mum who cleans this very building, we have more in common with one another than we ever will with those who try to divide us. We all want to protect our families. We all want to contribute to our communities. We all know what it is like to have no power, and we all know that it is Ministers who are making people powerless.
We have an enormous privilege as Members of this House, but being paid £80k a year does not make our lives worth any more than those of people being paid £8.72 an hour. We have a responsibility to vote for these amendments and to treat people—our neighbours, our friends, our co-workers—who were born on a different soil in the way that we would want to be treated ourselves and the way that we would want our families to be treated.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome), who spoke so eloquently about the impact of Lords amendment 1 and the importance of wages for people who do some of the most important work in our country.
I will speak to Lords amendment 6, which would place a time limit on immigration detention and was moved so well by the noble Baroness Hamwee in the other place. Immigration detention is the ghastliest aspect of the failed immigration system we inherited from the last Labour Government. However, we can no longer apportion the blame to them, because it was so very long ago.
This amendment provides an opportunity for the Government to start to modify the worst aspect of immigration detention, which is that we never tell people when they will come out. That is the most atrocious thing to do to anyone. Those of us who have been through the national lockdown or quarantine know how psychologically debilitating it can be. Imagine being in that position and never knowing when you will come out.
This is an opportunity to make change. This is an amendment that the Government could have adopted. It is an amendment that screams, “We can do better. Please accept this.” The Minister said in his opening remarks that 28 days was a very short limit. Of course, the Government had the opportunity to put in their own limit, if they had wished to. They did not do that. It is another indication of the lost opportunity we see with this amendment today.
Unfortunately I do not compliment the Minister on this too often, but I was very pleased that he did not use the usual Home Office trope that putting a time limit on immigration detention would let out the rapists, the murderers and all the other people they like to scare others about. As he well knows, that argument does not hold water. There were 24,500 or so people in detention in 2019, of whom 26% were detained for more than 28 days. That is 6,373 people—a vast number—who were detained for over 28 days. That has nothing to do with failures in the criminal justice system in processing people’s immigration claims while they are in prison.
As the Minister indicated in his speech and as others have said, we are looking towards a new system that promises to speed up application processes and make our asylum system more effective. I say gently to him that the Government cannot speed up a broken immigration system without causing more harm. It is better first to recognise the failures in the system we have before seeking to speed the process up, thinking that that will somehow provide a solution.
It is for that reason that I am so disappointed the Government have not taken this opportunity to put in a time limit or to say, “We understand the psychological problems that come when we detain someone without telling them they can leave.” As the Government come forward with the new system, I want them to say, “When someone comes here to claim asylum, we will provide them with access to the best psychological resources, so that we can understand what underpins why they have sought asylum.” I want people to have the best access to legal aid and legal rights so that their claim can be made with the greatest precision and so that honourable claims for asylum have the best chance of being heard and recognised.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Like other hon. Members, I rise to speak to Lords amendments 4 and 5. Lords amendment 5 would ensure that EU citizens received physical proof of settled status if they request it.
The Government have responded to calls for physical proof by saying that digital status
“cannot be lost, stolen, damaged or tampered with.”
What a great argument. Why don’t we move to digital passports next? For EU citizens living in the UK, their settled status certification could soon have similar importance to a passport. Also, the Government’s response is simply not true. Digital data is regularly lost and stolen. It is also not true that digital data cannot be damaged or tampered with. The3million has heard of just that from an EU citizen—the photograph of her digital status has been swapped with another, without her knowledge or consent.
Some 22% of people do not have the essential digital skills for day-to-day life in the UK. Those who struggle with digital skills will not be able to access their status when they need it without further help. It will mean widespread discrimination in a number of areas from finding employment or a place to live to opening a bank account. A survey from the Residential Landlords Association found that 20% of landlords are less likely to consider renting to EU or EEA nationals simply because it is becoming very complicated. Is it any wonder that the lack of physical documentation is causing real anxiety? Digital simply does not work. Lack of physical documentation will have very real consequences for EU citizens living in the UK. Amendment 5 simply ensures that EU citizens have the same quality of life, housing and employment. The callous disregard of this Government for people and their rights because we have left the EU has been sickening, and I simply do not believe that that is what the British people voted for.
I urge Members to protect children and families by supporting amendment 4. I simply cannot understand the cruelty that has driven this Government to decide not to guarantee family reunion. What has become of this once tolerant nation whose rules were based on a humane response to tragedy and hardship? All too often, it is now children who lose their lives in the dangerous attempts to be reunited with a family member. Those children are already traumatised by conflict, loss of family members, destitution and fear for their lives. Families must be together, and the UK should guarantee that. Removing safe and legal routes to the UK is cruel and counterproductive. Again, this is such a shame given that we once had a humane and compassionate response to people in hardship. It simply increases the risk of dangerous journeys and exploitation by criminal gangs and we have already heard much about that this evening.
Research from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees shows that children are especially likely to resort to people smuggling when access to family reunion is delayed or at risk. What is more, our communities are ready to support unaccompanied children, to give them a home and a chance to rebuild their lives. Councils have pledged 1,400 places for unaccompanied child refugees in Europe if only the Government would provide them with a legal route. It is inexplicable that this Government are not prepared to support the efforts of councils and local people whose hearts are simply in the right place. We have a choice about the sort of country that we want to be: do we callously turn our backs on those most in need, or do we uphold the values of compassion and humanity? I have not given up on urging the Government to listen to compassion and humanity. I urge the Government and Members across the House to please do the right thing.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
I welcome this Bill, which ends free movement, takes back control of our borders, delivers on people’s priorities and paves the way for a modern, fairer, points-based immigration system that will welcome skilled workers from across the world to contribute to the United Kingdom’s economy, communities and public services.
I want to consider the amendment that proposes that children of EEA and Swiss nationals who are in care or entitled to care leavers’ support are granted automatic indefinite leave to remain under the EU settlement scheme. The Government have legislated through the EU withdrawal agreement Act to protect the residence rights of EEA and Swiss citizens and their family members who are in the UK by the end of the transition period. In addition, the Government fully opened the EU settlement scheme to such citizens and their family members in March last year.
The concern is that if eligible children are not identified and supported into the scheme, they will be at risk of being left here unlawfully through no fault of their own. This amendment would give EEA and Swiss children who are currently in the UK a default safety net to qualify under the EU settlement scheme if it were later found out that the necessary paperwork had not been lodged at the appropriate time by either a social worker or a local authority. No matter the circumstances in which these children find themselves here, they are innocent and, on the face of it, this amendment would be a sensible and humane measure to take. We cannot have another Windrush-type situation where children who have been legally in the UK for most of their lives apply later for a job or for accommodation as adults, only to find that there is no trace of them through no fault of their own.
It is of concern that looked-after children and care leavers who currently call the UK home are at risk of being left undocumented if they do not receive settled status through the EU settlement scheme. The Government have acknowledged that just 40% of identified looked-after children and care leavers have had applications made on their behalf some 18 months since the launch of the EU settlement scheme, which is extremely worrying. However, the Government have confirmed that they have focused on working closely with local authorities to ensure that vulnerable groups get UK immigration status under the scheme. I urge them to continue to support local authorities in those endeavours.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I am honoured to speak in this important debate in support of the Lords amendments, particularly Lords amendments 4 and 5, which are reasonable amendments that were supported by great majorities in the Lords. Amendment 5 provides an option of providing physical proof of immigration status under the EU settlement scheme to prevent disenfranchisement of EU citizens.
In Wandsworth, there are 41,000 EU nationals, which is 13% of my constituents, so this is a big issue for my constituents in Putney. Two of those constituents, who have lived in the UK for 30 years, are French citizens and classical musicians with settled status in this country. They have written to me and said: “We are very concerned by the fact that we have no physical way of proving our status when we come back from holidays or trips abroad, and we are afraid that at any moment a similar situation to the Windrush population might happen to Europeans who’ve settled in this country.”
Moreover, Citizens Advice Wandsworth workers who support EU citizens are concerned about that aspect of the Bill. Access to proof of settled status requires digital skills, access to the internet and a suitable device. Time and again, they have seen that vulnerable people find it difficult or impossible to view or prove their status. That means that they are unable to prove their rights in the UK when they are seeking job opportunities, finding a place to live or even getting treatment in hospital. They find that they are discriminated against in those circumstances because they cannot have the physical documentation that they need to prove their status. That cannot be right.
Lords amendment 4 allows unaccompanied children and vulnerable adults to claim asylum in the care and context of their family, which will prevent dangerous journeys from being taken to join them. I have been to the camps in Calais—they were not really camps; they were a lot of bushes in an area near Calais—and I have seen the traffickers circling the area. I know that if any of my children were in that camp and their siblings were just across the channel waiting and able to protect them, I would do everything I could to reunite my family members. To narrow it down to just parents is not fair when many have lost their parents—that is why they fled their country and why we can rescue those children and show compassion.
On 20 December last year, the Prime Minister stood at the Dispatch Box and stated that the Government were “absolutely committed” to continuing family reunion. A Home Office statement on 15 January used exactly the same language, saying it was
“absolutely committed to the family reunion of refugee families”.
There has been commitment after commitment to family reunion, yet it is not in a good enough state in the Bill. That will leave children such as Lili, who fled Eritrea and was found by Safe Passage on the streets of Rome, in a highly vulnerable situation, instead of being reunited with her brother as she was. She wants to be a computer engineer. That is compassion—to allow those children to be here.
To conclude, unless we act tonight, 2021 will be the year in which child refugees in Europe lose the only safe legal route to sanctuary in the UK. Voting against this amendment would be quite wrong. I urge Members on both sides of the House—we have heard good arguments from Members on both sides for this—to think of children such as Lili, do the right thing and vote for Lords amendment 4. It is time to show our British values of compassion and justice, and to deliver for refugee children.
Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)
I have been pleased to support this Bill throughout its passage, particularly for its two primary aims of ending free movement of labour and introducing a points-based system. I wish to focus mostly on Lords amendment 1 and social care. As has been discussed, the amendment would require the Government to publish a report on the impact of ending free movement of labour on the social care sector. I spoke on Second Reading and served on the Bill Committee, and at every stage of my involvement in this Bill I have heard Opposition Member after Opposition Member try to claim that in some way the only way to fix labour shortages in the UK is by immigration. I simply do not agree with that analysis. In the Committee stage, we heard from Brian Bell, the MAC’s interim chair, that only 5% of social care workers come from EU migration. In constituencies such as mine, unemployment is standing at 10.5%. Are the Opposition genuinely trying to say that these jobs in the social care sector are not ones that more than 6,000 people in my constituency can have and that they are out of reach for my constituents? I do not agree.
Immigration plays a very important role in managing labour markets, but it does not solve all the problems all the time. The Government are tackling this issue of social care head on; we have seen the investment of £1.5 billion in adult and children’s social care, along with a national recruitment campaign for the sector. I absolutely support those two things. The Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), made a fair point about the MAC suggestion about pay. Every Conservative Member stood on a manifesto that pledged to look at social care and, importantly, at a way of redesigning it so that it is fairer for those who are cared for, their families and carers too. That is very important, and it is incumbent on all of us that we come to some kind of consensus across this House on that system. In the same way as we see a consensus on the NHS, we need to come to one on social care.
On the NHS, there will be times, including now, when there are gaps in the labour market, which is why I am pleased that the Bill contains provision for the health and care visa, which will be available for people to use to come to this country to work in the NHS. That is very important.
I conclude by saying that I am happy to support this Bill and will be voting to reject the Lords amendments, because I will be fulfilling my promise to my constituents to end free movement of labour, to introduce a points-based system and to deliver on a firm but fairer immigration system for this country.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
This is a thoroughly depressing Bill, one that is entirely political and deeply impractical. That is the kind of Bill, or Act, as it will become, that does not stand the test of time. That we are celebrating the loss of the freedom of British people and thinking it is a good thing would be comical if it were not so tragic, confident though I am that this will not last.
Let us look at some of the details. The Lords amendments are entirely practical and reasonable. Indeed the Minister himself has accepted that, in principle at least, some of them fit that description. I want to focus on Lords amendments 4 and 5. Lords amendment 4 would of course provide the opportunity for family reunion—a safe and legal route. The Home Secretary herself, at the Conservative party conference just a few weeks ago, talked about the importance of safe and legal routes, but of course we are sleepwalking out of one of the safe and legal routes we currently have, the Dublin settlement, with no sign of any kind of meaningful replacement to take its place. If we are—and I am sure all of us here are—outraged and filled with compassion and horror at what we have seen in recent times as people have made the death-defying journey across the channel in rickety boats, taking desperate risks because they are desperate people, the answer is most certainly to provide safe and legal routes. Lords amendment 4 gives the Government the opportunity to have a safe and legal route, and to reject it is music to the ears of the human traffickers. I do not yet understand why the Government seek to turn down such a route via either compassion or practical application.
On amendment 5, it seems an absolute no-brainer that EU citizens with settled status granted to them by this Government should have physical proof of that status. I have had a number of my constituents in touch with me recently who are deeply concerned about the lack of physical documentation. I talked to a person working for a local school and people working in hospitality in Windermere and in Kendal who are concerned about the lengthy multi-step process involving passport, date of birth and a unique one-off code sent to their phone, their employer’s email addresses, business details and both accessing the Government’s website separately. Members have already spoken of the occasional tendency for Government IT schemes not to work completely perfectly. Like other issues that we are talking about tonight, this has huge resonance with the appalling Windrush scandal. While there may be some debate as to which Government bears responsibility for the heartbreak of the Windrush scandal, there will be absolutely no doubt whatever who is to blame for this one. They saw it coming and they voted for it.
Comments were made earlier about the minimum income salary threshold. The Lake district hospitality industry is possibly the most hard-hit part of the UK economy as a result of the coronavirus. May I point out also that 20,000 people working in that industry are from outside the UK, and if we say to 90% of them, “You are not welcome here unless you’re earning a figure that your employers cannot afford to pay”, that would deal an appalling hand to, and damage massively, an industry that is struggling to cope with the covid crisis? It is time for politics that is more practical and less political.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), and although we will not agree on much, I am sure we both agree that immigration has often brought many delights to this country. In fact, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, my grandparents on my mother’s side—Paul Kreciglowa and his wife Lilly —were refugees in the second world war. My grandfather was in a gulag in Siberia and managed to get out by fighting against Nazi Germany. My mother was born in a displaced persons camp, and they settled here. It has brought many delights to my family, so it is a cause that is very close to my heart. Nevertheless, we have to have a sensible immigration policy that we have control over and in which we actually have the right to say who we want and who we do not want in this country. I fear that the Lords amendments would undermine our ability to take back control of our lives.
Many people in Rother Valley voted to leave the European Union because they wanted control over their lives, and they wanted control of many issues, including immigration. This Bill, unamended, does take control back of our immigration system. Unfortunately, if we were to accept these Lords amendments we would undermine what I think is a key aspect of this Bill, and that is fairness. To me, fairness is one of the most important things in life, and fairness is one of the most important things to residents of Rother Valley. These amendments undermine fairness and I will highlight that in the short time I have available.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)
Much has happened since the last time we debated the Bill in this House. We saw the worst of the pandemic, and we saw the ill-conceived words spoken in this House about who was low-skilled completely disproven, as those same people were our key workers who continue to see us through these tumultuous times. It was refreshing to see some of the regular scare stories about migrants displaced by splashes about migrant key workers. This Bill and the Government’s points-based system, which is not legislated for in the Bill, does not recognise that.
The Institute for Public Policy Research shows that the income threshold would mean that 69% of EU nationals currently here would not even be eligible to enter the country under these new rules. The trade union, Unison, has explained that there will be 122,000 shortages in social care, with projections from think tanks explaining that that could be up to 250,000 by 2030. This does not even help our workforce, our skills shortage or our economy, so what logical reason could there be not to have an impact assessment, as suggested in Lords amendment 1, unless it is a purely ideological one?
I will take some time to debunk some myths about refugees. Refugees are not obligated to claim asylum in the first safe country that they land in, and we are not overrun with refugees. In fact, we are below the European average for asylum applications, with countries such as Germany, France, Spain and Greece all seeing between two and four times as many as the UK, and 85% of all refugees live in developing countries. Our country has a proud tradition of accepting refugees, most notably the Kindertransport children, such as Lord Dubs, and I fully support Lords amendment 4 to continue arrangements to maintain unaccompanied child refugees and family reunion.
As the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) rightly said, without this amendment, there will be no safe and legal routes for vulnerable people. The idea that we would just turn away the most vulnerable is a disgrace, but so is a lot of this Government’s legislation of late. As the great Tony Benn once said,
“The way a government treats refugees is very instructive because it shows you how they would treat the rest of us if they thought they could get away with it.”
The Government have to understand why, following the ongoing Windrush scandal, EU nationals will not be content without physical proof of their status, for which Lords amendment 5 rightfully makes provision. I have said it before, and I will say it again: this is the second time in a decade that a Conservative Government have retrospectively changed the rights of migrants after they have settled in this country. Why should any migrant feel secure?
On the 28-day limit to immigration detention, the Minister has said again and again that there is no indefinite detention, so I would like to know, what is the current limit? I am heartened by the cross-party support that Lords amendment 6 has received and by the release of a number of immigration detainees during the pandemic, but recent outbreaks in Dungavel and Brook House have caused a lot of concern. We have already heard about how much is paid out in claims of false detention. Nearly 70% of those in immigration detention are eventually released and allowed to remain in the UK. Private companies such as Serco and G4S are paid by the Government to hold them. It has to end.
I am proud that the Labour party has consistently and unequivocally stood up to this reactionary Bill since its inception and all its iterations. Our hon. Friends in the other place have done a sterling job in amending some of the most reactionary parts of the Bill, and I support every single one of their amendments. They have tabled these amendments with consideration and compassion to a piece of legislation that so fundamentally impacts the lives of others. It is a disgrace that the Government intend to vote these amendments down, and I wholeheartedly believe that they will sincerely regret this decision.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my namesake, the hon. Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy). This Bill is about ending free movement. It is not the place for broader changes to immigration policy in the areas of detention, asylum and care. As ever, the amendments made in the other place are a mixture of the well-meaning but unnecessary and those that seek to undercut this Government’s manifesto commitments. I urge noble Members to reflect on the fact that we have won a majority for these measures. Those of us on the leave side also won the referendum, and continually trying to frustrate what we have repeatedly put to the British people is not a good way for the other place to proceed.
In the brief time I have, I would like to speak about Lords amendments 1 and 2. As the Migration Advisory Committee and the Minister have said, immigration is not the solution to the challenges of the social care system. It depresses wages, and bowing to pressure to exempt it from these rules, in the hope of increasing pay, makes no sense. I was struck by the eloquent speech from the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) about her experience in the care sector, and I pay tribute to her work in the sector before and during the pandemic. But our desire to change the immigration system in the future is not to denigrate those who have come here already and served this country so well, particularly during the pandemic. It cannot be the case that we cannot choose to change our system because we believe that that is somehow offensive to people who are already here. We are not proposing to throw people out who are here legally. We are saying that we choose a different future—a future that the British people chose when they chose to leave the European Union and end free movement.
I turn to Lords amendment 2. Under the terms of the withdrawal agreement, EU citizens who settled here before the end of the transition period can apply for settled status, so that the rights they currently enjoy are guaranteed. That is absolutely right. It was negotiated in good faith with the EU, and it applies both ways. But after the end of the transition period, it is right that EU and non-EU citizens should be treated in the same way. There should not be discrimination based on citizenship, and therefore EU citizens should meet the same requirements set out by our immigration rules— the points-based system that we will introduce—as non-EU citizens.
Lords amendment 2 would provide preferential family reunion rights under EU free movement law indefinitely. The result would be that family members of such UK nationals could forever bypass the immigration rules that would otherwise apply to family members of other UK nationals. It would be unfair to other UK nationals wishing to live in the UK with family members from other countries outside the EEA and Switzerland. The British people voted to ensure the creation of a new immigration system built on fairness, not on nationality. The creation of a lifetime right for one group of nationals would undoubtedly be unfair on other UK citizens living overseas who have family members from other parts of the world. When free movement ends, we should treat family members of all UK nationals living abroad equally. We have given a clear date of 29 March 2022 for people to bring close family members to the UK. That is fair. We are giving sufficient time for people to make changes if they wish to do so, but after that we will treat everybody the same.
I do not have time to go over the other Lords amendments, but by rejecting them we will pass the Bill as it was written. It a historic, important Bill. It is absolutely clear that delivering control of our borders, both in terms of the total numbers who come here and the skills that people bring with them, was what the British people—and my constituents in Newcastle-under-Lyme—voted for, and that is what the Bill will let us do. I am happy to vote to bring the Bill one step closer to law.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
I am pleased to speak in support of the Lords amendments. I am proud to come from Liverpool, a city built on immigration from all corners of the world, which has contributed to the diversity and vibrancy of our culture and history and is what makes Liverpool great and the best city in the world. Liverpool is home to the longest-established black, Chinese, Yemeni and Somali communities, who have contributed massively to the development of our city. We have faced and continue to face discrimination and oppression, but despite that I am deeply proud that Liverpool is a city of sanctuary, welcoming people fleeing wars and oppression, with the devastation that that brings.
As a black woman, I am appalled by this Government’s treatment of asylum seekers, refugees and many migrants who seek to come here to contribute to our society. We witnessed the injustice of the Windrush generation, who came here after the war, at the invitation of the British Government, to help to rebuild the country. We took their service, their contributions and their taxes; then, towards the end of their lives, we took away their citizenship.
I know from first-hand experience the contribution that so many of our migrants—especially those in the care sector, in our NHS, in care homes and in the domiciliary care sector—have made to our society, but their reward is to be undervalued and poorly paid. The Home Secretary’s proposed immigration system does not even count workers in the social care sector as skilled. Care workers, who are low paid but in reality highly skilled, are an essential workforce for our most vulnerable residents, yet they do not even rate a mention in the Home Secretary’s plans. The average salary for a care worker is £19,104, meaning that they do not reach the £26,500 threshold that she proposes.
We currently have a national shortage of 100,000 care workers—or we did before covid—and projections show that that could double by 2030. We have a growing, ageing population, with many people with complex health needs, including dementia. We are going to need more care workers, not fewer, so why has social care been excluded from the shortage occupation list? Because this Government do not value them.
The pandemic has shown, like nothing else has or will, the crucial role that care workers play in keeping our elderly and vulnerable citizens safe and cared for. They put their lives on the line every day without sufficient safeguards, yet the IPPR found that 79% of the EEA employees working full time in the UK would be ineligible to work in the UK under the skills and salary threshold that the Government want to impose. As a former Liverpool City Council worker who worked in adult social care, I know only too well the crucial work that carers undertake, often without recognition, on low pay and with zero-hours and precarious contracts. I urge the Government to rework the shortage occupation list to include these jobs.
I want to live in a country that welcomes immigrants and the contribution that they make and that offers a refuge to those who need it. I support all the Lords amendments, but especially the call for an impact assessment for our care sector as a matter of urgency to provide the actual data on how the proposed legislation will affect the provision.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
I am very conscious of time, so I am going to get stuck in straightaway.
I want to try to cover as many of the Lords amendments as I can, but I want to start by looking at social care. I represent an area where 16,000 people work in social care. I just want to pick up on one of the comments made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson). She made a very eloquent speech, but I will say this. I care about my social care workers. I care about making sure they get the wages they deserve. I care about making sure they have the conditions they deserve. However, the amendment runs a real risk of tagging the social care debate—which we need to have, gloves off, because there are issues we need to discuss in an adult and appropriate way—into the migration debate. If we do that, we run the risk of pigeonholing it and not having the full broad-brush debate we need that covers everything from conditions to pay to the expectations we have of the sector.
Shaun Bailey
I am really sorry, but I have not got the time. I am more than happy to pick up with the hon. Gentleman outside the Chamber if he wishes. [Laughter.] I am always open to a debate, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have been very open-minded in this place.
I am conscious of time, so I will turn to Lords amendment 5 on the IT system. It is important to have this discussion because one thing we have noticed during these times is the digital disconnect—the digital lockout. Hon. and right hon. Members on all sides of the House have pointed that out. I accept the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Minister on the merits of using a digital system, but we need to be really careful that we do not lock a generation out.
I know from my area that there are many people who do not have access to computers and digital. There is a reliance more widely across Government on digital—obviously, we are going into the future and it is going to be there—but we cannot lock people out. From discussions with the Minister, I am heartened by the way in which the Department is open to being agile in that space, but we need to be mindful that we cannot lock out a generation.
I want to wrap up my comments, because I am conscious I have only 30 seconds left, but I will just say this. I stood on a manifesto in my constituency to get Brexit done. I stood on a manifesto to bring in a fair immigration system that my constituents felt ultimately stuck by that principle of fair play. I believe the Bill, unamended, does that. However, there are operational points, which I am sure the Minister will pick up in his winding-up speech, that we need to address. If we do that, we can be absolutely sure that we refine this and make it work for that sense of fair play that my constituents voted for.
David Simmonds
Like my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey), I am very much of the view that the Bill has the purpose of replacing the arrangements we had in the European Union. I will not be supporting the amendments this evening, because I feel very much that the issues highlighted are principally about matters of management and administration of the process, rather than operation of law. That said, I hope those on the Government Front Bench are paying close attention to what has been said across the House this evening about a number of particular points. The two I would especially like to draw attention to are: the circumstances of undocumented children in the care system, and the point about documentary evidence in the hands of those who are applying for settled status.
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his time and attention to the first issue relating to undocumented children. However, we heard Members across the House emphasise the vulnerability of those in the care system to finding themselves at risk of a future Windrush situation because of the retroactive nature of some elements of the applications for settled status. While it is welcome that the Home Office accepts that people will be able to apply in effect out of time—that is a positive thing—it does not address the fundamental problem that a local authority with care responsibilities, or indeed a family member with a special guardianship order for a young person, would face if they do not have the necessary documentation proving that young person’s nationality in obtaining settled status for them in the United Kingdom. Although I think we recognise that that group is a relatively small group, it is vital that their needs are addressed to ensure that we do not, in 10 or 15 years’ time, find ourselves regretting that we did not take more action on that tonight.
Another point which arises from that of course is the one raised by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), which is the significant cost of this. Local authorities paying that cost to the Home Office is simply a cost shunt from one taxpayer to another taxpayer, and I would urge the Home Office to give consideration to ensuring that, for children in care, those costs are either waived or substantially reduced to remove a final barrier.
I will finish on this point, time being tight. A number of Members have raised the issue of documentary evidence in the hands of the citizen. We have seen many examples in all different walks of life where we would have legitimate concerns about whether the digital record keeping, of all kinds of organisations and for all kinds of reasons, is sufficiently accurate. We all hear, as Members of this House, from our constituents about the issues that that causes them in their day-to-day life. For people who may be refugees, who may be facing a degree of digital exclusion or for whom English is not a first language, that is an even greater problem. I am reassured by the message from the Home Office that everybody who makes an application will receive a written response, with a number on it, that provides evidence of the status that has been granted, but I think it would be useful for all of us to hear a bit more in due course from the Home Office about how it proposes to ensure that that is something people appreciate the value of, and that it is kept and preserved so that the evidence is there for the future.
The UK has much to be proud of in the way that we respond to immigration. It is right that we keep this tight to the matters under consideration, but I trust that colleagues have heard the concerns across the House and that the Minister will address them in his summing up.
Kevin Foster
This has been an interesting and fascinating debate, which has mostly been reflective and reasonable. I hope colleagues will appreciate though that, in the seven and a half minutes I have, I will not be able to respond to every single point that has been raised.
I will start with the themes, and we have again had a lengthy debate on social care. I was pleased to hear the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), say he agreed with the MAC. He will recall the evidence that Brian Bell gave to the Public Bill Committee that considered this Bill, and I am glad to hear that he now agrees with that. I would say, however, that we are being clear again that the MAC has been free to make its own reviews and commissions, and to produce an annual report that can then be considered by this House. It will be able to do that independently, and it will almost certainly provide commentary on social care. To set up a body that is independent and free to make its own decisions, and then tell it all the reviews it needs to do does not make a great deal of sense. Similarly, we are keen that it is there, and it can be lobbied, including by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous), about areas that it may wish to consider of importance. As we keep on saying, if the lesson people have taken from the last few months is that the solution to social care is to give employers an unlimited opportunity to recruit at the minimum wage, they have really taken the wrong lesson.
Moving on to the issues of modern slavery, we have again had some impassioned speeches and some very well-informed ones, particularly from my right hon. Friends the Members for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) and for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). Again, I would say that we have obviously made the changes to guidance. We will bring forward those changes to guidance and have them in place on 1 January. He will appreciate why we will not do it before then, because people will still have free movement rights and we should respect that. But certainly we are happy to engage more widely around the position on what we can do and where we can ensure that the support these victims need is available to them, particularly as we remove the distinction between EEA victims who have free movement rights and non-EEA victims who do not, subject to the caveat that we will of course always look to see if a victim of modern slavery is eligible for the European settlement scheme.
Turning to the issues of family reunion and resettlement, I again point out that there are provisions under the UK’s migration rules that, certainly under part 8, go wider than purely affecting parents with children. We are in negotiations with the European Union, and the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), is actively looking at what we can do. If we can get bilateral arrangements, then fantastic, but does it make sense in future to have a different set of rules for people in EEA countries versus those in the rest of the world? That is the core of this Bill, which is about free movement rights. If there is an agreement—a reciprocal arrangement—in place, then that would go beyond what we have as our baseline rules. Now that we have left the European Union, with the transition period and free movement coming to an end, whatever settlement we have in future—there is a debate to be had in this House about our asylum system, and we will have it at more length in the near future—it does not make sense to have a distinction between someone whose position is in the EEA and someone whose position is, for example, in Turkey, unless there are reciprocal arrangements that justify that difference of treatment.
The issue of children in care has rightly been a subject of some debate. I hear the point that has just been made about identification. Let me be clear: EUSS does not require a passport or an ID card; alternative measures can be used to prove entitlement through documentation. However, that issue is not particularly caused by EUSS because today you would need the same challenge to identify whether someone is a UK national, an EEA national or a rest-of-the-world national, given the impact that that has on free movement rights. However, we are happy to continue working with local authorities to see how we can help them to tackle these issues, and to work with high commissions to ensure that those who deserve their status receive it.
As we have said, there is a range of provisions around late applications and those who should make an application but do not. This is not just about children in care. We also include those under 18. If a parent does not make an application, and, at a later time, the child reaches the age of majority and they have to do a compliant environment check, for example, and discover that it has not been made, we would see that as a reasonable ground for a late application. As touched on, there is no specific time limit to that provision.
On detention, we have outlined our arguments. I am conscious that there are strong feelings on this in the House. We all want to see people swiftly moved out of detention and, if they have no right to be in this country, to be removed from it. We want detention to be used as a last resort. Its use has been declining over the past few years. That is partly because we cannot guarantee that a country in sub-Saharan Africa, for example, will issue us with travel documents for the person to be returned to it within the timeframe. In particular, we have to be clear that there is no ability to put someone in detention for no reason. We have to have a lawful basis for doing so, and that can only be where there is a reasonable prospect of removal or a threat to the public—although I accept that only a very small number of people are serious foreign national offenders.
On physical documentation, we are moving towards more digital statuses. For example, we are looking to see where we can use public services to automatically check status. In recent months, we have seen the advantage of EU citizens who already have EUSS—although they are not yet required to have it—being able to share that online and digitally when doing a range of checks, at a time when a face-to-face meeting to do so may be a lot less desirable. As touched on, it will not just be EEA nationals with status under EUSS who will be using digital status—we also intend the route for British nationals overseas, who will also be moving to digital. As touched on, countries such as Australia have had a system like this in place for some time. It was interesting to hear the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) talk about the idea of digital passports. We are starting to look to the future where people may well travel on their biometrics and with digital identities rather than travelling purely on passports—although that is probably a few years away given that it would require technology being reciprocated in other nations.
I particularly enjoyed some of the speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) hit the nail on the head: this Bill is about delivering a manifesto commitment. This Bill is about ending free movement, as voted for in the general election and in the referendum back in 2016. It is not there to have the whole range of debate around immigration, but I respect the fact that people took the chance to do that. This Bill is about delivering a manifesto commitment, and that is why we should remove these amendments, which do not go to that core goal.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Before I put the Question, I would like to say that I am expecting some Divisions this evening, and there is a distinction between “should” and “must”. When I say “should”, it is guidance; when I say “must”, you must do it. If there is a Division, those sitting on the Front Benches must leave by the door in front of me; everybody else must leave by the door behind me. It is not optional. Please keep social distancing throughout; if you can touch the person in front of you, you are standing too close.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
In order to observe social distancing, the Reasons Committee will meet in Committee Room 12. Will those leaving the Chamber do so socially distanced?
Railway Station in Gamesley
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of the residents of High Peak calling for a railway station to be built in Gamesley. My long-standing petition, both online and on paper, has received strong local support, with over 30% of Gamesley’s adult population signing it. The people of Gamesley were first promised a railway station 52 years ago. I believe it is time to deliver on that promise.
The petition states:
The petition of the residents of High Peak,
Declares that the people of Gamesley were promised a railway station in 1968 to help residents commute on the Manchester to Glossop line; notes that a railway station would improve local transport connections by easing parking pressures at Dinting, shortening commuting times to Manchester, and reducing traffic around Glossop and Tintwistle; and further declares that the cost of a railway station would be modest for the Government and transformative for the life chances of residents.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to prioritise the reallocation of funds to build a railway station in Gamesley, transforming the lives of Gamesley’s residents.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002611]
Vaccine Misinformation Online
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
Mr Deputy Speaker, may I thank you and Mr Speaker for granting this debate? It is great to see Members from across the House in attendance this evening, and I hope that the issue that I am going to talk about will have widespread cross-party support.
I will cut straight to the chase: I have no time whatsoever for so-called anti-vaxxers, but I am afraid that the swelling evidence we have seen over the past few months of the pernicious impact of misinformation about vaccines now demands our attention, and it demands action.
Day after day, week after week in this place, we rightly come together to debate and discuss the best ways we can get on top of this virus and, ultimately, defeat it. Each one of us in this place knows that there is no silver-bullet solution to this public health and economic crisis, but we also know that identifying a clinically safe and effective vaccine is the damned nearest we are likely to get. However, I am afraid that the rapid and incessant corrosion of public confidence in vaccines propagated by the anti-vax movement risks threatening the success of the most powerful future tool we could have in our armoury.
Let me say at the outset that I am not against scrutiny of vaccines or people raising legitimate questions that may need answering. The public have a right to scrutinise vaccination policy as much as any other Government policy, but that must be done in an informed and measured way, based on facts rather than nonsensical conspiracy theories involving Bill Gates, or anyone else for that matter. Part of that process has to involve the Government being much more proactive about countering some of the scare stories and falsehoods peddled by the anti-vax movement, which play on people’s understandable fears.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is making great progress, and he is talking about an issue that is of severe importance to my constituency, which has a 10% lower than average vaccination rate for measles, mumps and rubella. The misinformation that is being spread is palpable, and it is dangerous not only to schoolchildren but to adults. Will he therefore expand a little on the role of education in ensuring that we can inform people and re-energise their understanding and confidence that they are taking vaccines that will help them?
Chris Elmore
I agree with the hon. Gentleman and thank him for that intervention, for two reasons. First, it is very worrying that the UK no longer has measles-free status. That is a real worry for us all. Secondly, on education, there is a huge piece of work to be done where people are rightly questioning vaccine development processes. We are taught that it takes many years to develop vaccines. However, what people are not acknowledging through their legitimate questions is that the whole world is now looking for a vaccine. There is more funding and more availability of scientists working towards trying to solve this problem, so I agree with the hon. Gentleman entirely.
In private, I think even Ministers would agree that far too much of the Government’s response to the crisis has been typified by being too slow: too slow to lockdown, too slow to support business, too slow to test and trace effectively—but possibly too fast to Barnard Castle. But when all is said and done, I genuinely appreciate the huge pressure Ministers have been under over the past seven months. Mistakes are inevitable and hindsight is all too often a wonderful thing. The message I want to send to those on the Government Benches is that when it comes to the anti-vax movement, we do not need the benefit of hindsight. We simply cannot afford to be too slow yet again. We know that dangerous misinformation is eroding public trust in a potential future vaccine. We know that a lot of misinformation is being spread online and we know that the social media giants are systematically failing to act.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech on a very timely topic. I was a paediatric physiotherapist and I have seen the devastating effects of brain damage caused by simple diseases such as measles. Does he agree that we need to publicise the lasting ill effects of measles and long covid, and demonstrate the benefits of vaccines?
Chris Elmore
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I have been contacted by other Members who could not attend this evening. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) has received correspondence from parents saying that they will not have the MMR, for reasons that can only be deemed to be false. As I said to the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) and as I am sure the Minister will say, it is perfectly legitimate to question vaccines. What is not legitimate is to base views on falsehoods. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) is quite right, through her professional career before coming to this place, that catching measles can have a long-term negative impact.
With the benefit of foresight, and given the additional oxygen that the wild, ill-informed and baseless conspiracy theories will inevitably continue to receive over the next six months, the Government must bring forward a holistic cross-Government plan to counter this growing movement and bring the social media giants to heel. The anti-vax movement is nothing new—in fact, it has been around since the days of smallpox—but what we must not lose sight of in 2020 is the exponential levels of oxygen that the internet and in particular social media platforms give to such damaging falsehoods. As chair of the all-party group on social media, I have been keenly following the activities of various platforms since the pandemic began. It must be said that many sites have been doing some really positive work to try to promote reliable sources of information at a time when the need to tackle misinformation could scarcely be more crucial. Yet what many of the social media giants are repeatedly failing to do is proactively take down the burgeoning levels of misinformation about coronavirus vaccines spread on their platforms.
Anti-vax misinformation may not be displayed on billboards around the country, but growing evidence suggests it is starting to reach and influence as many people as if it were. We have already seen this digital pandemic spilling out on to our streets. The frankly scary protests we are seeing in ever greater numbers should alarm us all and underline the need for decisive action.
Jim Shannon
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing forward this topical and pertinent issue. The Centre for Countering Digital Hate says that 31% of the British public would be hesitant to have a coronavirus vaccine if one becomes available. Does he not agree that that is incredibly disheartening? The Government must wholeheartedly, with transparent information, enter into this online debate now before people’s minds are warped by anti-vaxxers who have had success in seeing MMR take-up drop from 95% to 87%. We cannot allow them to take hold of the coronavirus debate, given the massive consequences for the general public right across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Chris Elmore
I thank the hon. Gentleman. I have done significant work with the CCDH over recent months to try to look at this very issue. He may have taken my very next sentence almost word for word—would you believe it, Mr Deputy Speaker?—so I will not repeat it, but I agree with him. The serious point is that we need to tackle the issue now, through Members of Parliament, the Government, the official Opposition and the smaller parties, such as the one he represents. We all have a duty in this House to make sure we get the truth out about vaccine development and all its benefits.
Online vaccine misinformation is not merely a risk to those individuals who will not be vaccinated; it presents a risk to each and every one of our constituents and their loved ones, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said. The CCDH’s study showed that anti-vax social media accounts have 58 million followers, and that number is growing rapidly. The 147 largest accounts have amassed more than 7.8 million new followers since 2019, representing a staggering increase of 19%.
Facebook is overwhelmingly the leading host of such potentially dangerous information, but that platform is by no means alone. Across YouTube, Instagram, Twitter and various other popular social media sites, this virus of misinformation now presents a real threat to our ability to control the real and deadly coronavirus. It is clear that that is borne out in our communities. Research from the Royal Society for Public Health shows that as many as two in five parents with children under 18 in the UK have reported exposure to negative messages about vaccination online sometimes or often.
The problem did not arise overnight, yet it is exponentially on the rise and has, in part, been fuelled by many oxygenators in the public eye. The list of celebrities who have shared anti-vax content or their anti-vax views online grows painfully longer as we continue to respond to this crisis—Madonna, Lewis Hamilton, Novak Djokovic and Kanye West are just some of the biggest names with the largest followings. When we delve deeper into this web, the number of influential people helping to propagate at best ill-informed and at worst downright conspiracy theorist nonsense is truly alarming. I know that several celebrities have since clarified their stance after public pressure, but that is often when much of the damage has already been done. It is not surprising that the World Health Organisation found last year that vaccine hesitancy was one of the top 10 threats to global public health.
Politicians have a role too, of course. It is not useful to have a President of the United States who increasingly gives the impression that he is rushing to approve a vaccine for political expediency, rather than purely for the sake of public health. That only further corrodes trust in the international scientific community, who I have no doubt are working with the utmost integrity and precision. That shows why the rigorous process through which a vaccine receives approval urgently needs to be better communicated to the public. People need to feel reassured about the safeguards that are in place to ensure that new treatments and vaccines meet robust national and international standards. Ministers say that they are doing that, but this strategy is being enveloped in the increasingly chaotic communications that emanate from No. 10 and right across Government.
I have seen how challenging messaging on this issue can be. Since repeatedly raising issues around anti-vaxxers in this place and beyond, I have received countless messages from people actively promoting the conspiracy theories. At one point, there was even a suggestion that I was no better than the Nazis. For me, that has only underlined how important it is that we take much firmer action to counter much of the ill-informed nonsense we see online.
As I have repeatedly said, the social media giants are largely failing proactively to take down the burgeoning levels of misinformation about coronavirus vaccines that is shared and promoted on their platforms. I welcome Facebook’s decision last week to ban anti-vax adverts from its platform, but that plainly does not go far enough. We are now seven months into this pandemic, and Facebook has continually dragged its feet on anti-vax misinformation. Banning ads alone will not starve the many anti-vax Facebook groups of the oxygen they thrive on. The fact that Mark Zuckerberg is still willing to trouser money from ads that push back against Government policies that promote vaccines underlines just how much further we have to go. Mr Zuckerberg has said that Facebook will not actively take down all anti-vax misinformation. For me, that would represent a breach of the statutory duty of care that the Government’s new legislation is set to impose on the tech giants next year.
As has become typical with Mr Zuckerberg, instead of providing clear leadership and action, he is offering mere qualification and dangerous prevarication. If he does so because of financial concerns, that is shameful. If he does so because he actually believes it, that is terrifying. It is pleasing to see that Facebook, Twitter and others are starting to hide posts with warnings when claims are disputed or palpably false. I firmly believe that regardless of who has posted the content, they should continue do so without fear or favour. Whether it is posted by Presidents, F1 drivers or Joe Bloggs from No. 73, this poison of misinformation must be countered before it is allowed to become yet more potent.
I know that the Government have held meetings with representatives from the social media companies on this issue, and I would be grateful if the Minister could outline the outcome of those discussions. In July, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care met Sir Nick Clegg—formerly of this parish, and now Facebook’s vice-president for global affairs and communications—about this issue. I have repeatedly asked for clarity about the outcome of that meeting. I have been told by the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), via written questions that a “wide-ranging discussion” took place and that the Government are working with Facebook to
“promote positive messages about vaccination.”
Today, I ask the Minister to go into more detail about that wide-ranging discussion and the precise firm commitments that were made. In particular, was section 230 of the US Communications Decency Act 1996 discussed? What changes, other than those that I have stated, has Facebook implemented since that meeting?
Social media companies can do more. Only this week, YouTube updated its medical misinformation policy and now prohibits content that includes claims about covid-19 vaccinations that contradict expert consensus, local health authorities or the World Health Organisation. For example, content claiming that a vaccine will kill people or implant a microchip in a recipient’s body will be removed under the expanded policy.
YouTube says it has done that to allow it to take robust action should anti-vaccination conspiracy theories continue to grow as progress towards a potential vaccine is made. Of course, we will have to see how proactively it is enforced, but it is a really welcome step that will help to dilute the deluge of misinformation that is plaguing many platforms. I commend YouTube for its action and I urge the other big players to follow its lead and go further where necessary.
Misinformation is just one of the many dangers that people face online, which is why I have been calling for Government action on online harms since I first set up the APPG in 2018. The online harms White Paper is certainly a step in the right direction, but the pandemic has underlined how delaying the legislation only allows pent-up problems to deepen before our very eyes.
We know that social media giants will not adopt the changes that we all need without them being written into law, so why are we waiting so long for that to happen? Social media platforms need to have a statutory duty of care for their users, and people must be provided with the same level of safety online as offline, but the changes that the Government will hopefully implement in the coming months cannot stop there. Ministers must establish a social media health alliance to fund research and education initiatives and establish clearer guidance for the public.
When we consider how quickly technology and social media have changed in the past decade, we can imagine how unrecognisable they could be by 2025, 2030 or further in the future. Funding research through a health alliance would us help to stay ahead of the game and aware of any emerging threats, and it would give us much needed time to take action. No hon. Member would say that cyber-space has not rapidly got out of control. That wild west will continue to grow yet wilder unless we fund vital research foresight.
We do not have to fund it, however. Again, that is where social media giants need to be made to step up and fulfil their moral responsibilities. The alliance can be funded by, say, a small 0.5% levy on the profits that social media platforms make. Social media users generate multimillion-pound profits for the tech giants every year; the least they can do is reinvest a negligible portion of their prosperity to help to improve the health, well-being and safety of their customers.
What else can the Government do? I understand that the Cabinet Office is working closely with the WHO and academics from the University of Cambridge to help to counter some of the antivax discourse, and I am aware that there are already some good examples of the Government trying to do this. The University of Cambridge’s new Go Viral! game, supported by the Cabinet Office, aims to help the public to better understand the techniques used to spread fake news and to identify and disregard misinformation related to the coronavirus pandemic. That is a good individual example of how communications can be tailored to different audiences to help to counter misinformation about vaccines and covid-19 more widely, but the Government need many more examples that are suitable for a range of audiences and much more widely promoted.
It would be useful if the Minister gave the House an update on that work and detail what practical steps the Government are putting in place to ensure that the issue is being taken seriously. I know that the Department is working with Public Health England, NHS Improvement and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport on those issues, but I would like to hear more about what the Government are doing with the devolved Administrations.
The WHO calls the three key components that contribute to a decision not to vaccinate the three c’s: confidence, complacency and convenience. There can be confidence in the safety and efficiency of a vaccine, but also in the system that regulates and provides it. Complacency happens because, due to the success of vaccination, many people do not have experience of diseases that vaccination prevents, such as polio or tuberculosis. Therefore, they underestimate the potential impact of catching the disease. Convenience includes factors such as the cost and ease of obtaining a vaccination. When the Minister responds, I would be grateful if she explained precisely how the Government are addressing each of the three c’s. If they are not, I would like her to explain why.
We have all seen how Government communications can reach a wide audience when the Government have the political will to give campaigns the resources they need, from “Get ready for Brexit” to “Stay at home, protect the NHS, save lives”. Government information can reach a wide audience if Ministers put their minds to it, so today I am calling on the Minister to bring forward an holistic, six-month, cross-Government strategy to better inform the public about the vigorous clinical procedures that are being followed in approving any covid-19 vaccine. Whether it be through myth-busting or making the process more transparent to the public at large, the Government need to start getting back on the front foot. A tidal wave of misinformation has already arrived on our shores, and without a clear communication strategy in advance of providing an effective and safe vaccine, I fear that a further tsunami of anti-vax falsehoods will fatally undermine the public health and economic wellbeing of our country. The Government promised to do “whatever it takes” to help the British people through this crisis. We know the threat that these anti-vax falsehoods pose, and it is self-evident that Ministers must do whatever it takes to counter this damaging discourse. We can and must break the circuit of this digital pandemic. If we fail, yet more lives and livelihoods could be lost.
The Minister for Digital and Culture (Caroline Dinenage)
I would like to start by thanking the hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) for tabling this really important topic for debate, and for his wider work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on social media, which does incredibly important work to draw attention to this vital issue. Vaccine misinformation and, indeed, disinformation are an important issue that the Government and I take incredibly seriously. It is vital that all UK citizens have access to accurate information; it is a key part of our democracy. At their worst, disinformation and misinformation can threaten our democratic freedoms and cause harm to individuals and to our society.
During a time of national crisis, it is even more important that people have access to accurate information about covid-19. Throughout the pandemic, really harmful misinformation and disinformation of many kinds have been observed online, including conspiracy theories about 5G, fake claims about the health risks of wearing masks and the promotion of dangerous and false covid-19 cures. These are just a few of the many falsehoods that have been circulating online, and their impact is not limited to the online environment. They have real-life consequences, ranging from people needlessly spending money on items to protect themselves, to an increased risk of individuals not following crucial public health advice and thereby putting their own and others’ health at risk. And of course, we saw the disgraceful acts of vandalism and harassment that were spurred on by the groundless 5G conspiracy theories.
We are also aware that some people are almost certainly exploiting covid-19 to target minority groups online. I recently met members of Britain’s East and South East Asian Network, who highlighted the increase in online racism that their members had experienced during covid-19. We are absolutely clear that there is no place for racism, offline or online. Hateful content on digital platforms is a growing problem in the UK. It inflicts harm on victims, creates and exacerbates social divisions and erodes trust in platforms. We cannot continue to put up with it.
Worryingly, as the hon. Gentleman has said, we are seeing significant amounts of vaccine misinformation online. Confidence in vaccines across the UK remains high, but it is only natural that people should have questions about the vaccines that are available to them and about how they have been developed. However, it is simply unacceptable that some individuals online should seek to exploit citizens’ legitimate questions and deliberately create and share vaccine falsehoods for their own personal, political, or, worst of all, financial gain. We have seen a range of baseless and, in some instances, absurd narratives being shared about vaccines, including by individuals in the public eye, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned. They are much like those that we saw around 5G, and I will not give further time and attention to those groundless theories by repeating them here.
However, the act of sharing such falsehoods should not be confused with well-intentioned citizens asking perfectly understandable questions, as the hon. Gentleman said, including about how safe vaccines are. I remember the considerable misinformation that began to circulate about the MMR vaccine and its suggested link to autism in the early 2000s. I was a first-time mum at the time, and I found this false information, and the rate at which it spread, hugely unsettling and hugely worrying. That was of course in the days when social media was in its infancy. It did make a huge difference to a number of us who were mums at the time as to whether we would get our children immunised, and I am sure that it led to a rise in the number of measles cases subsequently. I urge those who have questions to seek advice from reputable sources such as the NHS and Public Health England, and to speak to trusted healthcare professionals.
Jim Shannon
I believe, as I think other Members would agree, that we need to have one message coming from all four Administrations—Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and England—together. It is very important that that happens. The hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) referred to it. It is a critical factor so that we all hear the same story no matter what part of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland we live in.
Caroline Dinenage
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We do all have to be singing from the same hymn sheet and giving out the same information.
We are taking a very proactive whole-of-Government approach to this. My Department—the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport—has the responsibility for monitoring and analysing anti-vaccine narratives. My officials are working very closely with the vaccine taskforce, which comes out of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, while the Department of Health and Social Care is responsible for delivering effective communications around the vaccine. I meet my ministerial colleagues very frequently on this.
First and foremost, we are working with partners in the NHS, including GPs and nurses, to explain to patients the importance of vaccines. I am pleased that many organisations in the media and social media are acting very responsibly in providing accurate information. We are also working at pace to ensure that accurate information is available and accessible online, but we also have to address the swathes of inaccurate and misleading content alongside it. That is why we stood up the cross-Whitehall counter-disinformation unit in March as part of the Government response to covid-19.
Anthony Mangnall
My hon. Friend is making a very important point. I am sorry to have two bites at the cherry, but the point is that there is a knock-on impact from what people read online and then spread within their communities. Those who do not have access to online services are, in certain cases, hearing information first-hand from people they know, respect and are likely to believe. What direction might the Government be going in to try to counter that as a source of information?
Caroline Dinenage
As I say, we are working with a whole range of other Government Departments. The Department of Health is very much leading on the communication of this, and my Department is leading on the liaison with the platforms to ensure that tackling anti-vaccination messaging remains one of the key priorities of the cross-Whitehall counter-disinformation unit that we lead. We have been working with partners across Government to tackle this.
As the hon. Member for Ogmore said, we have seen some of the major social media companies update their terms of service and introduce new measures. Most recently, YouTube extended its policies to address false information. These are steps in the right direction. However, this year the Secretary of State for DCMS asked the major platforms to explore how they need to go further to stop the spread of this content. More needs to be done, more must be done, and we will continue to put pressure on these companies to take the necessary action against misinformation in all its guises.
It is really key that users are empowered with the knowledge and skills they need to keep themselves safe online as well. This includes how we recognise and report false and misleading content. We can all do our bit, whether it is fact-checking something before we share it or reporting something that is potentially harmful. Importantly, the Government are committed to publishing an online media literacy strategy that will set out our plans to ensure a co-ordinated and strategic approach to online media literacy, education and awareness for all users. That is due to be published next spring.
While covid has demonstrated the positive power of the internet, we have all seen that the increased amount of time spent online provides an opportunity for the spread of falsehood. The Government remain absolutely steadfast in our determination to tackle misinformation and disinformation in all its forms.
Question put and agreed to.
Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote
Member eligible for proxy vote | Nominated proxy |
|---|---|
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
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 |
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab) | Zarah Sultana |
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
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 |
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (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 |
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con) | Rebecca Harris |
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) | Dawn Butler |
Mims Davies (Mid Sussex) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab) | Rachel Hopkins |
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Ms Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con) | Jeremy Hunt |
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con) | Maria Caulfield |
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (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 |
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP) | Ben Lake |
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 |
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
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 |
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con) | William Wragg |
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab) | Kate Osborne |
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
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 |
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) | Zarah Sultana |
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab) | 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 |
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (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 |
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 |
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC) | Ben Lake |
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 |
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con) | Robert Courts |
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
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 |
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab) | Dawn Butler |
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Warburton (Somerton and Frome) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC) | Ben Lake |
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Coronavirus) (Extension of the Relevant Period) ) REGULATIONS 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before I call the Minister to move the motion, I point out that if Members sitting in the Public Gallery want to speak at any time, they will have to come forward, or the microphones will not pick up what they are saying. If Members have any speaking notes, please send them by email to Hansard; do not send the hard copy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (Coronavirus) (Extension of the Relevant Period) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 1031).
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. The regulations were laid before the House on 24 September 2020. The coronavirus pandemic is the biggest threat that our country has faced in decades. It is important for our economy that we address the hardship that people are facing up and down the country. Since the pandemic emerged, the Government have taken swift action to save lives; to limit the spread of disease so as to avoid its overwhelming the NHS; and to mitigate the damage to the economy. Businesses have received billions in loans, tax deferrals, business rates relief, and grants, to support them and to help save jobs. The Government’s recently launched winter economy plan has a further package of targeted measures to provide ongoing essential support.
The Government recognise that while most businesses have been able to reopen, and many have received significant financial support, some continue to face uncertainty and financial difficulties. This statutory instrument will help companies by extending most of the temporary measures introduced by the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020, which were due to expire on 30 September. These extensions to various parts of insolvency and company law will protect companies from aggressive creditor action, promote company rescue, and give businesses greater flexibility by allowing them to hold their annual general meetings in a way that is consistent with social distancing measures.
The temporary insolvency measures being extended are the suspension on serving statutory demands and the restrictions on filing petitions to wind up companies, which are being extended until 31 December 2020; certain modifications to the moratorium provisions of the temporary moratorium rules, which are being extended until 30 March 2021; and the small supplier exemption from termination clause provisions, which is also being extended until 30 March 2021.
The temporary suspension on serving statutory demands, and the restrictions on winding-up petitions, have helped many essentially viable companies during these difficult trading times by removing the threat of aggressive creditor action at a time when many businesses are not able to operate at full capacity. We need to continue to keep people safe as businesses continue to adapt. Extending these measures will give confidence and support to companies doing their best to stay open in these unprecedented times. We will continue to monitor the situation closely before making any decisions on further extensions.
Hon. Members will know that the Government have already extended the temporary suspension of the right of commercial landlords to forfeit the tenancy of businesses, and that will give further protection to tenants who have only recently been able to restart trading after the restrictions introduced because of the pandemic. Most landlords and tenants have been working together to reach agreements on debt obligations, but there remains a risk that some landlords may use aggressive debt recovery tactics against companies struggling to meet rent commitments in difficult trading conditions. The extension of the statutory demand and winding-up provisions will be welcomed particularly by commercial tenants, but it applies to all business sectors of the economy.
The new company moratorium introduced by the 2020 Act gives financially distressed companies breathing space from creditor enforcement while they seek a rescue. I am pleased that companies—particularly smaller ones—are beginning to make use of it. In normal economic conditions, the moratorium is intended to work with important criteria, which must be met before the company can enter into it. Those criteria protect the integrity of the moratorium, which should be used only for those companies with a realistic prospect of rescue. Hon. Members will know that it was recognised during debate on the Act that if those criteria were temporarily relaxed, it would help fundamentally viable companies that had been impacted by the pandemic to make use of the moratorium.
These regulations extend some of those temporary relaxations until 30 March 2021. They allow a company subject to a winding-up petition to access a moratorium simply by filing the relevant documents in court, rather than having to make an application to court. The regulations also disapply the rule that prevents a company from entering a moratorium if it had been subject to a company voluntary arrangement, been in administration, or been in a previous moratorium within the past 12 months. The regulations also extend the temporary administrative rules for the moratorium, which are in schedule 4 of the Act and enable the moratorium to operate.
The final measure in the insolvency framework that is to be extended is the small company supplier exemption from the prohibition of termination clauses. This instrument extends it until 30 March 2021. Those termination clauses are often found in supply contracts between businesses. They are triggered when a company commences a formal insolvency or rescue procedure, and allow the supplier to terminate supply immediately. They can also be used by suppliers to demand ransom-type payments to maintain the supply of essential goods or services, many of which may be vital if the company undergoing rescue is to continue trading, and the withdrawal of which could jeopardise any rescue. The prohibition of those clauses means that contracted suppliers cannot terminate contracts or take other steps, such as demanding additional payments, simply because a company has entered an insolvency procedure or moratorium.
The measures give an important protection to distressed companies while they are attempting a rescue, but in the current circumstances, those provisions could hit smaller suppliers harder, potentially endangering their own solvency, and it continues to be right temporarily to exempt them from the prohibition, and to allow them to terminate supplies, should they need to protect their own business.
Finally, the 2020 Act introduced temporary flexibilities around the manner in which companies and other qualifying bodies could hold annual general meetings, allowing them to balance the requirements of legislation and their constitutional arrangements with the prevailing coronavirus restrictions, and so safeguard the wellbeing of their shareholders and members. That is crucial to the operation of the UK’s strong corporate governance regime, which makes sure that company boards are fully held to account by their members. Without this extension, that scrutiny would be made increasingly difficult.
The season for annual general meetings is largely behind us, but more than 100 large companies still have to hold AGMs before the end of the year. To that we must add the multitude of smaller companies, charitable incorporated organisations and mutual societies that have similar obligations. The extension of these provisions will give them comfort that they can continue to convene annual general meetings safely and consistently with their legal obligations.
The package of temporary measures introduced by the 2020 Act in June has been widely welcomed by businesses at this critical time. They tell us that these measures have been essential in supporting businesses. Many companies are now able to trade without the threat of aggressive creditor action being taken against them, and have new tools available to help them restructure and rescue themselves. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I think it is the first time I have done so. It is good to be here. While we are very supportive of the regulations, we could have saved all Members here time—in fact, I was nearly late—because we tabled an amendment to the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill that would have made these extensions. We pressed Ministers, both in private and during the passage of the Bill, to extend the time periods, because we foresaw that businesses would need this help for longer.
We welcome the extension to the provisions, and indeed called for it. It is absolutely right that companies should continue to benefit from these provisions while experiencing financial difficulties at this unprecedented time. It is now clear that they will be living alongside those difficulties for a lot longer than was foreseen when the Bill was first drafted. We agreed at the time that emergency legislation was required, and we worked closely with the Government to bring it about, but we made it clear during the passage of the Bill that any previously viable business that was forced to call on any provision of the legislation would have been fundamentally failed.
The Minister spoke about those viable businesses; many businesses now feel that they have been left on the scrapheap, and have been consigned to being unviable, when in normal times they would have been very viable indeed.
I have a few questions about some of the measures. Does the Minister think that we will be here again in a few weeks’ or months’ time to extend these provisions further, at the end of December 2020—or March 2021, for some of the provisions? If so, would it not have made sense for us to have done that here and now, and just extended some of these provisions further?
A particular worry to us, and something I know the Institute of Directors has raised with the Government and with us on a number of occasions, is that the one measure that it is particularly concerned about, the suspension of wrongful trading, is not being extended. That was included in the original Act, but it is the only temporary measure from the Act that is not being extended. That will open the door for aggressive creditors, suppliers, the banks, financial institutions and others to threaten struggling businesses whose cash flow has been damaged by the continuing crisis.
Although there are issues with a moratorium on wrongful trading, it is important in this difficult time that businesses that might be seen as not viable, but that are viable in normal times, are given the discretion of a moratorium on wrongful trading. Can the Minister tell us the rationale behind that? Why was that measure right in June, but not now? I do not really understand. Those businesses are severely impacted by the lack of safety net for them at the moment, just at the time that they need that extra support—the extension of the furlough, the extension of sector supports, of cash grants and so on. It is all being pulled away from them at the wrong time, and the new measures coming in from the Chancellor are much reduced from those that were available earlier in the year,.
As we see regional and local lockdowns—I have yet to see whether that will come into my own area in the next 24 hours—businesses will need more support than is currently on offer from the Government. The cash grants are worth about one third of what they were back in March and April. Without that support, we will need to reconsider the wrongful trading provisions that are now leaving many businesses hanging in the wind. Hopefully the Minister can reassure us on some of those points.
Paul Scully
I thank the hon. Member for her contribution to the debate and the constructive way in which she and her party have always tackled this particular area of support for businesses.
To answer those two questions in particular, the hon. Lady asked whether we will be here again, and the answer is, quite possibly. Why are we doing that? It is important that we keep these measures under consideration—for example, the statutory demands and winding-up petitions. There is a balance to be struck at some point, and some landlords are starting to say, “Well, hold on a sec. What about us? What do we do when we are unable to take any rent, even if a business has been trading throughout this period?” It is important that we take consideration and get the balance right; it is better to do that as the situation develops and as we listen, and then to spend a few minutes considering that in this place, rather than just making one blanket consideration.
On wrongful trading, at the beginning of the pandemic company directors faced an uncertain future regarding trading conditions, but now that the suspension has been in place for seven months, they have had time to make a better assessment of the impact of the pandemic on their company’s viability, notwithstanding what the hon. Lady said about further restrictions in some places, including her constituency. I totally understand her particular consideration as a constituency MP for those businesses in those areas, but the end of the suspension also represents the return of an important protection for creditors.
Given the situation with the other measures that we introduced in the original Act, in terms of the moratorium and the restructuring ability, there are more procedures in place for companies to put a pause on permanent insolvency, rather than having to get to the position where they may be trading in insolvency. Wrongful trading was used as a deterrent in most examples, rather than actual enforcement. There were not many examples of enforcement of wrongful trading, because companies could have looked to other means before they needed to get there.
The points raised in the debate have highlighted the importance of the measures being extended by these regulations. We know that businesses continue to face challenging times right across the country, and it is important that we extend these measures. The regulations will provide much-needed continued support for businesses to concentrate their best efforts on continuing to trade and build on the foundations for economic recovery in the UK.
We have given careful consideration to extending these temporary measures, and the Government will monitor the situation closely before making any decisions about further extensions, including consulting with businesses and their representatives. I thank hon. Members again for their valuable contributions to this debate, and I hope the Committee approves the statutory instrument.
Question put and agreed to.
DRAFT COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY (AMENDMENT) (ENGLAND) (NO. 2) REGULATIONS 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
I remind Members about the social distancing regulations. Spaces available to Members are already clearly marked. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if you could send any speaking notes to hansardnotes@ parliament.uk.
The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment) (England) (No. 2) Regulations 2020.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone.
The regulations were laid before the House on 28 September. If they are made, they will provide for relief from the community infrastructure levy for First Homes—the Government’s proposal to ensure that a sustained and ongoing supply of new homes is available to first-time buyers for a discount of at least 30%. Local authorities will be able to prioritise local residents and key workers, when appropriate, and can increase the discount to 40% or 50% where affordability is most challenging. The properties will maintain their discount when they are sold on to all future purchasers in perpetuity, so the community will continue to benefit for generations to come.
The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 came into force in April of that year. They enable local planning authorities to raise a levy on new development in their local area to fund a wide range of infrastructure to support development. Mandatory relief from CIL can be obtained for charitable developments, self-builders and certain types of affordable housing. The tenures currently benefiting from mandatory relief from CIL include social rent, affordable rent and shared ownership. That relief helps to fund the sale of those properties by the developer below the value that they may be able to achieve on the open market. Discretionary relief from CIL can also be provided for discounted market homes sold at at least 20% below market levels if the CIL authority adopts a policy of offering such relief in its area.
The draft regulations introduce a new mandatory relief from CIL for a new affordable housing tenure, namely First Homes. Introducing the mandatory exemption from CIL for First Homes will ensure that developers are not disadvantaged when delivering this new type of affordable housing tenure as it will receive the same relief from CIL as other forms of affordable housing. Our First Homes policy is the realisation of a manifesto commitment to allow councils to use developer contributions to discount homes in perpetuity. We published a consultation on the proposals on 7 February. It ran for 12 weeks, closing on 1 May, and we formally responded to it on 6 August.
As part of that consultation, we proposed implementing a mandatory exemption for First Homes from CIL in line with that for other forms of affordable housing. A large majority of respondents to the consultation agreed that that would increase the supply of First Homes, representing a strong mandate for proceeding with the proposal. The Committee will be aware that the Government are consulting on fundamental changes to the planning system, including an overhaul of developer contributions. I want to make it clear that the draft regulations make changes to the current system and have no bearing on those consultation proposals.
Turning to the detail of the instrument, regulation 49 of the 2010 CIL regulations provides for a mandatory relief from CIL for housing units that fall into certain categories of affordable housing. The instrument amends regulation 49 to add an additional criterion for CIL relief: the home must be sold for no more than 70% of its market value, with a planning obligation entered into to ensure that that will be the case for all future sales. That is a deliberately broad definition of a First Home. We always intended to put local flexibility at the heart of the policy and do not wish to fetter that flexibility by over-defining the exemption criteria in legislation. We will issue guidance to ensure that more detailed criteria, such as the prioritisation of first-time or local buyers, are implemented.
The draft regulations also specify the clawback period for First Homes—the period during which charging authorities are able to charge CIL if the relief conditions are not adhered to. They state that the clawback period for First Homes will end on the date of first sale, provided all the conditions have been met. We do not consider the seven-year clawback period for other affordable tenures to be appropriate for a product such as First Homes. Our view is that a developer will have fulfilled its obligations at the point that it sold the home for the appropriate discount as long as a legal mechanism to ensure that the discount is passed on exists.
The instrument makes a small amendment to regulation 49A of the 2010 regulations, which allows charging authorities to apply a discretionary relief from CIL for homes sold with a discount of at least 20% of market value—discount market sales, as they are known in national policy. Under the 2010 regulations, the clawback period for that discretionary relief is set at seven years. In the interests of consistency, the draft regulations ensure that the clawback period for discount market sale homes is the same as that for First Homes and ends at the point of the first sale, as long as the conditions are met.
Contributions from developers play an important role in delivering the infrastructure that new homes and local economies require. I assure the Committee that these minor technical amendments are designed to maintain the status quo and not disrupt it. Currently, the vast majority of homes produced by developers as part of their obligatory contributions already enjoy an exemption from CIL. Our policy is not to increase the contributions, but to ensure that, as part of them, a certain proportion of homes are delivered as First Homes. The draft regulations ensure that developers are not unduly penalised for delivering this new type of tenure, and I commend them to the Committee.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank the Minister for his introductory speech.
We will be opposing the statutory instrument for two reasons: first, exempting First Homes sites from paying contributions to the community infrastructure levy will undermine local infrastructure supply and the Government’s claimed commitment to an “infrastructure first” approach; and, secondly, the initiative will reduce the supply of affordable homes and homes for social rent. I will speak about that and my serious concerns about the scheme more widely.
At face value, the First Homes scheme might sound appealing. We all talk about the need to open up opportunities for first-time buyers to purchase good, affordable homes, but this initiative is not the answer. The Government are still in deep denial about the scale of the current housing crisis and the right ways to tackle it. Labour Members share deep concerns about who will benefit from this housing scheme, who it will hurt, and how wider communities will lose out because of it. First Homes is yet another scheme, after a decade of failure, to be put forward by the Conservative Government in recent years that claims to do something about the issue, but definitely does not. The spin attached to the initiative—that it is somehow designed for our key workers—comes from a Secretary of State who believes that a Cornish pasty with a side salad is a regular plated meal across the country.
Although the locked-in 30% discount is attractive at first sight, the fundamental question for real people in real communities is, “30% of what?” The Department has set the income cap for buyers wanting a First Home at £80,000 for homes outside London and £90,000 for those inside it. The median salary in the UK is just over £36,000 a year. Earning £80,000-plus puts someone in the top 5% of earners. On the other hand, the annual income for care workers on the median wage is less than £17,000 a year, as our Prime Minister learned only last month, and 38% of key workers earn less than £10 an hour. Homes bought under the scheme will be utterly out of reach for those key workers—those heroes—who have continuously been at the forefront of the fight against covid-19. It is not just key workers who will not benefit from the scheme; analysis by Shelter suggests that these homes will be out of reach of average earners in 96% of the country.
Even reaching the first step in home ownership is impossible for many. Two thirds of private renters have no savings whatsoever and therefore are utterly unable to raise a deposit. A vast majority of the remaining third have less than £16,000 saved, which is not nearly enough to secure the average home.
Yet again, the Government are twisting the meaning of “affordable” until it loses all credibility with the public. Will the Minister outline what evidence he has that key workers, or any worker not earning well over the average salary, will be helped by this scheme? Does not capping salaries at well over twice the median wage all but guarantee that this scheme will only help those people who are already doing better in our society than most?
The scheme sounds and looks suspiciously like the Starter Homes scheme that began in 2015, which built exactly zero houses for young people who wanted to get on the housing ladder. How many people is this scheme expected to help? The Government proudly boasted that up to 200,000 young people would benefit from the Starter Homes scheme. They are being decidedly less open about the estimates for First Homes.
First Homes will come at the expense of providing other housing, either in the form of existing affordable housing schemes, or homes for social rent. The Government propose that at least 25% of section 106 funding is earmarked for First Homes. Section 106 funding provides not only half of all affordable housing built in the UK, but half of all social housing. Social housing is already critically endangered in this country, with just 6,287 homes for social rent built in 2018-19. But the solution to that, and to the problem of how we house the 1.15 million people on the waiting list for housing, is not to divert more money to homeowners. Making social homes extinct will not reduce the housing crisis, but exacerbate it.
The cost of First Homes is not only to the supply of social housing. The community infrastructure levy allows local authorities to offset the impact of new housing on local infrastructure. The levy is a good and necessary vehicle to help to provide the infrastructure that all of us want in our communities and constituencies up and down the country, be that GP surgeries, green spaces, schools, local highways or public transport, but the draft regulations will ensure that no First Homes involve a contribution to community infrastructure.
Have the Government carried out an impact assessment on what the scheme will cost local authorities with regard to their ability to fund local infrastructure? How does cutting the funding available for local authorities to support new residents fit with the Government’s existing commitment to “infrastructure first”?
As I have said before to the Minister—I say it again—“You cannot cheat your way out of the current housing crisis.” We need to help people to get on the housing ladder. That should be an essential part of our national housing strategy, but it should not happen at the expense of local communities’ ability to build vital infrastructure, and nor should it be to the detriment of those most in need of decent housing. Yet this scheme will do both. For that reason, we oppose the regulations, based on the scheme that is presented to us today.
Christopher Pincher
I regret that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues propose to vote against this small technical amendment, not least because they are essentially setting themselves against the 87% of people in our country, many of whom are young people, who say time and time again, when asked, that they want to own their own home. The measures before the Committee will enable young people more easily to own their own home, but unfortunately the Opposition are choosing to set their sights against that.
The hon. Gentleman cited many numbers in his remarks. May I gently remind him that last year we built 240,000 new homes in our country? We built more social homes—council homes—in one year than the last Labour Government did in 13. We have abolished the housing revenue account cap to allow local authorities to build homes. We have also extended the period within which they can use their right- to-buy receipts. We have therefore taken firm action not only to support the building of new homes, but to build the array of discounted homes that our country needs.
Mike Amesbury
In the last year of the previous Labour Government, 28,000 social homes were built. In the year to which I was referring, the figure was less than 6,300. That is a fact—it is on the record.
Christopher Pincher
The hon. Gentleman knows full well that Wales has been unable to build more council homes in a year than there are members of a Welsh rugby team, so we will not take too many lectures from the Labour party about building homes.
The hon. Gentleman talks about affordable homes, but let me remind him of the affordable homes programme that we announced only last month. We announced £12.3 billion of funding to build affordable homes in our country, which is the largest such cash injection for 15 years—and that is on top of the last affordable homes cash injection. We estimate that, economic conditions allowing, that will build 180,000 new homes, the majority of which will be for discounted or social rent. We have taken a firm stand to build the right homes that our people want and need.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned section 106. He will know that over 80% of local authorities and developers say that the present system is too opaque and too slow, and does not deliver the infrastructure and affordable homes that are required. That is one of the reasons why, in our “Planning for the future” White Paper, we are consulting on a change to the developer contribution levy: from a split between CIL and section 106, to a simple single infrastructure levy that might be set locally. I encourage him and his colleagues to look at that White Paper and the consultation, and to submit their thoughts accordingly.
I am confident that, as a result of the consultation that we undertook earlier this year, which received a great deal of feedback and closed on 1 May, in which 77% of respondents said that these proposals will bring forward more First Homes—they are right—
Christopher Pincher
I am also confident that the proposals that we are considering today are right. I encourage the Committee to support them, and I discourage the Opposition from setting their face against the right to home ownership.
The Chair
Does the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) wish to make a speech?
General Synod (Remote Meetings) (Temporary Standing Orders) Measure
(4 years, 1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Andrew Selous)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the General Synod (Remote Meetings) (Temporary Standing Orders) Measure (HC 879).
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. I reassure Members that we should be able to dispose of this matter reasonably speedily. The Measure will enable the General Synod, which is the legislative body for the Church of England, to meet and conduct its business remotely. The current coronavirus restrictions mean that it is not practically possible for the Synod to meet in the usual way with 500 people from across England gathering in the same place, either over the road in Church House here in London, or in York. In this Parliament, as we are all aware, we have been able to make provision for remote participation in sittings using the orders of the House. However, as the General Synod was created by statute law, it does not have the same freedom, and legislation is required to enable it to meet remotely.
Members may recall that during proceedings on the Coronavirus Bill earlier this year, similar provision was made for local authority meetings. The General Synod is in the same position as those local authorities. Arrangements made under the Measure could allow for all the Synod’s members to participate remotely, but it would also be possible for the Synod to adopt a hybrid approach with some members in the chamber and some joining online. We are, of course, familiar with those arrangements, which we are using here in this Parliament. The precise arrangements that are adopted will need to take account of the relevant regulations and Government guidance as they develop over the coming months.
There is some urgency to this legislation, because the General Synod needs to conduct certain business before the end of the year, including legislation that will give effect to the recommendations of a 2019 report from the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. There are also statutory deadlines that need to be complied with, including approval of the Church of England’s national budget for 2021. If the Measure is approved, the General Synod will meet remotely next month to deal with that other significant business.
Because of the practical issues arising from coronavirus restrictions, as I have mentioned, the Synod met in September to pass this Measure with only a quorum of members attending. Other members who were entitled to attend refrained from exercising their right to come. The Measure was passed by the Synod with no votes against in any of the three Houses—the House of Bishops, the House of Clergy and the House of Laity—and here in Parliament the Ecclesiastical Committee considered the Measure on 6 October and reported that it considered the Measure to be expedient. I hope that we will do similarly today.
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)
I thought I would ask this question early, so that my hon. Friend has time to reflect on it if he needs to. Clause 1(5) describes what happens if an office referred to in subsection (2) is vacant. Is that merely an administrative exercise that does not bestow further powers or change how the Synod operates? It seems to me to be a very precise provision, rather than something that simply concerns the ability to have a virtual meeting.
Andrew Selous
I reassure my hon. Friend that this Measure is purely about enabling the Synod to conduct its business in a hybrid manner so that 500 people do not have to cram into a relatively small room in Church House, which would not be covid secure. This Measure has no impact on doctrine or on any particular Measure of the Church; it is purely about how the Church conducts its business. Elections for bishops and archbishops will take place in the usual way, and none of those things will be changed by the Measure.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Elliott. Normally with Church Measures, I try to find at least one question to ask. However, I am afraid that on this occasion, having read the Measure through, I am stumped. The Opposition are perfectly happy to support it.
Question put and agreed to.
HEALTH PROTECTION (CORONAVIRUS, RESTRICTIONS) (SELF-ISOLATION) (ENGLAND) REGULATIONS 2020
HEALTH PROTECTION (CORONAVIRUS, RESTRICTIONS) (NORTH OF ENGLAND, NORTH EAST AND NORTH WEST OF ENGLAND AND OBLIGATIONS OF UNDERTAKINGS (ENGLAND) ETC.) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin the debate, I would like to remind Members about social distancing; the spaces are clearly marked and unmarked spaces should not be occupied. If anyone in the Public Gallery wishes to speak, it would be really helpful if someone in the body of the Committee swapped places with them so that they can speak to a microphone. Also, Hansard colleagues would be grateful for any speaking notes to be sent to Hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
The Minister for Care (Helen Whately)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Self-isolation) (England) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 1045).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (North of England, North East and North West of England and Obligations of Undertakings (England) Etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 1057).
Helen Whately
I will briefly explain each statutory instrument in turn.
The regulations on self-isolation, SI 2020, No. 1045, came into force on 28 September 2020. They make it a legal requirement to self-isolate if an individual tests positive for coronavirus, or is contacted by NHS Test and Trace and told to self-isolate. Financial penalties have been introduced for non-compliance with the regulations.
The regulations on the protected areas in the north of England, the north-east and north-west of England, as well as obligations of undertakings, SI 2020, No. 1057, came into force on 22 September 2020. They originally delivered a number of amendments to regulations that have since been replaced by the local covid-19 alert level regulations. Now, only amendments to the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Obligations of Undertakings) (England) Regulations 2020 still continue to apply. Those amendments include inserting a definition of “indoors” to the obligations of undertakings regulations. They also amend the obligations of undertakings regulations to add a requirement on certain businesses to take all reasonable measures not to take bookings that would not be in line with certain gathering limits. The new requirements were originally related to relevant premises in areas covered by the north-east and north-west of England regulations. Those regulations have been revoked and the amendments made by SI 2020, No. 1057 now apply in relation to relevant premises in areas covered by Health Protection (Coronavirus, Local COVID-19 Alert Level) (Very High) (England) Regulations 2020.
It has been necessary to maintain the regulations to ensure that the requirements on businesses, as provided under the obligations of undertakings regulations, continue to support the covid-19 response. In particular, they align with and support the new local covid-19 alert level regulations.
Both sets of regulations have been introduced to mitigate the unprecedented impact of the covid-19 pandemic, and I urge the Committee to approve them so that we may continue to use those powers to save lives.
As the amended statutory instrument adds only a definition of “indoors” and a requirement on certain businesses to take all reasonable measures not to take bookings, I will now focus primarily on the regulations on self-isolation. The legal duty to self-isolate is one element of a three-part strategy to increase compliance with self-isolation after a person has been infected by, or exposed to, coronavirus. First, we aim to increase to public understanding of the importance of self-isolation to stopping the spread of the virus, and of the circumstances in which individuals must self-isolate. We have put in place a comprehensive media campaign to increase public awareness of NHS Test and Trace, explaining what it is, why it is important and what the public need to do.
Secondly, we are supporting people to comply by providing assistance to those who may have practical difficulties in self-isolating. NHS Test and Trace officials check in with individuals who have tested positive and who are contacts of cases through follow-up phone calls and text messages to reinforce the importance of self-isolation. They also provide advice and ensure that people have access to support that they need. Where a support need is identified, local authorities play a role in encouraging, educating and supporting compliance. In addition, a test and trace support payment has been introduced to help ensure that people on low incomes self-isolate when they test positive or identify as a contact, and to encourage more people to get tested.
Thirdly, we want to reinforce the seriousness of non-compliance. The regulations therefore introduce new legal duties, along with fixed penalty notices, for those who do not follow the rules. Where there is clear evidence that someone is not following the rules, the police will determine what follow-up action to take and, when necessary, issue fixed penalty notices. Fines start at £1,000 and may increase up to £10,000 for repeat offences. For more serious breaches, fines start at £4,000, increasing up to £10,000. Serious breaches may include where an individual comes into close contact with others and is reckless as to the consequences for the health of other people.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
I have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend has said about compliance. Does she have any evidence about how well people are actually complying with the self-isolation requirements? At a SAGE meeting in August, the SPI-B —scientific pandemic influenza group on behaviours—sub-committee was given an action to understand and improve adherence to self-isolation. It would be interesting to judge the regulations before us by understanding the extent to which people are or are not complying with the existing rules.
Helen Whately
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question, and I will indeed cite the evidence that we have on the level of compliance with self-isolation later.
The regulations also recognise the importance of employers respecting self-isolation requirements. No employer should prevent an employee from self-isolating or encourage or put pressure on them not to do so. Where an employer is found to be in breach of that obligation, they face a fine. That is in line with fines for other employer covid-19 breaches. Employees who need to self-isolate must also inform their employers of their legal requirement to do so, and a fixed fine of £50 is set for employees who do not inform their employer. There is a clear reciprocal duty between employees and employers about self-isolation, which supports both the opportunity and motivation to comply.
We recognise that there may be exceptional circumstances in which an individual may need to break their self-isolation; for instance, if they are unsafe or if emergency assistance is needed. In those cases, the legal duty would not apply and individuals would not face a penalty. The regulations specify the circumstances in which breaking self-isolation would be permitted.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
I am aware of situations where employees are very afraid of losing their job if they have to self-isolate. They are not necessarily able to access any sick pay or Government support. What messaging are the Government putting out to employers to make sure that they understand their obligations towards their employees? What can an employee do where they fear that they will lose their job if they do the right thing and self-isolate?
Helen Whately
The hon. Lady makes an important point about the role of employers as well as that of employees. Communications have been going out to make sure that people are aware of the importance of self-isolating. I may be able to offer something more specific about the communications to employers when I respond to the debate. There is financial support now in place because we found out from research that the financial impact of self-isolation was one reason that some people failed to do so.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I raised in Department for Work and Pensions Question Time just now my concern, which I am sure is shared by many Members, about schools that are forced to close at incredibly short notice. One large school in my constituency announced at 3 o’clock yesterday afternoon that it would be closed from 8.30 this morning. That means that many parents will have to stay at home and stay away from work. That impacts particularly heavily on mothers, sadly. They will not be entitled, currently, to the self-isolation payment. Is that something that the Minister is looking at or will support?
Helen Whately
I know that that point has been raised throughout the pandemic, and there will be reasons why parents, for example, will have extra childcare responsibilities. We had that challenge during the full lockdown, when schools were closed other than for the children of key workers, and we know that employers did everything they could to be understanding and support their employees. I will take away the hon. Gentleman’s question about whether anything further can be done.
To set out the rationale behind the regulations we are discussing, the headline point is their importance in our overall strategy to combat covid-19. Clearly, the number of people testing positive has risen sharply and, indeed, is still increasing. That is not only among younger people; worryingly, we are seeing increasing rates among the over-60s, particularly in parts of the country that have higher rates overall. Hand in hand with the increasing number of cases, we are seeing a higher percentage of people testing positive and increasing rates of hospital admission, again particularly in areas where the case rates are highest.
Against that backdrop of increasing rates, we heard that, unfortunately, compliance with the restrictions has not been what it should be. To answer the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean, general population surveys conducted between March and August showed that self-reported self-isolation compliance was relatively low. For instance, only around 20% of the population reported that they fully complied with self-isolation if they had symptoms or were identified as a contact. That is evidence of the challenge with self-isolation compliance at that time.
Catherine McKinnell
The Minister will recognise that there is a difficult balance to strike between encouraging compliance and discouraging engagement with the system —not being tested and not reporting symptoms in order to avoid the consequences of not being able to self-isolate. Have the Government analysed the potentially worrying consequence that increasing the penalties may disincentivise doing the right thing from a health perspective?
Helen Whately
The hon. Lady makes a really important point. We would not want to disincentivise anyone from coming forward to get tested or sharing their contacts, because that is such an important part of controlling this virus. On the other hand, if the data shows that compliance is low, which it does, then what actions can we take? First, we ensure that people really know what action they should be taking—that they should get tested, share their contacts and ensure that their contacts know that they should be isolating. Secondly, we provide people with more support to enable them to isolate. Thirdly, we make self-isolation a legal requirement, which communicates both the seriousness of isolating and the fact that if someone does not self-isolate when they test positive or are a contact, they could be putting other people’s lives at risk. Ultimately, if something is serious, there is a penalty associated with it. Those three things need to go together, particularly the understanding of the importance of taking the responsible course of action and self-isolating if necessary.
By making self-isolation a legal duty enforced through penalties for non-compliance, our aim is to ensure that people who have tested positive for covid-19 and those who have been directly exposed to the virus recognise the importance of self-isolating in order to reduce transmission and actually do isolate. SAGE has advised that ensuring infected individuals and their close contacts isolate is one of our most powerful tools for controlling the spread of the virus, so now is the time to introduce this measure and to combat the rising incidence.
The regulations were introduced using emergency powers so that we could respond quickly to the increasing threat to public health posed by covid-19. The urgency in this case arises from the increasing rate of diagnosed positive cases at the time of making the measures. The self-isolation SI came into force on 28 September 2020. It will be reviewed before the end of the six-month period and will expire 12 months after coming fully into force. The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care keeps their necessity under consideration between the formal review points, too.
The regulations demonstrate our willingness to take action where we need to. That said, we are committed to ensure that the measures are only in place for as long as necessary. I therefore commend the regulations to the Committee.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Fovargue.
I thank the Minister for her opening remarks. As she noted, today we are debating two SIs. The first numerically, No.1045, came into force on 28 September, and strengthens the duties on those who are required to self-isolate and increases penalties for non-compliance. The second SI, No. 1057, makes changes to the restrictions on the protected areas throughout the north of England.
In common with the Minister, for the purposes of today’s debate I will largely focus on self-isolation issues. But, first, I must refer again to the timing of the introduction of multiple SIs, particularly No. 1057. The Minister will be aware that my colleagues and I have consistently raised concerns about the way in which regulations are introduced. It is the view of the Opposition and of Members on both sides of the House that the regulations are too important not to be debated before they become law, and that full parliamentary scrutiny should be required. It will not have escaped anyone’s notice that we saw some progress on that last week when the new regulations on medium, high and very high tiers of restriction were debated in the Chamber before they came into force. After arguing in this room and others along the Corridor week after week for such debate, it would be churlish not to acknowledge the improvement in such scrutiny.
The SIs before us today are back to the old ways and bad habits, I am afraid. Last week, when we debated multiple SIs that related to face covering regulations, I noted that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee had pointed out that it is not helpful to have the law scattered across so many different SIs. That is exactly the case with regulation No. 1057. Although it has now been superseded, it actually amended four different SIs. That practice adds to the confusion about what is or is not lawful under health protection regulations at any given time. When we are asking people to comply with measures that are needed to protect public health, it is really important that we make that process as helpful as possible.
Because, once again, we are debating regulations several weeks down the line, much of the legislation is already out of date. The accompanying explanatory memorandum is also out of date, having been written before the new three-tier approach was introduced. I found it of little value to my understanding of what is still relevant for the purposes of today’s debate. I think the Minister has put me out of my misery by confirming what part of the regulations are still live. Regulation 3, however, which relates to restrictions on indoor gatherings and exceptions to that, has been superseded by the tiered approach that was introduced last week. I believe that regulation 4 on obligations of venues when taking bookings is still a live requirement.
Catherine McKinnell
On the point about clarity, everybody appreciates that this is an unprecedented situation that is difficult to manage, but the Government have to do better at communicating the decisions and changes that affect people’s everyday lives, because that is the only way that people will know how to best combat this virus. For example, three different sets of regulations for the north-east have been announced to us in three weeks. I have such admiration for the people of the north-east; they are erring on the side of caution and doing what they think is best. However, it is difficult to understand exactly what the requirements are, because we have the national rule of six, then we had local restrictions and now we have the tiers. I do not want to add to the confusion, but the Government really need to do better if they are to get the best results from any measures put in place.
Justin Madders
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, which was made in the right spirit for this critical time. It is difficult to understand exactly what is and is not in force at any one time. Our businesses, in the main, want to comply with the law. In fact, they would be foolish not to, given the level of penalty applied for breaking some of these regulations. I talked to some local publicans over the weekend, and they are petrified of asking the wrong question or doing the wrong thing in terms of who they can and cannot let into their pubs and so on. We all have a responsibility to try to explain the rules as best we can, but at the moment we are not assisted by the often confusing manner in which they are set out.
I make one final point on SI No. 1057. Paragraph 6.6 of the explanatory memorandum says of regulation 2:
“There is no practical effect from these changes”.
Clearly this was written before it was superseded, but our debating a regulation that apparently has no actual effect makes me wonder whether this is the best use of our time, and whether there needs to be more attempts to try to regularise regulations before they come before us.
I do not make these points to try to catch the Government out, because as I said, we are in broad agreement with the measures being taken. However, I make the point again that, because there is such a bewildering array of regulations, we are not clear what is and is not legal, so how can we expect our constituents to be? This is particularly important given the severe financial penalties and the health issues that the regulations are trying to prevent?
Catherine McKinnell
Something occurred to me as my hon. Friend was speaking: it is the way that we are legislating and regulating these activities that results in such confusion. If we follow the normal procedure of announcing an intention and Parliament debating it, we will get that automatic feedback on how the regulations will work in practice, problems will be ironed out and it will be legislated for, and the country will have been briefed directly through Parliament, rather than through the papers. I think that would run much better. If the Government go back to the normal way of doing parliamentary democracy, it might help our response to the pandemic.
Justin Madders
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. On many occasions, regulations have been laid—I think of the face-covering ones, for example—and points we have made about inconsistencies in the regulations have then appeared in subsequent regulations, showing the importance of parliamentary scrutiny. Of course I accept that, in a pandemic, things cannot always be done as quickly as possible, but certainly for self-isolation, which been a requirement from the very early days of the pandemic, there is absolutely no need for those regulations to have been introduced at such short notice.
Matt Western
To pick up on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North, this issue is about confusion versus simplicity. Does my hon. Friend favour, as I do, the simplicity and clarity that the Welsh Government are giving, in contrast to the UK Government?
Justin Madders
My hon. Friend tempts me to go outside the scope of the regulations. His point about simplicity and clarity of message is vital. In the early days, when there was a clear, national lockdown, it was much easier to convey messages, but issues have become more complicated, and there are a whole range of areas where confusion and uncertainty arises, certainly about the self-isolation regulations. I will be taking the Committee through a number of examples of that.
The self-isolation regulations were laid before Parliament at 5 pm on a Sunday evening and came into force the following day. As we have already said, they contained significant requirements and penalties for individuals and employers alike. I do not think seven hours’ notice on a Sunday evening is the reasonable period of warning that we would want to see as the norm if we want people to understand and comply with the laws. It is not as if self-isolation is a recent development. The requirements have been in place for many months now, and with a little more thought and planning, we could have debated those regulations before they came into force. Nothing I have heard from the Minister today persuades me that there was an urgent need for the regulations to be enacted before debate in Committee.
As we heard from the Minister, the regulations strengthen the duties on those who are required to self-isolate, and increase the penalties for non-compliance. Regulation 2 states that adults who have been notified other than through the NHS app that they have tested positive for coronavirus, or have been in close contact with someone who has tested positive, must self-isolate in their home or another suitable place. Those who test positive are required to self-isolate for 10 days and those who live in the same household, or who have been in contact with someone who has tested positive, must self-isolate for 14 days. The regulation also makes it clear that they are responsible for ensuring that any child under the age of 18 in their household self-isolates.
Regulation 2 sets out the details of the people who are authorised to issue notifications regarding the duty to self-isolate, and states that notifications that are withdrawn are treated as never having been issued. It is not clear from the regulations what the process is following withdrawal, or in what circumstances such a withdrawal might take place. Could the Minister set out in more detail how a withdrawal or a proper notification might come about, and what the practical and legal consequences of such notification might be?
Regulation 3 sets out periods for self-isolation, which differ depending on whether a person has tested positive for coronavirus, lives in the same household as a person who has tested positive, or is a close contact of a person outside their household who has tested positive. As we have already said, clear communication is a key weapon in this fight. I will not recount the many confused and mixed messages we have had, but I will raise with the Minister a real and current concern I have with contradictory messages around self-isolation periods.
Regulation 3(3) states that the period of self-isolation begins on the day symptoms show and lasts for 10 days, but a number of my constituents, having had symptoms, have subsequently obtained a test, and have then been told by the Test and Trace system that their period of self-isolation of 10 days begins from the date on which they were contacted by Test and Trace. The official advice is clear, but this notification is causing confusion. Can the Minister take that away and investigate whether anything needs to change in the system and the messages it is putting out?
Can the Minister clarify the circumstances in which regulation 3(3)(a)(i) applies? Regulation 3(4) states:
“(4) The period ends with the final day of a period where regulation 2(1)(a)(ii) or (b)(ii) applies, of 14 days beginning—
(a) where P is living in the same household as the person (“C”) who tested positive for coronavirus—
(i) in a case where C, or R where C is a child, report to a person specified in regulation 2(4) of the date on which symptoms first developed, with whichever is the later of—
(aa) the date five days before the test pursuant to which notification referred to in regulation 2(1) was given”.
I quote that provision word for word because it highlights an issue to do with communicating what we are trying to do. I thought I was clear on when periods of self-isolation started, but the insertion of
“five days before the test”
in sub-paragraph (a)(i) makes me want to lie down with a hot towel over my forehead. I am trying to work out exactly what that means. People want to do the right thing, but this kind of language does not make it easy for them. When penalties are applied for not doing it, it is doubly important. We need to make it very clear exactly what the situation is in that part of the regulations.
Regulation 5 deals with the definition of “close contact”, which includes not only face-to-face contact within 1 metre, but
“spending more than 15 minutes within 2 metres of an individual”.
It is not expressly clear whether that applies regardless of whether face coverings are worn, but I would assume it does. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that when responding. It also includes
“travelling in a car or other small vehicle with an individual”,
which I presume is meant to exclude most forms of public transport such as buses, but may we have confirmation from the Minister of whether “small vehicle” is meant to cover all personal forms of travel or personal vehicles?
The bit in this regulation that I have more difficulty understanding is the exact remit of the phrase “close proximity” in regulation 5(c) regarding travel on an aeroplane. Is the Minister able to put “close proximity” into a measurable distance for the purposes of communicating this to our constituents?
Regulations 7 to 9 require a worker or agency worker to notify their employer of the requirement to self-isolate as soon as is reasonably possible. In addition, it prohibits employers or agencies from allowing them to work in any place except the place where they are self-isolating, and introduces fines for employers who knowingly breach the regulations. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North said, there are understandable concerns from individuals who are required to comply with the self-isolation regulations, because what is missing is any kind of extra protection for the employee or worker who might be on the receiving end of detrimental treatment from their employer for self-isolating.
Throughout our legislative landscape, there are protections for individuals in the workplace. There are protections for those raising concerns about breaches of the working time regulations or about health and safety in the workplace, and protections in whistleblowing legislation for those suffering detrimental treatment. However, we do not have any equivalent protection for the employee or worker who is required to self-isolate for any of the reasons set out in these regulations. I do not know whether that is a deliberate or an accidental omission, but it is concerning to me all the same, and it places the individual who is required to self-isolate in a very vulnerable position.
We need to make it as easy as possible for people to self-isolate, and not leave them exposed to detrimental treatment, such as refusal to pay sick pay, if they are entitled to it, or possibly even dismissal. There is nothing in these regulations to stop workers receiving punishment for self-isolating from a particularly unhelpful employer. I have heard concerns from constituents that their period of self-isolation would trigger a sickness absence review, or be used as part of an absence review process that is already under way.
It is quite possible that people will have to self-isolate on multiple occasions, because, say, other members of their household get symptoms or test positive, so I am sure we can all understand the genuine anxieties people have about telling their employer that they have to self-isolate for a second or third time. Why is there nothing in these regulations to give people workplace protections for doing the right thing?
The Government website advice page entitled, “Self-isolating after returning to the UK: your employment rights”—I accept that that is a slightly different situation from the period of self-isolation envisaged within these regulations, but it was the only advice page on the site that I could find on the issue of employment rights and self-isolation—talks about people working from home if they can. That is absolutely the right and obvious thing to do, but I am sure the Minister will appreciate that that option is not available to everyone.
The website goes on to suggest that as an alternative, annual leave could be taken. That raises the very interesting question of whether that advice would apply in this situation. I very much question whether we could call a period during which someone is legally required to remain at home annual leave. I would be grateful if the Minister could state for the record what advice has been given to employers on how they should classify a forced period of self-isolation.
I would like to make it clear that I am not at all comfortable with the idea of employers being able arbitrarily to designate a period of self-isolation as annual leave. There is a tension here with what the working time regulations allow; they state that in the absence of any other agreement, an employer can designate particular periods as annual leave. My question to the Minister is whether there is anything to stop an employer declaring to an employee that, as they will not be available because of self-isolation, they will be classed as being on annual leave.
That also raises the question of whether employers could put pressure on employees to take this period as annual leave, perhaps suggesting to them that if they do not, it will be classed as an unauthorised absence and will go on their employment record. It would be helpful if the Government stated clearly through guidance or regulations that a period of self-isolation should be classed as other leave, and cannot be classed as unauthorised leave, sickness absence, or annual leave that can be counted as part of any annual entitlement, and that it cannot be used in a disciplinary or capability process. If we are to improve compliance, it is important that we have that clearly set out.
Catherine McKinnell
There is another aspect. The economy faces a challenging period ahead, and businesses need to make savings. There will be employers who will not necessarily cite self-isolation as the reason why they are dismissing or penalising an employee. Although we cannot legislate for everything that an employer might decide to do, the Government could do a lot more to send the clear message that such behaviour is not acceptable and will be frowned on. It is socially unacceptable for any employer or business to treat any employee detrimentally for doing the right thing in relation to coronavirus. The Government could do much more to set a very clear tone on that front.
Justin Madders
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When I practised employment law, I saw an amazing number of coincidences: when employees raised complaints about or concerns with their employers, other issues would suddenly be raised from out of nowhere, in a pushback against the employee; we are used to that. There is a role for the Government here. There is something we can do to give employees more confidence that they will not face adverse consequences for doing the right thing; that is what we are trying to achieve.
The intention of the regulations, as we know, is to increase compliance. The Minister referred to a study that the Department has undertaken. I presume it is the same one that I have read about in the media, which I believe has been analysed by members of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies. Why did it take so long for that to come out, given that the study began in February? I will go into more detail on the findings of the study. It is reported that people were asked why they did not self-isolate for 14 days. Some of the reasons given included caring for a vulnerable person at 9.9%; going to work at 8.9%; and thinking that they had already had coronavirus and were immune at 10.4%. I hope that with greater public information and engagement, we will see a reduction in those giving the latter reason. The second reason will hopefully be dealt with by the self-isolation payment, but there is nothing I can see in the exceptions in regulation 2(3)(b) that covers the first of those situations.
I note that under the regulations someone can take their parrot to the vet when they are self-isolating, but they cannot provide care for their elderly grandparent. I am not for one minute suggesting that those who are self-isolating should do that. We do not want to risk those who are already vulnerable coming into contact with someone who has to self-isolate, but it is estimated that around one in eight adults, or 6.5 million people, is a carer. Some of those people will be asked to self-isolate, and will be unable to provide care as they would normally. Hopefully they will be able to find others in the family, or friends, to step in, but of course many family members are in the same household, and they might be required to self-isolate as well. There will be some tension when people who are asked to self-isolate have caring responsibilities that cannot be fulfilled. Is a Government strategy being adopted to try to take the pressure away from people in such situations, so that we can make sure that someone can step in and provide the necessary care when a carer is asked to self-isolate?
Perhaps the most concerning finding of the survey was that only 18% of people with symptoms self-isolated. That went down to just 11% among those who were told to self-isolate by Test and Trace. I know those figures have not been peer-reviewed, but this is the best information that we have. Can the Minister confirm whether that is the basis on which the regulations were formed?
As we know, there are questions about entitlement to self-isolation payments being tied to the receipt of universal credit, working tax credit, income-based employment and support allowance, income-based jobseeker’s allowance, income support, housing benefit and/or pension credit. Although around 4 million people are potentially covered by that, it is not everyone, and there may be those who are not in receipt of any of those benefits who do not receive any contractual sick pay, and so would be left trying to claim statutory sick pay or employment and support allowance. That is frankly not good enough.
We know SSP is far below the rates set for the self-isolation payment, and the Secretary of State himself famously said that he could not live on that amount. I ask the Minister whether there will be any consideration of whether to relax the restrictions on eligibility for this payment. We are asking those who are not eligible at the moment to take a reduction of 70% or 80% to their pay every fortnight. We are already seeing constituents who are not eligible for any support in significant financial hardship.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington mentioned, there is an issue about school children as well. This issue most notably occurs when parents are having to self-isolate to look after children who have developed symptoms or have been sent home on the instructions of the school. I ask the Minister whether there are any plans to look at the dilemma of parents of children who have been sent home from school and are not eligible for any payment.
Regulation 10 deals with enforcement and gives powers to an authorised person, such as a police officer, or a person designated by the Secretary of State to act in support of enforcement. It would enable such a person to direct people to return to the place where they should be self-isolating, and in cases where an authorised person believes that a child is repeatedly failing to comply, they may also direct the person responsible for that child to ensure compliance as far as is possible. It also sets out that reasonable force may be used to enforce the regulation’s requirements if that is necessary, and an authorised person is allowed to exercise power under this regulation only if they have reasonable grounds for believing that it is necessary and proportionate to do so.
Regulation 11 deals with offences under these regulations that are punishable on conviction by fines. Fixed penalty notices are available as an alternative. I will not go through the full list of offences that are created or the level of fines, as other hon. Members wish to speak. Suffice it to say that there is a considerable number in there.
The explanatory memorandum states that these regulations have
“a key role to play in slowing or preventing a rise in the rate of reproduction (R) of Covid-19 and reducing the total number of infected people”.
That is the overarching intention behind most of the regulations that we have been debating in recent weeks. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has expressed its surprise that the explanatory memorandum failed to mention that it had been reported that these stronger measures are required as a result of the study that we have discussed, which mentioned low levels of compliance.
The Committee also noted its surprise that the explanatory memorandum did not mention the figure on compliance, or give the Government’s estimate of the numbers breaching quarantine, in support of policy changes. As the independent Scientific Pandemic Insights Group on Behaviours reported on 16 September, the rate of self-isolation is very low—less than 20%, based on self-reporting. It is particularly low among the youngest and poorest. It was an oversight for the Government not to mention that in the explanatory memorandum, and not to explain that that was part of the motivation for this regulation, if indeed that is the case,.
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee raised a concern about the potential for discrimination. As we have heard, regulation 2 requires someone to self-isolate where their sample tests positive for coronavirus, or where they have been in close contact with such a person. The exception is when they are notified by the NHS covid-19 smartphone app. That app cost £4 million, was rolled out many months late, and does not operate on phones that are more than five years old—and does not actually require people legally to self-isolate; I am sure that will come as a surprise to the millions of people who have downloaded it. That is about as far away from world-beating as possible.
The Department has confirmed the app has explicitly been designed to protect the anonymity of users, and the legal duty and fines do not apply to people notified through it. Instead, it will just advise the individual to self-isolate. The Department says:
“there is no discriminatory effect: the legal duty to self-isolate applies equally to anyone identified as a contact through standard contact tracing processes, whether or not they also happen to be an app user.”
This does raise questions about inequalities among certain groups, such as the elderly or those on low incomes who may not have the necessary technology to use the app. Although 14 million people have downloaded it, far more have not.
We know that the app is only accessible to those people whose phones have modern software, thereby excluding people who have older phones or no phone at all. Those people are typically poorer and older members of society. These groups are therefore more likely to be required to self-isolate through track and trace than through the app and are subsequently more likely to be in receipt of fines than those with the latest smartphones. The Committee pointed out that this raises concerns regarding the potential for avoidance.
The Government cannot track those who have been informed by the NHS app, creating a potential loophole for those informed by the app to avoid being fined for failing to self-isolate. If the Government do not know people are being contacted through the app, how can they be contacted? Again, there is a flaw in these regulations that there has been no impact assessment or consultation prior to their publication.
Returning to enforcement, the fines are substantial—an enormous sum of money to most people—but they are, of course, dependent on contact tracing working effectively. The most recent statistics show that only two thirds of people who tested positive were even transferred to the contact tracing system, and of those only 68.6% of close contacts were reached. That is a very low figure, almost as poor as when we first started, and it is lower for cases handled either online or by call centres. The overall proportion of people reached has decreased for each of the last three weeks and is similar now to when we first started. If we cannot actually get hold of people, how can we ask them to self-isolate? SAGE has warned that unless the system grows at the same rate as the epidemic and support is given to people to enable them to adhere to self-isolation, the impact of testing, tracing and isolating is likely to decline in future rather than improve, which is very worrying.
It is expected that around 4 million people will qualify for the payment, but as I say, significant numbers will not qualify. On 28 September, I tabled a written question some time ago asking how many applications and approvals have been granted for the self-isolation payment in the first week of its operation. That was a named day question due for response 11 days ago, but I have not had a response yet. Is the Minister able to update us on the uptake of self-isolation payments?
It is not just about the compliance, of course, it is about enforcement. We know that the police have expressed concerns about their ability to enforce all the regulations that have been introduced. I understand that over the weekend a memorandum of understanding was signed with police forces to enable them to access Test and Trace data. I would be grateful if the Minister clarified two points in that respect. Is it the case that until this date the police forces were not able to access the data? Will she comment on the point made by many in the medical profession, that the involvement of police may dissuade people from getting a test in the first place? The Minister said in her opening remarks that it is important not to discourage people from taking part in the system. Could measures be put in place to mitigate those concerns? Police forces have made it clear in relation to the recent introduction of fines for other offences that officers do not have the resources or capacity to enforce these fines. If the Minister is able to give us a realistic assessment of the resourcing for enforcement of these regulations, I would be most grateful.
I return briefly to authorised persons under regulation 12(12)(c), which gives the Secretary of State broad powers to designate officers for the purposes of these regulations. As I have already mentioned, these officers have the ability to use reasonable force to ensure compliance with the regulations. It is, I think, quite a worrying development that we have unspecified officers able to use reasonable force. Could the Minister set out who, if anyone, has been given that designation by the Secretary of State to carry out these functions, and, if so, what skills, experience, and training do they have in the use of reasonable force?
I would also like some clarity regarding the liability of parents where children fail to comply with the self-isolation regulations. It is set out that the authorised person may direct the person responsible for the child to ensure compliance as far as that is possible, but there is some indication that parents will be found liable, in terms of fixed penalty notices, for the actions of their children. How realistic is it to expect a parent to make a burly 16-year-old stay in the house for two weeks?
With regard to the fines issued so far, new data last week showed that this is a bit of a postcode lottery, with police forces issuing wildly different levels of fines. Some have issued more than 1,000, and others fewer than 100—this is across the spectrum of regulations to deal with coronavirus. Will the Minister comment on what appears to be a postcode lottery when it comes to enforcement of regulations and say whether any steps will be taken to ensure that there is no disparity in their application? I have asked on a number of previous occasions what additional resources will be given to the police to ensure compliance with regulations. Is the disparity partly to do with resources or other priorities, and what can the Government do to address that concern?
Matt Western
My hon. Friend is making some incredibly important points, but does he share my concern about hearing just a week or two ago that in Dagenham or Redbridge—I am not sure which area it was, but it was somewhere like that—the local authority was trying to enforce regulations, but was overturned by the Government?
Justin Madders
Yes, I did read that with concern. I am not sure whether it has been addressed with the new tier 3, 2 and 1 regulations that were introduced last week. Clearly, we cannot have a situation in which, on the one hand, the Government’s message is that the rules have to be applied equally, but on the other hand, authorities that want to take swift enforcement action are prevented from doing so. We have to apply the law consistently and firmly in a situation such as this.
I am nearing the end of my comments and I am aware that other hon. Members wish to speak, but I want to ask about other measures that the Department might introduce to ensure compliance with the rules, particularly given the suggestion that Test and Trace call handlers may now be contacting more regularly people who are self-isolating. Given the shoddy record so far from the likes of Sitel and Serco, I wonder whether it is the right move to divert staff to that, taking them away from their core responsibility of contact tracing. What steps is the Department taking to ensure that Test and Trace call handlers doing these additional contacts with people who are self-isolating will be able to carry on and have the same capacity to address those needing to be contacted in the system in the first place? Will those additional responsibilities now being put on these private providers result in additional payments being made to them outside their original contract? I do not know whether the Minister will be able to give us an answer on that today, but it is very important that we have some transparency in this area.
We will not be opposing the regulations today. We have long argued for greater support for those who need to self-isolate, but questions remain, particularly about eligibility and enforceability, not to mention many other areas that we have covered during the debate today. I appreciate that I have asked lots of questions. If the Minister cannot deal with them all in her response today, I will be more than happy if she is able to put her answers in writing in due course.
Mr Harper
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Fovargue, and to follow the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston. I am conscious that we have only 36 minutes left, and I want to give the Minister time to answer the hon. Gentleman’s questions and also those that I have, so I will ensure that I finish speaking in good time.
First, I have some questions about the regulations. The Minister will know, because I made it clear on the Floor of the House when we were debating other regulations, that I also have some questions about the underpinning policy strategy, which I hope she can deal with.
Yesterday, Lady Harding, who runs NHS Test and Trace, made it clear that the test and trace system is not a silver bullet. I agree. It is not the only part of the Government’s strategy, but in the Government’s plan to rebuild which they set out in May, that system is a central part of the strategy in phase 2. Yes, it is true that good hygiene practices—hand washing, face coverings, cleaning and social distancing—are all very important, but reducing infected people’s social contact absolutely depends on the test and trace system. SAGE has made it very clear that an effective test and trace system can have a significant effect on R—the reproduction rate of the virus—and that that should remain a priority. It has also told us what the goal should be for a test and trace system: that at least 80% of contacts of a positive case have to isolate. That rate is set as the floor not as the ceiling. That is the point of the regulations: to make sure that those contacts isolate.
It gives me no pleasure, but I am afraid that I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the performance of the system is not up to the mark. The latest data show that we contacted only 76.8% of those who tested positive and only 62.6% of contacts. The media keep on reporting the 60% and comparing that with the 80%, but that is not correct. We must remember that we reached only 76.8% of the number of people who tested positive. If we multiply those numbers together, the result actually tells us that in the past week the system only reached 48% of the contacts of those who tested positive. Given that the target it 80%, that is a significant deficit.
My question to the Minister is very simple. What is the plan to get from 48% to 80% quickly? My own view, for what it is worth, is that we should lean more towards using our fantastic public health teams locally. Unlike the Opposition, ideologically I have no problem with using the private sector. We have people who are skilled in conducting sensitive conversations about diseases and people’s contacts. They could get that information. They have a tool that one cannot use from a call centre: if they cannot reach someone on the phone, they can go round and see them. The parts of the country that have used that model have had good results. From talking to my own public health team, I understand that we only have a limited window if we are to give them more resources.
In the tier 3 areas we have broadly accepted that that is a sensible plan, and I believe that we have given sums of money to local authorities in those areas so that they can employ the local teams as the first point of contact tracing. Why limit that to tier 3 areas? Why not follow that practice everywhere and give the resources to the directors of public health? I think that they would do a fantastic job and get the numbers up. That is one of the key tools to keep the virus under control in parts of the country like mine where, fortunately, the infection rate remains very low. I note the presence of one or two other members of the Committee who are also in that fortunate position. In areas where we have had to increase the level of controls, particularly at tier 3, it is vital, once we have driven the virus down, to maintain an effective test and trace system to keep the numbers low, potentially for many months to come. That is incredibly important.
Matt Western
Just to echo the right hon. Gentleman’s point, the example of Sheffield leads the way in that, does it not?
Mr Harper
I am not familiar with that local authority, but from my experience in my own area, I think the local authority in Gloucestershire would do a very good job, and I think that we would get better results.
The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston referred to data sharing with the police. Some of the headlines at the weekend were perhaps unhelpful, because they had the wrong impact. I do not know whether this was the Government’s thinking, but although one can argue that cranking up the toughness of the regime may have an impact on some people, to suggest that people may get into trouble with police may drive them away from testing and sharing their contact information. When one actually reads the information on the NHS website about how the data will be shared, it seems incredibly reasonable. In the first instance, it is shared with the local authority, and only if the local authority cannot make progress is it shared with the police. If the police are investigating a specific case, they can request it, so the impression of blanket sharing of information with the police was not helpful. I do not know whether that was the Government’s intention, but it was not entirely helpful.
My only question for the Minister is: has the memorandum of understanding between the Department and the National Police Chiefs Council been published? I have investigated but been unable to find it anywhere. It would be better if there was more transparency and we were clear about what information may be shared. We saw one of the potential risks at the weekend when the busy NHS covid-19 app Twitter account had to leap into action to reassure everybody that information from their mobile phones could not make its way to the police. The concern was that that would reduce the uptake and use of the app.
I perhaps hold a different view from the hon. Gentleman, because I was pleased that the Government changed tack and moved away from the central database option for the app and went with Google and Apple API, whereby the information is stored on a phone. A central database might have seemed attractive, but it would have reduced uptake and many people would not have wanted the app. Having more people use the app and being aware if they need to isolate, which is in their interest and that of the community, is better than having a central database and no one using the app because they do not want personal information being stored by the Government.
Justin Madders
We agree with that move, but we were trying to address the concerns expressed by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee about inadvertent discrimination as a result of use of the app.
Mr Harper
Point taken.
It is welcome that the regulations create an offence of falsely giving contact information, meaning that someone needlessly has to isolate at some considerable cost to themselves. Self-isolation is the equivalent of house arrest, which under the criminal justice system requires a high bar of evidence.
Under the regulations, if Test and Trace tells someone to self-isolate they must do so, but what procedures are available to challenge that? Some people will not have travelled on public transport or have met the criterion of having been closer to someone than 2 metres for 15 minutes. If they receive a message that they must self-isolate but know they have not been in contact with anyone, is there a mechanism whereby they can challenge that? I suspect the answer is that there is not because of the need of the person who has tested positive to be anonymous, but if that has been considered by Ministers I would like them to say so and accept that it is unfortunate but that there is nothing that can be done about it.
I am concerned about it because for those in this room self-isolation is not a massive burden: we are still paid and can do quite a lot of our job at home. But for some people self-isolation is a real problem, and if it is not necessary in order to keep the community safe I do not want people to have to do it and I do not want anything to damage their confidence in the regulations.
Regulation 2(3)(a)(i) states that somebody must self-isolate in their home or in the home of a friend or family member. When we were debating where university students had to self-isolate, I asked whether, if a university student or anyone else who potentially has more than one home tests positive, they have to self-isolate in their university accommodation. Clearly, they must not do what a Member of this House did and get on public transport to go to another place and put other people at risk. However, if they were able to travel from one location to another in a private car, for example, where they were not going to come into contact with anyone else, and the person they were staying with was perfectly happy for them to do so, is there anything in these regulations that prohibits them from doing that?
The reason I ask is that the Department for Education is putting quite a lot of effort into thinking about what changes might have to take place in the period running up to Christmas to enable students to go home. When I read these regulations, I could not quite see on the face of it any reason why even a student who had tested positive, if they could travel safely, with the agreement of their family and where there was nobody at particular risk, could not just go home anyway and have their period of self-isolation at home, while obviously taking appropriate precautions. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that.
The final point I will raise—I think I am perhaps a bit firmer on this than the Labour party—is that I have a particular reason to be unhappy with the enforcement powers in the regulations, particularly giving the power to use “reasonable force” to officers of the state. Let me tell the Committee briefly why I am very concerned about this, to the extent that I have already made it clear on the Floor of the House that I am not satisfied by the Minister’s answers I will seek to vote against these regulations even though I am completely in favour of people’s having to self-isolate.
I became a Minister in the Home Office shortly after some individuals who are being deported had sadly lost their lives as a result of poor restraint procedures on aircraft. We carried out a significant independent inquiry into that and into how to use force, if required, on somebody in a way that kept them safe. I have no problem with powers being given to police constables; they already have the power to use reasonable force and their use of reasonable force is governed not only by a number of pieces of primary legislation, but by common law. A new police officer has a five-day training course specifically on using reasonable force and has to attend a two-day refresher course every year. There is a national decision-making framework that officers are familiar with, which they use to make those decisions, and in all their safety training that they are assessed to ensure they understand how to use reasonable force and what their legal requirements are. They also have to state the length of time since their personal training and refresher course when they use force, and any use of force by a police officer is reviewed by an independent panel.
That part of it I am fine with, but I have a real problem with the other three groups of people being given that power. People may not be aware that police community support officers do not have the power to use reasonable force except to detain someone until a police officer arrives. They do not have the power to use force any more than a member of the public does, and they do not go through all those training procedures that I have just talked about. I have no idea what sorts of people the,
“person designated by the Secretary of State”,
will be, but I want to know who we are thinking of and what training they have undertaken to ensure that this is safe.
The final group is officers designated by the local authority. I do not want local authority employees having the power to use reasonable force. I do not think the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government does either, because if we look at the regulations that the House approved last week on tiers, there are powers to use reasonable force in those, and although they still include the powers to use reasonable force for police community support officers, the powers available to local government employees have been constrained to a specific part of the regulations. They have been narrowed—I am still not happy with them, but they have been narrowed.
The reason why that is important is that we are talking here about using force on people with coronavirus. In itself, that is a risk. Giving the power to use reasonable force to agents of the state is a big deal. We do not generally give state employees the power to use reasonable force to detain and move people. That is a limited power. Because of all the regulatory requirements, where we give that power to police officers, there is a huge number of controls around it, quite properly. Unless the Minister can give me a very good reason why the powers are here, and say what the thinking is behind them and what steps the Government have taken to make sure they will be exercised in a safe manner, I cannot support these regulations.
Not everyone will feel the same way as me, but I have been a Minister with this responsibility, and have seen what happens when powers like these are used inappropriately: they lead to deaths. I do not think they should be here. Frankly, we should take these regulations away and strip those powers out. They should be given only to police officers—people trained to use them, and who know how to use them when all the appropriate safeguards in place. This is incredibly serious. I conclude there, to give the Minister time to answer our questions in the remaining 20 minutes.
The Chair
Before I call Catherine McKinnell, I remind people that the Minister has been given a number of questions to answer.
Catherine McKinnell
Yes, the Minister has a huge number of questions to answer, and I would like to hear the responses, because I share many of the concerns raised. The Minister will have discerned the flavour of my concerns about this legislation. We are not opposing it, but it is right that it be properly scrutinised. It is right also to acknowledge the other side of these restrictions, measures and enforcement powers that are being put in place, namely the ability of people to comply with what is being asked of them in this pandemic.
I agree with the points made by the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) about local directors of public health, and I want to put on record my gratitude and admiration for the local director of public health in Newcastle, and also for the city council. They have not only worked tirelessly to deal with the virus, but done everything they can to mitigate its impact on people in Newcastle and across the north-east.
Newcastle’s response to the university outbreak was a clear example of how the knowledge, intelligence and capacity of local public health departments can really made a difference. If there had been a data lag, and if data had been sent to students’ home addresses, rather than being recorded locally, we would be in a different position, but we have connections and networks, and the knowledge, insight and ability to reach into local communities and understand what is really underneath the data. Newcastle and the north-east have been making headlines for the worrying rising infection figures, but some measures appear to be working. It is early days, and this will come down to the ability of local people to comply with measures. We are all doing everything we can to reiterate the messages on how that can be achieved. There does appear to be a positive response to the measures put in place.
It is worth noting that there is generally a two to three week-lag in the response to restrictions; it does not happen overnight. We are seeing now the response to the restrictions that the local authorities asked for. The lesson to be learned is that there should be a collaborative approach in which local authorities work closely with communities. If we get to the point of imposing measures and use many of the powers in the regulations, we are losing the battle against the virus—and the argument. We are certainly losing local communities and their ability to respond. There are huge concerns that the restrictions being put in place across large swathes of the country are not backed up with the economic support necessary to ensure that people can comply with them. That is not a party political argument; the reality is that people will not comply if they unable to do so.
Many parts of the country are facing a double whammy of local lockdowns and the withdrawal of financial support. The people who were more economically vulnerable going into this crisis are the ones most affected by it, by the restrictions that are coming into place, and by the withdrawal of the full furlough scheme, which is closing at the end of this month. When it comes to the impact of the withdrawal of that economic support, we ain’t seen nothing yet.
I cannot fail to take this opportunity to plead with the Government to heed what is being said about economic support for the areas in the north most affected by the virus. Giving that economic support is not only the right thing to do, morally, for those communities; it is the right thing to do to defeat the virus.
Helen Whately
I thank colleagues for their contributions to the debate, and I will do my best to respond to as many as I can. I might not manage to get to them all, because I do not have much time.
I want to pick up on the comments made by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston. I thank him for his overall tone, the approach that he takes to these debates, and the rigour with which he has gone through the regulations and asked totally reasonable questions. I will do my absolute best to respond to them. Like others, he had called for earlier scrutiny of regulations such as the ones we are debating, and I thank him for acknowledging that progress was made last week when we debated changes to regulations. Scrutiny is a valuable part of our democratic process.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North asked whether we could follow the normal processes for introducing and debating legislation, but she will know that we have the extraordinary challenge of the pandemic, which moves at a fast pace. With doubling times and exponential increases in case rates, there is a real trade-off between taking steps that will save lives and spending time debating them. We are constantly trying to get the balance right, so that we can move quickly and allow scrutiny, which, as I say, plays a valuable part in our legislative process.
The hon. Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston, and for Newcastle upon Tyne North, talked about some of the confusion about regulations, which I totally appreciate. We have been through a national lockdown in which the same rules applied to everybody. That was very simple, but it also had an enormous impact on the lives and livelihoods of the whole population. In response to that, the Government committed to trying to be more focused in our interventions, and to ensuring that interventions reflected what was going on locally where Test and Trace has given us information about how the virus is being transmitted. That led to local restrictions, and we worked closely with local authorities on what they felt would make the most difference in their area. That has led to different areas having different regulations. That can lead to confusion, in local authority border areas, about why the restrictions are different for people who live down the road.
We therefore introduced the tiering system—the local alert levels—to achieve more consistency while still allowing for local variation. That recognises that different areas have different infection rates, but it has led to people having to keep up with changes to rules. We are trying to strike the right balance between providing a local response to the virus and making the system as simple as possible. That is absolutely what the Government are trying to do, but it is clearly a difficult situation that we all find ourselves grappling with.
The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston expressed some confusion about the duration of self-isolation, and he asked about notifications. In general, self-isolation is for 14 days from the onset of symptoms. Clearly, that differs in some circumstances, depending, for instance, on whether we are talking about a member of a household or multiple members of a household, but I will look into the possibility that different things are being communication by Test and Trace, as it needs to be clear to everybody.
If I understood the question correctly, where a notification issued by a contact tracer is withdrawn because new evidence reveals that the person told to self-isolate was not actually a contact, these regulations would mean that the duty to self-isolate no longer applied. The hon. Member asked about close proximity. In general, that is being within 2 metres of somebody for more than 15 minutes, but further details can be found on gov.uk.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North asked about communications to employers. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has contacted major business representatives, such as the Confederation of British Industry and the Federation of Small Businesses, and there is also the ACAS helpline, so there are sources of information for business. I agree with what was said on the efforts that the hospitality sector has made to keep up to date with regulations, and its huge efforts to make premises covid-secure. We should absolutely appreciate what it is doing to keep us all safe.
On the important points made about the responsibilities of employers, it is unacceptable for any employer to discriminate against an employee because they are rightly self-isolating, either because they have tested positive or because they are a contact. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that that should be and is a clear message. It would be completely wrong for an employer to penalise somebody for doing the right thing. We all need to be responsible employers and citizens, supporting each other to do the right thing.
On the questions about annual leave, this is a choice for employees. If an employee faced being on statutory sick pay to self-isolate, but wanted to have full pay, they could choose to take annual leave instead, but that cannot be imposed on them by an employer. I am particularly alive to the financial challenges that this issue—and the pandemic in general—is imposing on people and, as hon. Members will know, the Treasury has made many announcements of support for people, but we are in difficult times.
Of relevance to this debate is the important introduction of that £500 support payment for those on lower incomes who are self-isolating; we know that is important in enabling self-isolation. This brings me directly to the question about research. The one reason why that payment was introduced was because research told us that one of the explanations people gave for not self-isolating was that they could not afford to.
The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston asked me about the source of the research; the figure I gave earlier of only around 20% of the population reporting compliance was based on the summary of results from around 21 nationally representative surveys. There is ongoing research on compliance, as that will be important in informing the ongoing response.
The hon. Member also spoke about the app; my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) made some of the arguments about its importance, why it is anonymous, and why, as a result, notifications received through the app are treated differently from notifications through the manual contact-tracing system. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston also asked about the uptake of self-isolation payments; I can tell him that as of 13 October, 60 payments had been processed.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean talked about Test and Trace and its performance; it is absolutely an important part of our system. If I recall correctly, around 600,000 people have been contacted and asked to isolate as a result of the Test and Trace system, so it is having a material impact. Of course, we would like it to contact absolutely everybody.
Mr Harper
I will be brief—and it is mostly my questions that the Minister has not got to yet, so I am only affecting myself. She says Test and Trace is having a material effect, but that is not the view of SAGE, which was clear in its minutes of 21 September that it is not having a material effect. It said that if something does not happen, things are likely to get worse. That is SAGE’s view, not mine.
Helen Whately
We have been doing Test and Trace for some months now, and over a period of time, large numbers of people have been contacted through the system about the need to self-isolate.
I turn to the point made by my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North about the role of local public health teams. Local public health teams are an incredibly important part of our response to the pandemic, both through their support of Test and Trace and—I see this in my work as care Minister—all the work they are doing with the social care sector in care homes. My right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean is right that local authorities’ ability to knock on people’s doors, if we cannot get through to them by phone, is an important part of the response. I note his call for more resources to support that for areas, such as his, in tier 1.
My right hon. Friend asked me whether the MOU had been published. It has not been yet, but it will be. He also asked whether self-isolation can be challenged. An appeals process is being worked on to enable that. He also asked a number of questions about policing and reasonable force, on which I will have to get back to him, because I would not want to give anything other than the correct information. He also asked about the location in which students should self-isolate. In the regulations, as I am sure he is aware, there is a set of exemptions or reasonable excuses for why someone might not be able to self-isolate fully. Those excuses include, as I think was mentioned, taking an animal to the vet, seeking medical assistance, and avoiding risk of harm.
The purpose of the regulations is to make fully clear the importance of self-isolation, to educate people on their obligations, and to support people who are self-isolating; they then provide for enforcement, including fines, for those who knowingly and deliberately choose not to follow the rules. In addition, statutory instrument No. 1057 ensures that the requirements on businesses in the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (North of England, North East and North West of England and Obligations of Undertakings (England) etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 continue to support our covid response, and are in alignment with the new local alert level regulations. We will review the regulations regularly, and continue to assess them in the light of the latest science and other data.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Self-isolation) (England) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 1045).
HEALTH PROTECTION (CORONAVIRUS, RESTRICTIONS) (NORTH OF ENGLAND, NORTH EAST AND NORTH WEST OF ENGLAND AND OBLIGATIONS OF UNDERTAKINGS (ENGLAND) ETC.) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2020
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (North of England, North East and North West of England and Obligations of Undertakings (England) Etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 1057).—(Helen Whately.)
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Pet Theft
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir David Amess (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members, if they have not participated in one of these resumed Westminster Hall sittings, that we now have call lists, which are available. I am chairing the first half hour of this debate and I will then join you in the main body. Mr Robertson will take over from me in half an hour’s time. Members should sanitise their microphones before and after using them. Those are the instructions. Members should only speak from the horseshoe. Members are not expected to remain for the wind-ups, but, if they can, to stay for one or two speeches after they have spoken.
There are 19 people on the call list, including myself. They are not all here at the moment. One person who was going to be late has now arrived. Another person has withdrawn, so we have 18 people. If we are to get everyone in—I know the Front-Bench spokespeople will co-operate—speeches will be three or four minutes at most.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petitions 244530 and 300071 relating to pet theft.
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I want to start by congratulating Dr Daniel Allen, the animal geographer from Keele University, who started both pet theft petitions, with over 100,000 signatures, which we are here to debate. I met virtually with Dr Allen and a number of other campaigners from the Stolen and Missing Pets Alliance in June, when these debates were not possible. I know how much work they have done over years to raise awareness of pet theft, and to help to reunite victims with their stolen pets. I am pleased that pet theft reform has eventually got the debate that it deserves today.
I also want to thank the more than 117,000 people who signed the 2019 petition calling for tougher sentencing for pet theft, and the more than 143,000 people who signed the second petition in 2020, including the 417 people in my constituency of Ipswich. It is thanks to their engagement with our democratic process that we are debating this important issue today. I also want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie), who could not be here today, but has worked with me on this campaign, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson), who has been very active on this issue over a number of years.
All the signatories of these petitions recognise, as I will argue today, that currently pet theft is not treated with the seriousness it deserves in our society, and reform is urgently needed. Pet theft is a sickening and depraved crime. Those with pets and all who have had pets can only imagine the sense of loss, anger and hopelessness they would feel if their pets were snatched away from them in such cruel circumstances, not knowing whether they were encountering abuse, being used for inhumane breeding practices or exploited for illegal fighting in the case of dogs. In some ways, this must feel worse than when they simply pass away.
We love our pets in this country. They are our companions through thick and thin. They are a unique source of friendship. They are irreplaceable members of the family in so many households. Yet, when it comes to them being stolen, in the vast majority of cases, our pets are treated no differently under the Theft Act 1968 than replaceable and inanimate objects, such as mobile phones and laptops. The primary focus in the law on monetary worth means that the theft of pets deemed to be worth less than £500 can only be classed as a category 3 or 4 offence. That results in pitiful fines, often no more than £250, being the normal punishment for pet thieves.
Of course, even those meagre fines only apply if criminals are brought to justice. The data Dr Allen has compiled from a freedom of information request shows that in 2009, only 19 dog theft crimes resulted in charges out of a total of 1,575 crimes in the police force areas that we have data for. That is just over 1%. In the overwhelming majority of cases there is no justice at all. With the likelihood of such weak sentences being the result of a successful investigation, the police simply do not have the right incentives to put stretched resources into bringing these criminals to justice.
The status quo does not reflect the place pets have in modern society and that they are invaluable members of the family. Unlike a mobile phone or laptop, the monetary value of our pets is what we care about the least. That is why many heartbroken victims post rewards for the return of their pet that are many times higher than the pet’s nominal monetary value.
Criminals know that the status quo is ripe for exploitation, and that has left us unguarded against the surge in cases over lockdown, as more and more people want the companionship that pets offer. Just 25 out of 44 police forces have provided freedom of information data on dog theft for January to July this year, but already the figure stands at 645 dog theft crimes committed, with only two resulting in charges. In my own county of Suffolk, there were 11 dog theft crimes in the whole of 2019, but in just the first seven months of this year that number has already doubled to 21.
Dr Allen’s collated data, which includes FOI responses to Ben Parker of BBC Suffolk, shows that Avon and Somerset, Devon and Cornwall, North Yorkshire and Northamptonshire have had more dog theft crimes in the first seven months of 2020 than in the whole of last year. We must also remember that one dog theft crime does not mean one dog stolen. Shocking cases such as the theft of 17 dogs and puppies from boarding kennels in Barton Mills, Suffolk, in July would be recorded as only a single crime. Our pets are being snatched away from us in record numbers this year, just when we need their companionship the most.
Lockdown is a period of loneliness and isolation for many, and it has taken its toll on everyone’s mental health, but for so many people their pets have been a constant source of company. At the height of lockdown, I set up a service called “Talks with Tom”, where any constituent could have a phone call with me if they felt that they needed someone to have a chat with. I will never forget one older gentleman who called me. He was living alone after his wife had sadly passed away. His wife had a cat, which was very much her cat and which he never really got on with. When she died, he reluctantly inherited the pet, which had never shown him much affection. He told me how it was during lockdown that he and his cat had grown to become inseparable, and the closest of friends during difficult times.
There will be heart-warming stories about how our pets have kept us going through lockdown all across the country, but the unprecedented times that we are living through make the increasing number of stories about pets being snatched away all the more harrowing. This weekend I spoke to Katy-Ellen from Maple Cross in Hertfordshire, who is the mother of 10-year-old George. Their dog, Trigger, a beautiful black-and-white English springer spaniel had been a present for George when he was nine. George calls Trigger his brother, and Trigger kept George company on long adventures through the woods during lockdown, but on 21 August Trigger was lured out of the back door of their home and stolen from them.
Understandably, that has left the family distraught in a way that cannot be compared with how they would have felt had a thief simply walked in through the back and taken a phone off the kitchen counter. Katy-Ellen said something very telling when she said that the taking of George’s brother felt
“more like a kidnapping than a theft”.
She has not been able to get it out of her mind, and she wakes up thinking about it.
I also spoke to a gentleman called Jon Gaunt, a gamekeeper at Brightling Park in Sussex. In his job, Jon spends 90% of his time working in the park alone, except for three springer spaniels: Poppy, Tilly and Pepper. He describes his dogs as living, breathing sources of company and affection, but on 14 May he felt as if he had had his legs taken out from underneath him when he went into their kennels and found them gone. He has since been on a rollercoaster of emotions. He has got Poppy back and is trying to claim Tilly, who is in a police pound, but Pepper remains missing. Jon told me just how gut-wrenching it is when his young granddaughter still asks, “Where is Pepper?”
The thieves who took Jon’s dogs used sophisticated equipment to get into their locked kennels. We should be under no illusions that it is organised crime groups that are planning and ruthlessly executing the thefts of our cherished pets. They know the money that they can make from breeding pedigrees and selling puppies for a quick profit; yet we are fighting the growing tide with outdated and underpowered laws. The risk of small fines will not stop this type of organised crime.
That is why we must have pet theft reform. Making pet theft a specific offence, as the petitions call for, would elevate pet theft to a category 2 offence and empower judges to hand out prison sentences of up to two years—sentences that represent something closer to justice, and an effective deterrent against this disgusting crime. I know the Government have said in their written response to the petitions that the maximum penalty is already seven years and that reform is therefore not needed, but I challenge anyone to find a case where the maximum sentence has been imposed. Such sentences are available only in Crown courts, but the significant majority of cases stay in magistrates courts, where the maximum prison sentence is just six months. I also appreciate that the Sentencing Council’s guidelines take into account the emotional distress caused to victims, but the truth is that as long as the monetary worth of a pet is a primary factor for deciding the category of offence, the weight that a judge can apply to emotional distress in sentencing is severely restricted.
Changing the law should be our goal, but given what we have seen over the past few months, we must act now. Last week, I met my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and John Cooper QC, who is providing legal advice to the pet theft reform campaign, to discuss how the Sentencing Council could amend its guidelines to make specific mention of pet theft. That would give judges the tools that they need to take into account, to a far greater extent, the aggravating factors in pet theft cases and to impose tougher prison sentences without having to change the law. I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for taking the meeting, and I hope he will consider writing to the Sentencing Council to recommend that those changes are made.
Covid-19 has made pet theft reform more pressing, not less. I promised campaigners in our virtual meeting this summer that I would try to secure this debate as soon as possible. There has been so much heartbreak during the pandemic, but we now have an opportunity to stop the theft of our beloved pets continuing to be part of it. They deserve our protection, and so do victims.
I urge the Government to hear the petitioners and families across the country who are demanding justice. Our pets are always there for us. During this pandemic, they have been there for us more than ever. Now is the time to be there for them.
Sir David Amess (in the Chair)
If hon. Members speak for between four and five minutes, everyone will be called. I call Mr Jim Shannon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you, Sir David. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt). He and I have many things in common. We might not agree on everything, but one thing that we do agree on is Ipswich football team. They are my son’s team, so whenever I follow the scores on a Saturday, I am able to relate to the hon. Member, as I did when we had a conversation today. He told me that he is actually a Newcastle supporter—I think they are his second team, but that is by the way. It is really nice to speak in the debate.
During my time in self-isolation, my faithful companion was Autumn, a springer spaniel. When I was out in the garden, she faithfully joined me. In fact, she has been faithful her whole life. I think someone had been very bad to her—we rescued the dog from Assisi Animal Sanctuary, and we now keep her in the house. There is a saying that a dog is “man’s best friend”, but you, Sir David, and I both know that the Lord Jesus is our best friend. He sticks closer than a brother. However, my dog Autumn definitely comes a close second.
The matter of dog theft is so pertinent, given that the theft of dogs—particularly gun dogs and shooting dogs—has risen dramatically. I can understand the heartache that comes from losing a faithful friend that loves their owner and is always happy to see them, no matter how burdened and low they feel. I understand that it is hard to put a value on the friendship of a dog, but it is truly a disservice to have a legal principle that restricts judges from imposing a fine greater than the monetary amount paid for a dog. In the eyes of the law currently, dogs are taken like any other form of property, so the punishment for dog theft is determined by the monetary value of the dog. As such, the fines given are mostly paltry.
I put on my record my position in relation to Northern Ireland, which has introduced micro-chipping. I see that that might now move across to the rest of the UK. There are horrific cases of dogs being stolen to participate in dog fights. Someone’s pampered pooch, which has been reared to be so gentle and loving, is thrown into a ring for bets. Even just saying that makes me feel sick to my stomach. We allow fines that say, “There are no papers to prove its pedigree, so it’s worth only about £50.” What is the value of someone’s dog? For me, it is a lot more than £50. It adds insult to stomach-churning injury.
That is why I wholly support the Dogs Trust in its calls for the Sentencing Council to amend existing guidelines to ensure that all cases of companion theft are considered category 1 or category 2 crimes at a minimum, regardless of monetary value. I further support the Dogs Trust’s request to see accurate and consistent recording and reporting of incidences of theft of a companion animal. Dogs Trust has called for increased penalties for animal cruelty offences and strongly supports a Bill that would,
“increase the maximum sentence for animal cruelty offences from 6 months to 5 years”—
that is the sort of legislation I want to see in place—
“address the protracted periods some dogs may spend in kennels during a court case and introduce a way of expediating the process or allowing the rehoming of seized animals”,
and,
“introduce an automatic ban on owning animals if a person is convicted of an animal cruelty offence, not only as a preventative measure to ensure that person commits no further offences but to serve as an extra deterrent and better protect animal welfare.”
They say that those who treat animals badly, mischievously, violently or cruelly are on a path to no good.
Let me be clear: sentencing will never bring a beloved animal home to where it was completely loved, but it will allow someone who is grieving to feel that their loss is somewhat understood. It will also act as a deterrent. When people understand, they will not have the thought, “Sure, it’s only an old dog.”; they will know that they will be taken seriously and the consequences of their despicable actions will be heavy indeed.
When I think of so many of our elderly, whose companions provide such love, affection and company, especially in these days of isolation, there should be no doubt in the mind of any criminal that this is a serious matter. We want to ensure that today. It is up to this House and, I must say, up to the Minister as well; we look forward to her response to our request.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I know how committed to you are to all parliamentary pets, having organised the parliamentary pet of the year competition. I was lucky enough to meet your dogs at the time, and I know you saw some lovely photographs of my Bosun. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) on securing this important debate.
I will concentrate on a manifesto pledge that the Conservative party and, to be fair, the Labour party made at the last election, which was to seek compulsory microchipping of cats. As the co-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on cats and as the proud owner of two VIPs—that is, very important pets—I feel it is time to bring in the right regulations to require the compulsory microchipping of owned cats.
I had Milly microchipped, and the newest addition to the Murray-Davidson household is Louis, who came from Cats Protection. Little Louis’ former owner had poor health, so he needed a new home. He came chipped because Cats Protection believes that cats should be microchipped so that, where possible, they can be reunited with their owners. I agree, and I thank Cats Protection for all its help to cats everywhere.
Unfortunately, I have to report that in recent years cat theft has been a growing problem, including in my area of local Devon and Cornwall. A microchip increases the chance that a pet will end up back with their rightful owner, although, as one of my constituents pointed out to me this morning, we must ensure that all the details on the register are up to date. I urge the Minister to make it compulsory, when vets see these pets, for the owner’s details to be updated, as that can often resolve any dispute without the need for litigation.
I understand from the Secretary of State that the response to the call for evidence on cat microchipping, which closed on 4 January, has been held up due to covid-19. While I understand that, I also call for all possible speed, because during lockdown people have been so much more reliant on their pets for company, as has been mentioned. My own mother-in-law, who lives in Wales, often only has her pet Jess for company. We Zoom as much as we can, but it is Jess who has been there for her as a constant companion in the covid world. Jess means so much the whole family, which is why I am pleased that the Secretary of State has reported that the Government are moving the situation along in the next three months with the consultation.
I ask the Minister to give us an update on that, and I also ask for an update on when we will see legislation coming to Parliament. There is no doubt that the compulsory microchipping of dogs, which came in in 2016, has worked, but I believe that it can be improved through the updating of ownership details, and that it is now time for cats to be treated equally in the eyes of the law, which could massively help when it comes to prosecuting and proving pet theft.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David, and indeed to be speaking again in Westminster Hall. It is a privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) and I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) for his opening remarks.
[Mr Laurence Robertson in the Chair]
I see that Sir David is no longer in the Chair.
I am here today to participate in this debate because—unusually—the highest number of signatures on e-petition 244530 came from my constituency of Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk, in the Scottish borders. Indeed, my colleagues in neighbouring constituencies—the right hon. Members for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan) and for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell)—also have a high number of constituents who have signed this particular petition. It would seem that rural dwellers of the borderlands have a deep love of our pets—and who can blame us?
Being an elected Member, either in this place or in the Scottish Parliament, for over 13 years, and now travelling to London every week, it would not be fair for a pet to be left at my home in Coldstream. Indeed, I am sure that most of my friends would say that I struggle to look after myself, never mind a pet. However, being the son of a farmer, I grew up with animals and pets all around. Indeed, I am a big fan of my parents’ dog, Hector, and I understand the delights that having a pet at home can bring.
As other Members have alluded to, our pets are ever more integral to our lives. During this pandemic, our dogs and cats have been our much-needed companions and a much-needed source of perspective on the things going on around us. I fully understand the attachment that we all have for our pets and the important part they play in our family lives. They provide comfort, laughter and fun, and their energy and friendship are sorely missed when they are gone, so I fully understand the calls for making the theft of a living, breathing sentient being a separate criminal offence.
However, before I go further, I will pay tribute to Georgie Bell in my constituency. Almost two years ago, her family’s two border terriers, Ruby and Beetle, disappeared from their home near Jedburgh. Her campaign to find her dogs and to change the law on dog theft reached the local and national press. She knows the heartbreak and emotional trauma that losing a pet can cause. The Facebook page set up to help find Ruby and Beetle has over 16,000 members, who are keen advocates of this petition, which perhaps explains the huge support for it from the borders and the surrounding areas.
In the short time that I have left, I will raise a particular issue with the Minister, which I think is relevant to this debate. Mandatory microchipping has been a very welcome step forward and I understand that the law on it is now consistent across all parts of the United Kingdom. However, the case that I have just raised—of Ruby and Beetle—shows flaws in the system. The microchip of one of the dogs has been run several times since it went missing, yet the owners have no way of knowing where this has been done or by who. Apparently, this is because of data protection, yet it seems to me that this information would provide a potential lead to the stolen pets’ whereabouts. This issue has been raised this year by the BBC’s “Rip Off Britain” and I would be grateful if the Minister considered it further.
Finally, I again thank the Bell family from Jedburgh for their campaigning on this issue, as well as those in my constituency who have signed this important petition. My thanks also go to the Petitions Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich for bringing it to Westminster Hall today.
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson.
I am so pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate this afternoon because it is on such an important issue to me personally and to many millions of pet-lovers in the UK. I am proud that the Government are making significant progress on animal welfare, by seeking to clamp down on puppy farms and puppy smuggling, and legislating on microchipping. I look forward to Friday this week and speaking in the debate on the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill, which is known as Finn’s Law Part 2. These are really valuable measures. I trust the current Government to take animal welfare very seriously, and I know how many animal-lovers there are in the Government.
However, I urge the Government to rethink the current laws on sentencing for pet theft. It is a growing crime and I feel that the law must be improved to reflect its seriousness and the impact on pet-owners of having their pets stolen. In lockdown, as the demand for pets has risen, so has the price for certain breeds of dogs and cats. Puppies and kittens are now big business. As the price of those pets increases, so do the potential rewards for criminals. With every crime there is a balance of risk and reward. With hard sentencing we could deter people from pet theft. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) that only 1% of pet thefts come to prosecution. That is clearly a failure for pet owners. Criminals must believe that they will be caught, sentenced and punished at a level that will deter other people. The maximum penalty is seven years’ imprisonment, which does sound appropriate and does sound like a deterrent but, as we have heard today, most pet theft cases stay in magistrates courts, and it is extremely unlikely that anyone would face a significant custodial sentence for pet theft.
The main point I want to focus on today is how the penalty is linked to the value of the theft. We have heard how under £500 is recommended as a category 3 or category 4 theft. At this point I will declare my own interest. My two Cavalier King Charles spaniels, Cromwell and Bertie, have little, if any, financial value. They are eight years old and clapped out. One has horrific dental issues and the other has a significant heart murmur. If anything, they are a financial liability but, to me, without a shadow of a doubt they are the most valuable things in the world. In a trade-off between all my worldly goods and my two dogs I, like many pet owners, would not hesitate for a moment.
While the financial value is still considered, we will not see fairness in sentencing. Why should someone who steals my pet face a far less harsh sentence than someone stealing a designer puppy that the law decides is worth £3,000 versus my dogs that are worth no money at all? To sum up, I thank everyone who signed the petition to look again at pet theft sentencing. It is really important. It is common sense. People want to see that fairness, and I support the petition.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
I think everyone in this room would agree that pet theft is a particularly nasty offence. It is incredibly stressful for the owner and for the dog itself when it is stolen. I think the problem emanates from the Sentencing Council guidelines. Much has been mentioned about that. My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) and other speakers spoke about how Sentencing Council guidelines are insufficient.
In 2016, I wrote to the Sentencing Council to ask it to change the guidelines so that there was less emphasis placed on the value of the piece of property that was stolen: in this case an animal. It came back to me and said that the current guidelines were perfectly acceptable, and even mentioned the fact that pedigree dogs are very often worth more than £500, and therefore it was not necessary to change the guidelines, but that misses the whole point of this particular crime. I have a golden retriever that is worth probably less than 50p: a 12-year-old golden retriever called Fred that is definitely not worth stealing. However, that misses the point. It is a member of the family that is being stolen, which is why we see so many tears from people who have gone through this awful experience. The animals are stolen simply because the crime is low risk with a high reward. If someone knows they are not likely to be sent to prison because the value of the dog is less than £500, that is a very attractive crime to commit. That is why unfortunately we are seeing an increasing number of people carrying out the offence. It was happening before lockdown, and the numbers have shot up since because the value of dogs has gone up and there is an even greater reward, but with the same low risk for people carrying out these dastardly offences.
If the Sentencing Council is so stubborn that it will not change its guidelines, Parliament could step in and make it a specific offence to steal an animal, which the petition alludes to. If we did that, it would give the courts separate powers to impose the sentences that we all want to see for such a crime. Unfortunately, we do not have a specific offence for that. We have a specific offence of stealing a pedal cycle, but not of stealing a member of the family. That cannot be right, and the Sentencing Council needs to reconsider that.
I pay tribute to the work of the Stolen and Missing Pets Alliance, which has done some tremendous things in highlighting the crime, particularly Debbie Matthews, who has worked tirelessly to try and bring about a change in the rules. I also pay tribute to Kent police, one of the forces that takes the matter seriously. In many parts of the country, when the police are called to investigate the stealing of a dog, it is simply recorded as missing when the owner knows it has been stolen. Consequently, we are seeing lower official figures for the theft of a dog than is actually the case. In addition, when a dog is recorded as stolen, it is put in as theft of a chattel, which means it is difficult to get facts and figures on how courts are sentencing people for those offences. We have to go on anecdotal and experience-based examples to try to get to the bottom of what is taking place.
There are some good things going on out there, but more needs to be done about the matter. I urge the Minister to use her good offices to persuade the Sentencing Council on that, if that is possible can. I am pleased that this is a cross-party interest and that we are at one on the issue. Hopefully, collectively, we can either get the Sentencing Council to see sense or this place needs to take action and bring in a specific offence of dog theft.
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
I thank all the people who signed the petition and the hon. Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) for introducing this debate on this important issue. It is an issue of great personal and emotional significance to many people whom I represent. The increasing incidence of pet theft causes huge distress and trauma across our pet-loving nation. With numbers soaring in recent months, the DogLost organisation suggests 2020 will be the worst year for the theft of dogs. Pet theft is increasing across the country, with horrific incidents of people being attacked and dogs stolen in front of their eyes. Burglaries are committed purely to steal pets and owners are left to hope for the best, knowing that their pets could be sold on, used in horrific dog fighting and, in some cases, used for breeding in cruel and dirty puppy farms.
I have heard the stories of heartbroken constituents, who can sometimes spend weeks and months looking for their pets in the hope they have been lost and will return, with sleepless nights at the loss of their furry friend and the thought of what might have happened to them. To many, pets can be part of the family, lifetime companions, there as company making memories in the good times but also there in our hour of need. The pandemic has made many appreciate that company even more, as people are spending more time at the local park or in front of the television.
My mother has four sons, and if faced with the choice between having one of us or Archie, her beloved Bichon Frise, stolen, I am not entirely confident which she would opt for—and I do not think he is worth much either. Without doubt, pets and their owners can have a priceless relationship that is beyond any monetary value. It is for that reason that the law must reflect the non-monetary value of pets. After all, when the worst comes to the worst, a stereo, TV or bicycle can be replaced; many of our pets are entirely irreplaceable.
The punishment for pet theft must reflect the pain and suffering caused by such a heinous act and the emotional impact of losing a loved one. It must also act as a deterrent to those who would consider doing such an awful thing. I support the petition entirely and urge the Government to review their approach to the theft of pets, acknowledging their unique value in this nation of pet lovers.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. If I have my phone, wallet or car stolen, they are insured and can be replaced, virtually on a like-for-like basis. It would be frustrating, inconvenient, I would be angry and annoyed. Naturally, I would want the thief to face the full force of the law. However, if Clemmie, my nine-year-old Jack Russell, Peppy, my seven-year-old Labrador, or Ebony, my four-year-old Labrador were stolen, they could not be replaced. They are an integral part of my family, individual in character and each providing a unique and special companionship to me and to members of my family.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) on bringing today’s debate to Westminster Hall, and I am pleased that the Petitions Committee has given us time to debate the topic, which affects many of our constituents. Between these two petitions, almost 500 signatures came from my constituency of Darlington, and I thank those constituents who took time to voice their concerns. I know that many more of my constituents are dog owners who, like me, consider their four-legged friends to be part of their family. The theft of a pet is already a criminal offence under the Theft Act 1968, with a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment. However, only one in five pets are ever returned to their owners. With over 2,000 dogs stolen every year, there remain over 1,600 families who lose that member, never to be seen again. It is tragic and we should do more.
While my canines collectively cost less than £800 to purchase, they have cost me significantly more in damage to property, and in food and vet bills. Sadly, under the law not one of them would be deemed of sufficient value to warrant anything nearing a custodial sentence were they stolen. Sentencing is about punishment and rehabilitation, but it is also about setting a deterrent. With a low intrinsic value insufficient to warrant investigation, four out of five dogs that are stolen are never recovered and the despicable people responsible for dog theft sadly know that their chance of being caught or suffering a punishment is very low.
I welcome the mandatory microchipping we now have. That has helped more pets to be reunited and serves in the armoury of deterrents. It has thankfully reduced the number of stray dogs on our streets. I also welcome the recommendation for vets to carry out routine scanning for new pets enrolled at their practices. These measures are for dogs, but we as a nation should be extending them to cats too. I concur with my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) that there should be mandatory chipping for cats.
The pet owners of Darlington and I believe that the theft of a pet is much more damaging than the loss of an item of financial value. I believe that a specific offence of pet theft or, at the very least, specific sentencing guidance based on more than the purchase cost of the animal, will do much more to deter this dreadful crime.
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I echo the compliments given by other Members to my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) on the way in which he opened the debate and the equally to the Petitions Committee for recommending these petitions for debate. They received over 100,000 signatures, which shows better than I can the strength of feeling about strengthening the law on the subject.
I pay tribute to Dr Allen and the campaign group, and to the Kennel Club and the Dogs Trust. I am sure it will not surprise hon. Members that a Dogs Trust survey found that 99% of respondents considered their pets to be a family member. I declare my interest, Mr Robertson. Winston, my Welsh springer spaniel—having springer spaniels seems to be a theme around the room today; clearly the Dogs Trust could do some research into parliamentarians and their springer spaniels—is, of course, a member of the family.
Monetary value goes to the root of the problem about sentencing. If anyone was to put a business case together for getting a pet, they probably would not get one. The kind of sentencing we are talking about cannot be treated simply in terms of monetary value, which moves most of these crimes to classes 3 and 4 straightaway. That is clearly sub-optimal for sentencing. If anyone should dare to take my dear Winston, our Welsh springer spaniel, I would want that to go immediately to category 1, as I value him personally way over £10,000. I do not know about other Members and their dogs. That is at the heart of the matter.
I look forward to the Minister’s reply to this important debate, but I know that the good constituents of Montgomeryshire think the law is currently suboptimal. It was a pleasure to email my constituents today and say that I was talking about pet theft, and to receive more emails about pet theft than about Brexit and covid-19 in a day. It was a great pleasure to read my inbox today. There is a huge strength of feeling that the law is simply not working for pet owners at the moment.
There is a huge feeling in Montgomeryshire and rural Wales that people are starting to fear for their pets. As Wales is locked down today by our wonderful Welsh Government, people are looking for comfort. People across Montgomeryshire and mid-Wales will be looking to their pets for comfort. The least I can do for Winston, my dear Welsh springer spaniel, and for my constituents and their pets is stand up today and implore the Minister and our Government, who I know are looking hard at this issue, to look specifically at the monetary value point, amend the Theft Act 1968 and at the very least create a specific offence of pet theft, to do our pets justice and give our constituents some heart that, if the unthinkable happens and their pets are dognapped or catnapped, there will be a sentence to match that offence. I implore the Minister to do something about it.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) for securing the debate. I know he is a passionate supporter of animals.
People across the country bring pets into their households and love and care for them as if they were members of their family. We are a pet-loving nation. Sadly, despite a reported fall in pet thefts in 2019, we have all talked about the strong anecdotal evidence that suggests pet theft shot up during lockdown. At least five dogs are stolen every day in England and Wales; that is five loved family members stolen from their home. To criminals, pets are money-making objects that can often be used and abused to make a profit. As others have mentioned, Dr Allen from Keele University found that in 2018 only 1% of pet thefts resulted in the thief being charged. As he said, sadly, criminals see pet theft as
“a low-risk high-reward crime”.
That should not be the case.
Almost 600 of my constituents have signed one of the two petitions we are debating, asking for change. Pets are loved members of the family who bring us so much joy and happiness, and we need an approach that recognises that they are more than just property. We need to make it crystal clear to criminals that stealing a pet is a risky choice to make. I sympathise with the Government’s reluctance to introduce specific legislation. What counts for me is the outcome, not how we get there. As the Government’s written response to the petition points out:
“The theft of a pet is already a criminal offence under the Theft Act 1968 and the maximum penalty is seven years’ imprisonment.”
However, all of us in the Chamber, and the Minister in particular, are in the unfortunate position of not being able to say what is happening on the ground. It is hard for the Government to defend their position and say it is satisfactory when hon. Members who want to understand whether the law is working have tabled written questions asking about average sentences and found we are not recording those statistics. The Government must tackle that first so that, whatever decisions are made today and in the near future, they—and we, as scrutinisers—can judge whether the current approach is working.
If the Government will not move on legislation, they must join us in engaging with the Sentencing Council. Currently, there is an expectation that when a person steals something with a value of less than £500, they should get only a community order. We have heard many examples of pets that would not meet that threshold, so that bar should not exist. It is no surprise, therefore, that people are concerned that custody is not being used when it should be. The Government will point out that, yes, the guidelines do allow for additional weight be given to the emotional impact surrounding an offence, but even when that is the case, the starting point becomes just one year as a category 3 offence, which does not provide a strong enough solution.
We need to make it clear to criminals who snatch pets from loving families that they are committing a serious offence and they will be punished accordingly. We do not know whether that is happening at the moment, and we cannot guarantee that it is. It would be appropriate to have a sentencing guideline specific to pet theft that asks judges to begin by thinking of it as a category 2 offence under current legislation, irrespective of the monetary value of the pet, which currently acts as an important limiting factor. That would leave discretion but make it clear to judges, the public and, importantly, criminals that stealing a pet is serious, causing huge distress to families and something they should think very carefully about doing.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) on opening the debate and raising many of the points I would have made had I had the opportunity to make a long speech—people will be relieved that I do not.
Over the last few days I have been contacted by many of my constituents, asking me to speak in the debate. Interestingly, the vast majority of those emails came from Wherwell, one of the smallest villages in Test Valley. It struck me as being slightly odd that such a disproportionate number came from one place, but there is a very good reason for that. Although we have heard many heart-breaking stories—of Trigger; of Ruby and Beetle—I would like to add the story of one more dog: a small cocker spaniel called Cleo.
Cleo was four years old when she was taken from her owner, Mr Rudd-Clarke, an 85-year-old gentleman who lives in Wherwell. I hope that he does not mind me mentioning that he is 85. I told him I was going to speak this afternoon, but I did not tell him that I was going to say how old he was. Both Mr Rudd-Clarke and his wife very much enjoyed the company of Cleo. She was the dog that got them out of the house to exercise in the fresh air in Hampshire—interestingly, one of the most dog-friendly counties in the country. She has been their constant companion since she was a puppy, and she is a gorgeous blue roan—perhaps one of the prettiest dogs I have ever seen.
I have seen Cleo because she has her own Facebook page, and on pretty much every telegraph pole and tree in the village of Wherwell is a picture of Cleo. Her owners had done the right thing: they had ensured that she was microchipped, and that the chip was registered to their current address; she was spayed and she wore a collar with her name and address on at all times. None the less, Cleo went missing on 16 September on her routine walk. She is believed to have been stolen because she simply vanished without trace, despite the villagers of Wherwell going out with drones and thermal imaging cameras, and making appeals for dashcam footage. An entire community has pulled together to try to find this dog, and we are all making her disappearance as well known as we can, in the hope of making her too hot to handle.
Cleo was the sort of dog that came to a whistle. I really admire anybody who can make a cocker spaniel come to a whistle; I have certainly failed in my attempts with my beloved dog, Alfie. The assumption of those in the village, of the owner and of the police is that Cleo was stolen, and the charity DogLost concurs. What a wicked and despicable crime—to take a companion from an elderly gentleman. She was company, she was exercise and she was part of the family, and she had been spayed, so her monetary value was much less because of course she could not be used for breeding purposes.
We have heard this afternoon that stealing a pet is no different in law from stealing any inanimate object, but pets are not inanimate and the trauma of losing one is horrific. There needs to be a decoupling of sentencing from the animal’s value. I know that the Minister will tell us that dog theft is already a crime under the Theft Act 1968, carrying a maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment, but of course that sort of sentence is very rarely handed down. I do not want to dwell on the reasons why a dog might be stolen—other Members have alluded to them—but they are horrific. Stolen dogs do not end up in the arms of a family that is going to love them in the same way that the one they have been ripped from does.
My hon. Friend is a good Minister, who cares passionately about this issue, and I know that she has the power to do something today. She can give us a steer that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will seek to amend the Theft Act, which is over 50 years old, and bring it into line with how 21st-century Britain, and the village of Wherwell, feel about their pets.
Mr Laurence Robertson (in the Chair)
With thanks to the next speaker for covering the first part of this sitting, I call Sir David Amess.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
I am very embarrassed, Mr Robertson, that at the start of the debate I prevailed on colleagues to make short speeches; they have been so brief, there will now be very long wind-ups, but I will leave that to your chairmanship. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) on the way he presented the petitions, and I commend him for the passion that he displayed right at the end of his speech—absolutely splendid.
We are, of course, a nation of animal lovers, and this debate in Westminster Hall has displayed that we are a House of Commons full of animal lovers, and I certainly commend that. I agree with all the points that colleagues have made. I am very appreciative of Mrs Debbie Matthews, the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) and the daughter of Bruce Forsyth, my favourite comedian, for her briefing on this subject.
I very much agree that animals are sentient beings; science has proved that they can experience pain, suffering, joy and comfort, but by equating them to property we are denying them the right to be considered sentient beings. The Theft Act 1968 does just that, and I say to the Minister that it is old legislation. Pet theft was a problem before coronavirus; it has escalated during the lockdown period, and it may continue to do so unless the Government take harsher action against the criminals colleagues have been talking about today.
I put it to the Minister that the public are sending the Government a strong message. Let us not forget that this is the second pet theft debate and that there have been three consecutive successful pet theft reform petitions. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is currently reviewing the compulsory dog microchipping regulations. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) about microchipping cats. As well as reporting pet thefts, microchipping also helps to return stolen pets. Several colleagues have said how much their animals are worth. We often look after one of my daughter’s French bulldogs, which is worth an absolute fortune—we tend to cover up her European association.
I am delighted to be sponsoring the Dogs and Domestic Animals (Accommodation and Protection) Bill, promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), which, among all other things, recognises the importance of microchipping pets. However, there needs to be a single, complete database of microchipped cats and dogs, as there is for horses, and microchips must be compulsory, so that they can be checked against that database at every first vet appointment.
Debbie Matthews, who started Vets Get Scanning, has been a champion in this area for many years and I congratulate her. Pet theft is seldom investigated and usually the only thefts that result in an investigation are those where dogs are stolen for puppy farming. That is quite wrong. We have reports of the ridiculous sentences: where there has been horrendous cruelty, criminals just get suspended sentences, whereas for metal theft people are sent to prison for 12 years. It is absolutely ridiculous.
The Government must amend the Theft Act 1968 and make pet theft a specific offence with custodial sentences. Pets’ monetary value is, as other colleagues have said, relatively small compared with luxury items, which carry a sentence of seven years as a category 1 crime. The punishment does not fit the crime as the loss of an inanimate object compared to that of a pet is very different. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford said, the Sentencing Council needs to amend the existing guidelines, to ensure that all cases of companion animal theft are considered a category 1 or 2 crime as a minimum, regardless of monetary value.
Mr Laurence Robertson (in the Chair)
We now come to the Front Bench speeches. We need to leave two or three minutes at the end for Mr Hunt to respond.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
It is a privilege and pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I thank the hon. Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) for setting the scene in such a detailed manner. At the start of the debate, he showed us all, across parties, what an important issue this is, as well as the consensus that exists not only in Parliament, but among members of the public. He also set out the impact that this crime has on victims, not only the silent victims—the stolen pets themselves, who often meet horrendous ends—but the families who suffer the emotional and psychological impact of pet theft, which I will return to in a moment.
As chair of the all-party parliamentary dog advisory welfare group, it is an honour to speak in this debate. I know about this issue, not only from my constituency, but because I receive letters and emails from constituents across the United Kingdom to the APPG saying how important it is. I hope the Minister will know that this issue is a priority for people across the UK. When those who contact me ask, “Which topic do you get most emails about from your constituents?”, I say, “Animal welfare.” I do not think my constituency is any different from any other in that regard. This issue is a priority. There is a consensus among all parties and those who have spoken. I am sure we will take this forward in the most positive way. I beseech the Minister to look seriously at it, because we are here to serve the public. That is our job as MPs, and we must take the public’s priorities and its wishes forward.
There has been a great deal of work already undertaken on these issues. I thank Dr Daniel Allen, Marc Abraham, Beverley Cuddy from Dogs Today, who covers this issue repeatedly and is such a dog welfare fan herself, the Kennel Club, Battersea and Cats Protection, who have also been in touch with me—I also thank the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) for mentioning cat theft, which is on the rise and is something that we should take very seriously—Dogs Trust, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Debbie Matthews from Vets Get Scanning. We know there are many people out there working hard on the frontline to support those who experience the tragedy of pet theft, but who also want to see that change in legislation that we have all spoken of today.
I declare my own little interest as the owner of a rescue dog, Rossi, a French bulldog who we think was probably puppy farmed. He has his tail docked and had some problems settling into the family at the start, but he is absolutely part of the family now. If we were to lose Rossi, it would be devastating not just for me and my husband—although he does complain quite a bit about having to take him out on long walks, especially as the winter months are approaching—but for our children, who are very attached.
It goes without saying that dogs should be treated as companions and family members, not just as property, and that that should be happening within the law. A survey found that 99% of pet owners consider their pets to be family members, and there are great benefits to owning a pet dog, including improved physical health by encouraging exercise, which I do every day for my husband, and reduced risk of depression and loneliness. Dog owners over 65 also make 30% fewer visits to the doctor, so it is actually helping our NHS too.
The loss of a dog or any pet can be particularly hard for those who have few others to turn to for companionship, and we know that those who have been in lockdown and isolated, or perhaps have been shielding, have found great comfort in their pets. For anyone in that circumstance to have a pet stolen would be an absolute travesty. We, as the House of Commons, need to act quickly on these issues.
A study involving in-depth interviews with dog owners who had experienced dog theft found that 30% reported feelings of loss, grief or mourning; 48% described themselves as “absolutely devastated” and 37% suffered severe psychological or physiological effects after the dog was stolen. That shows that there must be recognition within the law of the impact on people and their families. As hon. Members have mentioned today, it is not similar to losing a mobile phone, a computer or a bike; it is absolutely different and requires to be recognised as such.
We have, in fact, seen an increase in pet theft in 2020 during the covid-19 pandemic, making it all the more crucial that we act now. Wayne May from DogLost stated:
“I’ve been doing this for 30 years now and it’s the worst ever year I’ve known.”
People who steal dogs and pets are doing so for malicious reasons. I do not believe for a minute they could possibly be doing it for the welfare of the pet or the family. Research often finds that the theft is orchestrated; it may be linked with criminal gangs and dog fighting, as has already been mentioned today, or with monetary value, breeding, puppy farming and making money from the dog or pet.
In my own constituency, a little dog was stolen as part of a robbery from a home for no other reason but malice, taken and thrown in to a fountain in the middle of Glasgow, which is about 50 miles from my constituency. Luckily, a caring member of the public found the dog and he was returned to his owner. However, I understand from research that only one in five stolen dogs are found and restored to their owners. This is a crime that often goes unpunished and those who are culpable are not brought to justice. In fact, of the 44 police forces in England and Wales, 24 provided data on recorded dog theft crimes, comparing 2019 with the first seven months of 2020, and five out of the 24 police forces had more dog theft crimes in the seven months of January to July 2020 than in the whole of 2019. The number of dog theft crimes that led to charges was only 4.15% in 2015, 3.35% in 2016, 2.16% in 2017, 1.11% in 2018—the figure was actually reducing then, although it was a very small base to start off with—and 1.21% in 2019. Currently, therefore, very little deterrent exists.
Steps must be taken to change the law, not only because of the impact that I have described, but because this is a crime that basically goes unpunished for those who engage in it, so it has very little consequence. When there are crimes of this nature, that is part of the issue: people feel that they can engage in them without the force of the law being brought to bear on them and perhaps even without resources being put into seeking out the culprits.
I thank everybody who has spoken today for a very consensual debate. I think that the Minister knows that there is the weight of public opinion and opinion across the House of Commons on her to take this matter forward. I am sure that she is as dedicated to these animal welfare issues as the rest of us, and I very much look forward to hearing her comments when she sums up the debate.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) for introducing the debate with such verve. The Member whom he replaced had a similar verve when it came to animals, so there is clearly something in the way Ipswich elects people that ensures that they are animal friendly.
Like others, I place on the record my thanks to the researchers and other people who have been fighting so hard on this issue for so long. That is an aspect to which I would like to return. As the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) so ably and politely put it when mentioning it to the Minister, we have been here before. No matter how good the debate has been—this has been a very good debate—it is not the quality of the debate but the pressure on the Minister to act that we need to look at.
We have all heard this stated before, but it is true that the theft of a pet is not a simple matter of theft of an item, nor should it be treated as such by the law. It is the callous and criminal removal of a family member. It is kidnapping. It is something that strikes at the very heart of the family unit. Pet theft is a tragedy that should be measured more in emotional distress than in economic loss.
The debate has touched on not just pet theft but a number of parallel issues relating to animal welfare and protection of animals: microchipping, animal cruelty, criminal breeding, puppy farming and the import and export of animals. I think that we should not just take one item, as a line item, to look at what can be done, but recognise that pet theft plays into a much bigger concern about the future and the welfare of our animals. One of the opportunities, which has not been spoken about in the debate so far, is that of bringing together those bits of outstanding welfare legislation for which we are still waiting. As the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Jane Stevenson) hinted in her remarks, there is enormous cross-party support for many of those items sitting in Ministers’ to-do trays.
I think that the approach that Ministers have adopted, especially since 2015, of parcelling up animal welfare into smaller and smaller Bills, smaller issues, and dealing with them one by one is a fantastic way of gaining headlines, but it does not deal with the comprehensive nature of some of those challenges. I encourage the Minister to look at whether animal sentience and animal welfare sentencing—assuming that there is not enough time for the Bill that was spoken about; it is due to be debated on Friday, and I hope that there will be—as well as cat microchipping and the other issues can be wrapped up together in a flagship animal welfare Bill that could be in the Queen’s Speech. I think that there would be enormous public support not just on this issue but for a whole host of other animal welfare concerns if that were the case.
A number of hon. Members spoke passionately and it is only appropriate that I mention some of them, because it does tell a story about what is going on. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Craig Williams), who is no longer in his place, talked about the law being sub-optimal and not working. That is a cross-party concern that was echoed right across the Chamber. The reality of it, mentioned by the hon. Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson), is that only one in five animals are returned, meaning that enormous amounts of families are without their pets each and every year. That figure is important.
The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Kieran Mullan) talked about the importance of the data. I agree with him on that: the stretched police resource and the real pressure on the police mean that in many cases these crimes are not being properly recorded as pet theft. They are recorded as animals going missing, or simply not at all. That is especially true of certain age groups who do not want to be a burden or to bother the authorities. They might sit at home desperately worried about their animal, but will not want to make an appeal or burden the police with it. I say to all those people who have lost or are worried about an animal to report it. Animals in animal shelters up and down the country are waiting to be reunited with people. It is important that we encourage that so that we can get the data, as mentioned by the hon. Member, to make sure that the work is being done properly.
The hon. Member for Stockton South (Matt Vickers) said that pets are priceless, and indeed a number of Members have spoken today about the economic value of their own animals in this regard. A law based simply on an animal’s economic value will always discount and disregard the emotional value of that animal. A bigger change in animal welfare legislation is a theme we have seen in the past decade or so: we are recognising not just animals as little furry creatures, but their role within our families and within our society, and the values we want to attach to those animals are being reflected in the legislation that governs them. There has been a gap there, and there are opportunities to close that gap. I say to the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) that we all wish the village of Wherwell the best of luck with their endeavours in relation to finding Cleo. It is good to see so many people feeling strongly about the issue.
Animal welfare has been mentioned as a topic at the top of our inboxes. When I explain that to people, there is an element of shock and surprise in their first instant reaction, “Is it not Brexit? Is it not covid-19?” Then there is the realisation that people love animals more than they love people sometimes. It is no surprise to me that animal welfare is at the top of our agenda, and that demands that the action follows it.
As a number of Members, including the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), have hinted, when we talk about the theft of an animal we need to look at it not just in the moment of its being stolen, not just as regards the use of sophisticated machinery—as mentioned by the hon. Member for Ipswich in reference to the theft of a number of animals—and not just as being about opportunism. We also need to think about happens to the animal afterwards. I know that when someone loses an animal, they do not think about the economic cost, they worry about what is happening to that animal at that point. They worry about whether the animal is trapped somewhere. “Can’t they get out? Are they okay? Is there something I can do to safeguard and protect the animal?” The worry and concern eats away. The SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Lisa Cameron), spoke about the psychological torture at the moment of loss. That is what is so cruel about this crime, because it is torturous. It is a form of torture when we lose an animal along the way, and that needs to be properly reflected.
These petitions are good petitions. There is an enormous opportunity to do something about the situation. We know that pets are not simply possessions. Labour are sympathetic to the need to do more to tackle pet theft, including considering the possible changes in the law that have been spoken about so passionately across the Chamber today. There is an opportunity for Ministers to work with campaigners, because despite the reasons that have been discussed for the Government refusing to act so far—that sentences already exist and that there are criminal and sentencing guidelines—those measures are not working. This is a moment to look again at not just the words on the page of the guidelines, but how they are being implemented. They are not being implemented in a way that, I believe, carries public confidence in the measures. There is an opportunity to change that.
I hope that the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill that has, like this debate, been seen many times before will get proper attention on Friday as a private Member’s Bill. Indeed, I have called on the Government to adopt it as a Government Bill to ensure that it has enough time, and I encourage the Minister to make sure that is the case.
My neighbour, the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray) spoke passionately about the need to microchip cats. Indeed, just before the last general election some of us, in this same room, debated the need to microchip cats. That was a compelling case then, and it remains a compelling case now.
With the world in crisis, a jobs crisis looming and covid-19 taking up much of the Government’s bandwidth, how can we get animal welfare issues properly on the agenda? I say to the Minister that wrapping them together in a comprehensive animal welfare law is one way to do that, and I encourage her to include puppy smuggling as part of that. When we talk about puppy smuggling, we frequently talk about animals smuggled into the United Kingdom, but there is also the reverse trend. That is especially being used at the moment to satisfy the demand of people seeking to buy an animal during the lockdown.
We have heard a number of times during the debate about how pets offer such important companionship—they are part of the family. We know there has been a real increase in the value of animals during the lockdown, particularly dachshunds, English bulldogs, French bulldogs, pugs and chow chows—prices have been shooting up. The price of a dachshunds has shot up by a whopping 80% since the start of the lockdown. That is a market that criminals will prey on, and I encourage the Minister to ensure that that is taken into account.
Plymouth is no different from many of the places that have been mentioned so far in the debate, and there is enormous public concern that we should not find ourselves here again in six months’ time. When the Minister addresses hon. Members’ valid and well-put concerns, I encourage her to offer reassurance that all the hundreds of thousands of people who signed the petition, including 500 people in Plymouth, will not need to sign the same petition again to get another debate in order to put pressure on a Minister to enact what is a very clear and obvious instruction from the public—indeed, from the House—that we want to see pet theft taken more seriously.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson, and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess). I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) on securing the debate. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie), who cannot be with us today—I know she has worked hard in this area—and all the campaigners who have worked so hard to bring us to where we are today. We should all recognise that there is a lot of heartbreak behind the debate, in addition to the happy memories that we have with our animals.
The Government understand how important pets are to the families who care for them, and we understand that this has nothing to do with their monetary values. I am the carer—I never say “owner”—of Midnight, who did not have an unbeatable start in life round the back of the local chicken factory. He was a feral stray, and he and his brother fit on my palm when they arrived. I am proud to say that he became the purr-minister several years ago; indeed, he is campaigning at the moment for his re-election. It is clear that Midnight has no monetary value whatever, but his value to me, my husband and my children is priceless.
We have heard in the debate about a number of animals who are just like Midnight. We have heard about Trigger, Milly and Louis, Ruby and Beetle, Cromwell and Bertie, Fred, Archie, Clemmie, Poppy and Ebony, Winston, Cleo, Rossy and many more. Of course these animals are precious to their owners, as all our animals are. It is a horrible thing when an animal goes missing, but it is particularly unpleasant if the owner thinks that the animal is still alive and suffering somewhere.
Before I set out the Government’s position on pet theft, I will first set out a few high-level points on the Government’s position on animal welfare. Last December, we stood on a particularly strong manifesto for animal welfare, which included commitments to introduce tougher sentences for animal cruelty, to crack down on the illegal smuggling of dogs and puppies, to bring in new laws on animal sentience, to end excessively long journeys for slaughter and fattening, to ban the keeping of primates as pets, and to introduce cat microchipping, which is an issue that I campaigned on as a member of the all-party parliamentary group for cats—which, obviously, Midnight made me join. Those measures will build on what has already been achieved. I heard what the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) said—that it might be sensible to bring such issues together in one Bill—and I hope to have some news for him in that regard before too long.
In terms of Government achievements in this area, in 2018 we replaced old laws on the regulation of pet selling, dog breeding, animal boarding, riding schools and exhibiting animals. The regulations have strict statutory minimum welfare standards that are enforced by local authorities. I am very excited about the private Member’s Bill this Friday, the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill. This Bill, if passed—I very much hope it will be, and the Government are 100% committed behind it—will increase the maximum custodial penalty for animal cruelty from six months’ imprisonment to five years.
Microchipping has been rightly brought up by a number of hon. Members, and it certainly helps in the sphere of pet theft and in returning animals to their rightful place. To answer my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West, who made specific points on dog microchipping, a review will begin shortly into the effects of the law that was brought in on the microchipping of dogs. Their points are well are well made—I will pass them on, but they will have been heard today and I am happy to follow that up specifically.
Earlier this year, there was a call for evidence on whether to bring in compulsory microchipping for cats. The responses to that call for evidence were overwhelmingly in favour of doing so. We will be publishing a summary of responses shortly, and I anticipate that we will consult on the issue very soon.
Moving on to pet theft, it is already an offence under the Theft Act 1968 and significant penalties are already possible; the difficulty is that, as so many hon. Members across the House have said, those penalties are not always used to the maximum. As we have heard, the maximum penalty is up to seven years’ imprisonment, which could go even higher if the theft occurred, as sadly they sometimes do, as part of an aggravated burglary or robbery. One difficulty is that we have limited data available to us about exactly what is happening on the ground.
Jim Shannon
One thing that has been touched on and that I am aware of is puppy smuggling and the transfer of dogs between Scotland, Wales, Ireland and Northern Ireland, because it is quite clear that trafficking goes on there. The police have stopped some vehicles at the port of Stranraer and have caught people with them. Has there been any contact with the Republic of Ireland? We need to have that regionally as well.
Victoria Prentis
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which is that very often pet theft is carried out by criminal gangs, who use every opportunity to evade justice.
If someone causes an animal to suffer in the course of stealing it from its owner, we have recourse to the Animal Welfare Act 2006, and we very much hope we will have stronger sentencing powers under that Act shortly, if we are able to move forward with the private Member’s Bill. Sentencing, of course, remains a matter for the courts, and when deciding what sentence to impose the courts should take into account the circumstances of the offence and any mitigating and aggravating factors, in line with the guidelines issued by the Sentencing Council.
In 2016, the Sentencing Council updated its guidelines in relation to sentencing for theft, and DEFRA fed into that review. The new guidelines set out that emotional distress and non-monetary value are factors to be taken into consideration when passing sentence, so the impact on the victim is now very much something that a court can and should take into account. I know that the Lord Chancellor met my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich to discuss this very issue only last week. I welcome the engagement that has come about as a result of these petitions and this debate, and I look forward to playing my own part in that discussion.
We do not currently think that the creation of a specific offence for pet theft, with a two-year custodial penalty, would really help much. We think the way to go is to continue the discussions that I know my hon. Friend is already undertaking on sentencing guidelines. To that end, the Government are very willing to work with interested parties, including the police and animal welfare organisations. We are keen to act in this area, and I look forward to taking that forward with Members from across the House.
Tom Hunt
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I thank everyone for attending. I think there is cross-party consensus, which might not be the case for the next debate that I lead, which is straight after this one, but I am glad of it anyway. I forgot to say that I do not currently own a pet, because my lifestyle does not really allow it, but I used to be another springer spaniel owner. I used to own an out-of-control springer called Lucy, who sometimes would just run off and spring into the golf course. Sometimes I wished she would not come back, but she always did. She always knew where to come back to, and I loved her dearly.
There is a sense that the law as it stands is not working. There are lots of different options and pathways to change that, and one way or another we need to do that. Dog theft is, as Dr Allen says, low risk and high reward. The price of puppies has gone up. Thieves think, “I may as well do it. The chances of being caught are very slim, and if I am caught, that chap over there who did it got a slap on the wrist and a couple of hundred quid fine.” If, however, they see the person down the road who did it end up in prison for two or three years, that will act as a basic deterrent.
Why now? On the face of it, it might be tempting, with covid-19, Brexit and everything else going on, to question whether this is really a priority. It absolutely is. As has been stated by virtually every Member present, our pets have never come to the forefront more than right now. Something else that is cropping up on the agenda is mental health. It was cropping up even before covid, but right now—partly because every single person in the country has had their mental health affected to some degree by this crisis—we are talking about mental health more than ever before. Our pets and our animals are crucial to our mental health support. Losing them—having them ripped away from us in the way that has been described in so many powerful stories—is incredibly traumatic and harrowing. Taking action in this place to address that is incredibly important.
As the Minister said, while I was in lockdown I had a virtual meeting with my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, which was positive. I also point out that those behind the petitions, with whom I have had close engagement, are pragmatic. They have an ideal outcome, but they can still see how getting change in the guidelines would be a major step forward and something to build on.
We are a nation of pet lovers. We mentioned dogs and cats, but there is also potential for other animals. Parrots can be stolen, as can budgies and potentially guinea pigs—I do not know. We could go on and on, but ultimately those discussions need to continue. I plan to continue to work with the Ministry of Justice and with colleagues, who will hopefully grow in number. I hope that more and more Members become interested and want to retain that interest going forward. This is an easy thing that the Government can do to show that they are on the side of the public. We have cross-party consensus, so let us have some action.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petitions 244530 and 300071 relating to pet theft.
Immigration
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir David Amess (in the Chair)
As this is only the third week since we have resumed our sittings in Westminster Hall, I remind hon. Members of the new procedures. We now have call lists, and we have just one withdrawal from that list, so there are nine people in total wishing to speak. We have been asked to tell colleagues to please sanitise the microphones before they leave, as it saves the staff getting involved with that. Only Members on the call list can speak, and Members are not expected to stay for winding-up speeches, but if they could stay for two speeches after they have spoken, that would be helpful.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 321862 relating to immigration.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the second time today, Sir David. I want to start by paying tribute to the more than 125,000 people—including 202 from my constituency—who signed the petition to stop illegal immigration and secured this important debate in Parliament. I am glad to be able to introduce this petition to Parliament as a member of the Petitions Committee. Well over four years ago, more people voted to take back control of our money, our laws and, crucially, our borders than voted for anything in the history of this country. This petition is another powerful democratic reminder of our responsibility to deliver borders in which the people in this country can have confidence.
Before I get into the petition’s substance, I want to head off arguments often made on the left that seek to stifle meaningful debate such as this on illegal immigration. Contrary to what they may say, wanting to have a fair system of rules to govern who enters our country is not about being anti-immigrant or anti-refugee. The vast majority of my constituents who write to me about the issue are not anti-immigrant and they are not racist. Like me, they are immensely proud to be part of the diverse town of Ipswich, which has benefited enormously from immigration and shown its spirit of generosity to some of the most needy refugees coming directly from war-torn countries. Last month, I visited the Suffolk refugee centre in Ipswich to hear some of those people’s stories, including from people who have become successful entrepreneurs in our town.
Our asylum system should be based on compassion, but for that to work, it must also be based on rules that people can have trust in. That is the thrust of the petition, along with a poll by YouGov in August, which found that 73% consider illegal channel crossings to be a serious issue. I know from talking to people in my constituency and elsewhere that the overwhelming mood among the public is one of frustration at the lawlessness we so often see in our seas. Added to that is the vexation that a great country such as ours, which has voted to take back its sovereignty, seems to have its hands tied when it comes to controlling who comes into our island home and removing people who are here illegally. The vast majority of people in this country know that, without borders, we do not have a country and that while we should welcome the world’s best and brightest and those genuinely seeking refuge, who want to come here legally, our hospitality must not be taken for granted.
Perhaps the most important word in the petition, though, is the word “action”. The public’s patience is hanging by a thread, and we have reached the point where words will no longer suffice. Today, I want to underline how action is urgently needed in two key areas if we are to mend the public’s broken trust in the integrity of our borders. The first is stemming the flow of people entering this country illegally, and the second is ending the abuse of our broken asylum system.
I will start with the issue of illegal entry and the unprecedented number of illegal migrants we have seen crossing the channel this year. So far in 2020, more than 7,000 people have entered our country that way, which is more than five times the number who arrived via that route in 2019. It has been particularly difficult in recent months for the law-abiding majority in the UK to see these boats flouting our laws with near impunity on almost a daily basis when we are being asked to follow some of the greatest restrictions on our freedoms that this country has ever had to impose.
The images we have seen on our TV screens of these illegal boats arriving at our shores are a stark reminder that, more than four years on from the 2016 Brexit vote, we still have not taken back control of our borders in a meaningful sense. The only way to prevent these illegal crossings is by sending a clear message to everyone thinking of coming here illegally that all attempts will be futile. We must look at what the Australians did with Operation Sovereign Borders, where they blocked all boats from landing in Australia. After the policy was introduced, the number of people trying to enter Australia illegally by boat dropped from over 2,600 a month to just over 200.
We must be prepared to deploy similar safe-return tactics. I welcome the fact that the Government are looking at a range of options, including learning from the Australian approach. The shadow Home Secretary, the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), has said that that approach lacks compassion. I would like to hear today from the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) exactly how the status quo is compassionate when it fuels the evil trafficking of human beings and dangerous sea crossings that we currently see. What exactly is Labour’s position on this matter, and what would it do?
It is good that the Government are working with the French to prevent these crossings, but we must be clear that our ability to protect our borders should not be contingent on the French or any other third country being willing to play ball. We must have the capacity to act in our own national interest, and after the EU transition period has ended we must extricate ourselves from all EU and international rules that prevent us from towing these boats all the way back to France, if necessary.
Sending out the message that illegally crossing the channel just will not work is also a humanitarian necessity. When the leadership of the Labour party and others in the liberal left establishment are content to turn a blind eye to crossings, it plays into the hands of the ruthless people smugglers who exploit these vulnerable migrants, often taking their money only to push them out to sea in unseaworthy boats and without lifejackets but with instructions to threaten to throw themselves overboard to prevent them from being picked up by the French authorities.
The tragic case of a 16-year-old Sudanese boy who washed up on a French beach in August, having drowned while trying to reach the UK, should never have been allowed to happen. I understand that another death may have happened this weekend in the channel. Those who refuse to act to stop these crossings or who even encourage them out of an ideological attachment to open borders are putting the people they claim to want to help in immense danger. By way of contrast, in the five years before Australia implemented its zero-tolerance approach to illegal boats in 2013, 877 migrants drowned trying to make the journey. Since then, I understand that none has.
Let us move on to our asylum system. Coupled with stopping illegal entry, we must also diminish the pull factors that cause migrants to attempt these dangerous crossings in the first place. At the heart of that must be overhauling our broken asylum system, as these migrants know that, if they can reach our shores and claim asylum, the overwhelming chances are that they will be able to stay for good. Of about 9,000 people who have crossed the channel illegally since the start of 2019, less than 3% have been returned, despite about 80% of those this year being found to have no credible asylum claim here in the UK.
As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has rightly pointed out, the exploitation of our asylum system is abetted by certain liberal sections of our legal establishment who exploit our human rights law and submit multiple bogus claims on behalf of migrants who have already had their claims rejected to stop deportations. The spectacle we saw earlier this month when 29 out of 30 failed asylum seekers were taken off a deportation flight at the last moment following the intervention of human rights lawyers is a clear demonstration of how the law as it stands is not on the side of the people it is meant to serve.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has her finger on the pulse, especially compared to the Labour party, which last year voted at its party conference to make the problem much more difficult by closing all immigration detention centres. By contrast, the actions the Government have set out in their response to the petition, including withdrawing from the Dublin regulation and the EU’s common asylum system at the end of the transition period, will help us end the situation where the UK takes three times as many asylum seekers from the whole of the EU as we send back.
However, I urge the Minister to go further today than the Home Office’s written response to this petition, which says that
“if a migrant has chosen to evade immigration control or enter the UK illegally, then they can have no expectation of remaining in the absence of a genuine claim for UK protection”.
The expectation should be that anyone who has deliberately chosen to enter this country through an illegal route— those who do so have often travelled through many safe European countries to get here—should have no expectation that they will be able to stay.
To the public, it is unjustifiable that if they break the law, they will be punished, but if someone breaks our immigration rules, they stand a chance of being rewarded by getting to stay here. Tackling that is an essential part of building an ever more compassionate asylum system. Ideally, all asylum claims would be processed in centres that are outside the UK and close to the most needy. It is completely unfair to those who want to come here legally and directly from war-torn countries—it is also unfair to the taxpayers who fund our asylum system—if economic migrants from safe countries such as France can jump the queue ahead of them.
There is an important debate to be had about whether the country can accept more asylum seekers legally, but that is an entirely separate debate and one that will be difficult to have until members of the public have confidence that our laws are being followed consistently. What the public will not accept is the notion pushed by some on the left that because, in their eyes, we do not take enough refugees legally, we are somehow deserving of illegal attempts to breach our borders.
I know that the Home Secretary appreciates the urgency of this issue. I recognise the need for a robust dual approach to tackle illegal entry and our broken asylum system, if we are to get a grip on illegal immigration. That is the only approach that delivers for the millions of people who voted in the 2016 referendum, and that is both fair to the law-abiding people in this country and compassionate towards those who need our help the most.
However, I ask the Minister to be completely clear with the public that we will not leave the job almost done. Everyone who breaks our laws to come here must be removed, and we must take matters into our own hands when it comes to acting with autonomy in the English channel to protect our sovereignty. This is a test of the country’s political will, and I trust that the Minister will ensure that we seize all opportunities to take back control and ensure that our country is no longer a passive actor.
Over the past few months, I have received significant amounts of correspondence on this issue, and I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members are in the same position. There is a desire for us to be pro-immigration for people who want to contribute and integrate, and for us to have a rules-based process that is driven by compassion for those who are most needy and vulnerable. However, most of those who have written to me do not want a situation that looks like lawlessness, in which people can jump the queue. We need a rules-based system that has compassion at its heart, but we need to deal with illegal immigration as a matter of absolute priority.
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con)
It is a great pleasure, Sir David, to serve under your chairmanship for the first time.
It is difficult to believe that almost a year ago, the Conservative party was elected by the British people with a mighty majority and a clear mandate to deliver on our promises: to get Brexit done; to provide world-class public services while exercising sound fiscal management; and, crucially, to reform our immigration policy to emulate the system that is successfully employed by Australia.
Sadly, over the summer months hundreds of illegal immigrants have crossed the English channel from France to our shores. This year, a record 7,200 migrants have reached UK shores in small boats, compared with around 1,850 last year. In September alone, 1,954 made it across the English channel. I read in the newspapers only two days ago that a French navy warship escorted a boat full of migrants across the channel.
Those who land on British soil, as well as those who labour in the grey economy, are sent to hotels and other accommodation across the country, such as the Cedar Court Hotel and the Hotel St Pierre in Wakefield. Such luxury establishments are being used, at great expense, to house those who are awaiting their asylum determination. However, I take heart from the fact that the Home Secretary has taken a strong line against illegal crossings to the UK. Firmer action in our territorial waters, through our work with the French border forces and through our legal system, will be critical to achieving that objective.
The Labour party chooses to attack the Home Secretary for her laudable decision to stand steadfast against illegal immigration. However, rewarding those who illegally cross with automatic residency is false compassion. It undermines our national security and not only encourages others to follow suit, but supports the beastly trade in humans, which is certainly something we should never encourage. I do not wish for the drawbridge to be raised and for the United Kingdom to be isolated from the rest of the world, but I feel it is nigh time for economic migration to be disaggregated from the claims of those who seek genuine asylum. The two have become dangerously conflated in the public consciousness.
Diversity and tolerance of one another, regardless of creed or colour, is one of our characteristic principles. My ancestors are testament to that principle. My late father, who was born in the North-West Frontier of British India, in what is now Pakistan, travelled to the United Kingdom to study at University College London and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. He served his entire life, until his dying day, as a consultant dermatologist, serving and tending to the people of Wakefield, who I am proud to represent. My family have suffered terrible persecution, with many being killed and tortured in Muslim-majority countries, because they are from a peace-loving community that is repugnant to the peddlers of hate and extremism—Ahmadis. Many of them have sought refuge and forged purposeful lives in our country. That is something we should be proud of.
The Conservatives want to ensure that our immigration system is remade to attract the brightest and best to enter the United Kingdom legally to live and work, regardless of their country of origin. It is our moral duty to ensure that the United Kingdom prevents people from illegally entering our country and taking advantage of us and our people. If we do not, the state of our community relations will only go one way—a deep and painful downward trajectory. For all these reasons, we must tackle the menace of illegal immigration with zero tolerance for illegal claims.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the second time this afternoon, Sir David, even if the first occasion was only for a short time. I am pleased to take part in the debate.
In common with you, I suspect, Sir David, and all or most of those who are in the Chamber, first and foremost in my thoughts is compassion for those who are in need; for those who have had to flee their homes because of persecution; and for those who, as a result of violence, have lost loved ones, homes or property and had their jobs and opportunities destroyed. I believe we have a moral obligation to help those who are in need and those who have had their lives torn apart by persecution, through no fault of their own.
I am chair of the all-party group on international freedom of religion or belief, in which I have a deep interest, as do many others in the Chamber. When I came to the House in 2010, I had hoped that we could consider the subject regularly on the Floor of the House, and we have been successful in that endeavour. We have also been successful in getting the Government to respond, to understand the issues and to bring into play many things to help Christians and other persecuted groups across the world. As chair of the all-party group, I speak out for Christians and those of other religions. Indeed, I speak out for those with no religion. The Minister, who has been at the forefront in a previous job, has a deep interest in the matter as well.
I am the strongest advocate for the retention of international aid to help those who need our help, and I believe that that aid should be delivered through projects on the ground. The Government have never abdicated their responsibility for doing just that. Although we might have concerns over the amalgamation of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development, the Government have said that they will commit to spending 0.7% of GDP so that we can help people in other countries. I hope that future Government policy will reflect that; that is the person that I am, Sir David. This House has a massive role to play in supporting individuals affected by persecution, and in effecting change to prevent persecution.
I spoke to Naomi, who works on preparing my speeches. She is a very busy girl, and we try to keep her active. She and I are in the same boat on these things. I am reminded that, along with the Government, the Northern Ireland Assembly and local community groups, we settled six Syrian families in Newtownards. It was a very humbling experience to meet people who have had to flee their homes and could not return, even though they wanted to, because their houses and property were no longer there, their families had been decimated and many of their loved ones had been killed.
Those six families came to live in Newtownards. Some had a rudimentary grasp of the English language and others did not, but the community came together. What a joy it was to have the Housing Executive working to get them a house, the Department for Work and Pensions working to see how we could help them with finance, and all the church and community groups coming together to provide them with furniture, food and so on. That strong relationship is still there, with the whole community—the Government centrally and locally, and those in the community—working together to help them. Those six families are starting to integrate in the town of Newtownards. It is a joy to be able to reach out and help, in a small way, those who have nobody else to help them.
I am a practical person who understands that we have a duty of care to our own citizens in this country, which precedes any other obligation. Although we must help those who need help, we need to do so in tandem with meeting the needs of our own communities. The resettlement of those families happened only because the communities wanted it to happen, and it was important that we all came together. It is a difficult balance, but I sincerely believe that we can find the balance and help individuals while effecting the global change that we all want to see. The hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens), who is my friend, speaks for the Scottish National party. We have spoken together in many debates, and we understand the need for the Government to work hard to make things happen.
I read the Government’s response to the petition and was pleased to see that the French have managed—I use these words very carefully—to stop 300 dangerous crossings taking place. Why is it dangerous? Because people die on those crossings. A man was recently found on a beach; I am not sure whether it was found out who he was, but the police were of the opinion that he had drowned on his way over here. I must highlight the fact that 300 is only half the total; the other 50% were not successfully stopped. I use words carefully, ever mindful of where I am coming from. As a father, my heart goes out to those who are so desperate for a different life that they feel they have no option other than to cross in such a dangerous way. When we see the rubber rafts and wee dinghies that are used to bring people over, we can understand the extent of the danger.
Having met some of the Syrian Christian refugees in Newtownards and heard their stories, I am pleased to be able to be involved in a small way, as everybody did their part. It is like being part of a big engine, with many cogs; I am just a small cog in the wheel, but all the other cogs come together to make it all happen. It is clear that we must do something to be compassionate, but we must also ensure that those who claim asylum do so in a safe and suitable way, and that we have somewhere for that family to go and a hope for their future.
In my 10 short years in this House—I am not like you, Sir David; I think you have been in this House forever—we have been able to help many people with their immigration issues. I want to put on record that I have always found Ministers immensely helpful. The Minister wants to help us find a solution to our problems.
It is important that we find a way to make that happen. I believe there are several ways to achieve that. I have contacted the Home Office a number of times, asking for us to show compassion to immigrants who have made it to our shore and to help them as much as we can. We must be aware that the dangerous crossing must be avoided at all costs, because it is just that dangerous.
As we move into winter, the press say—I do not know if they are right—that we will get 15 or 20 days of the worst weather that we have had at this time of year for a long time. We must have a system in place that allows for application from safety in France and other nations, and we must ensure that those who come here do so legally and with a plan in mind, so that we can help them to find a job, a house and a community that wants to welcome them in.
I agree with the Government statement:
“There are a number of legal routes for migration. Denying the use of dangerous routes from safe third countries does not deny people the right to seek asylum in those countries.”
I welcome that because I want to see the Government reaching out and trying to help. The Government have said:
“We are clear that if a migrant has chosen to evade immigration control or enter the UK illegally, then they can have no expectation of remaining in the absence of a genuine claim for UK protection”.
However, if it can be proven that an immigrant has experienced, as many of those I represent have, some of the worst violent, cruel and surgical persecution, mentally, physically and socially, in a way that makes my heart reach out to them—in many cases, such as the ones I have been involved with, it has been proven, and I welcome that—then the immigrant does deserve to have their genuine claim for UK protection.
However, the current operation of the Human Rights Act 1998, the EU’s common European asylum system and, in particular, the Dublin regulation make that a cumbersome and lengthy process. There are cases that I have been pursuing for people for over four or even five years. At the end of the transition period in January 2021, however, we will be free of the Dublin regulation and the common asylum system, and we will be able to negotiate new return agreements on our own terms. Again, we look forward to having some control over what we do and how we can help people in far-off countries.
The Government response continues:
“Asylum seekers entering from safe countries will remain a priority for removal, along with foreign national prisoners and those whose removal is justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health.”
I am not one to report on everything I read in the papers, but some of us in this room can remember the person who was guilty of a criminal offence and put on a plane to be deported, but the passengers on the plane spoke up and the person had to be removed. I think it may have been in the press again last week. Two years later, it is time for that person, who did not do the right thing by committing a criminal offence and taking advantage of this country’s good policies, to leave.
I look forward to understanding how we can be compassionate and caring within a legal system that enables people who have no place to go due to persecution—those for whom I speak and whose letters I read every week—to come here and be a living, working part of our wonderful, diverse community in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. As I often say: better together.
I look to the Minister to get the answer that we need. I have every confidence that we will be working in a way that allows us to look after those people who come to us with their asylum needs and that we can reach out and make this a country that invites people here, but we need regulation to ensure that those who come are deserving of that right.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
I am pleased that this debate is taking place, especially as illegal immigration is an issue of particular concern to my constituents. The petition was signed by more than 270 individuals in Don Valley. Equally, dozens of constituents emailed me about the illegal channel crossings over the summer months. They were angry about what they saw, especially as many had believed that our departure from the European Union would lead us to have more, not less, control of our borders.
I know that some individuals, and even some right hon. and hon. Members, will claim that the petition has anti-immigration undertones and is even racist, yet I could not disagree more. I believe that immigrants have played a crucial role in our nation’s history and continue to contribute massively to our economy and innovation. Moreover, I am sure that the vast majority of people in Don Valley, and those who have signed the petition, would share a similar view. However, it is also my view that the majority of people would agree that it is essential that people come to our country in a manner that is legal and fair. For that reason, the Government should do whatever is necessary to deter illegal immigration humanely. After all, we should remember that one of the main reasons that people from around the world have come to our shores is that this country has a long-held sense of fairness, which is undoubtedly a British value. Yet what is not fair is for individuals to jump the queue, bypass those who are legitimately seeking asylum and land on our shores uninvited.
Although I cannot stress how much I sympathise with individuals who are fleeing terrible circumstances, those crossing the channel in small boats were doing so from a safe country: France. There is no reason why they could not have sought asylum there, unless of course their primary concern was not to flee war, but to come here for economic reasons. That is unfair not only to legitimate refugees, but to the British people, who for too long have felt that we have no control over who we are letting into the country. The figures speak for themselves and they do not reflect well on us as politicians. Polling from September last year revealed that a mere 13% of the public trust MPs to tell the truth on immigration. It is therefore important that we listen properly to the concerns of the people we represent, rather than write off such concerns.
I welcome the Government’s work with their French counterparts to deter the crossings. The individuals who traffic people across the channel are vicious criminals who do not care about the lives of those they are transporting. We should all welcome the Government’s commitment to work with the European authorities and to pursue those who are engaged in this practice.
Another pressing challenge for the Government is to return individuals to the safe countries in which they resided before coming illegally to the UK. Now that we have left the European Union, we should seize the opportunity to reaffirm a British sense of fairness to our immigration and asylum system. Article 3 of the European convention on human rights can be used by some lawyers to stop the British Government sending back foreign criminals and people who are not eligible for asylum. As right hon. and hon. Members know, the interpretation of whether an individual will be subject to inhuman or degrading treatment if they are removed from the UK is judged on a case-by-case basis. I am pleased to have read that the Government will therefore better define what is meant by inhuman or degrading treatment, so that the boundaries of what that means cannot be stretched to such an extent that the terms become meaningless.
That is extremely important, expressly because two months ago a Home Office charter flight with 23 illegal immigrants was grounded at the very last minute by human rights lawyers. This has nothing to do with fairness and is merely a form of left-wing activism. If we are to restore people’s trust in our immigration system, that must come to an end.
We therefore need to quicken the process of returning false asylum claimants while also ensuring that those with genuine claims are not trapped in an endless cycle of bureaucracy. That would better deter people from making illegal crossings, while genuinely helping those who need our protection. That is what the signatories to the petition want, and I support them. The Home Secretary has promised a complete overhaul in this area, which I know the people of Dom Valley will welcome enormously. I can only urge other Members to listen to the concerns of the British people and, as the Home Secretary said, make our asylum system “firm but fair”.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) for presenting the debate on what is a pressing issue, as underlined by the significant support for the petition.
Many from my own constituency of Redcar and Cleveland are concerned by the daily arrival of boats on our shores bringing more and more illegal immigrants to this country via an unsafe and unlawful route. When I raised the issue in my local newspapers and local media, I was lambasted by local Labour politicians for commenting on issues 300 miles from the sandy shores of Redcar and Marske. However, the fact that 311 of my constituents have signed this petition—more than anyone else speaking in this debate—shows the strength of feeling. It was the No. 1 issue in my inbox over the summer, so I will not take any lectures from the Labour party—particularly given that its Members have not even attended this debate—for speaking up for my constituents. Perhaps their silence on the issue is the reason why Redcar elected its first ever Tory MP in December.
The safest, most humane and most compassionate thing we can do for any person wanting to cross the channel illegally is to stop them getting in the boat. It cannot be right that vulnerable people are charged thousands of pounds to be loaded, without lifejackets and with 40 others, into a dinghy meant for 20 people, and then pushed into the open sea in the hope that they will reach Britain. Two people have died this year attempting these crossings, and it is thanks to our coastguard, lifeboats, the Royal Navy and UK Border Force that many more have not faced the same fate. Despite our best efforts to make the route unviable—I commend the actions of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the Minister, who has graciously spoken with me about this issue a number of times—these arrivals have rapidly increased, with more than 7,000 this year. Urgent measures are needed to stop the flow. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Natalie Elphicke), who could not be here today, but who has worked incredibly hard alongside the Home Office. I commend her for that.
It is not acceptable for it to be so easy for criminal gangs to profit from other people’s desperation and prevent those genuinely fleeing persecution from finding safe refuge. Our asylum system is clogged and overwhelmed with requests. While applicants wait for an outcome, we should bear in mind that, regardless of the legitimacy of their claim, they are, rightly, housed and fed—but at the expense of the taxpayer.
No one is arguing that legitimate and genuine asylum seekers should not be able to find safe refuge in the UK. We are a country with a proud record of providing asylum to those seeking safety from war zones and persecution. But right now we are simply failing to do so. Our asylum system has been hijacked by individuals who deliberately intend to abuse our generosity. This needs to end. It is unacceptable to genuine asylum seekers and to our constituents, including mine in Redcar and Cleveland, who are paying their taxes and seeing that squandered on false asylum claims. People who are genuinely seeking a safe refuge could and should claim asylum in the first country they reach. Before crossing the channel, many will have already registered as an asylum seeker in another EU country and will travel through France and various other countries to get to our shores. I believe that the route will continually be abused until we make it unviable for those who seek to abuse it.
To that end, I believe that our approach should be twofold. First, we need properly to resource the National Crime Agency, UK Border Force and the police to root out the people smugglers and organised crime gangs that perpetuate this form of illegal immigration. Secondly, we should adopt an Australian-style approach to illegal immigration, whereby we intercept a vessel, ensure the safety of its passengers and then return it to the shores from which it left. Only by doing that will we prove to those seeking to cross to the UK that the route is unviable and, in turn, starve the people smugglers of their funds from that abusive practice.
I know that many organisations are already doing an incredible job in cracking down on the criminal gangs—those organisation are working alongside the French authorities—and I welcome the arrests that the Minister has previously announced from the Dispatch Box. But may I urge Ministers to go further and do everything they can to ensure that the French authorities are stopping people attempting to make the crossing in the first place? May I also urge them to push for joint operations to intercept boats at sea and ensure that they are returned safely?
We must take this problem seriously and ensure that anyone who breaks the law faces the full consequence, or we risk failing those who genuinely need our help. I want to finish as I started, by saying that the safest, most humane and most compassionate thing that we can do for any person wanting to cross the channel illegally is to stop them getting in the boat.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir David. I very much enjoyed the speech by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and I agreed with most of it, apart from his final paragraph, but I have to say that that is where the consensus ends in this debate—and it is a debate. I certainly was struck by the fact that a number of contributions talked about illegal immigration, but not one Member actually articulated what that means and gave their definition of illegal immigration, so let us move on to the facts, rather than the rhetoric.
The facts are these. The number of people claiming asylum substantially reduced in 2020. This year, there has been a 40% drop, according to the Government’s own statistics. It is the route that has changed. It is because other routes are no longer available that there are the crossings that we are discussing.
It is not illegal to enter the UK for the purpose of making an asylum claim, and the most recent evidence set out by the Home Office’s clandestine channel threat commander suggests that 100% of the people crossing the English channel in small boats are doing so to claim asylum. That was clear evidence that was given by the commander to the Home Affairs Committee. They are doing so to seek international protection. None is trying to enter the country unobserved or for criminal reasons. That was the evidence that was presented. And as I said, there has been a 40% drop, according to the immigration statistics published in August of this year, and that is compared with the last quarter of 2019.
Jacob Young
I accept the hon. Gentleman’s argument that the route has changed—it has indeed—but does he not see that the route is now much more unsafe? Any other route by which an asylum claim can be made is intrinsically safer than going out to sea in a dinghy that is not meant for the number of people whom it is carrying.
Chris Stephens
The UK Government have a responsibility to provide safe legal routes for people claiming asylum. I will come to that later in my contribution.
What is the legal position for people seeking asylum in the UK after arriving from France? Those arriving in the UK and making a claim for asylum are subject to international refugee law, and their rights are not affected by the mode of arrival or means of entry. The UK is a signatory to the 1951 convention relating to the status of refugees and the 1967 protocol.
How does the legal system intervene to help people who are being removed? I was staggered to hear that the legal profession in the UK has been overrun by these Trotskyite and Marxist lawyers who are stopping people being deported. What absolute, utter nonsense. That is certainly not the case. I will explain, for those watching this debate, how the legal system actually stops people being removed, because the claim that the legal system sometimes unfairly prevents people from being removed is nonsense and misrepresents how our asylum and human rights law functions and its purpose
There are established processes for the removal of people in certain circumstances where their asylum claim has been fully heard by the UK or should be held elsewhere. I have no problem with that. I have seen individuals come to my office who have had to be deported because of the way in which they went through the system. Some of that included criminal activity. I have no problem with that at all. However, removals are stopped for a wide range of reasons, such as on health grounds, concerns about trafficking, or appeals relating to protecting the rights of individuals. Where those removals are halted, it is because the Home Office and the Home Secretary are not adhering to the law.
Removals cannot be prevented by lawyers themselves. We have heard in this debate that it is the lawyers who are stopping deportations. That is nonsense. The legal assistance is provided to ensure that the law is upheld and, if necessary, a court of law determines whether a removal is stopped. Such processes have to be undertaken quickly, as applicants will not usually be given much notice of removal proceedings. That is a fact, as my constituency casework shows, given that Glasgow is the only place in Scotland that takes on asylum seekers.
Imran Ahmad Khan
The hon. Gentleman says that Glasgow takes on asylum seekers. He will be fully aware that, a few years ago, one of my co-religionists was murdered in his shop by somebody of Pakistani origin simply for being an Ahmadi Muslim who wished his Christian neighbours a happy Easter. As somebody who is particularly familiar with the issue of asylum, I also know of abuses of the system and of people who genuinely do need safe avenues for asylum. I can tell the hon. Gentleman categorically that people can apply for asylum in this country through legal mechanisms. Since the 1980s, the Ahmadi community has banned and refused people the right of entering this or any other country through illegal means. That is why we have no—
Sir David Amess (in the Chair)
Order. If that was an intervention, I must say to the hon. Member that it was quite a long intervention and it did not seem to have a question to it, so could he come to his point, please?
Imran Ahmad Khan
Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that evidence shows that people abuse the asylum system? Do we not want those who come here to live and work among us and to become part of the fabric—the silver and golden threads—of the national tapestry to obey the rules? That is one of the characteristics of our country, and if we allow those who are coming in to break the rules from the get-go, are they going to fit?
Chris Stephens
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his second speech. I must say to him—I will be quick, for time purposes—that there is a great Ahmadi community in Glasgow, of which we are very proud. All I can say to him, based on my experience of dealing with asylum claims, is that asylum claim abuses are few and far between compared with those seeking genuine asylum.
Touching on the hon. Gentleman’s point, I would want asylum seekers to be given, after a certain point, the right to work so that they are embedded in the community. That must be looked at. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) has a private Member’s Bill on that matter, and there must be serious discussion about allowing asylum seekers the right to work.
I am proud to have an office manager who is a refugee, who had family members murdered by Saddam Hussein’s regime. When she came to this country, her father was working. Far from the rhetoric that we heard about the Labour party being left wing, it was the Labour party that took my office manager’s father’s national insurance from him. The then Labour Government changed the law to stop asylum seekers having the right to work. I hope the hon. Member for Wakefield (Imran Ahmad Khan) will seriously consider that in his Bill and consider that asylum seekers, after a certain period, should have the right to work so that they can make the contribution that he wants them to make.
As a party, we believe that the Home Office’s response to the recent channel crossings displays a complete disregard for human suffering that is both shocking and shameful. Responding to the crossings in a dystopian, quasi-militaristic way, with surveillance technology, appointing a clandestine channel threat commander and positing the idea of bringing in the Royal Navy—later condemned by the UN Refugee Agency and the International Organisation for Migration—only reinforces the headlines that liken that failure of leadership to an invasion.
Contrary to the Department’s remarks, the reality is far from being the crisis the newspapers suggest it is. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees’ representative in the UK said recently:
“The UK is far from the epicentre of the real challenge.”
Asylum claims in the UK—as I have said, and I will say it again—have fallen in 2020, as confirmed by Abi Tierney, the director general of UK Visas and Immigration, to the Select Committee on Home Affairs in September.
The response to the petition describes channel crossings as “unacceptable behaviour”. The Department seems unable to understand—or perhaps fails to mention—that it has already closed and is closing more safe legal routes for refugees to reach the United Kingdom. That is leaving extremely vulnerable individuals who are often fleeing unimaginable conditions, as the hon. Member for Strangford rightly pointed out, with little choice but to place their fate in the hands of criminal gangs. Furthermore, a report last year by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, of which the Home Secretary was a member at the time, said:
“In the absence of robust and accessible legal routes for seeking asylum in the UK, those with a claim are left with little choice but to make dangerous journeys by land and sea.”
Chris Stephens
I assume the Minister is seeking to make an intervention, because there was a lot of noise there as I was making those remarks. I am happy to give way to him.
Chris Philp
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He said that migrants are compelled to cross the English channel to claim asylum. I respectfully point out that they are in France, typically northern France. France is a civilised and safe country with a well-functioning asylum system, and should anyone in northern France feel they need to claim asylum, they are perfectly able to do so there. They do not need to make one of those dangerous crossings.
Chris Stephens
That may very well be the Minister’s view. He will have an opportunity to say that, and I will perhaps make an intervention—[Interruption.] The Minister is harrumphing from a sedentary position. I am concerned for his welfare. He seems rather excitable, Sir David. Perhaps you can pass him a note and have a word just to calm him down. Thank you, Sir David.
The staggering leaked UK Government documents only prove that the Tory hostile environment towards immigration and immigrants is still alive and kicking. In response to the petition, the Home Office said:
“The UK has long been a sanctuary for those in need of international protection”.
Leaked documents provided evidence that the Home Office was considering wave machines to deter boats, nets to clog boats’ propellers and the transportation of asylum seekers more than 4,000 miles away to Ascension Island for processing. Those are preposterous suggestions and show how far the Government will go to drive home and engender the Brexit ideology that has already poisoned some of the political discourse in this country.
The Refugees Council policy manager, Judith Dennis, said that the UK must treat refugees and asylum seekers with dignity. Instead, those ridiculous proposals set an unsettling precedent, firing the starting gun of a race to the bottom in terms of treating refugees and asylum seekers with any humanity and compassion.
I believe that the asylum system must be fair and compassionate, but it must also be professional. I hope the Minister answers the question for which I have been trying to seek debates—unfortunately, I seem to be missing out on the ballots for either Westminster Hall or an Adjournment debate—about why a private company has been called in to process asylum claim interviews in the last couple of weeks. In secret, with no statement, either written or verbal, provided to hon. Members, a private company has been called in by the Home Office to carry out asylum claim interviews.
Is it Serco? It would not surprise us, let us be honest, if it was Serco, a company that has certainly been mentioned as carrying out these asylum claim interviews. What training and expertise does it have to carry them out? It really is, I suggest, quite ludicrous that a private company, be it Serco or any other, is being asked to carry out a quasi-legal process, which asylum claim interviews should be, under the aegis of a pilot programme. I hope the Minister will address the concerns that I and many Members of the House have on that issue.
I am conscious of time, and I want to allow the two other Front Benchers to speak. We keep being told that the asylum system is broken, yet the Government have had 10 years—over a decade. Does that mean that they have broken the system, and what are they going to do to fix it? I respectfully disagree with those who have signed the petition, and with all due respect to the hon. and right hon. Members who have spoken, I disagree with most of their remarks as well.
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned that you have been here forever. I am not sure that that is the case, but I know of your association with the all-party parliamentary group on the Holy See, and your Urbi et Orbi before the recess every year certainly means that you are a well-known figure in the House. Of course, in that Chair, Sir David, you are infallible in matters of debate.
I thank the Petitions Committee for allocating the time for this important debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) on leading it and on his speech. I also congratulate the hon. Members for Wakefield (Imran Ahmad Khan), for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) and for Redcar (Jacob Young), because not only did they win their seats but they beat very good Labour MPs, who were friends and colleagues of mine and who had worked incredibly hard in those seats. Do not think for a minute that the lessons that the Labour party has to learn on why and how we lost those seats are lost on me, because they are not.
I rather enjoyed the railing against the Trotskyist, Marxist liberal left, because as I think the Minister will testify, it certainly does not land many punches on me. Having led last week on the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill for the Opposition, it certainly lends new ballast to my left-wing credentials that is much in need. All I would say is that some of the arguments that were rehearsed felt a little passé, because the Labour party is very much under new management.
As an MP for the north in the seat of St Helens, I very much take the point that my constituents, like those of the hon. Gentlemen I congratulated, have concerns about immigration that are in no way motivated by racism—quite the opposite. People are concerned about their jobs, the impact of coronavirus and what they see as a lack of Government support and action for the communities that they live in, so I caution them slightly on some of what they said about immigration being “the” priority for people in in the north of England, notwithstanding that they will know their constituencies much better than I will, of course.
Moving on to the substantive points raised, there is much that we could talk about, but I want to focus my remarks. We have all witnessed the increase in channel crossings in small boats over the summer months with huge concern. I recognise the strength of feeling in the petition and on this issue, and I know that seeing those boats for many people represents a breakdown in the systems that the Government have put in place to manage migration. I do not think that that is an unjustifiable view.
However, the issues here are complex and require a considered, compassionate and effective response. It is necessary that our words and actions both reflect an understanding of the harrowing and appalling circumstances that have resulted in many individuals and families taking extreme and desperate decisions, and also prevent any further exploitation by criminal gangs and traffickers of those facing such impossible decisions. We need to ensure that the United Kingdom’s strategy reflects our values—that we respect the rule of law and address illegality—and ensure that we provide safe and legal routes to those who have a case for seeking asylum here. I think there has been an inadequacy in delivering against some of those values, because what we need is calm, compassionate and rational decision-making, but I fear instead that we have had rhetoric over action.
This morning, as I walked my children to school before getting on the train to come to Westminster, I thought, “How dire would my circumstances have to be before I would let my family board an insecure dinghy across the channel?” Whatever challenges we personally have faced or that the communities that we proudly represent in this place have faced over the last months, we might all reasonably conclude that we would have to be completely without hope before it would even occur to us to do such a thing—a point made very eloquently by the hon. Member for Strangford.
However, that is the situation that many of these individuals are in. Over half of refugees globally originate from Syria, Afghanistan or South Sudan—countries that are completely ravaged by violence, chaos and destitution. Those who undertake the crossings understand the danger that they face, so the fact that they none the less make them shows us how desperate they feel their situation is.
I do not presume to understand all the push and pull factors involved as people continue to leave France and seek to come to the UK. However, we see the numbers of those deciding to undertake that journey. Will the Minister say what efforts are being made to understand those decisions, based on an analysis of the experiences of those who have crossed the channel? It is worth remembering that the vast majority of those who flee their homes to reach Europe never reach Calais at all. For example, Germany, France and Italy are all far more common destinations for migrants than the UK, for many reasons.
In our conversations with those working in asylum and immigration, the overwhelming motivation that we hear time and again for wanting to reach the UK is to be reunited with family who are already in the UK. Another common reason is that the person speaks English but not French and so would likely have more success in finding a job and a future in our country than they would elsewhere in Europe. The latter is not an impractical consideration, while the former is hugely understandable.
Jacob Young
Given what the hon. Gentleman is saying about language barriers and the like, does he agree that at that point we are no longer discussing an asylum claim and are instead discussing migration and the need to move to England as an economic route, as opposed to for safe refuge?
Conor McGinn
There is a lot of conflation and confusion around the various types of immigration, but once a person has embarked upon a route to claim asylum, that is the only one open to them, because, as the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) said, other avenues are no longer open. That is why it is important that a claim be processed promptly through a due legal route.
Also, given the predilection of the hon. Member for Redcar for pointing out Members who are not in this debate, I am keen to enable him to get back and join all my colleagues who are in the other debate on immigration, on the Floor of the House, lest his absence from it should be pointed out.
I have been disappointed by the Government’s response. The Minister knows me well enough to know that I make that point sincerely. Some of these issues need to be addressed. The first is the abolition of the Department for International Development. Arguably, doing that removes the support needed to address some of these issues at their source, and I have not yet heard a valid reason for why the Government have chosen to merge it with the Foreign Office.
We have also had these ludicrous proposals about Ascension Island and Saint Helena—I had to read it twice when I saw it in The Sunday Times, lest it was a reference to St Helens. Either would be preposterous, frankly. That shows a lack of strategy at the heart of Government around how we will get a grip of this issue.
I am fond of the Home Secretary, whom I know well and with whom I share interests in horse-racing and many other things—I am glad that none of my Back-Bench colleagues are here to hear that—but she should reflect on the divisive rhetoric that she has used. I am not sure it does justice to her or ministerial colleagues when she talks about the traffickers, the do-gooders, lefty lawyers and the Labour party as defending the broken system. To group together lawyers and Labour Members with human traffickers is really offensive and insulting. At first, I thought it was inappropriate and a bit beneath the dignity of the office of Home Secretary—one of the great offices of state—but subsequent events have proven it was quite dangerous. It has led to incidents where lawyers have felt their safety threatened. Human rights is not a bad word but something at which this country has been at the cornerstone of, through our role in the Council of Europe, the United Nations and other multilateral organisations throughout the world. We need to be careful about mistaking process issues with ad hominem attacks on individuals.
The frustrating thing is that, in spite of the rhetoric, the Home Office has not even been successful in achieving its commitment to deter these crossings. The closing down of other routes to the UK brought about by the coronavirus pandemic has caused exceptional pressures, but the number of migrants who crossed the channel in small boats in August 2020 was more than four times that of August 2019. It might be worth pointing out to hon. Members who arrived here with great gusto in December 2019 that we have had a Conservative Government, in whole or part, for 10 years, so all the criticisms made about the asylum system are suitably addressed to the Minister rather than the Opposition.
We need a practical, even-handed and realistic response. Many migrants arriving in Calais have legitimate claims for asylum, but they do not have practical or legal means to reach the UK. The strategy of deterring crossings from taking place is not working, so we need a renewed strategy. I am sure the shadow Home Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), would be happy, as he has offered, to discuss the ways in which we can work together to deter crossings and ensure that the system functions adequately for those in need. The strategy must therefore ensure that legal and pragmatic routes continue to function for those with legitimate claims for asylum—that due process.
Back in June, in response to an urgent question on asylum, the Minister told the House that last year the UK made 20,000 grants of protection or asylum. Those are cases in which, against strict criteria, the Government deemed that asylum should be granted in the UK. However, we must ensure that those safe and legal routes do not drive those whom the Government recognise as having a case to be heard into the arms of human traffickers, who profiteer on the back of human suffering. We must protect the route to allow legitimate attempts for those who seek to reunite with family in the UK. That is currently protected in the Dublin regulation, which we will not be part of once we leave the EU. I am therefore keen to hear what the Government propose to do, because if we do not do our bit, as per the Dubs scheme and the amendments being considered on the Floor of the House tonight, to ensure that unaccompanied children in dangerous situations are given safe haven, what kind of country can we claim to be? We should be proud of the role we have played throughout history in providing safe refuge, particularly to children who have fled the most awful horrors of war, famine and poverty.
As I have said, this is a complex situation that demands rational and reasonable solutions. It is a topic that provokes strong reactions among our constituents. We have heard that from Government Members, I have heard it in my constituency and many of my Labour party colleagues feel it too. However, I think most reasonable people would agree that the current situation, whereby migrants are forced to make hazardous trips across the channel to stand any chance of claiming asylum, is untenable. That is why, as I hope I have made clear, Labour is committed to ensuring that we protect and improve the pre-existing legal routes, that we do more to meet our international obligations, that we address illegality and that we command the confidence of the British public.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)
It is a great pleasure to serve, once again, under your chairmanship, Sir David, which is, as the shadow Minister said, always infallible. I thank the shadow Minister for his balanced remarks in summing up. It is fair to say no one would ever accuse him of being a Trotskyite, sadly something that one cannot say about every Member of his parliamentary party.
I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) on securing the debate and presenting it on behalf of more than 100,000 petitioners, a majority of whom, we discovered, come from Redcar and Cleveland. My hon. Friend laid out a compelling, passionate and well-articulated description of why illegal immigration is a huge problem for our country. It undermines the rule of law, it undermines legal and safe routes, and it renders purposeless the routes that we, as a Parliament, have developed to decide who comes into the country and who does not. All those are undermined.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Imran Ahmad Khan) powerfully and passionately pointed out that immigration can be an enormous force for good, when done within the rule of law. His own family story, which he set out, is a moving and powerful illustration of the enormous contribution that legal migration can make to our society, strengthening and contributing to it, as his father and his whole family have done. Our country is better, stronger and richer, in every sense, for the contribution made by my hon. Friend’s family and millions like them, who have made their home here legally.
Illegal migration undermines all of that. It undermines public confidence in the system, it puts immigration in a negative rather than positive light, and it makes it much harder to allow legal immigration if the whole system is undermined. In all honesty, we must admit that the small-boats crisis that has unfolded this summer is a sad and appalling example of illegal immigration undermining confidence in our system. The Government find it completely unacceptable and we are determined to stop it. We make no apology at all for saying that.
Illegal immigration is unacceptable for three reasons: it is dangerous, illegal and unnecessary. That it is dangerous is powerfully demonstrated by the tragic death earlier today, or yesterday, of a man believed to be aged between 20 and 40, and the sad death a few weeks ago of a Sudanese gentlemen aged 26. Those sad deaths in the channel demonstrate how dangerous the crossings are. We have a moral and a compassionate duty to prevent those crossings.
Secondly, these crossings are illegal. The hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) suggested the contrary, but let me say clearly that it is illegal to enter the country without leave under section 24(1)(a) of the Immigration Act 1971. The hon. Gentleman referred to provisions in article 31 of the refugee convention that say an entry to a country for the purposes of claiming asylum should not be a criminalised if someone has come “directly” from a dangerous territory. I submit that France is not a dangerous territory, and therefore the prohibition in article 31 of the refugee convention 1951, renewed by the 1967 protocol, does not apply. France is not dangerous and these crossings are categorically illegal.
They are not only dangerous and illegal, but unnecessary. Anyone wishing to claim asylum, or genuinely wishing to seek protection, can do so in one of the safe countries previously passed through. Clearly, there is France—everybody who crosses on a small boat has been in France—and typically people will have travelled through other countries, often including Germany, Italy, Spain and others. There will have been ample opportunities to claim asylum and protection previously. There may be reasons why people might prefer to claim asylum in the United Kingdom, such as the language, but those are not reasons of protection. Those are choices rather than a necessity. We should be clear: these journeys are not necessary for the purpose of securing protection.
I will come to the compassionate and safe routes in a moment. Before I do, let me briefly talk about some of the things that we are doing to prevent these dangerous, illegal and unnecessary crossings. We are working with our colleagues in France on developing ever-increasing tactics to try to prevent the crossings. The French have been deploying larger numbers of gendarmes, police aux frontiers, brigades mobiles de recherche and others in northern France, and that is yielding fruit. This weekend, large numbers of interceptions have been made to prevent embarkations. On Saturday, just two days ago, the French police intercepted 220 people who were attempting a crossing. Yesterday, on Sunday, the French authorities intercepted 211 people. Only 62 got across, so the French successfully intercepted about 70% to 80% of the people who attempted a crossing. I pay tribute to them for the law enforcement work that they have been doing.
We have appointed a clandestine channel threat commander to co-ordinate United Kingdom activities—Dan O’Mahoney, a former Royal Marine, entered his post in August—and we are doing huge amounts of law enforcement work. We have so far this year made 89 arrests of people who committed offences in that regard, and we have disrupted 24 organised immigration crime groups that have been facilitating cross-channel traffic. A huge amount of work has been going on, and let me say that we intend to intensify and increase that activity. We intend to legislate next year to tighten up our system, but the legislation will have two elements to it. It will be firm, because it will take tough action against illegal immigration, but it will also be fair, in the sense that it will provide safe legal routes for genuine refugees.
Let me say a few words about the work that the United Kingdom has done so far on those safe legal routes. Since 2015, we have run a resettlement programme whereby we have taken people from conflict areas—for example, around Syria—and brought them directly to the United Kingdom. Rather than seeing people come from France, Italy or Greece, which are safe European countries—that is what the Dubs amendment did, by the way—we have gone directly to conflict zones, where people are in genuine danger, and brought them here. In that five-year period, 25,000 people have been brought directly to the United Kingdom. Over the five years, our resettlement programme is larger than any other European country’s resettlement programme.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised some points about that. I must say that I agree with him, in the sense that the resettlement programme focused, as Members will understand, largely on people of Syrian nationality. It did not reflect the pre-conflict population of Syria, because Christians were severely underrepresented. The hon. Member for Strangford and I led a debate back in July 2019 on the persecution that Christians suffer around the world. Indeed, Christians are the most persecuted group of any, globally, and I would like to see our future resettlement activity better reflect the persecution that Christians suffer around the world.
We offer many other legal and safe routes. We offer family reunion routes, which I think the hon. Member for Glasgow South West referred to. Even as we most likely leave the Dublin regulations in two and half months, the United Kingdom’s immigration rules provide for the family reunion of children joining their parents and, where compassionate and compelling circumstances exist and where the child’s best interest is served, reunion with aunts, uncles, grandparents and siblings. That safe and legal family reunion route does exist, can be used and is used.
Last year, we received roughly 3,700 applications from unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in this country. We are currently looking after more than 5,000 UASCs. Both those numbers are higher than the equivalent figures for any other European country, including Greece. People talk about the Dubs amendment and bringing UASCs from Italy to the UK, but we already look after more UASCs than either Italy or Greece does. We do it very well—we look after them extremely well.
The shadow Minister mentioned overseas aid. We have not abolished overseas aid; we have merged it with the Foreign Office so that better co-ordination is possible. Since he mentions overseas aid, it is worth putting on record that we are the only G8 country to meet 0.7% of gross national income as spending on overseas aid. That amounted last year to some £14 billion. Not only do we have the top direct resettlement numbers of any European country and not only do we welcome more unaccompanied asylum-seeking children than any other European country; we are also the only European country to meet that 0.7% of GNI target. So anyone who suggests that the United Kingdom is not a generous and welcoming country is clearly not apprised of those facts.
However, with the compassion and fairness for which this country is famous, and which it will continue to demonstrate, comes an obligation to be firm on illegal immigration, for the reasons that my hon. Friends the Members for Ipswich, for Wakefield, for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) and for Redcar (Jacob Young) outlined so persuasively. I am afraid there is a lot more work to do, because our system is in many respects broken. It is possible for people who should not be in this country, including dangerous foreign national offenders, to submit very late claims that are essentially vexatious, with the purpose of preventing their removal. I have become painfully aware in my six months, so far, as one of the two Immigration Ministers, of a number of cases in which very dangerous foreign national offenders have repeatedly—five, six or seven times—over a number of years, at the last minute before the moment of removal or deportation, lodged claims that are subsequently found by the court to be wholly without merit. None the less they succeeded in frustrating the removal. We need to legislate to prevent that kind of abuse, because it brings our system into disrepute.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich mentioned a recent flight that was due to return to Spain, as required by the Dublin regulation—the European Union’s own regulation—people who had tried to claim asylum here having claimed asylum there previously, when a slew of last-minute legal claims, many of which subsequently proved to be without merit, caused the flight to be cancelled. Such abuse of the legal process—and I will be direct; it is, frankly, abuse—is not something that the Government are prepared to countenance any more. Therefore we shall legislate next year to fix that problem and other problems.
Chris Stephens
I want to take the Minister back to the subject of foreign nationals—particularly the criminal aspect of the matter. He makes a fair point, but does he agree that it is not the fault of so-called do-gooders and lawyers? Does he agree that the Government need to roll back on the rhetoric that we have heard from them against lawyers who represent asylum seekers?
Chris Philp
Lawyers are clearly entitled—indeed, obliged—to represent their clients to the best of their ability, but there have been examples, including what was reported by The Times last week, of immigration lawyers encouraging their clients to make vexatious claims. In the example reported by The Times last week the Solicitors Regulation Authority quite properly took disciplinary action against those solicitors. We sometimes hear lawyers talking about pursuing politics through the courts, and that is not helpful.
Of course I accept that barristers, solicitors and other representatives are obliged and entitled to represent their clients to the best of their ability within the law, but last-minute meritless claims that are designed to frustrate the process do not help the system at all, and we need to put things on a better legislative footing to prevent the legal abuse that there has been. However, I of course do not dispute, as I have said, the right of lawyers to represent their clients to the best of their ability. Indeed, they are obliged to do so.
I do not wish to detain Members longer, given that the main event is happening on the Floor of the House as we speak. Let me reiterate that the Government are determined to protect our borders, determined to end these dangerous, illegal and unnecessary crossings, and determined to end illegal immigration, but at the same time we are determined to ensure that we are fair and compassionate, and that those who genuinely need our protection around the world receive it.
Tom Hunt
I want to thank all hon. Members who have contributed to this debate and the Minister for his statement. I have had the benefit of discussing this matter before with the Minister. I am confident that this is not a simple thing to deal with. It is complex. It is not straightforward.
I appreciate that, as much the petitioners would like us to snap our fingers and sort the problem out, in many respects, the Government’s hands have been tied. Clearly, after 31 December, the Government will be in a much better position to take the kind of action we need to take to deal with this issue.
I may not have been quite clear, but I tried to say in my speech that I think there should be an expectation that someone who arrives in this country illegally will be sent back. Ultimately, there is a legal process to go through. If someone rejects that process by not following it, we must ask the question whether they are that different from anybody else who knowingly breaks the law. In my view, the answer to that question is “no”.
Many hon. Friends have made the point that there is a fact here. However good an individual may think their grounds are for claiming asylum and moving to Britain, at the end of the day they have come from a safe European country. My understanding is that an asylum seeker is someone fleeing from an unsafe country. If they are leaving a safe country, by definition, I struggle to see how they are a refugee. I am broadly comfortable with the Government’s position.
I know that the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) is pretty moderate and balanced. He spoke after my maiden speech. He seems like a nice guy. On the point of being under new management, we will see. Ultimately, I think that to deal with this issue effectively the Government will have to take some robust action. Legislation, such as an asylum Bill, will come through this House, and it will be interesting to see how Her Majesty’s Opposition react to that kind of legislation.
In terms of new management, it is an interesting tactic when the manager does not even send his players out on the pitch. Frankly, it sometimes feels like that is the case with the Leader of the Opposition. At some point, those players will have to be sent out on the pitch and will have to vote one way or another. Abstaining is not a long-term strategy. It is a long Parliament and time will tell. I do not mean to be too political, but clearly I have been.
I thank all the petitioners. This is a very important issue that matters to millions of people up and down the country. I thank all the hon. Members who contributed. I thank you for your wonderful chairmanship, Sir David, which I have had the pleasure of twice this afternoon—I have been spoilt. I thank the Minister, in particular, for a robust statement, which was reassuring and will reassure many of the people who signed this petition.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 321862 relating to immigration.
Written Statements
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Future Regulatory Framework and Solvency II Reviews
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
In the written statement Financial Services Update on 23 June [HCWS309], the Chancellor announced that the Government would commence the next stage of the future regulatory framework (FRF) review and bring forward a review of certain features of Solvency II, the prudential regulatory regime for insurance firms. The Government have today laid the first FRF consultation on the wider regulatory framework for financial services and published a call for evidence as the first stage of the Solvency II review. These reviews reflect the Government’s aim to make financial services regulation better tailored to the needs of the UK economy and its citizens, and to support the UK’s world-class financial services sector.
Following the completion of phase I of the FRF review, which focused on improving co-ordination between the UK’s financial services regulatory bodies, the Government are progressing with phase II of the review, which will examine how the wider regulatory framework for financial services should adapt now that the UK has left the EU. The important and wide-ranging issues raised by this review, combined with the broad range of stakeholders that will be affected, make an in-depth review process appropriate. The Government will therefore consult in two stages, starting with the first consultation published today.
Leaving the EU provides an opportunity to shape our regulatory framework for financial services so that it is more coherent, agile and democratically accountable to support a stable, innovative and world leading financial services sector. The consultation proposes an overall approach that builds on the strengths of the UK’s existing domestic framework by:
Providing a clear and coherent allocation of regulatory responsibilities between Parliament, the Government and the financial services regulators.
Setting out a legislative approach under which Government and Parliament can establish an enhanced policy framework within which the regulators must operate.
Making the UK’s expert, operationally independent regulators responsible for setting direct regulatory requirements on financial services firms and markets, according to the policy framework set by Government and Parliament.
Reviewing accountability, scrutiny and public engagement arrangements, particularly in relation to the financial services regulators, so that these arrangements can be strengthened to reflect the regulators’ expanded responsibilities.
This first consultation is intended to generate a wide-ranging debate about the UK’s overall regulatory approach for financial services. The views gathered through the first consultation will then be used to develop a final package of proposals which will be set out in a second consultation during 2021.
The Government are reviewing Solvency II to ensure that the UK’s prudential regulatory regime for the insurance sector is better tailored to support the unique features of the UK sector and the UK regulatory approach. The review will focus on several specific areas of Solvency II, including the risk margin, matching adjustment, and reporting requirements, but the review will not necessarily be limited to these areas.
The Solvency II review will be guided by three objectives:
To spur a vibrant, innovative, and internationally competitive insurance sector.
To protect policyholders and ensure the safety and soundness of firms.
To support insurance firms to provide long-term capital to support growth, including investment in infrastructure, venture capital and growth equity, and other long-term productive assets, as well as investment consistent with the Government’s climate change objectives.
Both publications are available on www.gov.uk and will be open for responses until 19 January 2021.
The Future Regulatory Framework Review consultation:
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/future-regulatory-framework-frf-review-consultation.
Solvency II Review call for evidence:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/solvenc-ii-review-call-for-evidence.
[HCWS523]
Modern Slavery: Annual Report
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
Today, I am publishing the 2020 UK annual report on modem slavery. The report covers the whole of the UK and has been drafted in collaboration with the Northern Ireland Executive, the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government. This report sets out an assessment of the scale of modern slavery in the UK and outlines the actions that have been taken to combat it over the last year.
A copy of the report will be available on www.gov.uk and placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS521]
Private Pensions: Annual Benefit Statements
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
The Government have published their response to the consultation on the approach to delivering simpler annual pension benefit statements.
Participation in pension saving has been transformed through the success of automatic enrolment. However, there is a growing likelihood that people will have a number of different jobs in their lifetime, and therefore multiple pension pots and annual pension statements.
This is why the Government’s ambition is for pension benefit statements to be simpler, more consistent and jargon free. Consistency across pension benefit statements will help savers better understand their pensions and effectively plan for retirement. A standardised template will be more accessible, drive member engagement and signpost members to detailed information on costs and charges and investment strategy. It will also complement the work Government are doing with the pensions dashboard to bring pensions online to your phone or laptop.
We will focus first on defined contribution schemes used for automatic enrolment, but it remains the long-term ambition to improve consistency across all schemes. We will consult later this year on draft regulations for a mandated approach to simpler statements, working with industry on the detailed design of the regulations and associated statutory guidance.
In addition, the Government will work with the pensions industry to introduce a statement season, building on the success of pensions awareness month. It will support the normalisation of workplace pension saving, provoke debate among the public and enable easier comparison between statements and providers.
These measures will help individuals engage with their workplace pension savings, and enable savers to achieve greater financial security in retirement.
[HCWS522]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now begin. Some Members are here in person, respecting social distancing, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I ask Members in the Room to wear a face covering except when seated at their desk, to speak sitting down and to wipe down their desk, chair and any other surfaces they may touch before and after use. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded, or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee.
A participants’ list for today’s proceedings has been published by the Government Whips’ Office, as have lists of Members who have put down their names to the amendments or expressed an interest in speaking on each group. I will call Members to speak in the order listed. Members are not permitted to intervene spontaneously. The Chair calls each speaker. Interventions during speeches or “before the noble Lord sits down” are not permitted. During the debate on each group, I will invite Members, including Members in the Grand Committee Room, to email the clerk if they wish to speak after the Minister, using the Grand Committee address. I will call Members to speak in order of request and will call the Minister to reply each time.
The groupings are binding; it will not be possible to degroup an amendment for separate debate. A Member intending to move formally an amendment already debated should have given notice in the debate. Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. If a Member taking part remotely intends to oppose an amendment expected to be agreed to, they should make this clear when speaking in the group.
Medicines and Medical Devices Bill
Monday 19th October 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021 View all Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 116-I Corrected Marshalled list for Grand Committee - (15 Oct 2020)
Baroness Thornton
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides a sunset provision for Part 1 of the Bill requiring the Government to return with primary legislation.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, at last we begin the scrutiny of this important Bill.
Although we have been keen to make progress with the MMD Bill, if I might call it that, it is not at the expense of proper debate, and I am afraid we feel that some of the amendments before us today will not benefit from the contributions they deserve because of the clash with the Second Reading of the Internal Market Bill and the rules of the hybrid House, which seem to mean we lose the contributions of at least four, five or possibly six noble Lords who have either put their names to amendments or are keen to take part in our discussions today.
The procedure, if the House were sitting normally, is that noble Lords would “Box and Cox” between the Chamber and the Grand Committee. As it is, they are not allowed to do so and I put on record that either scheduling or rules need to ensure this does not happen again. I would be very grateful if the Minister and his colleagues ensured that the usual channels are aware of this. This clash will not deter those who are absent, I am sure, from making their contribution either later in Committee or on Report.
The group of amendments right at the beginning of this Bill concerns sunset provision, a time limit on delegated powers and draft consolidated legislation. As my honourable friend Alex Norris MP said at the beginning of the Committee session in the Commons,
“we should not just wave … off to secondary legislation without understanding what that might mean and whether there might be a better way to do it … The proposed arrangements allow the Secretary of State and his successors to make hundreds or more individual decisions to change our current regulatory regime into a markedly different one, one statutory instrument at a time, which I do not think is desirable.”—[Official Report, Commons, Medicines and Medical Devices Bill Committee, 8/6/20; col. 4.]
I agree with my honourable friend.
This is a skeleton Bill. Its aim is to provide the Government with powers to regulate on critical, life-and-death matters involving medicines, devices, humans and animals. It is at risk of inadequate scrutiny; it has an overreliance on delegated powers; it gives rise to potential regulatory divergence in Northern Ireland; it has a need for streamlined primary legislation, not statutory instruments; and it gives rise to concerns regarding patient and user safety.
It has to be said that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Constitution Committee agreed with my honourable friend and us at Second Reading, and were particularly unimpressed by the delegated powers memorandum the department produced. It said:
“This is a skeleton bill containing extensive delegated powers, covering a range of significant policy matters, with few constraints on the extent of the regulatory changes that could be made using the powers. The Government has not provided the exceptional justification required for this skeleton approach. We accept that regulatory regimes in policy areas such as these require frequent adjustment, and so need to be flexible, but the Government has not made a persuasive case for conferring largely unrestricted delegated powers that can be used to rewrite the existing regulatory framework. We recognise that the existing powers to amend these complex regulatory regimes will cease to have effect on 31 December 2020 and that alternative arrangements are required. If the Government is unable to specify the principles according to which it intends to amend and supplement the existing law, the delegated powers in the Bill should be subject to sunset clauses. This would allow Parliament to scrutinise a new bill which provides sufficient detail on the policy it is being asked to approve.”
This Bill gives Ministers very broad powers indeed. We acknowledge this and are seeking full justification for them. Those are just the opening remarks from both those committees, which agreed that Clauses 1, 8 and 12 contain inappropriate delegations of power and that the Government have failed to provide sufficient justification for this part of the Bill, adopting a skeleton Bill approach, with Ministers given very wide powers indeed.
Instead of seeking to justify such powers, the Government have downplayed them by suggesting that they are like-for-like replacements for the existing powers in Section 2(2) of the 1972 Act. The delegated legislation committee found this not to be the case. The Section 2(2) power is subject to a very significant built-in constraint; it is a mechanism for transposing into UK law EU rules on medicines and medical devices that the UK is required to follow. The new powers are subject to no such constraint; they would give Ministers free rein to legislate in those areas. The Government claim that the new powers are constrained in significant ways, but the reasons found for those constraints were described as “more apparent than real”.
I suggest that over the next few weeks we need to make those constraints real, democratic and accountable, and at the same time support medicine and devices safety and supply, and promote and protect innovation and research. Given the threatening no-deal scenario which seems to be looming, it becomes even more urgent that the issues dealt with in this legislation are clear and that the routes to ensuring medicine supply, safety, research and innovation are also clear and protected, in the interests of the NHS and patients, through parliamentary accountability.
This suite of amendments aims to open that discussion. Amendment 1 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Hunt provides a sunset clause for Part 1 of the Bill, requiring the Government to return with primary legislation. We need this to happen because it is not satisfactory or democratic to run such an important part of public policy through regulation alone. We feel that three years is a generous, sensible and reasonable amount of time. It allows for a settling in of the new regime following Brexit and time for new legislation to be framed.
Our Amendment 140 follows the advice of the two committees and ensures that there is a time limit on delegated powers.
My Amendment 116 inserts a new clause which requires the Secretary of State to publish draft consolidated legislation within two years to streamline the existing regulatory framework. It offers the Secretary of State two years of that considerable power, but asks him—it might be “her” at some point—to return in two years’ time with a comprehensive set of regulations across medicines for humans and animals, medical devices and, critically, the proposed new regime surrounding the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency.
This would provide a chance for proper consultation across the sector, including with patient groups, industry bodies and interested companies, as well as more parliamentary scrutiny to set up the regime that we all want—a safe one, an effective one and a world-class one. It would also give us two years of life outside the European Union and would really help us to land in that place and find out how different we intend to be, certainly in this sector. I beg to move.
Lord Patel (CB) [V]
My Lords, as I had four minutes to speak on Second Reading, it is inevitable that it will take me longer to speak to my amendments in Committee. I refer to Amendments 50, 67 and 115 in my name, and am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, for his support.
Amendment 50 requires consolidated legislation for medicines, veterinary medicines and medical devices. Together with Amendments 67 and 115, it creates the same obligation in respect of veterinary medicine and medical devices and intends to complement a later amendment calling for the powers of this Bill to be time-limited to three years. The Bill confers an extensive range of delegated powers in relation to medicines, veterinary medicines and medical devices. The Government state that they intend the Bill to be the primary legislation in this area while providing no substantive content to the law.
The powers granted in this Bill go far beyond what is necessary or prudent. The existing regulatory regime for medicines is complex and unwieldy, running to more than four pieces of primary and secondary legislation implementing several EU directives in preparing for Brexit. This complexity is mirrored in respect of medical devices as the Bill merely grants powers to create future regulation through such statutory instruments. It does not provide a clear picture of the future shape of regulations that can be scrutinised. This adds to the existing regulatory complexity.
The lack of detail in the Bill in its current form could lead to uncertainty among stakeholders as to their obligations. There is a need for clarity, for regulatory bodies, manufacturers, patients and other end-users, which makes the case for more streamlined primary legislation. The lack of detail in the current Bill, the broad delegation of powers with no indication of the substantive content of future regulation created by them provides no clear or certain path ahead for medicines and medical devices that can be scrutinised or relied on by stakeholders. For this reason, this amendment, together with similar amendments for veterinary medicines and medical devices, requires that the Government return with consolidated legislation in due course.
I refer briefly to Amendment 115, which relates to medical devices. As with medicines, the regulation relating to medical devices is complex and unwieldy. Currently, it consists of the Medical Devices Regulations 2002, which implement three different EU directives and the Medical Devices (Amendment etc) (EU Exit) Regulations) 2019, which came into force at the end of the EU exit implementation period and runs to over 200 pages of detailed amendments. The 2019 regulations were intended to ensure that the existing medical devices regulations continue to operate correctly, once we had left the EU, but they also mirror and implement key aspects of EU regulation on medical devices, Regulation (EU) 2017/745 MDR.
The regulations were due to be implemented this year, but following the European Union withdrawal agreement, they will come into effect at the end of the transition period. The MDR was also due to be implemented during the transition period. Had it done so, it would have automatically become part of UK law. However, due to the disruptions of Covid-19, the implementation date of MDR was postponed by a year. The situation is complicated further by the ambiguous operation of the 2019 regulations in light of the postponement until the end of the transition period, much like the MDR. The 2019 regulations contain clauses which set specific dates and periods of transition between the implementation of different provisions and considerations.
I hope I have made the point that there is a need to have consolidated legislation. The current Bill will simply add to the existing body of regulations without consolidating or clarifying any of these issues. This demonstrates the need to time-limit these delegated powers and ensure that consolidation primary legislation is introduced to Parliament after three years, in order to subject any policy changes to adequate scrutiny.
Baroness Jolly (LD) [V]
My Lords, given that we are in Committee, I will not be making lengthy speeches, but I will raise what I think are the key issues in each of the groups. The amendments to the Bill relate to some of the constitutional issues. As a general rule, noble Lords do not much care for delegated powers because it is not considered good practice or procedure to give a Secretary of State carte blanche in any area. There are some areas in this Bill where the Secretary of State is being given powers that we would rather that he or she did not have.
As the Bill is skeletal and consists mostly of delegated powers, it is important and a good idea to ensure that appropriate steps are taken to set an end date on these, so sunset powers are being proposed. The noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Kakkar, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, have requested the Secretary of State to publish draft legislation to consolidate the legislation relating to human and veterinary medicine within three years of the Bill being enacted.
My noble friend Lord Sharkey and I have put our names to several amendments in this group. My noble friend calls for the super-affirmative procedure so that all powers given in the Bill will elapse after three years. I confess that this is the first time that I have seen that being used. The super-affirmative procedure involves an additional stage of scrutiny where Parliament considers a proposal for a statutory instrument before it is formally laid. This procedure is used for those instruments that are considered to need a particularly high level of scrutiny, which I think is certainly the case with this Bill.
Some of the amendments call for consolidation within three years, but in general what we are saying to the Minister is that there are not enough checks and balances. Please use the time between now and Report stage to look again, speak to Members of the Committee and bring forward government amendments—otherwise, I suspect that we may be voting on Report.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendments 1 and 140 tabled in the name of my noble friend Lady Thornton. As we are at the start of the Committee stage, perhaps I may remind the House of my membership of the board of the General Medical Council and my role as president of GS1 and the Health Care Supply Association.
I agree with my noble friend Lady Thornton about the clash between the first day of the Committee stage of this Bill and the Second Reading of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill in the main Chamber. Today we are dealing with some of the most important debates in the whole Bill and when we come back on Report there will be a need to give more time to allow those people who could not be present today to make a full contribution to these debates. I hope that the usual channels will take that away. I am not quite sure about the procedure in these unusual circumstances, but in normal times I would have asked that the Committee stage procedure be used for these introductory debates on Report in order to allow for interventions. However, since interventions are now limited, that may not run well, although I think that noble Lords will understand what I am getting at.
This is an important Bill on patient safety and the health of our life sciences sector. It is striking in its brevity and in the extensive powers to be given to Ministers. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, has spelled out the wide range of delegated powers contained in the Bill, while a pungent analysis by my local university, the University of Birmingham, points out that, while delegated powers may be needed to ensure responsiveness in the EU exit transition period and to meet the challenges of technological change, they should not be used indefinitely or relied on to implement matters of policy. I am not going to repeat what the Delegated Powers Committee or the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution have said, but it is rare for two Select Committees to comment at the same time and in such a critical way about the skeletal nature of a Bill. It is to be hoped that the Government will listen carefully to what is being said.
At Second Reading, the Minister suggested that the sunset clause as proposed by my noble friend would emasculate legislation
“meant to give regulators the powers to be effective and to future-proof medical regulation in a fast-changing industry for many years to come. We must understand the impact on an industry that needs regulatory certainty or else, as many noble Lords have noted, will move elsewhere.”—[Official Report, 2/9/20; col. 433.]
I have to say to the Minister that most of the regulatory uncertainty has been caused by the Government’s failure to be clear about what regulatory regime they want for medicines and medical devices. They have now had four years to think about this and we are still nowhere near knowing what regulatory system they want to put in place. Are they going to go for alignment with the European Medicines Agency or do they want to strike out on their own? Do they want to ally with the US FDA? What on earth are the Government’s aims? The industry is at risk because of this huge uncertainty. The idea that we should allow the Government willy-nilly to get this Bill through and make whatever changes they want without the House treating it as primary legislation simply will not wash. I am absolutely convinced that the long-term regulatory system must be subject to detailed primary legislation. As far as I can see, the amendment to bring in a sunset clause is probably the most appropriate vehicle to ensure that that happens.
Lord Kakkar (CB) [V]
My Lords, in contributing to the first day in Committee on this Bill, I draw the attention of noble Lords to my registered interests, in particular to those as a professor of surgery at University College London and as the chairman of UCLPartners.
I support Amendments 50, 67 and 115 tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Patel, to which I have added my name. The point has been well made by my noble friend that the ecosystem for the delivery of healthcare in our country and therefore the use of medicinal products, medical devices and veterinary medicines is a complex one that is attended by substantial legislation, much of which has been brought into force as a result of the European Communities Act 1972. It is therefore absolutely right, to echo a point made previously by the Minister, that there is a need for this Bill to ensure that such regulation can continue, so that we can continue to have a safe and effective healthcare system and take advantage of the essential requirement to avail ourselves of medicinal products and medical devices.
There is surely also an absolute obligation to ensure that regulation should avoid adding to the complexity that already exists. For those who have to labour under these regulations and ensure that they can present innovation and advances to benefit our fellow citizens within the context of the regulations, we should always be working to simplify them.
In this regard, we are all conscious of the fact that many different types of regulations touch on the healthcare system. There are those that pertain to ethics, and those that deal with the function and delivery of ethics committees and the evaluation of intervention at a local and national level. We have regulations that deal with the adoption and evaluation of innovation within the context of the MHRA, and with the evaluation of intervention and innovation pertaining to NICE. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Patel, about the medical device regulations enacted in 2002, which codify and implement various EU directives in this matter, and the substantial amendment attending medical device regulations in terms of the legislation passed as part of EU exit regulations in 2019.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this group of amendments. May I, however, begin by seeking clarity about the grouping of the amendments? Amendment 116 is also to be found in the eighth group and is more appropriately to be found there. It is my amendment; I know where it should sit properly. It does not belong in this group and is not relevant to this subject. However, I think the Marshalled List should list Amendment 116 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, who raises what is effectively the sunset issue in that amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, who I always think of as a friend, referred to his Amendment 141, which is not listed in the grouping but should be here; Amendment 142 is listed in group five and also should be here. With those two changes, I think that we are talking about the right group.
I could stop now, but I will be quick and refer to just two things. First, as a former Leader of the House of Commons, responsible for the legislative programme, I view with deep unhappiness the idea of attaching three-year sunset clauses to all the legislation we put through the House. If we start down that path, we will never introduce new legislation but will constantly be revisiting old legislation and trying to renew it. There is an argument about the nature of this Bill but it is an argument I am proposing to have when we debate the next group of amendments. It is skeletal, and there are things we can do to make the power not only clearer in its purposes but much more accountable if used. So, I am against the sunset clause.
My other point relates to Amendments 50, 67 and 115 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Kakkar. I have great sympathy with these. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Patel, who referred to the consolidation of human medicines regulations in 2011 or 2012. There is a great deal to be said for the regular consolidation of legislation to make it more accessible. I do not regard consolidation as a purely technical legal exercise; it should always be used as an opportunity to simplify and clarify. It is not, in my view, sufficient to say, as I think Ministers might well reasonably do, “We consolidated human medicines legislation and we will continue to keep the regulations in as clear a form as we can”. From time to time, there is a purpose in coming back to primary legislation and looking for clarity and consolidation. That is often what we use the Law Commission to do, because it has particular expertise in this area. It may be inappropriate to do so at this stage for human medicines because of the necessity of making the regulations and of transposing former EU regulations and directives into UK law. It is perfectly reasonable for that to happen over some period of time, but I hope that Ministers will consider that.
Where medical devices are concerned, there may be a better argument. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, was quite right—navigating medical devices legislation is, if anything, harder than navigating human or veterinary medicines legislation. There is a lot to be said for finding the consolidation instrument for medical devices regulation, once we know what it looks like and we have brought it into force. My friends the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Kakkar, are on to something; I just do not think that new primary legislation within three years is the route. However, for Ministers to recognise the value of consolidating instruments including, from time to time, consolidating primary legislation is certainly desirable.
Baroness Walmsley (LD) [V]
My Lords, I support the attempts in this group to put a sunset clause into the Bill. I have a great deal of sympathy with the demands of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for consolidation. It is vital that through these amendments and others to later clauses, we are able to review the use of the Bill’s powers by this failed Government, who have made so many mistakes. A Government who cannot even secure the free trade agreement that was supposed to be the easiest thing ever, who disastrously and expensively have not produced the promised world-beating test and trace system and who have presided over one of the worst rate of Covid-19 deaths in Europe due to their dithering and failure to put health first, must have their powers fettered. But, as has been said, this is a skeleton Bill and gives the Government extensive powers with little ability for Parliament to intervene.
A lot is changing. The Brexit transition phase is coming to an end in a couple of months. We have learned many lessons from Covid-19, which should be implemented. The NICE review is coming up, and every month new medicines and therapies are coming on to the market. It would be folly not to have a sunset clause in the Bill. I therefore support what was said by my noble friends Lady Jolly and Lady Thornton, and urge the Government to consider, in all humility, that in two or three years’ time they may not be in power, and the whole landscape will have changed. It is therefore essential that we have an opportunity to review how the powers in the Bill have been used to change things, especially if all has not gone well.
Lord O'Shaughnessy (Con)
My Lords, I point out to noble Lords my interests as set out in the register. On Second Reading, when taking a somewhat unfashionable stance in defence of the delegated powers, I said that I was not going to die on that hill again—but, to mix my metaphors, I have been drawn, like a moth to a flame, back into this argument.
I want to make two brief points. The first has been perfectly well made already by my noble friend Lord Lansley, and is about the sheer impracticality of sunsetting legislation. Committing to an arbitrary deadline of that kind is not something that any Government could responsibly do, particularly at this time, and given the uncertainty that has already been discussed.
The second point is that many of the criticisms raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and by the Constitution Committee have been dealt with, to some extent, by changes that the Minister, my noble friend Lord Bethell, has proposed to the affirmative procedure, which we are not discussing today. It is therefore worth recognising the progress that the Government have already made to try to meet those concerns, which were set out so well by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and others, about the powers being given to the Government.
Again echoing my noble friend Lord Lansley, I would say that if we were to go down that route, the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, represent the right approach, which is to commit not to a sunset clause, with all the cliff edges that that would involve, but to providing draft consolidated legislation. There is a good case in its own right for doing that, particularly in the circumstances. Like my noble friend Lord Lansley, I encourage my noble friend the Minister to look seriously at that idea.
Lord Sharkey (LD) [V]
My Lords, we have Amendment 139 in this group. It would require all the delegated powers in the Bill to expire on the third anniversary of its passing. We chose the three-year time limit because that had been discussed in the Commons. But, having heard what other noble Lords have said on the issue of expiry, I am persuaded that two years may be more appropriate, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, has argued, given the wide-ranging and carte-blanche nature of the delegated powers. I am also persuaded that a sunset provision is absolutely necessary.
As many noble Lords noted on Second Reading, this is a skeleton Bill. It contains no, or very little, policy, and allows policy to be made by secondary legislation. This clearly avoids meaningful parliamentary scrutiny, and is a direct and flagrant abuse of the delegated powers system.
In its 16th report of the 2017-19 Session, The Legislative Process: The Delegation of Powers, our Constitution Committee noted that the Government had designated
“functions for which delegated powers may be appropriate”.
These included
“providing for the technical implementation of a policy; filling in detail that may need to be updated frequently or is otherwise subject to change; and accommodating cases where the detailed policy has to work differently in different circumstances. Such purposes constitute reasonable uses of delegated powers.”
The Constitution Committee’s view of all this was clear. It considered the use of delegated legislation to formulate policy, or to create new criminal offences or public bodies, to be “constitutionally unacceptable.”
The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, in its recent report on the Bill, points out that the Government say nothing about why it would not be appropriate to have aspects of the regulatory regimes which are not detailed or technical on the face of the Bill, combined with more focused delegated powers to fill in the detail. This is still the case.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all those involved in this first group; indeed, they are the team who, I feel, are likely to be walking with us through a great many groups of amendments. I enormously regret the fact that some noble Lords are unable to make this session, but I thank the usual channels for their efforts in the challenging process of trying to programme the hybrid House, and for finding time for this session, and for the Bill, in a packed programme.
We are starting with one of the most important groups of amendments, which address the principles behind the Bill. I believe that is the purpose of Amendment 1, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and also her Amendment 140, Amendment 139, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, and Amendments 50, 67, 115 and 141, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Patel.
Although there is some variation in the specific effects of the amendments—such as which clauses they amend and which clauses come under their scope—they all look ahead towards drawing a line under the Bill, whether that be through a sunset clause or by asking the Government to return with consolidated legislation.
I emphatically believe in the Bill. I have listened to the criticisms of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and noted the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and the noble Lord, Lord Patel. Those points have been powerfully made in the report, on Second Reading and here today.
I know that the report may have inspired some of these amendments, because the committee considered sunsetting the Bill to be an appropriate response—but only if the Bill had remained as previously drafted. However, as your Lordships know, I have engaged extensively with noble Lords on these matters, and have tabled many amendments to address the specific concerns that we are debating today.
A sunset clause, reviewing these matters again in two or three years’ time, will not change the very good reasons why delegated powers are necessary. It would be an unhelpful precedent, which could lead to a rolling review of all legislation. My noble friend Lord Lansley, a former Leader of the House of Commons, and my predecessor, my noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy, both made that point very powerfully.
The noble Lord, Lord Patel, is right to say that clarity is important, but that will come through consultation. As I respond to this point, and to my noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy and to the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, it is worth remembering that we have published six illustrative SIs—so it is not true that we have provided no examples of how the powers could be used. I want to ponder on this well-made thought, and give further thought to how we might go further. It is hard to see how sunsetting the whole Bill would bring additional clarity to the situation.
Returning to first principles, particularly patient safety, we need to react quickly and effectively to harm. Taking swift action, such as making changes to how medicines can be administered in the community—as we are doing in relation to the Covid vaccine—is absolutely necessary when the situation requires it. So sunsetting Clauses 1 and 12 would mean also sunsetting Clauses 6 and 15. We would have no emergency provision at all until that could be replaced—a regulatory cliff edge that I would find difficult to explain to patients who needed that flexibility to get the necessary treatment.
Harm can be also significant and require more fundamental regulatory change. The report of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, suggests that the system has been slow to move and respond, and that patients have not been heard. We cannot predict or pre-empt every risk of patient harm that will emerge. Patient safety cannot wait for primary legislation. When new measures have been introduced—such as databases of medical devices under Clause 16—I cannot think why we would want to go backwards. Saying that we should no longer be able to track and trace patients, nor be able to update the data types that should be recorded to protect patients, does not make sense. Using measures in the Bill such as the information system in Clause 16, we will do better for UK patients. This is not only what the Government want but what patients want. I hope that such a system will mean that the Government will know which patients have been affected by which specific device so that they can avert problems in future.
Secondly, the changes range on a scale from significant to relatively minor, for which primary legislation would be inappropriate. For instance, changing labelling to include pictograms is not a matter that needs to wait for a future Bill.
Thirdly, this is a modern and fast-changing industry, as the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Kakkar, put it so well. In two or three years’ time, we may still need to preserve our ability to amend and update regulations. We will need to provide confidence to businesses, patients and other parties that the statute book will keep pace with change. While much will be said on the attractiveness of the UK, this is a very real issue.
In response to the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, on the benefits of a new round of consultation, perhaps even more serious is the fact that two or three years is simply not enough time for all the regulatory changes to take place—especially when we are obligated to consult all the people that noble Lords will identify when we come to that debate. Bills take time. This Bill was announced last year and was introduced in February. We are not there yet. We simply did not have enough time to judge its efficacy before we had to write it again.
On noble Lords’ amendments seeking to consolidate the legislation made in under three years, I say this: the Human Medicines Regulations were the consequence of a consolidation exercise. The Medicines Act 1968 was originally the method for regulating the way in which medicines were licensed for use in the UK. However, a number of changes were made over the years through regulations, which Parliament approved, to regulate medicines under that Act better. As such, the Human Medicines Regulations were meant to provide exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Patel, asked for: streamlined legislation that places regulatory matters in a single set of regulations.
Nor was there a lack of consultation on this approach. At the time, the MHRA took action to draw on stakeholder views and a formal consultation was run in late 2010. Parliament considered it appropriate to redirect into secondary legislation regulatory matters that required frequent changes to respond to potential safety concerns or changes in how medicines might be produced. The MHRA indicated that, should further consolidation be needed, this could be revisited. The noble Lord asked me whether there are ways of considering consolidation in the future. I must listen to him but, again, I say that three years is not a very long time at all for regulatory changes.
We recently published guidance for businesses that sets out the expected arrangements for the end of the transition period, in order to provide enough time to bring forward a standalone regulatory system and give businesses time to comply. That period of standstill will run for two and a half years; in that context, it is unlikely that, in the space of two years, there will be regulatory change that is so significant that it requires consolidation.
If your Lordships seek assurance on the visibility of how the Government will make regulations, or if your Lordships are asking me to specify our plans for how quickly we might move to the current regulations inherited from the EU, let me say this: we do not intend to make changes for the sake of it. We will do what is in the UK’s best interests. Whether our choices mean that our regulatory framework is similar to or different from regulations made by the EU does not change that approach. Regulations, rather than primary legislation, are the appropriate vehicle to protect patients best. Changes will be made subject to public consultation, and the amendment that I have tabled—on reporting obligations—will enable Parliament to consider and reflect on the Government’s use of powers in plans.
I am listening. I have proposed changes to improve the Bill—we will come to those later, having reflected on the debate—but I will face a real challenge in the new year as a result of the gap that will open up at the beginning of January if this Bill is not finished by then. I would not want to put in my place another Minister for Innovation who might also need swift regulatory change for UK patients, whether that is getting medicines approved quickly or changing who can administer them.
I hope that the noble Baroness has heard enough to reassure her and that she feels able to withdraw Amendment 1. I hope that other noble Lords with amendments in this group do not feel the need to move them.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
I have received a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Patel.
Lord Patel (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response and, to a degree, his assurance that he is at least prepared to look at ways to consolidate the legislation. I do not accept his point about time. We are not asking that this Bill be held up; we are asking that the Government consider over the next three years bringing in legislation to consolidate the current legislation.
I am also grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord O’Shaughnessy—both of whom are experienced in dealing with matters related to medicine in their own right—for their comments and support. I hope that, in the debate on the next group of amendments, the Minister will confirm in a more tangible way how he will address this issue because when we discuss those amendments, we will have an opportunity to come back to what he has said about the government amendments.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I hear the noble Lord, Lord Patel, very clearly. The arguments that he made during our conversations and engagement earlier were powerful. The comments made by my noble friends Lord Lansley and Lord O’Shaughnessy, one of whom is my predecessor and one of whom is a former Health Secretary, were also extremely persuasive.
The Government do not think that putting consolidation in the Bill is wise, but we hear the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, loud and clear. We would definitely consider this matter at a future date if the arguments made were persuasive and agreeable.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who took part in this preliminary and important debate on the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Patel, made an important point concerning primary legislation after three years. The Minister seemed to suggest that three years is not long enough. That cannot be right; three years is certainly long enough. Without the principles and policy that my noble friend Lord Hunt spoke about, rule by regulation is not only inadequate but probably quite dangerous. That lies at the heart of this group of amendments.
The noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, made the important point that we have a well-designed regulatory framework in the UK; this amendment is not about disrupting that. He also said that the Bill should be about improving the framework; that is exactly right.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, a short adjournment has been requested by the Government. The Committee will adjourn for 15 minutes.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 2. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during debate.
Amendment 2
Lord Bethell
“(1A) The appropriate authority may only make regulations under subsection (1) if satisfied that they would promote the health and safety of the public.”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the appropriate authority may only make regulations under subsection (1) of Clause 1 if satisfied that they would promote the health and safety of the public.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 2, 7, 51, 54, 56, 68 and 72 are a package intended to respond to the comments made at Second Reading and the consideration of the Bill by your Lordships’ Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Constitution Committee.
I have said at both the Dispatch Box on Second Reading and in meetings with a number of noble Lords that I am listening and ready to make improvements to the Bill where they are necessary. I am ready to provide reassurance about how the powers are intended to be exercised. Amendments 2 and 68 would require that regulations may be made only if the appropriate authority is satisfied that the regulations promote the health and safety of the public. A number of noble Lords spoke in favour of clarity regarding how the considerations applied in making regulations and whether the first consideration—that of safety—had primacy. This was a point made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Barker, Lady Andrews and Lady Walmsley, and by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. Their remarks on how the Government could improve the nature of the framework Bill were ones that I paid particularly close attention to. In making legislation, there is a delicate balance between making it absolutely clear that regulatory change will not be made that is contrary to promoting the health of the public and not binding the Government so completely that necessary regulatory change that is not explicitly for the purpose of promoting the health of the public is not possible. This amendment seeks to provide that comfort: that the Government’s making of regulations must satisfy that obligation.
Amendment 51, on veterinary medicines, is drafted differently to reflect the specific circumstances of how veterinary medicines are made. For example, a medicine that might be suited to the health of an animal might unhelpfully contribute to antimicrobial resistance in humans. An overarching requirement to be satisfied that regulatory change promotes the safety of animals, without reflecting that we must also consider the safety of animals as food products in the food chain, would have inadvertent consequences. Amendments 7, 54, 56 and 72 are consequential to these.
I have considered carefully the alternative constructions tabled by your Lordships. I wanted to demonstrate our absolute commitment to patients’ health and safety that is at the heart of this Bill. My noble friend Lady Cumberlege’s report has highlighted the importance of this.
My amendments do not fetter our ability to make good regulations that will enable the development of new medicines and devices in the UK and ensure the availability of those medicines. But, in doing so, the requirement to be satisfied will protect against the inadvertent impact on the health of the public. This will answer the requirement to make it clear how the Bill is a framework Bill, as opposed to a skeleton Bill, providing that test against which regulations can be measured.
I hope that these amendments provide assurance not only to those in this House who sit on the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Constitution Committee but to others who are keen to see the Government reflect my noble friend’s recommendation that patient safety be put first. I beg to move.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am glad to have this opportunity to speak to my Amendment 5 and to Amendments 70 and 76 in this group. I am particularly grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, for putting their names to Amendment 5. As the Minister rightly said, he set out to respond in government Amendment 2 to the remarks of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Constitution Committee. We discussed this a lot at Second Reading. The essence of the argument that I among other noble Lords made was that the Bill was a skeleton, the skeleton approach was criticised by the Delegated Powers Committee and we needed to move it from a skeleton to a framework by making it clear that the power to make regulations is for a purpose. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and I set out to do that in our amendment: to express a purpose rather than have a power that essentially had no test other than whether the Secretary of State had had regard to certain factors—there was no objective test that could be examined, because it is very easy for Ministers to say that they have had regard to something.
Why did we have the objective of safeguarding public health? The relevant EU regulation, which is the EU human medicines directive 2001/83/EC, as amended, says at what is essentially its first article:
“The essential aim of any rules governing the production, distribution and use of medicinal products must be to safeguard public health.”
Therefore, rather than invent our own purpose, we thought that the starting point for the legislation should be to reflect the same objective as incorporated into the regulation-making power up to now. The Minister may well say, “But the EU regulation is not only based on the public health treaty objective but on the internal market objective”. However, Article 3 of the EU regulation, which follows that, is quite clear:
“However, this objective must be attained by means which will not hinder the development of the pharmaceutical industry or trade in medicinal products within the Community.”
Therefore, the other legal bases, if anything, tend to act alongside and be balanced with the original treaty objective, which is to safeguard public health. It seems that there is therefore nothing inherently wrong in our own power to set out the objective, which is to safeguard public health, and then to set alongside it in the subsequent subsection the other considerations to which the Secretary of State must have regard. We will go on to discuss those, but they include the safety of human medicines, the attractiveness of the UK as a place to conduct clinical trials, and so on.
This is the test: why are we moving from the current legislative basis to a new one? What is inherently better in saying that Ministers must be satisfied that they will promote the health and safety of the people and in what sense is that different from safeguarding public health? Noble Lords might well say, “You have won—you put your amendment down and the Minister has put government Amendment 2 down, and they say more or less the same thing”. We submit that they do not quite say the same thing, since the government amendment’s construction is that the Secretary of State “must be satisfied that”. Our construction is that it
“must have the objective of”.
I am not qualified to say any more about this matter; I will leave that to my noble friend in this regard, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. An objective test should be expressed in the legislation in objective terms, not in subjective terms of whether the Secretary of State is satisfied.
Amendment 70 does a similar thing in relation to medical devices. Amendment 76 begs the question: is the safety of a medical device to be assessed in the absence of knowing its therapeutic use? It may well be that the answer is that assessing the safety of a medical device must necessarily consist not only of the approval process but of understanding its use in therapeutic settings. If the answer is that that will necessarily be the case and if Clause 12 of the Bill means that anyway, I am perfectly happy to accept that. However, I am looking for an assurance from the Minister that that is what Clause 7 means: safety of a medical device is not simply through its approval processes but through understanding in the approval process how it will be used in therapeutic practice.
In conclusion, from what I have said we do not think that government Amendment 2 is better than our Amendment 5. However, government Amendment 2 is clearly better than what is in the Bill at the moment, because it gives us a purpose for which the regulation-making power is to be used. I make a plea to noble Lords. At this stage, in Committee, I would far rather change the Bill by accepting the government amendment and its sequelae, as we would say, and therefore send the Bill to Report in at least a form that one Front Bench agrees with than not change the Bill and have to have this same debate all over again on Report. We might have the same debate, but it would clarify for the benefit of noble Lords on Report if at least the Bill has moved from where it has been to show how the Government are seeking to meet the objectives set out at Second Reading and by the Delegated Powers Committee so that we can look at it again properly on Report. I of course reserve my position and that of my noble friends whose names are attached to this amendment, as we might well want to come back to the issue on Report and say that our formulation with an objective test is better than the subjective test that government Amendment 2 implies.
Lord Woolf (CB) [V]
I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for setting out the position we are in with such clarity. I will add just a few words to explain my involvement. It has already been pointed out that not many of my legal friends who I would expect to be concerned about this are present in Committee today. I am sure that the ones who one thinks of are busily engaged in the Chamber over a different piece of legislation which is causing them greater concern than the proposal here, although I believe that they would not disagree with my comments.
In this House, we naturally think as parliamentarians and are concerned about our process of scrutinising legislation, but bad legislation all too frequently ends up not being disputed in this House. That is not the end of the matter, however: the difficulties it creates then have subsequently to be sorted out, which is frequently done by judicial review in the courts. What the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has said so well is very relevant to judicial review, and that is an area where I feel that, just as the doctors can comment about this Bill with a certain background of knowledge, I should refer to my entries in the register, which, at least with regard to judicial review, are quite important.
If the courts are to provide scrutiny at a later stage, they must know the purpose of the legislation. That is why what the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has already said is so important. With blank cheques, the danger is that they can be used for all sorts of purposes. I have been trying, under the leadership of the noble Lord, to ensure that the blank cheques given by this legislation are as restricted as they can practically be, bearing in mind the situation in which we find ourselves.
I agree with what the noble Lord said about the amendments with regard to the present proposals. On the one hand, there is the proposal put forward by the Government; on the other is the proposal that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and I have suggested might be appropriate. My view, for the reason he indicated, is that our proposal is better, but, above all, I am attracted by the fact that what the Government are proposing is much better than what was there before. On that basis, with a degree of reluctance, I would be capable of being persuaded that we should accept what the Government offer, whereas I am quite satisfied that we should not have accepted what was there before.
Leaving the matter in that way, I hope that the further discussion which will no doubt take place will enable agreement to be reached on an amendment which achieves what is needed for the purposes I have indicated.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am glad that the Minister said that he was listening, and his amendments are important, particularly the one that makes the principle of the health and safety of the public the key consideration when making regulations under the parts of the Bill relating to human medicines and medical devices. He will be aware that concern was expressed by patient groups, in particular, about the Bill as originally drafted and the implication of the attractiveness provision. That concern takes us back to our first debate on “whither regulation in future”.
If we are not going to be aligned to the European Medicines Agency and are to plough it alone, the UK pharma industry will be at a huge disadvantage unless the Government offer an incentive. It may be a bung—the debate about state aid is very relevant to that—or much faster regulation. Otherwise, it is very difficult to see why the industry would continue to invest in R&D in this country. Its position could be as vulnerable as is the motor car industry as a result of the bumbling ineptitude of the Government in their Brexit so-called negotiation.
It is not far-fetched, it is a legitimate question to ask what on earth the Government really want from medicines and medical devices regulation. They may have issued all sorts of draft regulations, but we are clueless about what they are actually seeking to do. The MHRA is clearly not allowed to talk to anybody about this. I remember when the MHRA would talk to politicians and debate these things. It has clearly been given an instruction not to talk to anyone. We are absolutely clueless about the future direction of regulation. None the less, the amendments are clearly helpful, and no doubt we will consider them between Committee and Report.
I would, however, like to ask the Minister about Amendment 2 and its relevance to Northern Ireland. I understand that, exceptionally, it will be moved in Grand Committee because legislative consent takes three months to get through, which impacts on the Bill’s process. I understand that, but, as Parts 1 and 2 of the Bill affect Northern Ireland, does that similarly affect any amendment to Part 1 or 2 passed on Report? What is then the impact on Northern Ireland legislation?
Overall, however, most of the amendments are a constructive improvement, but we will obviously consider them further between now and Report.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, we must consider the whole Bill as building the foundations for the future of the medicines and pharmaceutical industry in this country. We do so in the knowledge that we have had a perhaps pre-eminent role in the world in pharmaceutical development because of the coming together of a number of factors—the European medicines regulations and all the conventions to which we are party, plus the existence of the NHS and the potential it offers for clinical research and our long tradition of working in the life sciences and biosciences sector.
The Minister definitely listened at Second Reading to the many voices of concern that perceived the Bill as it came to us as a weakening of the many factors that underpin our success in this area. He understood entirely, I think, that if we were to take away the pre-eminence of the health and safety of the industry, we would fatally undermine the whole basis of the construction of this very important sector for our economy.
The Minister has listened but not quite hard enough. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, that Amendment 2 is an improvement, but it still leaves the decision-making on whether something promotes health and safety to the Secretary of State. I much prefer the construction in Amendment 5, to which my noble friend Lady Jolly has added her name.
My main concern in this group is with Amendment 51 on regulation for veterinary medicines. In his introduction, the Minister pointed to the fact that medicines for animals can work back into the food chain and to humans. I understand the interplay between taking into account things that are done to improve human well-being, animal well-being and the environment, but he will understand that, when people see the amendments, it will not be immediately apparent to them that human welfare is pre-eminent in the list. It says that the regulations must promote “one or more” of the three. I agree that the Minister has moved on the first set of amendments, but he has not gone anywhere near far enough on the regulations on veterinary medicines, so we may well need to come back to that at a later stage.
Lord Patel (CB) [V]
My Lords, before I start, I should point out that someone is typing with their microphone on, which interferes with the sound, so would they mind turning it off?
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, said that other legal Members of your Lordships’ House were not able to be present today. That is a pity, because I thought that I had amassed a good legal team in the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Lords, Lord Mackay of Clashfern and Lord Judge, to support some of my amendments. I wonder what comments they might have made on what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, said.
I find myself in support of what the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response to the question whether market approval of a device also means that it has therapeutic approval. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, has an amendment on the therapeutic values of devices.
I do not find myself in total agreement with what the Government have produced and I do not think that Amendment 2 is satisfactory. Let me try to explain and we will see what the comments are. The amendments are about promoting public safety and insert into Clauses 1, 8 and 12 a new subsection (1A), so that the Secretary of State may only make regulations under those clauses where
“satisfied that they would promote the health and safety of the public.”
However, this is coupled with the insertion of the words “considering whether they would” to replace the start of subsection (2) in each clause. That means that, in the decision on whether the regulations would promote the health and safety of the public, the appropriate authority must have regard to the safety of medicines—or veterinary medicines or medical devices—their availability and the
“attractiveness of the relevant part of the UK as a place”
to conduct clinical trials or supply medicines, or develop or supply veterinary medicines or medical devices. That would be the effect of the amendments. That construction is open to the interpretation that the “attractiveness” of the UK is to be treated as part of what promotes public safety; the Minister might want to comment on that. If so, the amendment would not address the concern—indeed, it would appear to prevent the argument being made—that attractiveness and the safety of medicines and medical devices can sometimes be in conflict and that considerations of attractiveness undermine considerations of safety. This is in line with the Government’s repeated assertion that attractiveness cannot be in conflict with safety. In essence, the amendment appears to make little substantive change.
Lord O'Shaughnessy (Con)
My Lords, my only intention in speaking on this group is to ask a question. Given the flag raised by my noble friend Lord Lansley in his Amendment 76, I am glad that I am not the only one with the question, which is whether the concept of medical devices inherently includes their therapeutic usage. My understanding is that they are regulated as medical devices, not simply devices, and therefore the way in which we regulate and risk-stratify them as we regulate them inherently includes therapeutic use. The fact that my noble friend raised the question in his amendment made me slightly worried, so I seek the Minister’s reassurance on that point.
I have also become aware during this discussion of another issue worth considering. There has been some debate about the appropriateness of government amendments being approved in Committee. I concur with the view of my noble friend Lord Lansley that a Bill on which only half the Front Benchers agree is better than one on which none agree. I have been in my noble friend’s shoes and have been frustrated, as I know noble Lords opposite have been, by the need to stick to concession strategies, holding back concessions and amendments until Report. I do not agree with that approach. My noble friend has done absolutely the right thing in bringing forward amendments at the earliest possible opportunity, however imperfect they are. The problem with leaving everything to Report is that it is an all-or-nothing approach, as we do not tend to amend at Third Reading, whereas this potentially leaves open the iterative approach that I would like to see more of. Maybe my noble friend has even set a precedent, heaven forbid, in doing this. We would all welcome it as giving more than one opportunity to improve legislation, on Report. I hope that we can agree the government amendments because, as everyone has said, they are an improvement on where we were and we would have another opportunity, if the House felt it necessary, to improve them further on Report.
Baroness Walmsley (LD) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendment 5, which would insert the words
“objective of safeguarding public health by promoting the availability and supply of human medicines”.
While the purpose of the Bill is to bring some sort of order out of the chaos of Brexit, it is vital that we put those words up front. In the first words on page 1, before Clause 1, the purpose of the Bill is described as
“the protection of health and safety, in relation to medical devices”.
Why does it not say, “in relation to medicines and medical devices”? That is why we need Amendment 5.
Government Amendments 2 and 7 are weak, in my view. For example, the words “promote health and safety” in Amendment 2 and “considering whether they would” in Amendments 7 and 72 are well meaning and better than the original but, I dare to say, legally useless.
The word “promote” also appears in government Amendment 68. In contrast, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, use the much stronger word “safeguard” in their Amendment 70, which I support. I also support their probing amendment for clarification in Amendment 76 that therapeutic practice is also included. I will be interested to hear whether the Minister can explain whether this is needed or, perhaps, not.
Lord Kakkar (CB) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendments 5 and 70 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. I seek further clarification on the Government’s purpose regarding the amendments proposed by the Minister.
First, what is the rationale for moving away from the current basis on which regulations in this regard exist, which states the purpose of safeguarding public health? Why do the Government not think that appropriate as the basis for legislation for medicines and medical devices? It has been the basis on which regulations have previously existed in domestic legislation and it seems counterintuitive to move away from that purpose, as so clearly explained by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley.
Secondly, there is this question of whether there should be an objective or a subjective test attending the purpose of legislation, all parties having agreed that it is of benefit to move away from simply having a power to clearly defining a purpose. There has been considerable debate and discussion about what is considered the frequent use of judicial review now and how in some way it undermines the position of Parliament and is less than helpful more generally in our country. It seems therefore intuitive for a Government who have concerns about what is sometimes considered excessive use of judicial review to try to provide legislation that would make it less necessary and less frequently turned to.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, made the point that clarity is essential. Surely an element of clarity would be to have in place an objective test—to safeguard public health—rather than, as currently, merely being “satisfied”. The need that the Secretary of State can make regulations if he is satisfied, as we have heard in this debate, is much more subjective and therefore must be open to much more frequent challenge.
Lord Sharkey (LD) [V]
My Lords, I have only just learned that if we do not pass the government amendments in this group, we put at risk the required legislative consent order for Northern Ireland. I had intended to oppose Amendments 2, 7 and 14; I did not understand why Amendment 2 was necessary or had any real force or meaning—in any case, I much preferred Amendment 5 —and Amendment 7 seemed downright confusing, since its net effect is to impose an obligation on the Minister to have regard to certain things when considering making regulations but no obligation to consider the specified things when actually making these regulations.
I have spoken to the Minister and will now not oppose the government amendments. However, I feel that we have been bounced. I first realised the Government’s intention to move when I read today’s Chair’s guidance and I understood that there was a Northern Ireland problem when I was given, about 40 minutes ago, a copy of the note from the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, from yesterday. We were not copied in on that note. I strongly feel that this is all very unsatisfactory.
The Minister has not really answered the question that I asked him in our impromptu interval of why we need to rush. Could he explain why delaying the start of the legislative consent order process until Report would be a problem? It is still not clear to me. I trust the Minister’s assessment but I do not understand how he arrived at it. In his note to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, he says, for example, that the delay would mean that we could not meet some unspecified timing objective but he prays in aid the notion that the minimum interval between Committee and Report is a contributing factor. We can change that interval; we could choose. Could the Minister explain again why it is necessary to do this today?
Baroness Jolly (LD) [V]
My Lords, this has been a useful debate on health and safety when making regs. The Government have tried to strengthen this with their amendments in this group. My noble friend Lord Sharkey just spoke about that; I too will look at them in the light of Committee and determine what to come back with on Report.
On government Amendments 2, 7 and 68, we should have these regulations only if we are absolutely satisfied that they would promote health and safety. Government amendments 51, 54 and 56 are all about the promotion of one or more of health and welfare of animals, health and safety of the public, and the environment. There is a clear connection with animals and the environment; has the Minister spoken to Defra and BEIS about these amendments?
I also wonder that we are not discussing those medical devices that are joint veterinary and medical devices. As I said at Second Reading, veterinary medicine is becoming much more sophisticated and slightly less agricultural—that is not the right way to describe it, but it is now very high-tech in certain areas. Could the Minister outline the legal situation here, as, when we are discussing medical devices, veterinary devices are not included? Clearly this should fall within the scope of the Bill but, as I see it, there are no amendments covering that.
Moving to the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, I supported Amendment 5. We have left the EU, but I see no reason why we cannot use its regulation if we think it cannot be improved on. I was happy to put my name to this amendment and agree that subjective measures are nowhere near as effective as objective ones. This is an area where objectivity is much more important than subjectivity.
The amendment elegantly reflects the objective of safeguarding the public health element in EU regulations. A Secretary of State has a duty to maximise the public health of our English population. I am sure it is not written down anywhere, but that is absolutely what he or she is responsible for doing. As such, I firmly believe that this amendment belongs in the Bill. My noble friend Lady Walmsley spoke powerfully about Amendment 5; we should really consider her arguments when we determine what we will do on Report.
My final point is on the objective of Amendment 70 to
“safeguard public health through the supply of medical devices.”
This amendment elegantly reflects the objective of safeguarding public health in EU regulations. There is much to look at in this group. I am sure that we will determine what comes back on Report later in the day.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
Like the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, I shall have a minor moan. It is normal practice to give fellow Peers sight of government amendments at least on the day are put down, so even though the Bill team had not managed to discuss their intention with Opposition parties and other noble Lords involved in Committee, we received the letter from the Minister explaining the amendments on Thursday. I hope the Minister and the Bill team will not continue to leave things so late. I remind the Minister that he has a whole Bill team and a department at his disposal. Other noble Lords write their own speeches, do their own research and need more time to give amendments due consideration. I am fortunate to have some excellent support and we work very hard on our side to get our amendments down as early as possible to give other noble Lords the opportunity to consider them and discuss them with us. The Government should always bear in mind the unequal nature of resourcing in this place.
We need to see these amendments for what they are. Of course, they are mostly worthy and we welcome the improvement, but essentially, to echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, they are there to placate and circumvent. We are late in the day in beginning to understand the nature of these amendments and we now understand the urgency of them as a result of our earlier discussions, for which I thank the Minister and his team. We are waiting for reassurance from the Minister about what happens at the next stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, made some very important and pertinent points, particularly about the difference between the objective test and the subjective test. It is clever and very important. He is on the side of objectivity and the Government’s amendments are definitely on the side of subjectivity. I agree with him that Amendment 2 is not as good as his Amendment 5. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, also said something very pertinent and quite correct about not giving blank cheques. He accepts what the Government are offering, but made the point that further discussions are needed and an amendment might be needed as we move forward.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy, that I do not have a principled objection to government amendments coming forward; it is just that we need to know the context for them. The noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Kakkar, and others, including the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, made a very important point about safeguarding public health, and I hope the Minister will be able to address it. I can probably feel an amendment coming on on that one.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I am enormously grateful to my noble friend Lord Lansley and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, for Amendments 5 and 70. I greatly appreciate their scrutiny and contribution on the way in which regulations under the Bill might be made. I am grateful to my noble friend for his constructive dialogue with my officials. His experience and expertise in making legislation on health matters is a real benefit to all of us.
My noble friend and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, have drawn on the framework of legislation in the EU context. I am grateful for their explanatory statement on the basis of the amendment. My noble friend knows that I pressed very hard to see whether this is something we could accept. The challenge your Lordships have set me is why, if this framework exists in EU legislation, is it too constricting for the Bill? The answer is that examples of significant recent EU legislation in relation to human medicines, clinical trials and medical devices include: directive 2001/83/EC, regulation 726/2004, regulation 536/2014, and regulation 2017/745. In other words, while citing the aim of safeguarding public health in Article 168, on public health, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, these pieces of legislation were also made in reliance upon Article 114 of the treaty, being measures for the approximation of laws which have as their objective the establishment and functioning of the internal market. To make that point again, safeguarding public health is not the only objective of the EU legislation in relation to medicinal products and medical devices. That is why we have a challenge in this area and why we have posited our amendment.
I shall say something about the other government amendments, specifically replying to the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Sharkey, and other noble Lords who commented on them. The overall timing of the Bill means that currently, it cannot reach Report any earlier than mid-November. If we start the consent process with Northern Ireland then, it will add a minimum of two months past the end of the Bill’s timeline. To explain to the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, we need to start the consent process now in order to make further changes. The Government need to demonstrate that this is a policy they wish to make in order for Northern Ireland to get that process properly under way. We have written to Northern Ireland seeking consent to make changes. Parts 1 and 2 of the Bill are transferred to Northern Ireland. I sought consent from Northern Ireland on the Bill as a whole when the Bill was introduced, and again after the change made on Report to Clause 16.
We sought to make government amendments at the earliest opportunity to respond to the DPRRC, partly to demonstrate how significantly we take that report and partly to start this process. That process has now started, but it has not concluded. It does not preclude noble Lords from further consideration and, as my noble friend Lord Lansley, indicated, the Bill has moved. The process of consent is unavoidably three months long in order for the Northern Ireland Assembly to conduct its work. That is why we have had to start now. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I can supplement the legislative consent Motion at a later date.
I will listen. I understand and acknowledge that the noble Baroness sees this as the beginning, not the end, and I acknowledge that she will return to the issue on Report. Accepting these amendments today does not prevent her doing so, and I will continue to listen.
I completely hear what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, says about engagement with the MHRA. I would be glad to arrange a suitable engagement with June Raine from the MHRA and parliamentarians to discuss these points.
To the noble Lord, Lord Patel, I confirm that the efficacy of a medical device is assessed as part of the process of obtaining a CE certificate. The therapeutic value of a device is not part of the CE certificate assessment; that is a function carried out by NICE. On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, on the food chain, I would be glad to arrange a follow-up discussion on the veterinary medicines directorate with the relevant Defra Minister. To the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, Defra and BEIS are content with this amendment. To the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, the medical devices section of the overarching bit at the beginning of the Bill is a carry-on from the sentencing enforcement, and in Part 3 enforcement is in relation to medical devices only. I do not think these are reasons to rewrite the purpose.
I obviously hope to win the argument on some of this, but that will come from extensive engagement and thorough communication going forward, for which I thank noble Lords. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness feels able to accept these reassurances, and I am grateful that my noble friend considers this sufficient reassurance not to move his amendments.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
I have received a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy.
Lord O’Shaughnessy (Con)
I thank my noble friend for addressing the point about therapeutic use, but I think I am slightly more confused now than I was before. He talked about NICE, but of course, NICE does not assess every medical device and assesses from a health economics perspective, as opposed to a purely regulatory, safety and efficacy perspective. It is not something that need detain us, but perhaps he could follow up afterwards with a bit more detail.
Baroness Thornton
“( ) In making regulations under subsection (1), the appropriate authority must have regard to the desirability of—
(a) regulatory alignment with the European Medicines Agency’s medicines regulation;
(b) regulatory alignment with EU clinical trials regulations;
(c) recognition of and participation in the European Medicines Agency’s medicines licensing processes.”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the appropriate authority to have regard to the desirability of regulatory alignment with EU regulations.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, in many ways this group of amendments is at the heart of the Bill. The Minister will know that there is real anxiety among stakeholders, be they large or small pharma, researchers or patient groups, particularly now that we might face a no-deal exit at the end of this year. Life sciences companies have concerns about the administrative and cost implications of having to file for marketing authorisation with a separate national licensing authority after Brexit. It will be important to consult closely with the industry—industry groups, but also individual companies that have specific expertise in high tech areas—to ensure that the regulatory regime is robust, internationally competitive and fit for future scientific breakthroughs.
The amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Hunt require the appropriate authority to have regard to the desirability and necessity of regulatory alignment with EU regulations. The amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly and the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, in this group have similar objectives.
The UK via the MHRA plays a leading role in developing the clinical trials regulation, which came into force in 2014. Due to the length of the implementation period of the regulation, the UK is not currently committed to implementing it in full following the end of the transition period. Failing to implement this longstanding legislative proposal would create significant uncertainty for life science companies.
I am grateful for all the briefing we have received over the last few months from organisations and companies which have a great deal of interest at stake in the Bill. For example, Silence Therapeutics wants to make ground-breaking treatments available to patients in the UK as quickly as possible and to conduct clinical trials in the UK. In order to ensure that the UK remains a competitive and attractive destination for clinical trials, it thinks the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill should provide for continuing alignment with EU clinical trials regulations—the UK was involved in the development of that—and, in the immediate term, ensure harmonisation of clinical trial and medicines regulatory processes, while enabling international collaboration for the benefit of patients, at the end of the transition period. It also thinks the Bill should adopt an approach to clinical trials that will allow the UK to lead the world in innovation while assuring patient safety standards. These seem to me to be reasonable tests of this legislation and indicate the challenge it faces.
The danger is that the European Medicines Agency covers 25% of global pharmaceutical sales and the UK on its own makes up only 3%. The odds are that companies will want to submit applications for new drugs to the EMA before the MHRA, meaning that the UK will lose its advantage and UK patients will risk getting slower access to the latest medicines. While the Bill could help maintain patient access to new medicines and UK access to pan-European clinical trials, its capacity to achieve this will be subject to the shape of the future relationship between the UK and the EU.
On medicine access, will the Bill allow the Government to establish new regulations on marketing authorisations for new medicines? If so, how and when? Does a no-deal outcome mean an independent UK marketing authorisation process, along the lines set out in the Medicine and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency’s plans for a no-deal outcome which came out in 2018 and 2019 and which some of us lived through. Is this what might be used? Alternatively, could the UK choose unilaterally to continue to recognise a new European marketing authorisation as valid? Has that been considered? Depending on the outcome of UK-EU negotiations, what will happen if the MHRA is unable to participate and contribute its expertise in the European Medicines Agency’s marketing authorisation process?
On clinical trials, will the Government replicate the EU’s clinical trial application system, thereby reducing the administrative burden on UK-EU collaboration? This would be necessary if the MHRA had to develop a separate clinical trial application system that would operate in parallel to the EU’s. Is this the case?
Given the influence that the UK-EU future relationship will have on how the Bill’s powers can be used, will the Minister guarantee to encourage, update and consult the medical research sector as negotiations progress? Are the Government doing so already? Perhaps the Minister can give some positive reassurance by describing some of the recent discussions and negotiations. I am aware that this is in line with the ethos of Clause 40, which requires the Government to consult relevant people and organisations when proposing regulatory changes.
Treatments that utilise innovative techniques such as gene silencing are often used to treat rare diseases. These affect limited numbers of people and are often used in areas of unmet need, where no effective treatment options are available. The number of patients with a rare disease in an individual country, such as the UK, is likely to be low by definition, but for clinical trials to work—the House has discussed this many times—they require a large number of patients to take part. As a result, these trials are conducted across multiple countries.
Unified and streamlined international processes are essential to ensure that the application and authorisation processes for these clinical trials can continue to work effectively and at pace. By implementing the clinical trials regulation, the UK can remain eligible for access to the central EU portals and processes for clinical trials, which ensure that they can recruit enough patients from different countries to be successful. These processes include clinical trial submissions, reporting and authorisation requirements and, particularly importantly, inclusion in patient registries.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I support the two amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Thornton. I have also put my name to Amendment 22 from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay—she is currently in the internal markets Bill Second Reading debate—which links this to a definition of attractiveness, and to Amendment 39 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, which focuses on clinical trials for rare diseases and the importance of alignment with the European Medicines Agency.
At the end of this debate, I hope we will have a better idea of the Government’s approach to the regulation of medicines and medical devices. I do not want to repeat myself, but, as my noble friend said, the big question seems to be that at the moment the EMA covers 25% of global pharmaceutical sales and the UK on its own makes up 3%. We know that the NHS is a very poor customer in terms of adopting new medicines. The UK market is pretty hopeless for pharma. If we are not going to be aligned to the EMA, what will this mean for UK pharma in terms of future investment? My guess is that it will snap off that investment.
This is the big issue, which we do not yet understand. What is the Government’s aim? Is it the idea that a no-deal Brexit is a good thing and UK pharma will survive with a hopeless home market and all the problems of dealing with Europe? Countries will clearly not come to the UK first when they have the EMA next door, unless we offer fast-track licensing, which brings us back to patient safety, which is why the two link so much together.
I hope that this time the Minister will give us some idea of what the Government are aiming for. The same applies to medical devices, although there are some specific opportunities, because at the moment the MHRA has no involvement in the pre-market phase of medical device development. Is the intention that the UK develops a proactive regulatory role for devices that is more akin to the licensing of medicines? If so, what will be the implications for industry and patient safety? Clearly, there have been many issues about medical devices in the past which have not gone through such a robust regulatory regime. Is it the intention that the UK goes through a more extensive regime in the future under its own steam? What will the general implications be?
Again, we know that Covid-19 is having an impact on clinical trials, a significant number of which have been paused. It is my understanding that only 45% of studies are currently open to recruitment and only 36% of them have successfully recruited patients since 1 June. The ABHI has highlighted the need for a sustainable plan and aims to return clinical research to pre-pandemic levels by spring next year.
This is important because, despite the size and growth of the global market for clinical research, the UK’s share of clinical trial applications and patient recruits has fallen since 2016. The UK is now falling behind the US, Germany and Spain for phase 3 commercial clinical trials. What is to be done about that? What is the Government’s approach? Again, how does this relate to the future regulation of clinical trials?
I hope that the Government’s intention is to stimulate the UK’s clinical research environment, but part of that must be enabling multi-state UK-EU trials to continue. The idea that we can have multi-state trials that do not involve some agreement with the EU seems fanciful in the extreme. Again, at this stage, we are entitled to know from the Government exactly what they intend.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
Could the noble Lord please unmute his microphone?
Lord Sharkey (LD) [V]
Can you hear me now? Yes? Good. Noble Lords will be relieved to hear that I will not start again. I will speak to Amendments 34, 36 and 37.
Clause 4 deals with clinical trials, which delivered £1.5 billion in GVA and £335 million to the NHS in 2018-19. They are an absolutely critical part of UK life sciences and part of what makes the UK a global leader in medical research. Anything that reduces the number or share of clinical trials in the UK weakens that leadership and could delay access to new drugs or treatments.
In its briefing, the APBI points out that our share of clinical trial applications and patient recruits has fallen since 2016. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, we now rank behind the US, Germany and Spain for phase 3 trials—and Covid has had a dramatic effect. The University of Southampton has published research showing that 1,500 clinical trials of new drugs and treatments for cancers, heart disease and other serious illnesses have been permanently closed down in Britain, with a further 9,000 suspended.
The Government know all this and acknowledge the importance of clinical trials. Given that, Clause 4 is a surprisingly weak response. It does not require the Government to do anything at all. It simply says that they may regulate—it does not say how they may regulate—and lists the areas in which they may regulate. This is another example of the abuse of secondary legislation. It gives unspecified policy-changing powers to Ministers without saying what these policies might be, except that they should do no harm—not a very demanding qualification.
When questioned about this and asked which bits of the CTR they will carry across, the Government’s response is, “The elements that are in the UK’s best interests.” These best interests are to be identified after consultation with interested parties. This all seems unnecessarily feeble. Researchers, commercial and academic, need certainty and stability as soon as possible. Ideally, they would like the provisions of the new UK regime to incorporate all possible provisions of the CTR as they come into force. We know what these provisions are. We know all the thinking behind them. The UK played a central part in their construction in the first place. Our amendments try to give some clarity and certainty to the situation.
Amendment 34 would replace “may” with “must”. It would oblige the Government to do something and does not just give them the power to do something if they feel like it. Substituting “must” for “may” would mean that the Government must make provision corresponding or similar to provision in the CTR.
Amendment 36 would modify this requirement slightly to acknowledge that we cannot adopt certain provisions of the CTR. These are the provisions that relate to the EU clinical trials information system and the assessment model involving co-ordinated decision-making on multi-state trials. Amendment 36 would add “where possible” to the requirement to make provision corresponding to or similar to provision in the CTR to allow for this.
Amendment 37 specifies two features of the CTR that the Government must incorporate. These are specified because they are new and very important, and for the avoidance of doubt about the meaning of “corresponding to” or “similar”. The two new features are the new definition of clinical trials and the allowing of co-sponsorship. In its briefing, CRUK notes that the MHRA has had considerable input in the new definition of clinical trials. It notes in particular that the new definition expands the scope of low-risk trials and excludes altogether some studies, such as pure pharmacology studies that are focused on how medicines work rather than on the extent to which they do. The CTR also defines and allows co-sponsorship, where two or more sponsors across multiple countries may share responsibilities. CRUK regards this as a very positive move, allowing for more flexibility in trial set-up and helping to foster collaboration. We helped to design both these new features. We should ensure that they are incorporated into our new regulatory regime.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, because he made some important points and it saves me having to make the same points less well.
The purpose of Amendment 35—in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar—is precisely to explore the issues that the noble Lords, Lord Sharkey and Lord Hunt, raised. I am concerned that, as it stands, the provision may mean that we do not align sufficiently with the clinical trials regulations as they exist in the European Union. That is a great pity because we have gone to an enormous amount of trouble to try to improve the clinical trials regulations in the European Union; indeed, we arrived at a point where they were significantly better than the previous regulations. To depart from them now seems a retrograde step.
We cannot be sure that we will stay aligned with those regulations for ever but having the objective of seeking to have our clinical trials regulations correspond to those in the European Union opens the option for us to be in the clinical trials information system. If we start to diverge from the EU clinical trials regulations, I am not sure how we can then be incorporated into that system. That automatically means significant difficulties in trying to manage multi-state clinical trials in Europe with a view to an authorisation process through the European Medicines Agency because the information system will, I think, be an essential pre-condition for marketing authorisation applications to the EMA. The purpose of Amendment 35 is precisely to explore this issue. What do the Government mean by “or similar”? Do they intend to diverge or not? If they intend not to diverge and to retain corresponding regulations, that is excellent. If they intend to do otherwise, that is not so good.
I do not intend to enter into the argument about aligning with the European Medicines Agency for the simple reason that we have been here before. We legislated in the Trade Bill in the last Session to align ourselves with the agency and to participate in its processes. Unfortunately, I do not think that that is going to be available to us, so legislating for it in the United Kingdom will be, I am afraid, without effect. I will focus on the Clinical Trials Information System because there is likely to be a willingness and interest on the part of our European partners to retain the United Kingdom in this process. I hope that is so, that we might be able to attain that, and that that will be the Government’s objective.
Lord Kakkar (CB) [V]
My Lords, I shall speak in support of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, to which I have added my name. Important arguments have been made with regard to the need to ensure that we can move away from the clinical trials directive which is currently the basis for such legislation in our country, and to adopt the clinical trials regulation to which our regulatory authorities have made such an important contribution over recent years.
On previous occasions Her Majesty’s Government, with specific regard to the 2018 EU withdrawal agreement Bill and the 2018 Trade Bill, made clear commitments that we should implement the clinical trials regulation in full as part of a negotiated agreement incorporating its legislative and non-legislative provisions; or, in the event that no agreement can be reached, that an element of the regulation would be adopted to the greatest extent possible on a unilateral basis in domestic legislation. We have received further reassurances in terms of the withdrawal agreement Act that the Government would give priority to taking the necessary steps to bring into UK law without delay all the relevant parts of the EU clinical trials regulation that were within the control of the United Kingdom. With regard to the Trade Bill, in September 2018, the House was reassured in the strongest possible terms by Her Majesty’s Government that a commitment was being made to implementing the regulation. However, when the Bill before us was considered in the other place, no such commitment was made and therefore, this probing amendment is vital.
I know that arguments have been made that not all the elements of the regulation are within the power of Her Majesty’s Government to implement, but as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, there is the opportunity to deal with the clinical trials portal and information system in a different way and to design, as other amendments propose, a system that might be agreeable. Arguments have also been made that the clinical trials regulation itself, although a substantial improvement on the current directive, is not perfect, and that the GCP and ICH guidance to which the clinical trials regulation makes reference need themselves to be advanced. Work is being undertaken in that regard.
The European clinical trials regulation provides for referring to guidance on the operational delivery of clinical trials or other guidance, so that should not be seen as an impediment. The real concern here is that while, unfortunately, impediments and hurdles to the adoption of the clinical trials regulation may be identified, that would be the wrong thing to do. The regulation is important. The current clinical research legislation under which we labour in our country is not ideal, which is why we have this regulation. On many occasions, Her Majesty’s Government have committed to the adoption of the regulation, so can the Minister indicate why the opportunity provided by this Bill should not be taken to fulfil those undertakings and thus provide us with the greatest possible certainty regarding the conduct of clinical research in our country? This is vitally important to patients, to the economy and to sustaining a viable life sciences ecosystem.
Lord Patel (CB) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendment 38, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, to which I have added my name. I shall also speak to Amendment 39. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who has already spoken, for lending his support. I have listened carefully, and I support what has been said about the issues raised, particularly about whether we remain aligned with the EU trials mechanism or whether we are to be part of that mechanism.
During the EU withdrawal debate this issue was discussed at length. In fact, there was an earlier opportunity for the amendment to be put—as noble Lords may remember, it was widely supported—but I withdrew it, because the then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, said that at an appropriate time, when legislation was brought in, the Government would address the issue. By that I supposed he meant that they would address the issue of remaining part of the EU clinical trials regime—but this Bill does not do that.
What options are available to the United Kingdom? One of them, of course, is to remain and participate in the EU clinical trials regime, if that is possible. An alternative is silent participation, as in the EEA model. That would mean that we could not vote, we could not lead projects and we could not raise objections. The third option is to be independent and aligned. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, referred to that, and I agree with him that the important part of the EU clinical trials regime is its portal—a portal that the UK played a major part in developing—through which companies can apply for clinical trials.
The fourth option is to be independent and divergent: the UK would create a new clinical trials system. There is no time to do that by the end of 2020, but over time the UK could create a new system and build alliances. However, the risks need to be clearly understood, and balanced. Where will the companies go? Will they go where they have a bigger market, and a bigger opportunity, with larger numbers of patients for the trials, or will they conduct their trials in the United Kingdom?
There might be novel ways to approach this, and I understand that the MRHA is discussing and trying to develop a novel way of conducting clinical trials, which might be more attractive to companies. But of course, as we do not know what those are and we are not being told what they are, we cannot comment on them.
Currently, what looks like the best option is to be part of the EU clinical trials mechanism. With clinical trials for rare diseases, it is even more important for the UK to remain aligned with, or to be part of, the EU processes for rare diseases in relation to trials, to the data that will be available, and to medicines—for example, treatments developed for muscular dystrophy and metabolic disorders.
About 3.5 million people in the UK suffer at some point from one of the 7,000 or so rare diseases. The number for which treatment is available is small; hence the great need for collaborative research, data collection and the development of medicines, because a larger population is needed for clinical trials. Companies such as Silence Therapeutics, which the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, mentioned, use gene silencing technologies for developing novel therapies for rare diseases. Others, such as Sarepta, use gene therapy for developing medicines. Companies such as Gilead Sciences are developing CAR T therapy; it was the first to introduce CAR T therapy for cancers in the United Kingdom. All those companies have said that they would wish to remain in the United Kingdom to do their trials, if the environment was right.
The treatments that will utilise innovative techniques, such as gene silencing, are often used to treat rare diseases that affect a limited number of people, as I said. The number of patients with a rare disease in an individual country such as the UK is likely to be low by definition. However, for clinical trials to work, they require large numbers. Unified and streamlined international processes are essential to ensure that the application authorisation processes of these clinical trials can continue to work both effectively and at pace.
By implementing the clinical trials regulation, the UK can remain eligible for access to the central EU portals and processes for clinical trials, which ensure that clinical trials can recruit enough patients for rare diseases and include submissions, reporting and authorisation requirements and, particularly importantly, inclusion in patient registries. Those were developed as part of the EU-wide MHRA initiative to develop registries for rare diseases.
The UK should also seek to maintain alignment with patient safety and pharmacovigilance standards, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, to give patients and clinicians confidence in trials that are conducted in the UK and to support the UK’s ability to host trials that need to take place in multiple countries. Without this level of alignment, it is likely that clinical trials, particularly for innovative treatments such as gene silencing, will not be able to go ahead in the United Kingdom, denying UK patients access to new treatment options at an early stage.
I will end by saying a few words in support of Amendment 125 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly. Given the global nature of the Human Medicines Regulations, the UK should be a member of the ICH—the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use. Having recently joined as an observer on Project Orbis and the Access Consortium, the UK can work towards providing a leadership role on global regulatory standards, and it is more likely to do that if it is part of the EU clinical trials mechanism.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, succinctly set out what we all know: post Brexit, the UK as a market will be significantly less attractive than it was as part of a single regulatory system for the development of medicines and clinical trials. The economics of that are inescapable. However, it is also true, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said, that however much some of us may wish that we continued to be aligned with what will inevitably be a developing clinical trials basis in Europe, it may not be within our gift to do so. However, what we can do, and what all the amendments in this group attempt to do, is encourage the Government to come clean about the extent to which they will seek in future to maintain an ongoing alignment with those clinical trials regulations in Europe.
The noble Lord, Lord Patel, mentioned—as I intend to—the announcement last week of the UK participation in the Orbis trials, which are the new mechanism for fast-tracking cancer treatments, with players from the US, Canada and Australia. I still think that, given the history of this country as a leading player in the life sciences and biosciences fields, and given the amount of investment in research that we have traditionally had and which we must seek to maintain in the NHS and within our universities, if we do not signal at this stage a willingness to keep the regulations in place and ensure that we remain aligned with the European system, we stand to lose a great deal—not least involvement in the clinical trials information system. The Government would be well advised to take some, if not all, of these amendments, which all seek to do the same thing.
Lord O’Shaughnessy (Con)
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, got to the heart of this when she said that these discussions are central to our debate on the Bill and its purpose.
I preface my comments on the amendments by drawing on my experience as a Minister with responsibility for preparing the health and social care sector for Brexit and for medicine regulation. During that time, I spent hours and hours—days and days—of time with pharma and medical device companies, patients and others. There was a consistent message from almost all of them about the desirability of remaining part of the EU family if possible and the importance of the MHRA and our notified bodies as regulators within that regime. I, together with others, worked extremely hard to make sure that that was recognised in the withdrawal agreement that was agreed at the time. We managed to create a special category of safety products. For those who remember back two or three years, there were chemicals, pharmaceuticals and medical devices in the withdrawal agreement and, indeed, the political declaration. I worked very hard to achieve that position and supported it.
It might also be worth reminding noble Lords that Parliament passed up the opportunity to agree that withdrawal agreement. It did not succeed. That has led to a different Government with a different agenda and with a majority, which might be something for us all to reflect on.
I make those points only so that noble Lords will understand that my concerns with the amendments on aligning with the EMA and European regulation in general are not ideological but practical. Actually, this is a very heterogenous group of amendments: it ranges from alignment through to collaboration to similarity where possible. When considering the issues around this, we need to tread very carefully as to what we commit ourselves to. The fact is that, as negotiations have progressed, it has become completely clear that the European Commission will not tolerate any meaningful associate membership: you are either in or you are out, and there is no possibility of the UK participating in making the rules that bind it. Clearly, being in is not compatible with leaving the European Union, so the question that falls to us is what we do when we are out. What should we do as a sovereign regulator that is not part of the EMA?
This is where I disagree with those amendments that seek to align us with the EMA. The truth is that we cannot have the best of both worlds; we cannot—as the Prime Minister might put it—have our cake and eat it. We cannot be in and take advantage of the opportunities that being out gives us. Tying ourselves in advance and in perpetuity to EU regulation over which we have no control or, critically, judgment of quality, would be a big mistake.
It is quite right that we should seek to mitigate the negative impacts of leaving the EMA family. I have never sought to sugar-coat those—I do not take a Panglossian view of the consequences—but tying ourselves in such a way is not the way to do it. Multiple stringent regulators in the world do just as good a job, if not better, as our MHRA—in Japan, Switzerland, Canada, Singapore and bits of the EFTA. We should as a nation be seeking to accept licensing applications and modelling our regulatory structures on all and any of those that we think are the best. That is the way to take advantage of our freedoms and give us the best possible opportunity of getting innovative medicines and products as they come on to market in any market in the world.
We do not need, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and others, said, to create our own bespoke, novel, difficult regulatory system that puts up more barriers to innovation; nor should we tie ourselves to one other regulatory regime. I use just one example to exemplify why I think that is true. It is a well-worn example but is worth rehearsing: the introduction of the HPV vaccine. That was something that most regulators in the EMA family did not want to proceed with. The MHRA provided a very compelling case for us to do so. European countries did so. The effect of that in England alone has been to reduce HPV infections among 16 to 21 year-old women—the figures are a couple of years out of date but are probably still accurate—by 86%. Bear in mind that HPV causes 80% of cervical cancers among women. We might be tying ourselves to things that we regret and which cause harm; I know that that is not something that anyone would want to do.
I note from the ABPI’s briefing—obviously, I have worked closely with it—that it does not call for alignment with the EMA. It calls for making sure that
“the information or data required by the EU regulator is consistent with other leading regulators around the world and benchmarked against them for speed and approval.”
It also calls for the UK to apply for full membership of the ICH, as the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, calls for—I quite agree with that—and generally to look to provide leadership on developing global regulatory standards in human medicines.
I utterly understand the impulse. The Government have partly got themselves into this difficult situation by creating a vacuum into which people are seeking to put policy. That is completely understandable but it would be a mistake to tie ourselves to one particular regulator. It may not be quite as true of clinical trials—I defer to the expertise of others—although I note that the ABPI briefing paper does not talk about the clinical trials directive; instead, it uses a much broader palette and says that future clinical trials and regulations in the UK should both support and enable international collaboration.
I know that that is not the only position and that people take a different view, but as we move forward, we will want to tread carefully over which regulators we seek to collaborate with, emulate and draw on, rather than tying ourselves to an in-perpetuity relationship that we may come to regret on occasion.
Baroness Walmsley (LD) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 3 makes clear the desirability of alignment with the EMA and the EU clinical trials regulations. It sets out early in the Bill the store for those of us who feel that the advantages we have gained from such alignment must not be sacrificed on the altar of some mistaken ideology of this failed Government. I point out to the noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy, that we managed to introduce the HPV vaccine before we left the European Union.
Amendment 22 attempts to define the rather vague expression “attractiveness”. We have other definitions in later clauses; we certainly need to choose one of them but I will leave my preference for a later debate.
I support Amendments 34 to 39 to Clause 4 on clinical trials. As my noble friend Lord Sharkey pointed out, they tighten up the wording in the Bill to emphasise the benefits and avoid the damage of diversion from EU clinical trials regulations. British patients benefit from alignment, British bioscience research and development benefits, and the whole system is worth millions of pounds to the Exchequer. I and other noble Lords have received briefings from a number of organisations working on behalf of patients, such as the British Heart Foundation, emphasising that any diversion from these regulations will affect the rapid availability of new medicines and treatments to British patients. They are also concerned to protect the large amount of EU research funding that they currently receive. Diversion could also affect, to use the Government’s favourite word, the attractiveness of the UK as a place to conduct clinical trials. The problem is that the Government have not told us what they might want to change unilaterally in future, as a number of noble Lords have pointed out. I invite the Minister to tell us now.
Amendment 39 asks the Government to establish a clinical trials portal that aligns us with the EMA regulations for medicines for rare diseases. This is particularly important if we are independent from the EU as our population of 68 million is so much smaller than the EU population of more than 400 million, which would make it harder to find a big enough cohort of people with rare diseases for a clinical trial. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, pointed that out.
The EU clinical trials portal, which will come into play with the new and improved EU clinical trials regulations in 2022, was to a great extent designed by British participants. This shows how important it is considered to be by British scientists because it makes applications for clinical trials so much easier and less time-consuming. In its previous inquiry, the Science and Technology Committee heard from a number of witnesses about the issues with the current system, which wastes a lot of their time. So, like the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, I feel sad to know that we will be out of the system by the time the improvements are put in place.
Our current alignment also encourages British scientists to go abroad to broaden their expertise and EU scientists to come here and become part of our very successful research teams. I know the Government are in favour of that because I heard Amanda Solloway, the Science Minister in BEIS, say so last week to your Lordships’ Science and Technology Select Committee. I hope, therefore, the Minister will be minded to accept the amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I support this group of amendments, especially Amendment 22, but I first congratulate the Minister on his stamina and enthusiasm at this incredibly difficult time. I hope he will be able to answer some of our questions.
I spoke at Second Reading of the need to provide an attractive life science environment for researchers coming from abroad. If we are to recruit the brightest and the best to work in research and clinical trials with the highest standards, we must improve. How will this be achieved? Should they not feel welcome and needed?
Can the Minister assure your Lordships that there will be no barriers to access to medicines for UK citizens?
How can we still have a regulatory leadership role following the UK’s exit from the European Union and the European Medicines Agency? We must not become isolated. I hope we will still collaborate with the EMA and other international regulators. We desperately need new medicines for the very rare diseases. There is nothing more frustrating than other countries having medicines which are denied to people living in England.
I hope the Government will accept the need to incorporate these points, which have been expressed today, to make the Bill clearer and more positive and will put their own amendments down on Report to further improve it.
Baroness Sheehan (LD) [V]
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 125 in the name of my noble friend Lady Jolly. Like other amendments, it aims to probe the Government on their plans for future regulatory alignment with the European Union following Brexit. It also seeks to ensure that we seek full membership of any bodies or agencies that help safeguard regulatory alignment and standards in medicines and medical devices.
The EU and UK markets for medicines and medical devices are closely linked. According to the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, at least 45 million packs of medicines are exported monthly from the UK to the EU, and 37 million packs come the other way. The UK also relies heavily on the EU for its supply of medical devices, with more than half of its 5 billion imported medical technology originating in the EU.
The European Medicines Agency provides a centralised approval procedure for licensing to allow pharmaceutical companies to submit a single marketing authorisation which, once granted, is valid across the EU and EEA. Given its role in harmonising the regulation of clinical trials, about which we have heard much during this debate, it is clear that divergence would have a major impact on people in the UK and the EU. With respect to medicines, should the UK develop a significantly different regulatory process to the EMA for medicines regulation, the increased regulatory burden on pharmaceutical companies could lead them to prioritise the much larger EEA market over the UK’s. This could cause delays in new drugs being made available for patients in the UK and vice versa. What is the Government’s analysis of potential delays? Is it in the order of 12 to 24 months, as some have said?
Baroness Jolly (LD) [V]
It was almost inevitable, looking at the amendments that were coming up and knowing the people who would be discussing them in Committee, that this was going to be one of the most interesting debates. It has been fascinating and well informed. The amendments relate to our future relationship with the EMA and other international organisations after Brexit. My Amendment 125 in this group is on future regulatory alignment; I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Sheehan for her contribution.
The Government have not been forthcoming on whether they will pursue regulatory alignment and, more importantly, what the implications of not doing so would be. I would be grateful if the Minister clarified that second point. Our clinical trials are hugely important and widely respected. The clinical trials information system is critically important; the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, made that vital point. What aspect of the role of the EMA are we trying to replace? It has four parts: to facilitate development and access to medicines; to evaluate applications for marketing authorisations; to monitor the safety of medicines across their life cycle; and to provide information to healthcare professionals and patients. We need urgent clarification on how the future information system will work, who will host it, how it will be staffed and how we will share our research.
As the noble Lord, Lord Patel, said, we do not have a large enough population for significant research without partners. Are we clear that we could work with the FDA in the US—or, indeed, with the TGA in Australia? Would that give us a sufficient body of people from which to take on our research? Perhaps. Are there any moves to seek full membership of the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use? I am sure that the Minister will have the answers but the regulations must have regard to the desirability of alignment, somehow or other, with the rest of the world. We cannot work as a small unit—perfectly formed, maybe, but we are small compared with the US, Europe and other groupings.
How is this going to be measured and monitored? The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, spoke about the fast-track licensing of medicines and devices. The point he made so clearly is that public safety has to be paramount so we cannot rush this sort of thing. We have to get it right; if people have to wait, so be it. It has been interesting to hear the reflections of the noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy, because he was sitting in the hot seat of the department. I wonder whether he is glad that he is not there now.
The other interesting amendment concerns the definition of attractiveness, which included collaboration with the EMA. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, attempted a definition. I am sure that if we were all given a piece of paper and asked to write down our definition of attractiveness, there would probably be as many answers as there are people in the debate today. I would like a definition from the Minister: how is this to be measured and by which body?
Without a doubt, under the provisions of Amendment 34, regulations must be made, while under Amendments 35 and 36, they should correspond with the EU clinical trials regulations. Amendment 38 provides that we must continue our collaboration with the EU in whatever form we can manage between us. We also need to look hard at clinical trials portals, not only with the EU but with our other partners in future.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, as the Minister for Innovation, I am very keen on the UK’s continued leadership in this area; I have made it something of a personal cause. I am very proud of the fact that the MHRA approves around 950 medicinal trials a year, over half of which are multinational.
We know that once an early phase trial is established in this country, the industry is more likely to keep its later phase multi-country trials here. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and others who have questioned this point, that I can confirm that the purpose of the measures in this Bill are absolutely to build on our established strengths so that the UK has the opportunity to anchor international drug development in this country and grow that capability. I am committed to international standards, international partnerships and multi-country clinical trials. It is of course important that we work with our international partners both within the EU and globally to the benefit of patients. I assure noble Lords emphatically that we are committed to international co-operation.
However, I do not agree that our future relationships will be furthered by mandating the consideration of alignment with EU regulations and the European Medicines Agency. The UK has a long track record of jointly tackling global challenges with strong international links already in place between research and innovation communities. The UK works closely with many other regulators; those relationships are underpinned by many shared international standards. The EU bases its regulations on exactly those standards, as do we, and we will continue to do this going forward.
As a number of noble Lords have noted, we have the opportunity to create a better regulatory framework. The feedback from the industry is that an agile, proportionate UK system with familiar data submission requirements would increase the UK’s attractiveness as a place to conduct multinational studies, even if we are operating outside the EU’s network. My noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy’s quote from the ABPI made this point. The powers in the Bill as it stands will allow us to develop exactly that kind of system.
Progress is already happening. The MHRA and the Health Research Authority are already taking steps to streamline the approvals process for UK clinical trials and are currently piloting a new process that has been shown to reduce overall approval times by more than 30%. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, that this change does not rule out co-operation. Data generated in a UK clinical trial will continue to be admissible to support regulatory activity in the EU—and, indeed, globally. We can also look at how we can go further in making clinical trials and their results transparent and visible to the public. Co-operation does not require alignment.
Amendment 3 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, also suggests considering alignment with EU licensing processes. In the short term, the MHRA has already taken steps to recognise for two years future EMA decisions for medicine licences approved through the centralised authorisation procedure from January 2021. In the long term, there are opportunities to establish new UK routes to market, such as a new expedited pathway for innovative products, and to establish shorter assessment timeframes.
We have the ability to make corresponding or similar provisions to the EU CTR, but Amendment 38 would oblige us to align. Amendment 35, in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley, does something similar. My noble friend makes the point that we have the opportunity to do better than the EU CTR, and that is very much our intention. That regulation replaces current separate regulatory authority and ethics approvals with a single national decision for a trial. The UK could adopt a similar methodology and associated data requirements for approvals, but in a much quicker timeframe. We have already introduced the combined ways for a working pilot to streamline approvals by the MHRA and ethics committees, and industry has told us that our scheme is one of the most appealing among the various pilot schemes in the EU, leading to a reported 30% reduction in timelines. The UK may wish to go further and develop our existing national system to further adapt requirements according to risk so as to reduce unnecessary burdens, such as academic trials involving a marketed product already in common usage.
In his Amendment 49, the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, suggests that there would be benefits in adopting certain definitions in the EU CTR. These include the EU’s revised definition of a clinical trial and co-sponsorship set out in the EU clinical trials regulations. Under the EU CTR, this new definition of clinical trials is an attempt to avoid current variation in interpretations in different member states. Whether this will have the intended effect remains to be seen. EU legislation already includes a definition of a clinical trial, and the MHRA offers trial sponsors free advice on whether their study meets that definition, to ensure a consistent interpretation. If we wished to amend our definition of a clinical trial corresponding to that in the EU CTR, the Bill as drafted would enable that.
My noble friend Lord Lansley is right that the EU CTR introduces a single submission portal and co-assessment model, but I confirm that member states involved still have to individually authorise the trial, and therefore one or more member states could refuse authorisation. The portal is an IT system, the method of delivery. This does not mean centralised EU approval of a trial. Where a member state has national restrictions that require separate approvals outside the scope of the EU CTR, the sponsor would still have to seek the approval separately of the individual member state, in addition to the processes for seeking authorisation for the trial through the EU portal under the EU CTR. Industry has told us that if the UK has a rapid approval system, the lack of access to the EU portal is not a particular issue.
Amendment 52 introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, suggests provision to develop a clinical trials portal that aligns with the European Medicines Agency for medicines for rare diseases. The EMA’s IT system does not address complex trial designs, such as umbrella, basket and platform trials that involve the use of master protocols. These are the very trial designs that have delivered the UK’s successes in Covid-19 research. On the EU portal, it is also extremely unlikely that the EU would agree to UK involvement, even if one were to request it, given that it is for EU member states and EEA countries. There are many other reasons why the UK is such an attractive place to run global rare disease trials: our world-class research infrastructure and centres for excellence, and so on and so forth.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Bates) (Con)
I have received a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Patel.
Lord Patel (CB) [V]
My Lords, the Minister referred to the large number of trials that are started in the United Kingdom. Can he say how many phase 3 trials have been started here? He also referred to the platform that the MHRA has developed with regard to Covid that accelerated the delivery of drugs, which is correct. However, that is not the same as a platform for rare diseases.
I agree that the licensing that was done at speed, within six months, would normally have taken two years: for instance, the licensing of the use of Remdesivir, produced by Gilead Sciences for the treatment of Covid-19. However, that is not the same as the noble Lord’s implication that it could be used for rare diseases. Those require a larger database, which Covid had, because there is no shortage of Covid data. Furthermore, he said that the EU portal means that individual countries have to approve. That is correct, but the approval is a speedier process because it has gone through the portal, unlike before.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I will be happy to write to the noble Lord with the precise figures for phase 3 trials. However, he is right that they are incredibly important. The Bill must defend our position on phase 3 trials, which are very much the sharp end of the clinical trials process.
The learning from RECOVERY is that it is not a direct read-across to rare diseases. The noble Lord is right that in rare disease trials, we are often trying to drill down into very small communities, whereas 113,000 signed up for RECOVERY, and tens of thousands took some of the drugs that went through the trial process. However, it is the general capability of being able to run significant platforms, manage ethics at speed, get regulatory sign-off for these trials, and have a clinical trials regime which suits many different purposes. That is our objective, that is why we are putting through these reforms, and that is why we believe that the Bill can support a modernisation of our clinical trials regime.
On the European trials process, the noble Lord is entirely right that the portal contributes to speedy processes. However, it is not the only way of having a speedy sign-off of trials through Europe; we believe there are other ways of doing that.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
Responding to the very last thing that the Minister said, he will have to tell us what those other ways are during the course of this discussion.
This has been a well-informed debate, as I assumed it would be. I think I was right in saying that this issue is at the heart of the Bill and how we move forward. My noble friend Lord Hunt—I thank him for his support —was quite right that this is the big issue. As the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, said, this is the start of the discussion that we are going to have about attractiveness and where that lies and how it can express itself.
The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, put his finger on various important issues to do with clinical trials. He asked the key question, which I do not think the Minister answered. It is: if we diverge, what will that mean and how will it happen? I did not hear an answer to that question. The answer will determine what some of us do next as we move forward with this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, was completely correct when he said that it is vital that we get this right for the future of life sciences in the UK.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for his support for our amendments. He reminded us that we had this discussion during the passage of the main Brexit legislation, when we were told that it was not the appropriate place to such a discussion so the amendment was withdrawn. Now, at the last minute, this must be the place where we have these discussions and come to some conclusion on them.
The noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy, is right. As we strike out on our own as a country, we will need new relationships and we will need to take advantage of what is on offer in the rest of the world. The transition will be very important because what happens in the meantime is vital. We will also need to ensure patient safety in this laissez-faire world, as the noble Lord explained, for example, if we decide to ignore the portal and strike out without it.
I do not doubt for a moment the Minister’s emphatic commitment to making this a success, but as we move forward, this Committee will need to understand much more than what the Minister has told us so far on the risks and opportunities. My final request to the Minister is that we will need a cross-party meeting of some depth—possibly more than one—to discuss this matter with his Bill team and the MHRA. We had such a meeting. It feels as if it was aeons ago, but I think that it was in February, perhaps March. Anyway, it was before we went into lockdown. We absolutely will need meetings and discussions before we move on to the next stage of the Bill. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Bates) (Con)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 4. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the course of the debate.
Amendment 4
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
“( ) The power under subsection (1) may not be exercised to—
(a) create a criminal offence of failing to comply with a provision made in regulations; or
(b) modify penalties for existing criminal offences.”
Member’s explanatory statement
This probing amendment would remove provisions for criminal offences to be created by delegated legislation. The DPRRC considered this an inappropriate delegation of power.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
I have added my name to Amendments 4, 52 and 69, which would remove the provision for criminal offences to be created by delegated legislation.
The Government are developing a reputation for riding roughshod over the law, personal liberties and the role of lawyers. Indeed, the Internal Market Bill, debate on which is taking place in the Chamber today, is a reflection of that.
I am afraid that this Bill continues that trend, as indicated by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in its very direct criticism of the criminal offence provisions. The committee drew attention to provisions in the Bill which give Ministers powers to create and modify imprisonable offences by statutory instrument. Thus regulations under Clauses 1 and 8 may create a criminal offence of failing to comply with provision made in such regulations that is punishable by imprisonment up to two years. Regulations under Clauses 1 and 8 may also amend the dozens of offence-creating provisions in the existing regulations. Regulations under Clause 12 may create new criminal offences relating to medical devices that are punishable by imprisonment for up to one year. Schedule 2 inserts a new regulation 60A and a new schedule into the 2002 regulations which make it a criminal offence, punishable by imprisonment for up to one year, to breach any of the provisions in the 2002 regulations that are listed in the new schedule. It goes on: Clause 14(1)(d) provides that regulations under Clause 12 may amend the new Schedule 30.
The powers conferred in all these provisions give rise to two concerns. As the Select Committee reported, it has previously expressed the view that it expects a compelling justification for the ingredients of a criminal offence to be set by delegated legislation. The powers in Clauses 1, 8 and 12 would allow Ministers to create completely new criminal offences and make changes to the ingredients of existing offences, yet the memorandum does not appear to contain any justification at all for this. The committee also points out that it has also said that where the penalty for a criminal offence may be set by delegated legislation, it would expect the maximum penalty to be included in the Bill, save in exceptional circumstances.
While the Bill limits the maximum penalty for offences created by regulations under Clauses 1 and 8, it is unclear whether this limit also applies to the many existing medicines offences which could be modified by regulations under Clause 1 or Clause 8. Again, the memorandum does not appear to shed any light on this. The Minister in his Amendments 43, 44, 64 and 65 has attempted to soften the pill by ensuring that regulations under Clause 1 (1) and Clause 8 (1) may not provide for an offence to be punishable with a sentence of more than two years. That is obviously welcome, but I do not think it goes far enough. From my reading of the amendments—no doubt we will hear about them later—they do not deal with the other substantial concern of the committee that the powers in Clauses 1, 8 and 12 would allow Ministers to create completely new criminal offences and make changes to the ingredients of existing offences. Given that, I do not think we can allow these delegated powers to be retained in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Patel (CB) [V]
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 42 and 63, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, to which I added my name and to which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, has just alluded. I also have my name to Amendment 92 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Lords, Lord Mackay of Clashfern and Lord Judge. Noble Lords can immediately tell that I must be the tenth reserve speaking on this important amendment, but the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, has laid out very clearly the problems with the government amendments that were brought in and the powers they seek.
I shall be brief on this as the Constitution Committee report spelled it out in its last line:
“The delegated powers to create and adjust criminal offences in this Bill are constitutionally unacceptable.”
It was making a constitutional point.
As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who is a member of the Constitution Committee, cannot be here, I shall speak on his behalf. Paragraph 21 of the Constitution Committee’s report states:
“We have concluded previously that ‘the creation of criminal offences through delegated powers is constitutionally unacceptable’, save for exceptional circumstances. The delegated powers to create and adjust criminal offences in this Bill are constitutionally unacceptable.”
The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, went on to say that the response of the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bethel, that regulations cannot be used to provide for an offence to be punishable with a sentence of imprisonment of more than two years is not satisfactory. A sentence of imprisonment of up to two years is a very serious matter. Parliament, not Ministers, should decide when such a potential sentence should be available to the courts.
Lord Sharkey (LD) [V]
My Lords, we strongly support Amendments 4, 42, 52 and 92 in this group.
The proposal in the Bill to create new criminal offences by statutory instrument is completely unacceptable. It is a matter of basic principle that the creation of new criminal offences requires proper parliamentary scrutiny. The delegated powers affirmative procedure does not provide this or anything like it. This ought not to be controversial. The Government’s own list of the areas in which it is appropriate to use delegated legislation does not include the creation of criminal offences.
Our Constitution Committee has made its position very clear. It considers the use of delegated legislation to formulate policy or create new criminal offences or public bodies constitutionally unacceptable. The Government propose to do the first two of those things in this Bill; it is dismaying that they should so directly and bluntly ignore the conclusion of the Constitution Committee.
The Government appear, however, to have felt the need to modify their initial position somewhat. Their amendments in this group preserve the power to create new criminal offences by statutory instrument, but now cap any sentence for breach at two years. That is a category error. Our objection is to the creation of criminal offences by delegated powers. The length of the sentence attached is completely irrelevant and I am amazed that the Government think that capping the sentence might make the creation of criminal offences proposal more acceptable.
There is an obvious and fundamental principle at stake here. Criminal offences, no matter what penalties are attached, should not be created without full parliamentary scrutiny. They should not be created by the use of delegated powers. I urge the Minister to think again and to remove the offending provisions from the Bill. If he is disinclined to do that, I hope that the House will insist on Report.
Lord Kakkar (CB) [V]
My Lords, I very much support what the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, has just said. In so doing, I support Amendments 4, 42, 52, 63, 69 and 92 in this group.
It seems counterintuitive at the very least for a Government to come forward with proposals to give a Minister powers using a delegated provision to create new criminal offences and, when challenged, to justify the position by saying, “Well, we will limit the sanction to two years’ imprisonment.” This completely misses the point, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey. There is a clear principle at stake here, which has been well described by the Constitution Committee in its report on this legislation. Very simply, it offends liberty and the functioning of our democracy that a Government can propose to create criminal offences that would deny a citizen their liberty for one day, let alone a maximum of two years, and feel that there should not be proper parliamentary scrutiny in the accepted fashion for the creation of criminal offences. Her Majesty’s Government should think very carefully about what they propose to do here and bring their own amendments beyond the government amendments suggested in this group.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, I just want to add to what my noble friend Lord Sharkey said. This is a matter of principle; from the two reports by the two committees that have been cited and from the Second Reading debate, the Government can be in no doubt about the strength of feeling on it. In the light of those, the Government’s response in the government amendments in this group is, frankly, rather pathetic and not at all acceptable.
The Bill represents an enormous upheaval for one of the critical areas of our industry. The pharmaceutical industry is of immense importance to this country. Apart from anything else, to add criminal offences created through delegated powers by means of a Bill that is so spare and lacking in detail does a huge disservice to people who want to continue to pursue not just high-quality but ethical production of badly needed medicines in this country and within international frameworks. If the best the Government can do is to table the amendments in this group, they do the industry a great disservice.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I do not think that I need to say much in response to the remarks that were, I think, unanimous in their support for my amendment and the other amendments in the group. The cap on the sentence is not a good enough response by the Government. Earlier in our debates, I made a remark about amendments designed to circumvent; I am afraid that the government amendments before us are exactly that kind of amendment. They will not serve, I am afraid.
Unless the Government are prepared, as I hope they are, to table amendments that actually solve the problems and address the issues raised by the Constitution Committee and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee—they could not have been clearer on this issue: in this country, we do not set up criminal offences and their sentences by delegated legislation—there is nothing more for me to say, other than that I hope the Government will think again.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, it is perhaps appropriate if I begin by speaking to the government amendments—Amendments 43, 44, 64 and 65 in the name of my noble friend Lord Bethell —in this group. In doing so, I thank my noble friend Lord Blencathra for his committee’s report. As previously noted, we have listened to that report, and the changes that we propose through these amendments are intended to address the specific concern in that report regarding penalties for existing criminal offences.
As drafted, Clause 5(1)(b) already provides a restriction limiting the maximum penalty to imprisonment for two years when creating a criminal offence. The DPRRC asked us to explain whether the penalties for existing offences could be amended when there was no maximum specified in the Bill. I want to be clear that we do not intend to increase the penalties for existing offences.
Amendments 43 and 44 would work together to amend Clause 5. They make it clear that, under Clause 1, we may not make regulations that provide for a criminal offence to be punishable by more than two years’ imprisonment. This will apply to both new and existing criminal offences. For veterinary medicines, Amendments 64 and 65 seek to achieve the same by amending Clause 10.
The government amendments will, I hope, remove any concern that powers in Clauses 1 or 8 could be used to make regulations extending sentences for existing offences beyond two years’ imprisonment.
I now turn to Amendment 4 and the other amendments in this group to which noble Lords have spoken. The ability to enforce breaches of the regime governing medicines is a power originally conferred on the Secretary of State in the interest of protecting public health. This was introduced by the Medicines Act 1968 and provisions around offences are found throughout the Human Medicines Regulations 2012. They are also contained in the Veterinary Medicines Regulations 2013.
Offences deter potentially harmful activity and make it possible to take punitive measures against those whose actions put people, animals and the environment at risk. As we make necessary updates to the regulatory requirements, we must be able to remain consistent with the current enforcement regime, which already imposes criminal sanctions. It would not be right that a person may face a criminal sanction for breaching current requirements but not for breaching new regulatory requirements, for example relating to novel technologies and medicines. As with other changes to provisions, making changes to offences will be subject to the draft affirmative procedure, and we will make offences proportionate and necessary. It is imperative that we are able to balance novel regulation with enforcement of that regulation.
It cannot be ignored that crime involving medicines is increasing. Furthermore, criminal activities adapt to new environments and technology. In recent months we have seen opportunistic criminals selling online unauthorised and unapproved medicines and devices for the treatment, prevention or diagnosis of Covid-19, including antimalarials, self-testing kits, “miracle cures” and “antiviral misting sprays”, which could cause harm and unnecessary stress to patients. Enforcement capabilities must be able to keep pace with criminal exploitation. Delegated powers afford us our continued ability to enforce the regulatory requirements for medicines and devices for public protection. To be effective, they must be enforceable.
The Veterinary Medicines Regulations 2013 contain numerous criminal offences for breaches of the regulations; again, this is for the purposes of enforcement. The Veterinary Medicines Directorate’s enforcement strategy is risk-based; it focuses on proportionality, consistency, transparency and targeting. The VMD works with businesses and individuals to assist them in complying with the legislation through the provision of advice and guidance. However, where necessary the VMD will use more formal means of enforcement to secure compliance. It is critical that we have the delegated powers to enforce this.
We have always been clear that we are trying to provide greater clarity on how to enforce the regulations on medical devices. The regulator’s ability to have teeth when we are looking to raise medical device safety standards in future is essential. The report from my noble friend Lady Cumberlege tells us that.
The Bill is also clear on the maximum time limit for imprisonment, which applies to any new criminal offence introduced. This limit matches the current system for devices, where criminal offences for medical devices are already punishable for up to six months. The devices regulations are in place to protect public health; breaches of those regulations put people at risk and can cause significant harm. It is only appropriate that there is a clear consequence for any such actions, including potential criminal prosecutions. We will of course have regulations subject to the duty to consult at Clause 41, which will mean the public have the opportunity to comment on the necessity and proportionality of the approach.
I hope the necessity of enforcing the new regulations, and the safeguards the government amendments have provided, persuade the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment 4 and others not to move theirs.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Bates) (Con)
I have received no requests to speak after the Minister, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, to respond to the debate on his amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
I first thank my noble friend Lady Thornton for her words in support of the amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Patel, who was hoping to field an impressive cast list in this debate. I thought he did very well; I have always thought he would make a first-class lawyer—he should take that as a compliment.
At the heart of it, as he and the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, said, this is a constitutional point: the advice we have had from a House of Lords Select Committee is that what the Government are proposing is constitutionally unacceptable. While the Minister’s amendments are always welcome, the fact remains that the Bill, after the Government’s amendments, would allow Ministers to create completely new criminal offences and make changes to existing offences. The Minister kindly explained this, but here we get to the heart of this Bill and the problem that many of us have with it. She talked about novel regulation and the need to keep pace with developments. I understand that.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Bates) (Con)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 6. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate.
Amendment 6
Lord Sharkey
“( ) Regulations made under subsection (1) are subject, in relation to regulations made by the Secretary of State, to the super-affirmative procedure set out in section (Super-affirmative procedure), in relation to regulations made by a Northern Ireland department, to section (Super-affirmative procedure: Northern Ireland), and, in relation to regulations of the Secretary of State and a Northern Ireland department acting jointly, to both.”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and the amendments to page 5 line 12, page 7 line 22 and page 9 line 27 in the name of Lord Sharkey, replace the existing affirmative procedure with a super-affirmative procedure in order to increase parliamentary scrutiny.
Lord Sharkey (LD) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 6 deals with human medicines. Amendments 53, 71 and 98 in the group make the same provisions as Amendment 6 but for veterinary medicines, medical devices and information systems. I will also speak to Amendments 143 and 144, which deal with the mechanisms that make Amendments 6, 53, 71 and 98 work. Our Amendments 135, 136 and 142 would replace the negative procedure in cases of urgency with the “made affirmative” procedure. I shall not speak to these because the Minister has more or less conceded the point in his new amendments.
Amendment 6 is in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews. I am immensely grateful for their support and regret that they cannot be present today because they are all speaking at the internal market Bill Second Reading in the Chamber. It is extremely unhelpful that the Government have scheduled two significant Bills for the same time slots. They should be decoupled to prevent future clashes.
Amendment 6 and its equivalents deal with the non-urgent scrutiny procedures currently set out in the Bill. They replace, in Parts 1, 2 and 3, the affirmative procedure for delegated powers with the super-affirmative procedure set out in Amendments 143 and 144 later in the Bill. The purpose of these amendments, taken as a whole, is to restore an element of parliamentary scrutiny to a Bill which so conspicuously lacks it.
This is a skeleton Bill. Parts 1, 2 and 3 contain no policy detail but give the Minister effective carte blanche. The Minister is given almost unfettered power to remake our human medicines, our veterinary medicines and our medical devices regimes. The reports of the DPRR Committee and the Constitution Committee were highly critical of this approach. At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, chair of the DPRRC and speaking for it, said that
“the structure of the Bill is absolutely atrocious and an affront to parliamentary democracy.”
He went on to say that his committee was
“deeply concerned not only by the Government’s failure to provide sufficient justification for the adoption of a ‘skeleton bill’ approach—which would give Ministers sweeping powers to almost completely re-write the existing regulatory regimes … but also by their failure to acknowledge the breadth of the powers that the Bill would confer.”
He concluded:
“Parliament is effectively bypassed; that is a sick joke of good law.”—[Official Report, 2/9/20; cols. 415-16.]
Despite all this, it is likely that the Minister will choose to represent the proposed use of the affirmative procedure in this Bill as meaningful parliamentary scrutiny, but it is emphatically not that. Parliament cannot amend SIs and this House has voted down affirmative SIs just four times in the past 70 years. The Constitution Committee in its 2018 report The Legislative Process: the Delegation of Powers noted:
“Without a genuine risk of defeat, and no amendment possible, Parliament is doing little more than rubber-stamping the Government’s secondary legislation. This is constitutionally unacceptable.”
Affirmative SIs do not constitute meaningful parliamentary scrutiny, and the Government’s promise of wide, but unspecified, consultation on the powers in the Bill does not somehow magically restore parliamentary scrutiny. Parliament is still bypassed.
There is a delegated legislation procedure that allows for significant parliamentary scrutiny. This procedure, which comes in several flavours, is known to the Government as “exceptional procedures” and to Erskine May, in Part 4 Chapter 31.14, as the “super-affirmative procedure”. This is what our amendments propose should replace the existing affirmative procedures written into Parts 1, 2 and 3. Erskine May characterises the super-affirmative procedure as follows:
“The super affirmative procedure provides both Houses with opportunities to comment on proposals for secondary legislation and to recommend amendments before orders for affirmative approval are brought forward in their final form.”
It notes that
“the power to amend the proposed instrument remains with the Minister: the two Houses and their committees can only recommend changes, not make them.”
Our amendments follow this pattern and are more generally based on the variant of the procedure used in the Public Bodies Act 2011. Amendments 143 and 144 set out the details and the stages. First, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a draft of the proposed regulations and a document explaining them; secondly, he or she must request a committee of either House whose remit includes health, science or technology to report on the draft regulations within 30 days; and thirdly, in proposing a draft statutory instrument containing the regulations, the Secretary of State must take account of any representations, any resolution of either House and any recommendations of the committee to which the draft was referred. After the expiry of the 30-day period, the Secretary of State may lay before Parliament regulations in terms of the original or a revised draft. The Secretary of State must also state what representations, recommendations or resolutions were made in the 30-day period and give details of any such. He or she must also explain any changes made in a revised draft. After that, the normal affirmative procedure continues.
The Library records that the last insertion in a Bill of the super-affirmative procedure was by the Government themselves in October 2017 in the Financial Claims and Guidance Bill. When they are not doing it themselves, the Government traditionally put forward any of or all three routine objections to the use of super-affirmatives. The first is that it is unnecessary because the use of the affirmative procedure provides sufficient parliamentary scrutiny. Sometimes, this objection is elaborated by praying in aid extensive consultation. I remind the Minister of the DPRRC’s remarks in paragraph 45 of its report on the Bill where it says that
“we are concerned at consultation being presented as a substitute for Parliamentary scrutiny.”
It is quite obviously untrue that the affirmative procedure allows any kind of effective scrutiny.
The second routine objection is that the super-affirmative procedure is cumbersome. I take this to mean only that this procedure is more elaborate than the affirmative procedure, which is, of course, the whole point. It is necessarily more elaborate because it provides for actual scrutiny where the affirmative procedure does not. The third routine objection is that it all takes too long. This has force only if there is some imminent deadline. The Minister may argue that there is such a deadline at midnight on 31 December. At this point, the Government lose the powers conferred by Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act to modify the regimes, but does this really present a deadline? I leave aside here the issue of whether this Bill will have been passed by then, given its very slow progress and the sparse future scheduling.
The impact assessment helpfully sets out, in Annexe B, the number of times the Section 2(2) powers have been used. Between 2013 and 2019 they generated a total of 11 SIs. In each of the last four years they have generated just one SI. This is not an avalanche. Nothing in these figures shows urgency. Nothing suggests we need to rush regime changes by excluding scrutiny provisions from the Bill. Nothing suggests that using the super-affirmative procedure would cause significant delay or disadvantage.
The impact assessment notes explicitly, on page 5:
“policy development is at an early stage”.
This was in June. If policy development has made progress since then, perhaps the Minister can now tell the Committee what policy changes he intends to propose, using the delegated powers in Parts 1, 2 and 3.
If policy development has not made progress, it is vital that when it does, and sees daylight in SIs, those SIs are scrutinised as fully as possible, as the super-affirmative procedure permits. In the event that a policy or technical change is required urgently, the provisions of this Bill, with the latest Government amendment, should allow the use of the “made affirmative” procedure.
This is a skeleton Bill. It is an attempt to bypass Parliamentary scrutiny. It contains no policy details and has no special claim to urgency as a reason for limiting scrutiny. The affirmative procedure is not meaningful scrutiny, as our Constitution Committee has pointed out—but the super-affirmative procedure is. That is what these amendments propose. Parliament should not be bypassed. I beg to move.
Lord Kakkar (CB) [V]
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, and everything he has said in moving Amendment 6. These are clear matters of principle, and although one must accept that government Amendment 133 is an attempt to provide concessions on them, the noble Lord has set out clearly why adoption of even the affirmative procedure will not provide sufficient scope for appropriate scrutiny of what may turn out to be exceedingly important regulations.
The argument for adoption of the super-affirmative procedure has been well made, and I shall not repeat all the noble Lord’s arguments, save to say that in moving his amendment he also dealt with all the potential arguments that could be put against what is proposed in the amendments. In those circumstances, bearing in mind the importance of the issues that the legislation will cover, and the deep anxieties already expressed in Committee about the nature of the Bill, both in practical terms and in terms of its constitutional implications, Her Majesty’s Government should seriously consider accepting these important amendments.
Lord Patel (CB) [V]
My Lords, Amendments 137 and 138 in this group are in my name. They have partly been answered by government Amendment 133, and I shall speak about all three. My amendments are probing amendments, which would prevent regulation exercise in respect of Clauses 6 and 15 in relation to the disapplication of certain provisions in the medicines and medical devices regulations where there is a serious risk to public health. The reasons for this are the same as those set out earlier on the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.
The Government do not require the negative procedure to intervene swiftly in emergency scenarios, as the affirmative procedure is available, and safeguards parliamentary scrutiny. That is what the amendment is about. The Government have tried to respond to it, to some extent, through their Amendment 133, which removes subsections (3) to (9) of Clause 42 and inserts instead many new subsections, including a table detailing which specific provisions will be subject to the negative procedure, the “made affirmative” procedure and the draft affirmative procedure.
Baroness Jolly (LD) [V]
I speak in support of these amendments in the names of my noble friend Lord Sharkey and other eminent noble Lords. I confess that I had not heard of the super-affirmative procedure until my noble friend sat me down and talked me through it, and it struck me as being eminently sensible and doable, and this is exactly the right sort of Bill—or the regulations contained herein are exactly the right sort—for the super-affirmative procedure. I ask all noble Lords to support this amendment and those who support it.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, for his comprehensive introduction to this group of amendments, particularly those that he is supporting.
We are minus at least four noble Lords from this debate because of the clash with the other Bill. I have certainly made my view known to the usual channels in the next booth that we cannot continue to discuss this Bill in those circumstances because we will be missing too many people who have a stake in the Bill and amendments down. I cannot imagine what the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, is saying to his own Benches about this—actually, I probably can, and it will not be polite, I suspect. He put his name down to this amendment and, presumably, found out that he was not allowed to speak in both the Second Reading debate and in this Committee at the same time. I can see why that rule is there, but we are finding that this really does not work.
While the affirmative procedure offers nothing like the scrutiny given to a Bill, which typically goes through several substantive stages in each House and can be amended, we agree wholeheartedly with the DPRRC’s view that Clauses 1, 8 and 12 contain inappropriate delegations of power. We are where we are, and we therefore take the view that the affirmative procedure should apply. Amendment 134 provides for all regulations to be made subject to the draft affirmative procedure rather than the negative procedure and for urgent regulations to be subject to the made affirmative procedure rather than negative procedure.
Both the DPRR Committee and the Constitution Committee have expressed considerable concern at the inappropriate use of the negative procedure in this Bill. For example, Clause 2(1)(n) provides that regulations under Clause 1 may make provision about prohibitions relating to the supply of human medicines. Clause 42(9) provides for such regulations to be subject to the negative procedure. The explanation given for this in the memorandum, which I think I referred to in the very first debate in this Committee, is as follows:
“proposals to make changes to existing provisions, or to introduce new provisions enabling the supply, administration or prescribing of medicines are made to reflect shifts in best practice following extensive consideration and scrutiny by the relevant professional bodies.”
The DPRRC found this an unconvincing explanation. I probably do as well. It noted:
“It isn’t clear why consultation with relevant professional bodies lessens the requirement for scrutiny in Parliament. Indeed, if proposed changes are sufficiently important for there to be extensive consideration and scrutiny by professional bodies, this supports requiring the higher level of scrutiny in Parliament that the affirmative procedure affords. Furthermore, the prohibitions to which clause 2(1)(n) applies are sufficiently important that breach of them is a criminal offence (punishable, in the case of 4 of the 5 prohibitions, by imprisonment for up to two years). Even accepting the appropriateness of the delegation of powers in clause 1, we take the view that the affirmative procedure should apply. The consultation requirement imposed by clause 41 of the Bill is to be welcomed but we are concerned at consultation being presented as a substitute for Parliamentary scrutiny. On the contrary, if the exercise of the power is of sufficient importance to merit extensive consultation, it is of sufficient importance to warrant the higher level of Parliamentary scrutiny which the affirmative procedure affords.”
The committee also highlighted and raised concerns about Clause 9(1)(f), which provides that regulations under Clause 8 may make provision about the categories of person who may apply for veterinary medicines. The EM states:
“any proposals to make changes to existing powers or to introduce new powers for veterinary professionals to supply, administer or prescribe medicines will be subject to extensive consideration and scrutiny by professional bodies”.
Again, the committee found this unconvincing for the same reason, and took the view that the affirmative procedure still applies. I must say, I wholeheartedly agree with its assessment. As it says,
“if the exercise of the power is of sufficient importance to merit extensive consultation, it is of sufficient importance to warrant the higher level of Parliamentary scrutiny which the affirmative procedure affords.”
My amendment also addressed the egregious provisions of Clause 42 that provide that where any such regulation needs to be made urgently to protect the public from imminent risk of serious harm to health, the negative procedure applies instead. The Government’s justification for departing from the affirmative procedure was that:
“It is appropriate for regulations made in these circumstances to be subject to the negative resolution so that they can come into force immediately and provide an efficient means of addressing an imminent serious public health risk. We expect that such regulations would only need to be in place for a very short period of time, potentially shorter than it would take to schedule and hold debates”.
This is wholly inadequate.
The DPRRC stated:
“We are wholly dissatisfied by departments repeatedly arguing for powers otherwise subject to the affirmative procedure to be subject to the negative procedure where there is a need to act quickly, and seeking to justify this without acknowledging the existence of the made affirmative procedure … Even accepting the appropriateness of the delegation of powers in clauses 1 and 12, if the affirmative procedure provides the appropriate level of Parliamentary scrutiny for regulations made in reliance on clauses 6 or 15 in non-urgent cases then, in the absence of cogent reasons for the negative procedure to apply in urgent cases, we take the view that the made affirmative procedure should apply in urgent cases.”
The Constitution Committee concurred, recommending that
“the emergency powers in this Bill are subject to the made affirmative procedure, rather than the negative procedure, such that Parliament is required actively to approve them.”
The Minister will be well aware that regulations under the “made affirmative” procedure can be made and laid as expeditiously as can regulations subject to the negative procedure. They can also be laid during a parliamentary recess, unlike draft affirmative instruments. Quite frankly, it is insulting that the Government have the gall to argue for emergency powers to be subject to less scrutiny under the negative procedure, especially in the current climate when hundreds of emergency regulations have been introduced with considerable haste using the “made affirmative” procedure. Can the Minister say how this dereliction ever made it into the Bill, never mind through the Commons? I imagine that the Minister might be quite embarrassed to put her name to the Bill, which is perhaps why the Government have introduced Amendment 133 at the 11th hour.
I also speak in support of the super-affirmative amendments in the name of the Lord, Lord Sharkey. They are supported by Members across the House—including my noble friend Lady Andrews who is not here to give her support although she is extremely enthusiastic about this amendment.
Given that this is a skeleton Bill, the use of the super-affirmative procedure seems a sensible and proportionate mechanism. In this case, it would allow relevant parliamentary committees, in consultation with stakeholders, opportunities to comment on proposals for secondary legislation and to recommend amendments before orders for affirmative approval are brought forward in their final form. It has been used effectively by Governments of all colours, who recognise that it allows them flexibility when they need to bring forward regulations, while consultation and scrutiny happen before any amendments come to the House by affirmative resolution.
That is particularly important given that many areas in which we expect regulations to be laid, ranging from life sciences and clinical trials to hub and spoke pharmaceutical models, could make the contents of the SIs—and, in the absence of policy details in the Bill, even examples of draft regulation that have been published in respect of other Brexit legislation—controversial. I hope that the Minister recognises the merit of this proposal.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I will begin by speaking to government Amendment 133 on behalf of my noble friend Lord Bethell. It provides significant changes that I know many will welcome. We have listened to the concerns raised about parliamentary scrutiny on emergency powers. I assure noble Lords that we have carefully considered their views and the different amendments that have been put forward on this topic.
As a result, government Amendment 133 would change applicable parliamentary procedure for reactive emergency regulations to the “made affirmative” procedure. It also provides that regulations about prescribing, advertising, packaging and labelling in relation to human and veterinary medicines will no longer be subject to the negative resolution procedure, but instead to the draft affirmative procedure. Using the “made affirmative” procedure when making regulations reactively in emergency situations affords the Government the required speed and flexibility to react to emergencies while providing that Parliament can scrutinise what has been done and why. When we make the regulations proactively, we must demonstrate the need to protect the public from the risk of serious harm; these regulations will be subject to the draft affirmative procedure.
It is important to acknowledge that the emergency powers are not intended to be used. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said, we are in a situation where we are currently using emergency powers, so she is correct that the “made affirmative” procedure has been put to good effect during the current pandemic. None the less, these powers are a measure of last resort to protect the public from the risk of serious harm to health.
We want to avoid using the powers reactively where possible. It is already a condition in the regulations that the situation must be accompanied by a declaration of the urgent need to protect against the imminent risk of serious harm to health. I note the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, about the definition of that statement. I will write to him further on that matter.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, I have received one request to speak after the Minister. I call the noble Lord, Lord Patel.
Lord Patel (CB) [V]
I thank the Minister most sincerely for her extensive response. I understand some of the points she made. I am also grateful that she is going to write to me and other noble Lords about the definitions that I questioned in my speech.
I accept that at times the Government will need to have powers in emergencies, but some of the examples the Minister gave were not really emergencies. I made the point that in such situations government Amendment 133 and the table do not allow for parliamentary scrutiny. The fact that there is no sunset clause means that the Government will have power to make regulations under both the negative and the affirmative procedure for evermore. That cannot be right. Yes, there will be a learning process, but there should be more ability for Parliament to scrutinise.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Bates) (Con)
I call the Minister to respond to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Patel.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord’s comments reflect the themes that we are discussing throughout our scrutiny of the Bill. I certainly take them on board with regard to this group of amendments, I believe that we have discussed them before and will discuss them again on other groups of amendments.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Bates) (Con)
Finally, I call the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, to respond to the debate on his amendment.
Lord Sharkey (LD) [V]
I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Jolly and Lady Thornton, but I am disappointed that the Minister still seems to regard the affirmative procedure as constituting effective scrutiny. Let me briefly quote again the Constitution Committee, which says:
“Without a genuine risk of defeat, and no amendment possible, Parliament is doing little more than rubber-stamping the Government’s secondary legislation. This is constitutionally unacceptable.”
Neither the DPRRC nor the Constitution Committee agrees with the Government’s position on this, I think largely because it is obviously wrong. I am also disappointed that the Government seem to continue to believe that extensive consultation is equivalent to or a substitute for parliamentary scrutiny—another obviously wrong position, as the DPRRC makes clear.
As to the objection that the super-affirmative procedure is too cumbersome or lengthy, neither of these objections could have any weight unless there were some urgency. As I have explained, there is not; even if there were to be, the “made affirmative” procedure would kick in and take care of it.
As I remarked in the opening group this afternoon, at the root of all this is a desire by the Government to take powers to make policy before they have decided what that policy is. This is not only perverse but evades parliamentary scrutiny and bypasses Parliament. We will return to this issue on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Bethell
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the appropriate authority to have regard to the factors mentioned in subsection (2)(a), (b) and (c) of Clause 1 in considering whether regulations made under subsection (1) would promote the health and safety of the public.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Bates) (Con)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 8. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
May I ask for some clarification? Normally in Committee—under normal life, as it were—we would not start another group that would take at least three-quarters of an hour or so if we knew we were going to rise at a set time. I want some guidance as to why we will start this group now, when we know that we will not finish it within the time allowed. We might get through my speech and the next one, but that will be it. I am looking for guidance, Lord Chair.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Bates) (Con)
Weighty matters of this nature are dealt with by the usual channels; the Government Whip will respond.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I understand that the need to rise at a set time is part of the needs of the hybrid House. With other Grand Committees that have taken place in this circumstance, we have made progress on groups and had to adjourn mid-group. That is incredibly important in order to make progress on legislation when we are operating to time-constrained sessions.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I have to register my objection to that. If we want a proper debate, this is not just about people making timed speeches; it is about a debate. A debate should be a coherent whole, not one or two speeches and then continuing after maybe a week’s break. Would I be allowed to make my opening speech again when we go back on the second day of Committee?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, we would not have a second opening speech. If the noble Baroness has strong objections, we can adjourn.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I think we should. This is an important debate and we need it as a whole debate. I would be very grateful if that could be considered. I promise to make a small speech when we restart.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Bates) (Con)
That concludes the work of the Committee this afternoon. The Committee stands adjourned. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
House of Lords
Introduction: Lord Dodds of Duncairn
Arrangement of Business
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber, respecting social distancing, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. Oral Questions will now commence. Please can those asking supplementary questions keep them short and confined to two points? I ask that Ministers’ answers are also brief.
Historic Statues
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Deech
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the future of historic statues in England.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, there are approximately 12,000 outdoor statues in England. In the region of 3,500 are protected as, or as part of, listed buildings; of those, 473 are of historical figures. The future of the vast majority of these historic statues is the responsibility of the owners, usually local authorities. The government policy on historic public statues is quite clear: they should not be removed but retained, with a fuller contextualisation on the background and history of those commemorated provided; this is summarised as “retain and explain”.
Baroness Deech (CB) [V]
My Lords, the wish on the part of some to eradicate our past, in the belief that it is evil, does not justify vandalism. I am dismayed to see re-evaluation, often uninformed, of the contribution of historical figures, most of whom have both good and less good elements. For example, there are strong reasons to take away the prominent position enjoyed by Richard the Lionheart outside our own front door but I am content to walk by him every day, knowing that the study of history places him in context. Likewise, with Cecil Rhodes in my home city, I maintain that he did more good than bad and should not be sacrificed to current concerns, but should be joined by a statue of Mandela. Will the Minister do all she can to stop the destruction of important historical statues?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Baroness gives some very helpful examples. The Government share her concern, particularly at some of the scenes we have seen recently, which have been deeply troubling. It is very unfortunate when figures such as Churchill have to be boarded up to avoid desecration. The Government continue to prioritise this.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab) [V]
Webster’s Dictionary’s definition of putting someone on a pedestal is
“to think of someone as a perfect person with no faults: to admire someone greatly”.
The erection of a statue is not an objective act, but a subjective judgment of an individual’s historical contribution. Does the Minister agree that just as the civic leadership of communities most often decided who should have a statue placed on a pedestal in public places, their modern equivalents, not Ministers, should be trusted to decide whose statues are representative of a community’s current values?
Baroness Barran (Con)
Obviously local authorities are primarily responsible in this area and will take the view of their community into consideration, but my understanding is that for the most contested examples there has been not a uniform community view, but a divided one.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as an ambassador of the charitable education and arts project, The World Reimagined. Does the Minister agree that people would be more likely to accept existing statues if we showed greater recognition of the full history of our country? In 1682, William Godwyn proposed a statue in London to prominently acknowledge the injustice suffered by enslaved Africans. Does the Minister not agree that, 350 years on, it is well past time that a national memorial should be constructed in London to commemorate the millions of Africans enslaved under British rule?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Lord is right when he talks about a full history of our country, and we hope our approach of retain and explain goes some way to addressing that, but he is also right that there is a place for new statues expressing many different issues, both permanent and temporary installations, such as the fourth plinth in Trafalgar Square.
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford (Con) [V]
My Lords, while I in no way condone criminal damage, I note that our historical statues signally fail to recognise the contribution of women to the scientific and medical advances we enjoy today. In fact, research by the campaigner Caroline Criado-Perez suggests that there are only 158 statues of women. Of those, 110 feature mythical or allegorical women, 46 depict royals and 14 show the Virgin Mary. Does the Minister agree that, rather than myths, princesses or virgins, we should invest in a few statues that commemorate some of our great female innovators and role models, such as Dorothy Hodgkin, Ada Lovelace and Jocelyn Bell Burnell? There are many to choose from and they would be a great addition to our landscape.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right. There is plenty of room for more women of extraordinary talent and contribution to be represented in that way. Indeed, more broadly, we welcome the recent decision by English Heritage to unveil the portrait of Sara Forbes Bonetta during this Black History Month.
Lord Woolley of Woodford (CB) [V]
My Lords, assessment of our statues in England is not a culture war, as some would like to say, but rather an honest appraisal about who we put on a pedestal to be revered. While we understand that no one is perfect, and this is not an attempt to rewrite history, rather to better understand it, some statues would be better placed in a museum with their full context explained, rather than showcased in a grandiose way. Therefore, will Her Majesty’s Government create a task force on historical statues that will assess the actions of people honoured and decide what to do with their statues?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am not aware that there are plans for a task force as the noble Lord suggests, but I am happy to take that back to the department. Obviously, move versus remove versus retain and explain has been carefully considered. Our view is that retain and explain is the best approach. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State will shortly have an online round table to discuss many of these issues with key stakeholders and arm’s-length bodies.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, we welcome the Government’s suggestion that the policy should be retain and explain. I think that gets across the point very well. Does the Minister agree that resolving this issue might be an opportunity for collaborative work with schools? What would children make of the way our local communities currently view local history through their statues? Will she pursue this with her colleagues?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Lord’s suggestion chimes very well with our approach. It would be enlightening to hear what children think: they normally tell us the truth. I am happy to pick that up with colleagues.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD) [V]
My Lords, is this not exactly an area where national government should resist interfering too strongly? Most of the statues in Bradford are of local people—Samuel Lister, Titus Salt, WE Forster, JB Priestley—and we are having a local discussion about the appropriateness of the statute of Sir Robert Peel, with petition and counterpetition. That is encouraging local debate about our history. Should this not be left to local communities and local authorities? Central government, which already tells local government far too much about what it should do, should leave well alone.
Baroness Barran (Con)
It is perhaps worth separating out the different issues here. The noble Lord is right that many issues, as he has described, relate to and fall within the responsibility of local government. Where central government has been clear in setting out its position is in relation to publicly funded institutions, where we have stressed their need for impartiality.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, on 17 December 2015, I drew to the attention of this House the brutal legacy of slavery which led to the establishment of Buxton memorial fountain just across from the Chamber. Colonisation across the globe was a trade of human misery, of men and women, families, communities and nations, shredded, bound and pillaged, against any claim of decency and human dignity, rights and justice that we rightly hold today. Will the Minister consider requesting the Lord Speaker and the Speaker in the other place to set up a commission to examine how we honour and celebrate the freedom fighters and leaders of the movement who stood up valiantly against the degradation of colonisation and the inhuman slavery of human people?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Baroness raises important points, but I feel that they are for Parliament to decide rather than the department.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, I endorse the view that historical understanding is best assisted by the provision of full and unbiased information about those commemorated in statues, rather than by the removal or knocking down of these memorials. As regards Sir Robert Peel, who was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, should we not note that he was a life-long opponent of slavery and the slave trade and sent the British Navy to the coast of west Africa to help suppress it?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am happy to note that and to note that all of us as human beings are complicated, and our history reflects that complexity.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time for this Question has now elapsed. We now come to the second Oral Question.
Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens v Home Office
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Alton of Liverpool
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what estimate they have made of the costs of their decision to appeal the decision of the High Court on 19 December 2019 in Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens versus Home Office.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, we do not comment on ongoing litigation. Administrative costs are not recorded against particular legal cases, and as the litigation is ongoing we are not able to provide an accurate assessment of the legal costs at this time.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, is it not passing strange that the Home Office can calculate the difference between the £640 that it costs to administer the citizenship fee and the £1,012 that it actually charges, even to children in care, but cannot assess the legal costs of contesting the High Court’s judgment? Instead of racking up lawyers’ fees and subsidising the immigration system with what Sajid Javid rightly called huge citizenship fees, should it not be reviewing this policy as noble Lords from right across your Lordships’ Chamber have argued?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, the Immigration Act 2014 allowed for the review of fees. I can give the noble Lord a general figure, which is that just over £2 billion was generated from visa, immigration and nationality income and passport fees in 2019-20. The cost of BICS, the borders, immigration and citizenship system, was £3.18 billion.
The Lord Bishop of London
My Lords, the judgment in December 2019 highlighted that the Home Office application fee to register a British citizen was £1,012 for children, even though the Home Office estimated the cost of processing applications for registration as £372. Putting a financial barrier on being able to access one’s rights is a clear barrier to one’s access to justice. What assessment have Her Majesty’s Government made of the number of people whose rights are limited by the level of the fee that has been set?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
There are areas for fee waivers, and children in care may well have their citizenship fees paid for them. I reiterate my previous point that just over £2.9 billion is generated in fees, whereas the cost of BICS is over £3 billion.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted that there are some exemptions for children, both those born before 2006 and those born after. Does my noble friend agree that this is not about immigration but about children with the right to register as citizens and potentially denying them their right to register if they cannot fund more than £1,000? I encourage my noble friend, who I know is compassionate about this issue and about children in general, to urge the department to perhaps consider again.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I agree with my noble friend that we do not underestimate the significance of the issue of fees for child citizenship and registration as a British citizen to both Members of the House and to those affected. As I said earlier, we keep those fees under review.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
Are those children whose families do not have enough money to pay for British citizenship to which they are entitled liable to be deported when they become 18?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The noble and learned Baroness is so fixated on what I was going to reply that she is stuck to the spot.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
It is quite all right. Destitution and the inability to pay a fee—I have mentioned children in care—would not be a preventative factor for people gaining leave to remain in this country. Where an applicant can pay the whole immigration fee but none or only part of the immigration health surcharge, the immigration fee will be required and an exemption will be applied to the immigration health surcharge. As the noble and learned Baroness can see, there are a number of areas in which fees can be waived.
Baroness Primarolo (Lab) [V]
My Lords, will the Minister tell the House whether the Home Office carried out a children’s best interest assessment of the Government’s policy on fees in light of the original judgment? If it did not, can she explain to the House why it was not conducted?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The noble Baroness will forgive me if I do not talk about the case in point, because there is ongoing litigation. We will look at the judgment with interest and see what is to be done from there.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, can the Minister explain why the Government want the immigration system to be self-funding in a way that no other government department is? Controlling immigration is of benefit to all citizens and should therefore be paid for by all citizens.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The whole rationale behind the fee is to pay for the costs of the border, and not everyone goes through the border. I take the noble Lord’s point, of course, that maintaining a strong border is a cost to everyone.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con) [V]
My Lords, can the Minister tell me whether the Government have assessed how many people forgo registering for British citizenship for themselves and their families as they cannot afford it? How this might contribute to their sense of belonging and well-being is important. It is over £1,000 per person, and £4,000 for two adults and two children. What can be done to help with that finance?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
As I mentioned earlier, there are waivers for certain groups of people, particularly children in care. I cannot tell my noble friend how many people did not apply or register last year, but I can say how many did. There were 49,000 applications for registration in 2019, and nearly 46,000 of those were granted, of which over 34,000 were for minors.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I entirely agree with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. Can the Minister tell the House whether she believes it is right that the immigration system is subsidised by children who are born in Britain and have lived their entire life in Britain and have the right to be British? I think it is wrong, grossly unfair and risks pricing children out of their legitimate rights. There are numerous examples of when the Government have refused to let other bodies recover their costs. I have asked many times here why local bodies cannot recover their planning costs—but the Government constantly refuse to do that.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
As I said to my noble friend, and say to the noble Lord now, we do not underestimate the significance of that cost, to either an individual or a family. We keep the fees under review, and, for children and their well-being, there are a number of exceptions to fees for applications for leave to remain.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD) [V]
My Lords, is this not just one other example of the feeling of hostility: that the Government, the Home Office and the immigration system are against us? Not only that, but imagine how full of worry and anxiety somebody facing deportation or tribunal is. This makes us one of the most inhospitable of countries. Is it not time to revise again the British Nationality Act 1981?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I refer the noble Lord to when the fees were last agreed. They were set out in Section 68(9) of the Immigration Act 2014, during the coalition Government.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab) [V]
My Lords, could the Minister confirm that the “task and finish” exercise which she promised at Report stage of the immigration Bill will address the barriers to children registering their citizenship, as covered in my amendment, and that the outcome will be reported to your Lordships’ House?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
On Report, I promised to meet with noble Lords. I called it “task and finish”, but I am still thinking of the best way to set that up. And yes, I would like to report some of the findings of that discussion to your Lordships’ House.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We now come to the third Oral Question.
Gender Recognition Act 2004
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Ministerial Statement by Baroness Berridge on 22 September (HLWS457), what further advice they intend to give to public bodies following the conclusion of the review of the Gender Recognition Act 2004.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Department for International Trade (Baroness Berridge) (Con)
My Lords, the Government recently announced our response to and the results of the consultation on the Gender Recognition Act. We are now focusing on digitising and streamlining the process, and reducing the fee. We hope these changes will make the process less bureaucratic for transgender people. At this stage, we are not proposing further legislative guidance, but we will keep this under review.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, does the Minister accept that in sensitive discussions about the interaction between the Gender Recognition Act and the Equality Act, those most affected, namely women and transgender people, should have freedom to speak, and that intimidation and no-platforming are not acceptable? Will the Government reiterate their belief in the importance of single-sex places provided by the Equality Act, and make it clear to public bodies that it is not acceptable to insist on gender-neutral services at the expense of providing women-only safe spaces in refuges and rape crisis centres?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that freedom of speech in this area, on all sides, needs to be conducted in a manner that is respectful of people with very differing views. Yes, the Equality Act has an exemption, so that single-sex spaces can be provided and, where justified, somebody can be refused access to that space.
Lord Triesman (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am sure that, today, the Minister will explicitly commit the Government to sticking to the statutory definitions required for collecting data on sex discrimination and will guide ACAS to do so. Since gender identification would not provide reliable data for the statistical analysis needed to understand historical patterns, what advice will the Government give to ensure complete clarity in the data required to comply with the legislation? Given the comparable difficulty in defining gender if it relies solely on self-identity, will the Government commit to advising the NHS on the specific rights of women who do not have male bodies to access single-sex wards and medical facilities?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, as I have outlined, the NHS, as a public body, knows that it is the Equality Act that outlines its provision of services, and so single-sex wards can be provided. There is specific NHS guidance that, at present, states that transgender people should be accommodated according to their presentation but that decisions need to be made in the best interests of patients. We leave it to front-line clinicians, who are aware of the circumstances on their wards and in their hospitals, to make those decisions.
Lord Cashman (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the statement by the Minister, particularly on freedom of information. Trans women and men have found themselves vilified, deeply misrepresented and defamed, and seen, in total, as a threat, when all they want to do is get on with their lives, harming no one. Great harm has been done to them and their families—and, sadly, by some Members of your Lordships’ House. Therefore, I ask the Minister this: given that many trans people face routine discrimination in public services, what steps will she take to ensure that public services are equipped to support trans people, including through staff training?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, it is deeply regretful that there has been vilification on both sides of this debate. We hope to move on from this consultation and that both sides can respect the differing views. The consultation made it clear that health service provision was a concern; there is specific training now through the Royal College of Physicians to ensure that medical practitioners are more alert to the issues of transgender people.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the excellent educational material on sexual education for children in schools, which her department recently published. En passant, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, on her nomination as the next chair of the Equal Opportunities Commission. This material brings into sharp relief the previous advice that the Government seem to have been given by the Equal Opportunities Commission, which led the Department for Education to publish a decade-long sequence of materials, which vary greatly from the current new guidance. Is the Minister willing to have a meeting with me to discuss the detailed points of issue that I have raised?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, on her appointment. I would be happy to meet with the noble Baroness. It is key to remember that the relationships and health education guidance that the department has put out was put out partly in response to the IICSA inquiry, which recommended that relationships education was a way to protect children so they would know what was a healthy relationship and when someone was perhaps approaching them for ulterior motives.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and the terms in which it was asked, emanates directly from a campaign supported by, among others, the Heritage Foundation in America, which intends to deny trans women in particular the equality and dignity that they deserve. Can the Minister tell the House whether there is any evidence—as opposed to assertion—that public services are in any doubt about how to ensure the safety of women and trans women in public services under the terms of the Equality Act as it exists now?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, the data is not collected centrally. A number of providers, including public providers, are making use of the single-sex space exemption. It must not be forgotten that people are electing a gender-specific service—a single-sex toilet, for example—each and every day, and in the overwhelming majority of situations there is not a problem. The Government do not want to interfere with that.
Lord Herbert of South Downs (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my interests as set out in the register. I welcome the Government’s improvements to the healthcare of trans people. In drawing up policy in relation to this sensitive issue, can the Minister ensure that the Government will always be guided by a careful assessment of the evidence, including the global evidence of best practice in this area and a proper regard to the human rights and dignities of every individual, and will always reject any invitation to fight or join in a culture war on this issue from whichever side, such as we have seen far too often in debate over the last few months?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I can only agree with my noble friend and thank him that he is to chair the international conference for LGBT, which was in the manifesto. I hope that we can exhibit at that conference a manner of disagreeing respectfully with one another when views differ on each side.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB) [V]
What advice will Her Majesty’s Government give to sports bodies, when national policies differ from those of international federations?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, the Equality Act made a specific exemption, as I am sure the noble Baroness is aware, so national sporting bodies could set their own criteria for participation in sport. We are not currently aware of any disparity between national and international guidance and governing bodies, but if the noble Baroness knows of specific examples, can she please write to me? I will then endeavour to see whether the UK Government have a role in that.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the consultation strongly favoured legislative reform of the Gender Recognition Act 2004, yet the Government have failed to take steps towards a process of gender recognition for trans people that is straightforward, accessible and de-medicalised. What assurance can the Minister give that, in digitising the gender recognition application process, the Government can ensure that the medical component of the process is streamlined and focuses on the legal requirements of the Act, removing the need for intrusive, degrading and unnecessarily detailed medical reports that are so distressing to the trans community?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, the Government are keen to streamline this process and make it as kind and fair as possible. I hear the comments made by the noble Baroness regarding medical evidence; that is a matter for clinicians. But she is correct that we do not want an overly complex paper system to become an overly complex digital system, so part of this is ensuring that the process is simplified before it is digitised.
Baroness Grender (LD) [V]
Is the Minister aware that some local authorities have withdrawn trans-inclusive guidance to schools because of threats of judicial reviews? Does she agree that the safety and welfare of schoolchildren should never be used as a political football by campaigns, and is she concerned that some such campaigns do just that and do not declare their sources of support and funding?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, the department has put out comprehensive resources for health education in primary schools and health and sex education at secondary schools, has resourced teachers, and had a commitment in the manifesto in relation to avoiding bullying. We hope that as a result of this consultation, both sides can live in peace with one another and disagree properly without undue recourse to the courts.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Trains: East Midlands
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bradshaw
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to decrease journey times for trains that use the Nottingham to Lincoln corridor to connect with other cities in the East Midlands.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, Midlands Connect is working with Network Rail to develop two line-speed improvement proposals between Lincoln and Nottingham, as part of its role in promoting strategic transport investment across the Midlands region. One proposal is to reduce journey times for passenger services between Lincoln and Newark. An investment decision will be made on the proposal following completion of its business case.
Lord Bradshaw (LD) [V]
I wish to widen the scope of that. I am very pleased to hear of the improvements between Newark and Lincoln, but my Question was concerned with the overall journey times between Lincoln, Nottingham, Derby, Leicester and Birmingham. The average journey by train being at about 30 miles per hour. What further improvements do the Government envisage?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, the Government envisage a number of further improvements across the wider area that the noble Lord mentions, particularly on the Newark to Nottingham stretch. Midlands Connect and Network Rail are looking at a feasibility study which may see an improvement in times by three minutes. As the noble Lord will know, the issue there is the flat crossing at Newark, where it crosses the east coast main line. More broadly, the Government are doing an awful lot of work in the Midlands as they develop HS2.
Lord Berkeley (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the interesting answers that she gave the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. Do the Government intend that the upgrades in timing, which will need infrastructure improvements between Birmingham, Nottingham, Newark and the flat junction for freight, and beyond, will be part of the integrated rail plan recently announced by the Government? They would bring local and regional benefits much sooner than the construction of HS2 East, which apparently has now been paused.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The integrated rail plan announced in February 2020 will look at the delivery of high-speed rail alongside all the other rail enhancements across the Midlands, including the Midlands rail hub. Network Rail is already developing work in this area, including connectivity improvements between Birmingham and Nottingham.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as co-chair of the Midlands Engine All-Party Parliamentary Group. Rail is playing a vital role in levelling up the Midlands and capitalising regional developments. A dedicated ministerial champion to drive this key programme forward within government would be hugely beneficial. Is that something that the Government will consider?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The Government take their relationship with Midlands Engine and Midlands Connect extremely seriously, and I have had a number of meetings with them. On transport for the east Midlands, the Transport Secretary, Grant Shapps, announced on 3 September a new collaborative agreement between local leaders in the east Midlands and the department. We have created two new posts within the department specifically for the east Midlands to provide a more influential role when it comes to rail service enhancement decisions.
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
My Lords, 79% of workers in the East Midlands travel to work by car, and only 1% by rail. Contrast this with London where 27% go by car and 46% by rail and Tube. London shows that that revolution is achievable. Does the Minister accept that to cope with road congestion, pollution, climate change and ill health the Government must prioritise investment now for much-improved commuter train services in the East Midlands? It needs a lot more than a three-minute time improvement; it needs a massive change of approach from the Government.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The Government are committed to making improvements to East Midlands commuter travel. The noble Baroness is absolutely right: if we are to get people out of their cars, we need them on the trains. Of course one of our priorities is improving the safety of staff and passengers on trains. We have extra staff to manage flows, extra signage and extra cleaning. I hope that she will agree that if people want to travel to work in the East Midlands by train, they should do so.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
First, what is government spending on transport overall in the East Midlands region per head of population, compared with the national average on transport per head of population? Secondly, what specific progress has been made over the last five months towards reopening the line from Leicester to Burton to passengers, following the government announcement last May of a fund for feasibility studies on the reopening of lines?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The last figures that I have for investment in transport are £268 per head in the East Midlands compared to £474 per head across England, so there is much more to be done. The steps that the Department for Transport has taken recently will aim to level up the East Midlands in the amount of investment in infrastructure. The line between Leicester and Burton—I believe it is known as the Ivanhoe line—is part of the Restoring Your Railway programme, so the reintroduction of passenger services is being considered. Development of these plans has been funded, and the Department for Transport and Network Rail are working on it with the promoters of the scheme to provide the guidance and support that they need to get a strategic outline business case.
Lord Loomba (CB) [V]
My Lords, ensuring better train services is key to achieving the levelling-up agenda across the whole country. It is paramount for jobs and growth that passengers and businesses using train networks have good, reliable and fast services. Also, part of tackling climate change is encouraging greater use of public transport, given that the road networks linking cities in the area are congested and polluted. What assessment have the Government taken on increasing train timetable options for passengers from Lincoln, with a view to ensuring greater usage?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I believe I have been able to explain that between Lincoln and Nottingham an awful lot of work is going on—to improve not only the time taken to travel between those two places but the frequency of the trains. For example, I reassure the noble Lord that, in addition to the measures I have already spoken about, there are plans to see two new services in each direction from May 2021, and then three more services after that each way from 2022.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Bradshaw pointed out that on the wider regional network the average speed is 30 mph, which is not competitive for freight and businesses, and not good for the environment. The Minister pointed out that there will be a three-minute improvement, but can we come back to speed? In five years’ time, when the arrangements that she mentioned will have been made, what will be the average speed on this line per journey? If she does not have those figures to hand, could she please write to me with them?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The noble Lord will not be surprised to know that I do not have the average speed figures to hand, but one look at that line tells you that there are quite a number of stations, and they bring down the overall average speed. For example, on the Newark to Nottingham section, the new signalling system will allow speeds of up to 90 mph. It is key to get the trains moving much faster between the stations, although I accept that the average speed will be significantly below that.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked.
High Speed Rail (West Midlands-Crewe) Bill
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the Bill be recommitted to a Grand Committee.
United Kingdom Internal Market Bill
Monday 19th October 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 View all United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 29 September 2020 - (29 Sep 2020)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. The United Kingdom’s internal market has been the bedrock of our shared prosperity for centuries. Since the Acts of Union, the UK internal market has been the source of unhindered and open trade across the entire United Kingdom. It has enabled businesses and individuals to thrive and has been the source of unhindered and open trade across our country. It has helped to demonstrate that, as a union, our country is greater than the sum of all our parts.
Around 60% of Scottish and Welsh exports are to the rest of the UK, which is around three times as much as exports to the whole of the rest of the European Union. About 50% of Northern Ireland’s sales are to Great Britain. When we leave the transition period at the end of this year, an unprecedented number of powers will flow from the EU to the devolved nations and the UK Government. As this happens, and as we recover from Covid, we must ensure that our economy is stronger than ever. The Bill will guarantee the continued functioning of our internal market to ensure that trade remains unhindered in the UK and businesses can continue to operate with certainty. Without the Bill a Welsh lamb producer, for whom almost 60% of the market is the rest of the UK, could end up unable to sell their lamb as easily as before. Scotch whisky producers could lose access to supply from English barley farmers, unnecessarily putting at risk Scotland’s own whisky industry.
This package guarantees a continuation of our centuries-old position that there should be no economic barriers to trading within the United Kingdom. To achieve this, the Bill will do the following. First, it will introduce a market access commitment for goods, services and professional qualifications respectively. This will ensure that the UK can continue to operate as a coherent internal market and maintain the deep integration and strong economic ties that bind the UK together. Secondly, it provides a statutory underpinning for a new office for the internal market, within the Competition and Markets Authority. This office will independently monitor the health of the UK internal market and provide technical advice on issues that may impact it, reporting to the devolved legislatures and to this Parliament itself.
Thirdly, it introduces provisions to ensure that there is a safety net in domestic law to prevent new checks and controls on goods going from Northern Ireland to Great Britain, in line with the Government’s commitment to unfettered access for qualifying Northern Ireland goods. Fourthly, it enables strategic investment in all four corners of the United Kingdom, giving the UK Government a power to provide financial assistance for the purposes of economic development, culture, sporting activities and infrastructure, as well as both international and domestic educational and training activities and exchanges.
Finally, it reserves to the UK Parliament the exclusive ability to legislate for a UK subsidy control regime once this country ceases to follow EU state aid rules at the end of the transition period. This is to ensure that subsidies do not unduly distort competition within the UK’s internal market. Let there be no doubt: this Bill is crucial in providing certainty to businesses, and we must give them that certainty.
My department and I, along with colleagues across government, spoke to hundreds of businesses and business representative organisations from across the UK to gather views and feedback on our original White Paper proposals. Over 270 businesses and organisations responded to a public consultation on the proposals, and businesses overwhelmingly supported our approach. I record my thanks for the engagement we have had from all aspects of business on this.
The Bill will put in law a market access commitment by enshrining mutual recognition and non-discrimination: mutual recognition to ensure that goods and services from one part of the UK will be recognised across the country, and non-discrimination to guarantee that there is equal opportunity for companies trading in the UK regardless of where in the country that business is based. The same principles of mutual recognition and non-discrimination will also be applied to services and will introduce a process for the recognition of professional qualifications across the whole UK internal market. This will allow professionals such as doctors and nurses, qualified in one of the UK nations, to work in any other part, as I am sure Members would expect. Furthermore, the Government are inviting views on the regulatory framework for professional qualifications, to ensure that our approach remains world leading. We have, of course, listened to those in the devolved Administrations and business, and have made some exemptions, for example to respect the divergence that exists between the legal professions in England, Wales and Scotland.
The Bill will also ensure that Northern Ireland qualifying goods benefit from the market access commitment and receive mutual recognition in the rest of the UK, guaranteeing a continuation of our centuries-old position that there should be no economic barriers to trading within the United Kingdom.
We consulted on how to ensure an independent monitoring and advice function to uphold the UK internal market. In response, and to oversee the functioning of the internal market, the Bill will set up an office for the internal market within the CMA. This office will monitor and report on the internal market to the UK Government, devolved Administrations, the legislatures, and external stakeholders, ensuring the continued smooth operation of that market that businesses so desperately desire.
Subsidy control has never been devolved. It is crucial to continue to have a UK-wide approach, to protect our internal market and prevent harmful and distortive practices arising. The purpose of the Bill is to ensure that we continue to have fair and open competition across the UK, and so it is right that we have a UK-wide approach to subsidy control. As we take back control of this policy from the EU, the UK will have its own domestic subsidy control regime. From 1 January, the Government will follow the World Trade Organization rules for subsidy control, and any related commitments the Government have agreed in free trade agreements.
We will consult on whether to go further than those existing commitments, including whether legislation is necessary to achieve a system that promotes a competitive and dynamic economy throughout the United Kingdom. We appreciate that our longer-term approach will have implications for business and all public authorities that grant subsidies with taxpayers’ money, including the devolved Administrations. So we will take the time to listen closely to those voices and design a system that promotes a competitive and dynamic economy throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. However, we will not return to the 1970s approach of bailing out unsustainable companies, be they in Scotland, England, Wales or Northern Ireland.
As we leave the EU and take back control of our money, we will require new powers to continue to invest across the United Kingdom. Therefore, this Bill will confer a power to make sure that the UK Government can invest UK taxpayers’ money nationwide, including on the UK Government’s priorities, supporting people and businesses across the UK and delivering on our commitment to level up all parts of our country. Currently, unelected EU bodies spend billions of pounds that we provided as a net contributor, on our behalf. They spend our money, with very little say from elected politicians in the UK. This will, rightly, change as we leave the transition period.
The UK Government intend to take a much more collaborative approach in delivering programmes that replace EU funds. This includes engaging heavily with local authorities as well as wider public and private sector organisations. And, of course, it means working closely with the devolved Administrations to make sure that investments complement their existing—and continuing—powers used to support citizens in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. This power to provide financial assistance will cover infrastructure, economic development, culture and sport. It will also support educational and training activities and exchanges both within the UK and internationally, much of which of course was previously done at EU level.
These powers are not designed to take powers from the devolved Administrations, but to add powers to direct investment in a similar fashion to the EU Commission, while reforming programmes and empowering MPs from Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and England to design and scrutinise funds in a way that was never possible within the EU. This will also allow the UK Government to meet their commitments to replicating and matching EU structural funds within the shared prosperity fund. This is in line with the Government’s manifesto commitments to strengthen the union and level up the country. This power to provide financial assistance is one of the mechanisms by which the Government hope to achieve these ambitions.
We will also be introducing limited and reasonable steps to provide a safety net to ensure that peace can always be preserved in Northern Ireland. In the event that we do not reach an agreement with the EU on how to implement the Northern Ireland protocol, we must be able to deliver on promises in our manifesto and in the Command Paper. This is a legal safety net which clarifies our position on the Northern Ireland protocol, protecting our union and ensuring that businesses based in Northern Ireland have true “unfettered access” to the rest of the United Kingdom, without paperwork. The Bill will also provide certainty on state aid, ensuring that there is no legal confusion and that, while Northern Ireland will remain subject to the EU’s state aid regime for the duration of the protocol, Great Britain will not be subject to EU rules in this area.
This Bill, and our wider approach to protecting our internal market, is designed for co-operation between the four parts of the United Kingdom. It will protect our common causes, such as the setting of high standards in our economy, and will work in concert with the common frameworks programme and the IGR, which is due to conclude shortly. After all, the UK has some of the highest standards in the world. It is worth reminding noble Lords that we go beyond EU rules in many areas, including health and safety in the workplace, workers’ rights, food, health and animal welfare, consumer protections, household goods, net zero and the environment. We will maintain that commitment to high standards, including as we negotiate trade agreements that will provide jobs and growth in the UK. We have been driving this forward through our common frameworks programme, to drive collaboration and a coherent approach to policy across the UK now that we have left the European Union. I therefore want to reiterate the Government’s invitation to all devolved Administrations to work together on this Bill, with the common frameworks process and with the internal market as a whole.
This Bill is crucial to ensuring that we continue to work together as one United Kingdom to support jobs and livelihoods across our entire country. As we rebuild and recover from Covid-19 and look ahead to opportunities following the end of the transition period, this Bill will provide the certainty that businesses need to invest and create jobs. It will accompany one of the biggest transfers of powers in the history of devolution, with hundreds of powers flowing from the EU to the devolved Administrations at the end of the transition period. This Bill will do all this and preserve the internal market, which has been an engine of growth and prosperity since the Acts of Union. That is why we need this Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment to the Motion
Lord Judge
“As an amendment to the motion that the bill be now read a second time, at end to insert “but that this House regrets that Part 5 of the bill contains provisions which, if enacted, would undermine the rule of law and damage the reputation of the United Kingdom.”
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, I beg to move the amendment in my name on the Order Paper. If I believed in compulsion, and executive compulsion in particular, I would make an order that every member of the Cabinet should read the report from the Constitution Committee and the report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and understand what they mean. What I read in those reports we have read time and time again, and, so far, nobody has paid much attention to them. I can sit down now, can I not? Perhaps not.
I do not want to grandstand, but the rule of law is a bulwark against authoritarian incursion, and even the smallest incursion threatens it. When those responsible for making the law—that is, us the Parliament, we the lawmakers, who expect people to obey the laws we make—knowingly grant power to the Executive to break the law, that incursion is not small. The rule of law is not merely undermined, it is subverted. There is one consequence, and the damage is to our standing in the world. We have no real power now, except soft power—the English language and an understanding that we in this country have a traditional belief in the rule of law and we respect it. We hope that, one day, all the countries in the world that do not have respect for the rule of law will have it. Yet here we are, about to tear it into tatters. Our contribution to happier days around the world will be diminished.
I want to make it clear that I passionately believe in the sovereignty of Parliament. I extol it, I discuss it abroad, I explain its advantages over a written constitution, which includes the flexibility that we now have. I also accept that Parliament can make any law it likes; it can criminalise anything it wants to. Let me give you a silly example, which is not that far removed from what has been going on through Covid. I happen to support Leicester City FC. Parliament could make it an offence to be a supporter of Leicester City FC. They could make it an offence for 10 Leicester City FC supporters to gather together to support the club. It obviously will not do that, but in theory it can do exactly what it likes.
The rule of law requires properly enacted laws. I accept that; rule by properly enacted laws is one of the ingredients, but it is not definitive. When the sovereignty of Parliament is tossed against us—fair enough, it is important, it is crucial, it is our constitution—let us remember that every country in the world has a law-making body. Think of one that has not. It will produce the laws by which that country is ruled. Of course, it will. But some constitutionally, properly enacted laws are the antithesis of the rule of law. There are so many examples, but here is one that leaps to mind. Apartheid South Africa, where everything about you as a human being and the way you were treated by the law depended on the accident of birth: the colour of your skin. Depending on the colour of your skin, your rights were more or less; they were certainly different. We tend to forget—we should not—that apartheid South Africa’s abhorrent laws were the result of a perfectly clearly understood constitutional enactment. In law, they were utterly justified in making any law they liked, just as we are. But somebody tell me that apartheid South Africa, with its properly enacted laws, was a place where the rule of law could be found. It was miles away, the furthest constellation in the stars you can imagine.
We need to be careful to distinguish between the rule of law and rule by laws. It is the rule of law that carries us and gives us the protection that we need from the abuse or misuse of the constitutional power that is enjoyed by Parliament. It is our safest shield against authoritarianism. It is a phrase that was conjured up by the Commons for the first time in 1610 to tell an overweening king that he was seeking to exercise overmuch power. It is a phrase we should use to remind an overweening Executive that they are going too far.
I know that I am not alone in finding it offensive that we are asked by a Minister in Parliament to seek Parliament’s authorisation to allow him to break the law deliberately and knowingly. Saying that it will be done only in a very specific and limited way is a total obfuscation. A thief who steals only a tin of tuna is still a thief. Over the years, Parliament has heard many strange words, it has heard some very surprising words, it has heard some inspirational words. It is part of the history of our country. But I have not yet found an occasion—I have tried, and if the Minister can find one no doubt he will tell me—when Parliament was invited to agree that a Minister should be entitled to break the law.
We must look on the impact of Part 5 as a totality. It is not just Clause 47 that is pernicious. Let us go back. We became party to a new agreement with the EU, which provided sensible get-out clauses for both sides and which either side could use, and re-enacted the withdrawal Act this year, just before Covid hit us. The Northern Ireland protocol was integral to it, with its own get-out clauses. I recognise, if I may say so, the distaste and hostility with which some people in Northern Ireland regard what happened then. I suggest to them that this debate is not about the protocol; it is about the rule of law.
The Act gave legal effect to the withdrawal agreement and the protocol, and thus it became domestic legislation implementing an international agreement. Of course I accept that international agreements and treaties occupy a separate star in the firmament, but breaking international law is not different, in principle, from breaking domestic law. The rule of law is no less an ingredient of the legal relationship between nations as it is domestically. Let us get ourselves rid of the myth, the spin, that when the rule of law internationally is damaged, the rule of law domestically is nevertheless quite unscathed. It is absurd. The rule of law is indivisible. And let us disabuse ourselves of a further myth or spin that actions already taken have not diminished virtually to extinction the assertion by the Minister in the other place that we are a beacon around the world for the rule of law and international law. The light given by that beacon is being extinguished.
Finally, we must not be beguiled by the recent argument that the legislation would be used only if necessary, in an emergency. It does not cure the fault, does it? What is not a myth is that not a shred of evidence has been produced that would justify the use of the get-out clauses; hence this proposed legislation. Part 5 provides that a Minister of the Crown shall be vested with the power to use secondary legislation in effect to repeal an Act of Parliament that Parliament has only just enacted, almost before the ink on it is dry. That is not how the sovereign Parliament should be treated by the Executive. We do not have executive sovereignty.
But this is worse than the standard Henry VIII clause. To talk about a standard Henry VIII clause is itself a shameful thing to have to do, but we are faced with them in every piece of legislation, like blossom in spring when the wind blows. And, despite the recent arguments by the Lord Chancellor, Part 5 as a whole was obviously intended to prevent any legal challenge to ministerial decree—and the Lord Chancellor himself accepts that such rights will be reduced.
This is not an attempt to limit the court’s jurisdiction over primary legislation: it is now being extended to secondary legislation. The House has heard me speak before on the subject of the inadequacy of parliamentary control of secondary legislation but, if Parliament will not exercise control, and the courts cannot do it, where then are the controls on the Executive? They are vanishing into the air. So now we are being asked to give a Minister of the Crown, on behalf of the Executive, the lawful authority knowingly and deliberately to repeal recent domestic legislation and to break international treaties, all through secondary legislation over which parliamentary control has crumbled through disuse and the normal scrutiny of which by the courts has been reduced to a whimper.
I am nearly done. The rule of law has served us well. It has not made a perfect society—nor could it. But we all know that without it our society would have been, and would still be, catastrophically worse. We must defend that bulwark, and I hope that I shall be supported, because I intend to take this issue to a Division, so that the House can give its own opinion on this dangerous legislation. I say, “Not in my name.”
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, while thanking the Minister for opening the debate, we concur totally with the regret expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. I will, however, leave it to my noble and learned friend, Lord Falconer, to set out our case on this, having allocated some of my speaking time to him, while my noble friend Lord Stevenson will cover the state aid and competition parts of the Bill, as well as the governance, independence and powers of the OIM.
Today will be a notable one for your Lordships’ House, given the expertise that we will hear, and we look forward to the maiden speeches of my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock and the noble Lord, Lord Sarfraz, as well as those of my noble friend Lady Andrews, chair of the Common Frameworks Committee, my noble friend Lady Taylor, chair of our Constitution Committee, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, chair of the EU Committee, whose reports the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, has already referred to.
I also look forward to hearing the speech of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, who, with church leaders from across the four nations, writes in today’s FT of the grave responsibility of Peers, given that the Bill
“will profoundly affect the future of our countries and the relationships between them”.
It is hard to understand how the Government have got so much wrong in a Bill that was long expected as a result of our exit from the EU. Perhaps it is symptomatic of their genetic inability to work with those whose interests are affected by legislation—hence their undermining of the protocol without a word to Irish politicians, and their willingness to break international law, and renounce a treaty, with nary a word to the judiciary or the co-signatories, which led to the EU taking legal action, via a letter of formal notice, for a breach of the good-faith terms of the withdrawal agreement.
Moreover, despite claims that it would strengthen the integrity of the union while upholding the devolution settlements, the Bill actually,
“risks de-stabilising an integral part of the UK’s constitutional significance”,
in the words of our Constitution Committee.
In a letter to the Lord Speaker, Jeremy Miles, the relevant Welsh Minister, describes the Bill as
“an unprecedented attack on the devolution settlement”,
arguing that it would undermine the Senedd’s right to regulate in devolved areas of competence and would explicitly amend the Government of Wales Act. Unsurprisingly, the Senedd’s legislative consent memorandum concludes that, unless the Bill is substantially amended, the Welsh Government would not be able to recommend consent.
A similar reaction led the Scottish Parliament to vote by 90 to 28 against granting legislative consent, with the Scottish Government stating that they could not recommend consent to a Bill that,
“undermines devolution and breaches international law”—
and it looks as if that response has led to a third of Scottish voters being more likely to back independence.
There has been a real issue to resolve, because when we entered the EU in 1973, there was no devolution. But we thought we had achieved a solution with the common frameworks in the Withdrawal Act. Within the EU, common standards, mutual recognition, labelling, testing, professional recognition—or whatever—were decided by consensus across the 28, with MEPs from our four nations signing off the various measures. Our exit repatriated powers to the UK, but they included powers in some devolved competencies.
So how did the Government react? Did they set up a mechanism akin to EU co-determination, designed with the devolved Administrations? Did they build on the common framework efforts already in play? No, they took to themselves significant repatriated powers, annulling elements of the devolved settlement, to replace a system that had evolved slowly and by careful negotiation over decades by government edict. They published their plans with statements from Messrs Gove, Sharma and Jack, from a Scottish businessman and from the Scottish Retail Consortium, but with no word from the Welsh Secretary of State and no involvement of devolved Governments. They sweep state aid to themselves and give a role to the CMA, which is unrepresentative of the devolved nations.
The Bill grants UK Ministers powers on mutual recognition without any input from the devolved Administrations. So if England, for example, imports chlorine-washed chicken, consumers in Aberdeen and Aberystwyth could find it on their supermarket shelves without any say by their elected Governments. Similarly, the Bill’s lack of a public health exclusion from market access principles makes it difficult for all parts of the UK to implement policies to reduce harms from alcohol and tobacco, for example, or to tackle environmental harms.
Meanwhile, this House’s Delegated Powers Committee describes the Bill as a constitutional power grab, apparently horrified by its “extraordinary, unprecedented powers”, which allow Ministers to amend or repeal parts of this Bill—or indeed any Act of Parliament or statutory instrument.
We do not concur with the Government’s assertion that
“the Bill ... is not constitutional but economic”.
Rather, we agree with the Archbishops that
“the effect on devolved policymaking is of constitutional significance”.
The Delegated Powers Committee calls on us to ensure that major decisions are taken by primary, not secondary legislation, noting that much of the Bill’s reliance on statutory instruments has no relation to any need for urgency.
I turn to the CMA. Its present structure is inadequate, not simply by failing to represent all four nations, but by lacking a clear duty to place consumers at the heart of its work. It is notable that nowhere in the Minister’s letter to your Lordships of 1 October does the word “consumer” even appear. You have to get to Clause 32 before you find a welcome mention of
“impacts on prices, the quality of goods and services or choice for consumers”.
Competition is not an end in itself; it is to serve consumers, prevent rip-offs and promote fair trading and growth. Intervention exists to get a market working for consumers, so that objective must be hard-wired into the CMA’s DNA. The noble Lord, Lord Tyrie, as chair, produced an excellent suite of suggestions to make the CMA consumer-focused and fleet of foot. We will seek to write these into the Bill, as well as to reflect all four nations.
In this Bill, the Prime Minister has managed to anger lawyers, devolved authorities, the EU, the churches, his own Back Benches and the majority of your Lordships. He is really like a bar-room brawler, taking on all comers. Is it possible that they are right and he is wrong? Perhaps it is worth reminding Mr Johnson on the oft-quoted words that Barack Obama left in the Oval Office for President Trump:
“We are just temporary occupants of this office. That makes us guardians of those democratic instructions and traditions—like rule of law ... it’s up to us to leave those instruments of our democracy at least as strong as we found them”.
Something is needed to replace the EU’s competition-based open market, such that consumers do not lose out, so that public health, the environment and food standards are protected and that the union is strengthened, but it is not this Bill. This must be amended to be workable, legal, democratic and respectful of the devolution settlements. For that reason, we share the regret expressed in the amendments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, that the Bill undermines the rule of law and reneges on a treaty, reducing our standing on the world stage. That is regrettable indeed, and completely avoidable.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, this Bill is, on a number of grounds, the most dangerous and baffling piece of legislation to come before your Lordships’ House in the 23 years since I became a Member. It is dangerous because, for the first time in that period, a British Government are explicitly legislating to break their word in a treaty recently entered into and in breach of international law. It is baffling because none of its other provisions are necessary at all to meet its ostensible policy goals.
I shall take the dangerous part first—the provisions in Clauses 44, 45 and 47 to allow the Government to override the provisions of the Northern Ireland protocol that could impede unfettered access to Great Britain’s markets for Northern Ireland goods. I pass over the provision in Clause 43(2), which allows a whole raft of new checks, controls and administrative procedures on such trade, which the Government now accept is necessary, and in doing so makes a mockery of the whole concept of unfettered access in the first place. On the offensive provisions themselves, let us be clear on three questions. First, do they indeed break international law? Secondly, in these particular circumstances, is such a breach justified? Thirdly, if not, what should now be done?
On the first question, the answer is clear. The Government have themselves accepted that the provisions
“break international law in a limited and specific way”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/9/20; col. 509.]
To use a slightly different example from that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, if I go into a shop and steal a specific and limited number of Rolex watches, I have still committed a theft. Government amendments to the Bill in the Commons would require Parliament to vote before any provisions could be introduced under the offending clauses, but as the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law puts it, such a vote
“does not alter the fact that Parliament is still being asked by the Government to legislate in deliberate breach of its treaty obligations.”
So, the provisions without doubt break the law, but are they still justified, as the Government contend? They have argued that they are, on a number of grounds. They have produced the lamentable excuse that, because they signed the withdrawal agreement in a rush, they did not realise what it meant. They have resorted to scaremongering, saying that the EU was planning to impose a “blockade”—their word—on agricultural goods moving across the Irish Sea, a suggestion the Irish Foreign Minister has described as “totally bogus”. They have argued that the UK Government have broken international law on numerous occasions in the past to justify doing so again. However, the briefing to your Lordships’ House by the Law Society and the Bar Council knocks that on the head when it states:
“We are unaware of a precedent for such an approach in UK legislation or administrative process.”
The truth is that there is not a shred of justification for breaking international law, as provided for in this Bill. Its effect will simply be to diminish our international reputation as an honest partner and an advocate of the universal application of the rule of law. So, what should your Lordships’ House do? We must ensure that the law-breaking clauses do not enter the statute book. I have considerable sympathy with those who argue that we should vote against the Bill today, at Second Reading, because that is the cleanest way of getting rid of the offending clauses, and because, for reasons I will explain, I do not believe that the remainder of the Bill is necessary at all. However, I understand that this is not the view of others across the House, so we will work with them to excise the specific offending clauses when we get to them. My only plea, though, is that when it comes to ping-pong, the many noble Lords who, over the next few hours, will express their abhorrence of what the Bill contains, will be willing to gird up their loins for the repeated ping-pong which will surely be necessary if our common views are eventually to prevail.
If the Northern Ireland protocol clauses are dangerous, the remainder of the Bill succeeds in being completely unnecessary, while at the same time undermining some of the basic principles of the devolution settlement. Veterans of the EU withdrawal Bill will remember grappling with how to manage the repatriation of measures that underpin the single market: which should be retained at UK level, which should be devolved and which should be jointly determined? With the help of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, we arrived at a system of common frameworks that would, between them, deal with all aspects of the single market. There are some 40 of them, and they have either been fully negotiated or are in the process of being negotiated. When finalised, they will render the ostensible purpose of the Bill—to ensure the smooth operation of the UK’s internal market—completely unnecessary.
However, the Bill does not simply provide overarching UK-wide market access provisions; it takes away power from the devolved Administrations and reserves it to London at the same time. There are several ways in which it does so. It undermines the devolved institutions’ right to regulate in devolved areas of competence. It gives wholly new powers to UK Ministers to spend public money on devolved issues in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, without necessarily involving them in deciding on priorities. And it seeks to amend the state aid legislation, so that the UK Government could impose a new state aid regime without the agreement of the devolved Administrations. Over the course of the debate, my noble friends and other noble Lords will set out in detail why this legislation is so very damaging to the devolution settlement.
To seek to undermine devolution in these ways, under the innocuous cloak of maintaining market access for goods and services across the UK, is not simply disingenuous; it is dangerous, because it can only give succour to those who want to break up the United Kingdom. Amendments will be laid on a cross-party basis at Committee stage, supported by the Welsh and Scottish Governments, which will seek to reverse the worst aspects of what the Government are proposing in respect of the devolution settlement. I hope they will be supported across the House.
As we face the ravages of Covid-19 and the impending costs and disruptions of Brexit, to have to spend weeks of legislative time, as we now are, trying to stop the Government breaking international law and undermining the devolution settlement is both depressing and infuriating. But if this House of Lords has any purpose, it is to protect the rule of law and the constitution, and it is up to us now to rise to that challenge.
The Archbishop of Canterbury
My Lords, I look forward to hearing, here and online, the contributions to come, especially the maiden speeches of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and the noble Lord, Lord Sarfraz.
I also concur totally with the powerful and remarkable speech by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. What we are called to do above all in this country, deeply embedded in our Christian culture and history, is to act justly and honestly. We cannot do so if we openly speak of breaking a treaty under international law, reached properly, on which peace in part of the UK relies. My distinguished former colleague Sentamu, who paid with beatings for his defence of law and justice in Uganda would have spoken trenchantly. I regret his absence.
There are some who claim that I and my colleagues who wrote in the FT this morning are misinformed. But the letter—and this intervention—followed the lead of those who have spent their lives seeking peace in Ireland. Peace is surely something of which religious leaders should speak. We also listened to the Select Committee on the Constitution, to all five living former Prime Ministers, two former Conservative leaders, and distinguished judges, including former Presidents of the Supreme Court and the former Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, to name but a few.
This country has different characteristics and needs in its regions and nations. They must be reflected in all our relationships if the union is to survive. There is no watertight door in relationships between economics and constitutional issues. They overflow from one into the other. The timing of anything that the UK Parliament or Government do in Northern Ireland is always especially significant to relationships. It is particularly so at present. The revived Assembly is scarcely a year old; 2021 is the centenary of the establishment of Stormont and the creation of the border. Much progress has been made since the 1990s in building confidence and peace, yet it is clear from many visits in the last few years, and clear to anyone who listens, that the tensions continue. Peace and reconciliation need continual reinforcement and continual progress. I will therefore be seeking to work with others for amendments which ensure that the process of peace and reconciliation is pursued and that powers exercised under this Bill, when it becomes law, involve consultation amidst the immense complexities of Northern Ireland. I hope we may act on a cross-party basis.
Politics, if it is to draw out the best of us, must be more than just the exercise of binaries, of raw majority power unleashed; it exists to seek truth, to bring diverse peoples together in healthy relationships. Our reputation as a nation, our profoundly good and powerful influence and example, which I know from experience around the world, will suffer great harm if law-breaking is pursued—greater harm than this Bill seeks to prevent. In the Church of England, we are all too clearly aware of the shame that comes with failing morally. Let us not make the same mistake at national level. This House exists to amend and improve legislation, not to derail it, and that must be our urgent aim now.
The Earl of Kinnoull (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the most reverend Primate, and I congratulate him and his most reverend colleagues on their very welcome letter today, with which I, too, wholeheartedly agree.
The European Union Committee published our report on the internal market Bill last Friday. It was the 74th Brexit-related report that we have made since the referendum in 2016. It was unanimous, as all the previous reports have been. Once again, I pay tribute to the outstanding committee staff, working all hours as they do, to such a very high standard over such a long period. The report is short. It deals only with Part 5 of the Bill and its interaction with the Government’s implementation of the withdrawal agreement. It was designed to fit together with the excellent report of the Constitution Committee and its wider analysis of the rule of law issues.
I have said before in this Chamber that there is an inherent tension at the heart of the Ireland/Northern Ireland protocol, essentially in marrying up the aspirations of the recitals with the hard legal texts of the articles that follow. The committee reported in June that there was not enough urgency among the parties in the negotiations, who in a pragmatic way need to seek the compromises to sort this out, protecting, first and most importantly, the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and, secondly, the two mighty single markets involved—those of the EU and the UK. That report also dwelt on the multilayered dispute resolution mechanisms contained within the withdrawal agreement. The Bill before us supplants those mechanisms without their ever having been tried out. We have heard already of the Secretary of State’s clear and repeated statement that, in doing so, the Bill breaches international law. The result, as we report, strikes at the heart of the withdrawal agreement and hence poses a threat to the maintenance of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement itself. It is corrosive, too, to the future relationship discussions, as trust has become a casualty of the arrival of Part 5 of the Bill.
We wrote to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 18 September, with nine questions on the situation. To date, we have had no response to that letter and the letter is set out as Appendix 2 of our report. I very much hope that the Minister will carefully cover these nine questions in his response tomorrow. In the absence of convincing answers to these nine questions, the committee recommends removing Part 5 of the Bill.
In closing, I note that the amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, is entirely in keeping with our report. I therefore strongly support it, and for once, and after advice, can follow him into the virtual voting Lobby when he divides the House.
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and I congratulate him on his committee’s report. Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, with whose every word I agree, I entirely accept that the sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom has the power to legislate in breach of international law. That is not the issue that this Bill presents. The question is not whether we can so legislate; the question is whether we should so legislate. I do not often quote the President of the European Commission, but then the President of the European Commission does not often quote Margaret Thatcher. What Mrs Thatcher said was this:
“Britain does not break Treaties. It would be bad for Britain, bad for our relations with the rest of the world and bad for any future treaty on trade”.
That says it all.
I was surprised, nay astonished, that my noble friend the Minister did not deal with nor even mention—unless my hearing has totally failed me—that Part 5 is in breach of international law. The admission by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in another place that it is in breach was not, as was suggested by one of my noble friends in the recent debate in Grand Committee, merely a “clumsy” form of words: those words were read from a brief; they were prepared; they were premeditated; they were deliberate; they represented the Government’s clear intention, and, as far as I am aware, the Government have not sought to resile from them.
It was suggested that the dispute resolution provisions in the withdrawal agreement would be activated in parallel with the activation of the provisions in the Bill, but I draw your Lordships’ attention to Article 168 of the withdrawal agreement. It is short, so I shall read it in full:
“For any dispute between the Union and the United Kingdom arising under this Agreement, the Union and the United Kingdom shall only have recourse to the procedures provided for in this Agreement.”
The Government may have second thoughts about that article; they may regret that they have signed up to it, but it is too late: they did sign up to it. They are bound by it and they should honour it.
Together with the majority of those who voted in the 2016 referendum, I voted for Brexit. I do not for one moment regret or resile from that vote; I want the United Kingdom to be an independent sovereign state. However, I want it to be an independent sovereign state that holds its head up high in the world, that keeps its word, that upholds the rule of law and that honours its treaty obligations. I want it to be an independent sovereign state that is a beacon unto the nations. I do not want it to be an independent sovereign state that chooses as one of the first assertions of that sovereignty to break its word, to break the law and to renege on a treaty that it signed barely a year ago. I shall vote for the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and, if it is put to a vote, that in the name of my noble friend Lord Cormack. I shall vote against the clauses in Part 5 which are in breach of international law, and I urge your Lordships to do likewise.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
It is a real pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Lympne, and to have heard the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. They were two incredibly powerful speeches, and I agree with every single word of them—except the bit where the noble Lord, Lord Howard, said that he had voted for Brexit, because I did not.
I very much look forward to hearing the maiden speeches of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and the noble Lord, Lord Sarfraz, which I know will be incredibly good. My noble friend Lady Hayter has given me five minutes of her speech, and it has been agreed with usual channels that I may exceed the advisory limit a bit because I am speaking from the Front Bench.
The Northern Ireland protocol ensures an open border in Ireland to preserve the Good Friday agreement. It does this by creating a regime, legally binding on the United Kingdom as a matter both of domestic law and of international law, whereby goods in or entering Northern Ireland will be compliant with single market rules. On that basis, the border remains open and the integrity of the single market is protected. The protocol also provides that Northern Ireland remains within the customs territory of the United Kingdom and there is unfettered access for goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. On 8 September this Bill, including Part 5, was published, giving the United Kingdom Government the express power to break the terms of the protocol. The key foundation of an open border—namely, the legally binding commitment freely entered into by the United Kingdom Government—was fundamentally undermined when the UK explicitly stated that it no longer regarded itself as bound by all the protocol. Law is not a protection when those to whom it applies can choose which particular laws to accept.
Closing the border is ultimately the only way to protect the single market’s integrity if the United Kingdom will not accept its legal obligations, destroying our reputation as a country that abides by the law and depriving the European Union of confidence that the border can remain open. Why? The Prime Minister says that the European Union is negotiating in bad faith. He produces no evidence of bad faith. He says that it is to protect the union and to ensure unfettered access for goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The powers being taken in Part 5 give the lie to that defence. It creates a power to break the protocol only in two specific respects, the first being the requirement which the UK signed up to in the protocol that exit declarations be submitted to the UK Government for goods leaving Northern Ireland. I am in favour of reducing unnecessary paperwork, but to suggest that a requirement for a short summary of goods leaving Northern Ireland is breaking up the union is beyond reason. Secondly, the Bill gives the Government the power to break the protocol by giving the United Kingdom power to identify which state aids apply to Northern Irish-Great British trade, in breach of the protocol. This, I was told by Northern Ireland Office officials, is for clarity. I asked for one actual example of where there was a problem; I was not given one. Those are the only areas where the Government can break the terms of the protocol under Part 5.
There is a third issue, not covered by the Bill, arising out of the protocol, which is what goods are to be regarded as at risk of moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland and then on to the south. It is about trying to avoid some people paying the tariff and then getting a rebate because in fact the goods did not go into the single market. It is an operational issue. I am in favour of as few people as possible paying a tariff when not due and having to get a rebate, but is it the stuff of law-breaking and threatening the union? Absolutely not. The power to break the protocol in respect of the “at risk” issue is not even included in Part 5. There was a reference in a government statement of 17 September to bringing in further law-breaking measures in the Finance Bill. There will be no Finance Bill this year, so that is no longer in play.
There we have it. Our Government have signalled their willingness to break the law and walk away from the legally binding agreement that guaranteed an open border and peace, to reduce some red tape and resolve two issues that half-decent diplomats could resolve in an hour. It makes no rational sense. When they say that they are not walking away, ignore it. Which party will trust their counterparty who says, “I will pick the terms of the legally binding agreement that I am bound by”?
I have no doubt that this comes from No. 10. It is the product of a Prime Minister clueless about detail, so lacking in grip that he cannot or will not see beyond looking tough toward the European Union, who is flailing around trying to deliver on the false promises he made to Northern Ireland businesses that there would be no additional checks between Northern Ireland and Great Britain and to the hard-line Brexiteers that he would do something about the Northern Ireland protocol. He is a Prime Minister with advisers out of control, looking for political stunts to reinforce the insurgent nature of Brexit, happy to sacrifice the rule of law in the hope of a good culture wars row with remainers and some screeching headlines, and oblivious to the consequences to the standing of the UK, its long-term relationship with the EU countries and the security and safety of those who live in Ireland. The defenders of the rule of law in Government have been forced out, or are too desperate to hold on to the offices into which they have been over-promoted to speak out as they should.
I congratulate Keith Stewart QC on his appointment as Advocate-General, and on the peerage which accompanied it. His predecessor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, resigned on the basis that he could not square his obligation to protect the rule of law with the policy of this Bill. The Bill has got no better since his resignation. This is not about Brexit—that must happen; it is about destroying one of the foundational values of our country. Without a Government committed to obeying the law, everything is at risk. The law is the ultimate protector. We will invite this House, at the appropriate time, to remove Part 5 of the Bill neck and crop. I hope thereafter that this House will do everything it legitimately can to ensure that it does not return.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD) [V]
My Lords, I follow on from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, by paying tribute to my successor as Advocate-General for Scotland, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie. I have known the noble and learned Lord for over 40 years, and he is undoubtedly one of the best advocates of our generation. When a lawyer of his calibre and experience says that he found it difficult to reconcile what he considered to be his obligations as a law officer with the Prime Minister’s policy intentions with respect to this Bill, noble Lords should sit up and take note. In an age when resignation on a matter of principle seems to have gone out of fashion, surely we must commend the personal and professional integrity shown by the noble and learned Lord.
As someone who has seen devolution work in practice from within both the Scottish and United Kingdom Governments, I express real concern about the potential for this Bill to do untold damage to the delicately crafted architecture of the devolution settlements. I seriously question whether this Bill is necessary. As the White Paper itself acknowledges, the UK internal market is already strong, with overwhelmingly frictionless trade. By contrast, the evidential base for needing legislative requirements for mutual recognition or non-discrimination between the different political units of the UK is wholly underwhelming.
Divergences already exist. More than 30 years before devolution, different building standards were adopted in Scotland, but now the White Paper flags up differential building standards as a threat to the internal market. I certainly believe that the United Kingdom Governments of the 1960s had a better understanding than the authors of this Bill and the White Paper that differences in climate and the built environment between the Home Counties and Orkney merit different standards. Even within the EU regulatory framework, devolution has led to some divergences to reflect local needs and political priorities. That surely is the essence of devolution. Indeed, the United Kingdom Government supported the Scottish Government in the European Court of Justice when the Scottish Government sought to bring in minimum unit alcohol pricing in Scotland. But this Bill does not replicate the limited grounds set out as legitimate aims, which are provided for under Article 36 of the TFEU, where a legislature seeks to diverge from internal market principles. Nor, indeed, is there any reference in this Bill to the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, which also underpin the current EU framework. As a result, the scope of devolution is restricted, unprecedentedly without the consent of the devolved legislatures. In replying, can the Minister explain why these differences are allowed to arise?
One further compelling reason to put this Bill aside, as referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, is its curious silence in its provisions on common frameworks, heralded as a way forward three years ago. In spite of difficulties, efforts to achieve common frameworks have enjoyed buy-in from all the devolved administrations. On 15 September in another place, Cabinet Office Minister Chloe Smith said that the five frameworks would be delivered by the end of this year. In seeking to commend to the House the whole of the 17th report of the Constitution Committee, on which I had the privilege of serving, I particularly refer to our comments on common frameworks, and our conclusion at paragraph 57:
“We consider that adhering to the principles agreed for formulating common frameworks would improve the likelihood of reaching agreement on how to progress the Bill. We are not convinced that opportunities for managing the UK internal market through the common frameworks process have been exhausted. This contributes to our doubts about the necessity for the Bill.”
I do not underestimate the challenges, but surely if there is a way forward which promotes and facilitates co-operation over the conflict and mistrust which this Bill has come to symbolise, it is in the best interests of all parts of our United Kingdom that we vigorously pursue it.
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)
My Lords, I find it difficult to express how strongly I am amazed and deeply dismayed that any British Government of any complexion should produce before Parliament a Bill which contains the provisions of Part 5 of this Bill. I never expected in my parliamentary career, which has not been a short one, to find myself reading a Bill of this kind presented for parliamentary approval. It has already been said, and will be said many times in this debate, that it appears to give the Government unfettered power to break, in any way they find necessary, particular provisions of a treaty upon which the ink is barely dry. I will not attempt—I do not have the time—to compete with the undoubted eloquence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and my noble friend Lord Howard, who have expressed the shock which everybody who has any regard for the rule of law in this country undoubtedly feels.
I move on to my more familiar field, though I am a long practiced and experienced lawyer, and shall talk about the politics which underlines this, which I also find quite bizarre and completely inept. The origins of the need for this Bill are quite extraordinary. It all arises from the decision taken shortly after the referendum that Brexit would involve leaving the single market and the customs union. I strongly disagreed with that, and think that we could have left the European Union and remained. I actually moved a Motion in the House of Commons and got within six votes of a majority for staying in the customs union, which, unfortunately, is nearer than the then Prime Minister, Theresa May, got to achieving anything. But that is not the issue today. I accept that we are committed to leaving the single market and the customs union, and I accept the judgment of Parliament and the population, but it does give rise to all the problems that the Government do not know how to solve.
Once you leave the customs union and the single market, you need a customs frontier between your own internal market and the rest. That is wholly in accordance with all the ordinary practices of international trade in modern times, WTO rules and all. Everybody knows that at Dover this could create a very considerable problem, and we are preparing to recruit the people, get the lorry parks, handle the traffic, and get people to prepare for the paperwork that is involved. The problem of course arose in Ireland, which no one seemed to have thought about very clearly, until they realised that to do the same in Ireland would totally undermine that extremely important agreement for the security of the United Kingdom and the Republic, the Anglo-Irish agreement. The solution was determined that Ulster should stay in the customs union and single market, and Great Britain should leave, which means that we have a customs frontier down the Irish Sea.
This was not a sudden or ill-considered thought; it was argued about vigorously. The Democratic Unionist Party, otherwise firm Brexiteers, opposed the whole agreement on that basis but the fact remains that we have committed ourselves to having a frontier. The proper thing to do now is not to go back on our word with no solution—it is quite unclear what the Government really propose by way of essential customs controls that are still compatible with the agreement—but to minimise the necessary delays, as I hope we are doing in the negotiations with the EU. If we insist on changing standards, we should have equivalence of standards and arbitration procedures to settle disputes, and we should make sure that there are as few disruptions to trade, delays to the border and costs as possible. As I said, it is not quite clear what would happen if you just left a hole in the controls between Ireland and GB.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My noble friend has reached his time limit.
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)
I realise that I have only four minutes to talk on this matter. That is one of the bizarre arrangements in this Chamber that I am getting used to. No other parliament in the world would think that people could do justice to the contents of this Bill with people having four minutes to speak in the way that we are doing. However, I have added my voice and will oppose Part 5, in particular, in every way in which my membership of this House permits.
Lord Pannick (CB) [V]
My Lords, what an extraordinary series of speeches so far. The Minister’s speech was itself extraordinary because he ignored the elephant in the Chamber—that is, the elephant which is trampling through Part 5 on the rule of law.
The noble and learned lord, Lord Judge, in his powerful speech, referred to the report of your Lordships’ Constitution Committee. I am a member of that committee. We unanimously concluded that for this Bill to set out to break international law is without precedent. We described Part 5 as “constitutionally dangerous” . We said that the Bill is
“fundamentally at odds with the rule of law.”
We reached those conclusions not just because Ministers want to give themselves this unprecedented power to breach international law—as the noble Lord, Lord Howard, said in his eloquent remarks, this country is looked at by other nations as a beacon of legality and it is therefore extraordinary that Ministers should want such a power—but because Ministers are seeking to immunise the regulations that they make from challenge in the courts on any ground “whatsoever”, the word used in Clause 47(8).
The Constitution Committee is not a group of “lefty lawyers”—the Prime Minister’s term of abuse in his recent speech to the Conservative Party conference. Nobody, I think, has ever described my esteemed colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, in that way. There are some lawyers on the Constitution Committee, but most of the members are politicians and political observers from across the House with decades of political experience. The Government should be ashamed to be responsible for producing and pursuing a Bill that attracts such condemnation from such a committee of your Lordships’ House.
Like those unfortunate people who do not feel pain, and who are therefore at grave risk of injuring themselves and those around them, this Government do not feel shame. It is therefore the responsibility of this House to shout out a warning to the Government that Part 5 of the Bill will, if enacted, endanger the rule of law. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, because his amendment gives us the means by which that warning can, tomorrow, be communicated loudly and clearly.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I cannot forbear from saying to my noble friend the Whip on the Front Bench that time limits at Second Readings are advisory. I was sorry that she felt it necessary to interrupt my noble and learned friend Lord Clarke of Nottingham.
This is a particularly sad day for me because, like my noble and learned friend Lord Clarke of Nottingham—we entered Parliament on the same day, although he has had a much more illustrious career than me—I never thought that I would see the day when any British Government produced legislation that would take out a significant part of a treaty that was entered into by this Government following a manifesto commitment and commended to, and endorsed by, both Houses of Parliament less than a year ago. For anyone who aspires to be a parliamentarian, this is shameful; there is no other word for it. I am deeply ashamed that a Conservative Government should have embarked on this course. I like to think that it is the result of Barnard Castle but, at the end of the day, the buck stops where the buck stops and it is the Government who have done this.
I have an amendment expressing regret on the Order Paper. It is similar in intent to, although differently phrased from, that of my noble and learned friend—I call him that deliberately—Lord Judge. I do not intend to exhaust your Lordships electronically tomorrow. As long as he presses his amendment—I cannot think that he would ever change his mind on a subject like this—I will certainly not move mine. However, I tabled my amendment because I was so saddened and disturbed. My feelings have been entirely reinforced by the three reports that have been referred to in your Lordships’ House this afternoon: that of the committee chaired by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and those of our Constitution Committee and the Regulatory Reform Committee. I have never seen three reports so uniformly damning as those. We in this House have a duty to ensure that the Bill does not go on the statute book in anything like the form it is in at the moment.
Part 5 has to be removed. Some people might talk about the Salisbury/Addison convention, but we would be upholding it by taking that course of action. That convention came about when the Labour Party had a tiny number of people in your Lordships’ House and the Conservatives had an overwhelming majority, but it was agreed that any legislation based on a manifesto commitment would not be prevented from having a Second Reading or getting on to the statute book. As I said earlier, this was part of a manifesto commitment, so we would be upholding and not contradicting that convention.
As we sit in this Chamber, we look up and see the barons of Runnymede—of Magna Carta, from which the rule of law developed over 800 years ago. We in this House have a great duty to ensure that the rule of law is maintained. As my noble and learned friend Lord Judge spoke—he made a marvellous speech—I thought of Tom Bingham, whom I was privileged to count as a friend. He wrote the most wonderful little book called The Rule of Law. Every one of your Lordships should buy some copies and distribute them at Christmas time, particularly to Members of the other place.
The Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law has produced a paper, which I think we have all received. It is very well worded and forcefully argued. We cannot allow those chilling words uttered in the other place a few weeks ago—“specific and limited” breaking of the law—to be the final say. How can we lecture China, or exhort our fellow citizens to obey the draconian laws we are currently thrusting upon them if we take this line? We must not and I hope that we will not.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure and honour to make my maiden speech today, and to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. I first thank the staff for their support and hard work. Black Rod and her team, the Clerk of the Parliaments, the doorkeepers, attendants and police officers have been helpful, patient and truly welcoming. I am also indebted to my supporters—my noble friends Lady Jones of Whitchurch and Lady Smith of Basildon—for introducing me to the House, and to my mentor, my noble friend Lady Lister, for her advice and guidance.
I was delighted to be able to take the geographic title of Baroness Hayman of Ullock, a village in west Cumbria, where I live on a smallholding beside the River Marron, with my husband and a collection of animals. It is a beautiful place, nestled between the majestic fells of the Lake District National Park and the mountains of Scotland across the Solway Firth. I am passionate about nature, and we manage the land to enhance the environment and to encourage biodiversity. So I was very proud when I was elected to the other place as Member of Parliament for Workington—Cumbria’s first woman MP—and then given the responsibility of Shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, a role I carried out for nearly three years. To be able to develop policy not just on environment, food, farming and rural issues but on another of my passions, animal welfare, was a huge privilege—and it really is a privilege to have joined your Lordships’ House.
I am aware of the many differences between here and the other place, so I ask noble Lords to please be patient with me if I fall into old habits. I am looking forward to getting stuck in, and also to getting back to singing with the Parliament choir. It was a great honour to be chair of the choir until last year and I made many friends, a number of whom sit in this House.
Having listened to the speeches today, it is clear that there is a huge amount of knowledge and expertise in your Lordships’ House—although, as a long-standing Leicester City supporter, I was somewhat taken aback by the earlier suggestion from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. But I am pleased to be able to participate.
I have already talked of my passion for the environment, but I am also half-Welsh. My mother’s family farmed in the south Wales valleys. The Minister will need to address the concerns that the Bill risks destabilising devolution arrangements and hampering environmental legislation. I have no problem with the objective of ensuring that the UK internal market can work smoothly after the Brexit transition, but it must protect high environmental standards and encourage improvement, and these matters generally fall under devolved responsibility.
The Government have said that our existing high standards for the environment
“will underpin the functioning of the internal market”.
However, the Bill does not give legislative effect to this commitment; on the contrary, in its current form it could make it harder for the devolved nations to achieve their ambitions. So it is vital that our devolved Administrations can introduce and implement their own environmental laws. I ask the Minister to clarify how the Government intend to ensure that current environmental standards are not weakened, and that the Bill will not prevent or deter any part of the UK from introducing or implementing measures that are designed to protect and enhance the environment and mitigate climate change.
Climate change has not stopped because of the global pandemic, yet it seems to have become the forgotten crisis. We should be increasing our ambitions in the fight against climate change, and for every new piece of legislation we should consider the potential negative impact on the environment. I hope the Minister can reassure me that this will be the case with the Bill we are debating today, and that our environment will continue to be both protected and enhanced.
I have chosen to make my maiden speech today because this issue is of such fundamental importance to our future, and I look forward to fully engaging with the work of your Lordships’ House.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, it is an inestimable pleasure to congratulate my noble friend Lady Hayman on her maiden speech. We go back a bit of a way. We were both freshers—if that is the right term—in the Cumbria Labour group when it was first elected in May 2013. That is a forum of plain-speaking common sense which I would recommend to some of our national politicians. Together, as we are now in this place, I hope that we will speak up for the north and for Cumbria and its very special concerns—alongside, of course, many other Peers in this place, including my noble friend Lady Hayman’s predecessor-but-one as MP for Workington, my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours.
My noble friend Lady Hayman—Sue—made a distinctive mark in the Commons. She led the Opposition on environmental and rural affairs, and she thought deeply about the issues. In a Labour Party that was going through a very difficult patch—to put it mildly—she was a voice of quiet calm and reason. It is great—my wife, for one, will be pleased—that she is going to take up again her involvement in the parliamentary choir.
In last December’s general election, so-called Workington Man assumed a mythological status as driving a huge breach in what used to be Labour’s “Red Wall”. I see my noble friend Lady Hayman as a fine and, I believe, more lasting example of Workington Woman, with an instinctive feel for progressive values, a deep concern for the underdog, and a practical passion to secure reform and change. What is more, she is a very decent human being, so I congratulate and welcome her.
I will speed up, I hope, on today’s issue. We are not supposed to be talking about Brexit. People say Brexit is all over. Well, it is, sort of—and of course I accept the result of where we are. But it is because of the Brexit we have chosen, as the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, pointed out, that the Government have got themselves into this very considerable difficulty. Although you can say that the debate about Brexit is over, the consequences of Brexit—not just the economic consequences, which I think are going to be bad; worse than Covid, according to most independent assessments—are going to affect our politics and dominate it, perhaps for years to come.
This Bill is a dramatic blow to Britain's standing in the world. The very act of tabling it has done incalculable damage to our international reputation, and, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, said, we are now dependent on our soft power for influence. Why has it been done? The proposal for a revised Northern Ireland protocol was put to Brussels by Boris Johnson himself after his walk in the park on Merseyside with Leo Varadkar last autumn. It was the key to having a different withdrawal agreement that he could then get through Parliament. Are we to assume that he never read the provisions of the protocol that he signed or that Michael Gove did not read them on his behalf?
I believe that, by the time we get to Report, these provisions may have been dropped. That is what I very much hope. I think the Government will use the excuse of a skinny trade deal to drop them. However, my fear is that this will not resolve the problem. Trade across the Irish Sea will muddle on for now, but that is only because our rules and standards are presently fully convergent with the EU’s. However, for this Government, the whole point of Brexit is to diverge from EU rules. That will cause great difficulty as time goes on and it has dangerous potential to undermine the Good Friday agreement.
As my noble friend has said, this puts into question the future of the United Kingdom. Furthermore, if I were a Scottish MSP, I would vote to refuse legislative consent to this measure on the grounds that they override the devolution settlement. What we are looking at today is a profoundly dangerous Bill, and this House has constitutional responsibilities to reject the parts of the measure that contradict the manifesto on which the Government were elected and that breach international law. I hope the Lords will neuter it and then stand their ground.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, on her excellent maiden speech. As a former Welsh rural Member of another place, I welcome her commitment to the integrity of rural life and rural communities, and I look forward to her many further contributions to your Lordships’ House. She should not be unduly sensitive about the habits of this place. We all get used to being shouted at when we break order by standing up at the wrong moment or in the wrong gangway, but it is never really meant; it is just one of those things.
I suggest that the very fact that so many speakers are expressing their concern about Part 5 of the Bill, combined with their range of expertise and experience, should give Ministers serious pause for thought before this bent-barrelled blunderbuss is fired into the rule of law. This is legislation by offensive weapon rather than logic.
Like many others, I support the amendment to the Motion in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Judge and moved by him with such clarity. As a former Lord Chief Justice, he speaks with authority, the contradiction of which—on this issue, at least—would amount to brazen and wilful ignorance, in my view. For those who are interested in his support for Leicester City, I remind others who are listening that, at the moment, Leicester City are winning 14:1, as it were. This is a fairly rare experience, and I suspect that it will be a much larger lead by the end of this debate, which is something that Ministers should not overlook.
I urge your Lordships and others outside to beware of thinking that this debate is a lawyers’ wordfest. This is not an issue on which any special knowledge of the law is required at all. Surely, it is a matter of constitutional instinct, international expectation and mutual respect between the United Kingdom and the rest of the world. I remind your Lordships that this Government are the first to resort to the rule of law when it suits them. If you look at the way they have made their submissions in cases concerning foreign terrorism fighters seeking to return to the United Kingdom, however unruly in law those applicants’ other countries of potential citizenship are, they are the first to say, “We rely on the rule of law. We may not like those countries, but they’re entitled to go back there, so there they shall go”. So there is a degree of hypocrisy, on the evidence, in what is happening today.
My parents escaped from the basest of persecutions. After my father, who was a deep-rooted Anglophile, got over my decision not to follow him into the medical profession—a decision about which he expressed deep disappointment, although it was probably to the benefit of my potential patients—taught me politics and history in an international context. He told me of his pride in living in a legal system that would make my qualifications respected throughout the world. I and many others in our current professional lives deal with businesspeople in many countries. One of the beacons that attracts them to making contracts with UK-based entities is their belief that, once a contract and agreement are reached, nothing will be changed in this country arbitrarily, gratuitously or for oblique motives. Some of those dealings are with the British Government.
I am ashamed that the Government are even considering empowering Ministers to derogate from the obligations of the United Kingdom under international law. I am dread-dazed that breaching international law is being contemplated in a way that could undermine the extraordinary achievements of courageous people on all sides in Northern Ireland. I am also appalled by the suggestion that we should be in breach of Article 26 of the Vienna convention, and I hope that the Government will listen to these debates, particularly today’s debate on my noble and learned friend’s amendment to the Motion, and change their mind.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on her excellent maiden speech and look forward to hearing both her spoken and her musical words in future. As a non-lawyer, I enter this arena like a Christian facing a pride of angry legal lions. This is made worse by the fact that they have already captured my own archbishop. I am armed only with a simple question: what should a state do if it finds that its obligations under one treaty conflict with those under another treaty or its own constitutional law? The only reply I have received so far is: “You shouldn’t have signed the withdrawal treaty”.
That might work in a student debate, but it fails to address my question, so let me answer it myself, not in my own words but in those of the European Court of Justice. In the Kadi case, the court affirmed that, although the EU seeks to comply with its international legal obligations,
“it would be wrong to conclude that, once the Community is bound by a rule of international law, the Community Courts must bow to that rule with complete acquiescence and apply it unconditionally”.
Likewise, the German constitutional court has ruled that if treaties, even EU treaties, conflict with German constitutional law, the latter prevails. Of course, British Governments have disapplied aspects of international law, the most famous example being the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 15 days after it came into effect, when the future Lord Diplock ruled that
“the Crown has a sovereign right, which the court cannot question”,
to do so. Moreover, in Section 38 of the withdrawal Act, Parliament explicitly foresaw that it might need to set aside the direct application of the withdrawal treaty, as this Bill permits.
However, no one ever suggested when they disapplied parts of the conflicting laws that the European Court of Justice, the German court or previous UK Governments had broken the law—until Brandon Lewis uttered those fatal words. These have been seized on as a weapon by some, and proved a stumbling block for some of my closest friends, but I believe they should be disavowed. This raises the question: are there potential conflicts between obligations under the withdrawal treaty and our fundamental constitutional laws? There are certainly many internal contradictions within the withdrawal Act, but we ratified it because it contains a mechanism—the joint committee—in which both sides are committed to resolve outstanding issues in good faith and respecting each other’s legal order. So, given good faith and mutual respect, there should be no conflict with our legal order, the pillar of which is the Act of Union between Great Britain and Ireland, which pledges that “all prohibitions and bounties”—that is, tariffs—
“on the export of articles … of either country to the other shall cease.”
This is buttressed by the Belfast agreement, which promises no change in that union without the consent of both communities.
However, the EU has been showing little evidence of good faith, insisting on applying the entire EU customs code, which would mean that no goods could move from Northern Ireland to Great Britain without an EU export declaration—something my noble and learned friend Lord Clarke used to say was one of the disadvantages we would face in all our trade once we left the customs union. That is contrary to both the Act of Union and Article 6 of the protocol, which says:
“Nothing in this protocol shall prevent the United Kingdom from ensuring unfettered market access for goods moving from Northern Ireland to other parts of the United Kingdom’s internal market.”
In the other direction, the withdrawal treaty commits both sides to agree before the end of the transition period the definition of goods which are at risk of crossing into the Republic. The EU has implied that, if it declines to agree, the UK will have to levy EU tariffs on all goods going from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. Both these results would conflict with the Act of Union and the Belfast agreement. Happily, because of this Bill, the EU seems to be pulling back from both these positions. I hope that good faith will prevail and we will not need to implement the clauses in this Bill, but it would be irresponsible to leave this country unprepared by rejecting them.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I welcome my noble friend Lady Hayman and congratulate her on her speech. I am absolutely sure that she will make many positive contributions to the work of this House, and it is good to see her here today.
There is no way that I can do justice within four minutes to the report of the Constitution Committee, which I have the privilege of chairing; I will restrict myself to remarking on some major points. When we first heard about this Bill, we were sceptical about the need for legislation, and particularly concerned about the impact on relations with the devolved institutions. I will come later to the rule of law issue, which is now receiving greater attention, but I emphasise the impact in terms of the unity of the United Kingdom. The Bill remains a major concern in respect of this.
The committee believes that there is no reason why the principles for the successful operation of the UK internal market cannot be arrived at consensually. There is, after all, broad agreement on the need to avoid erecting new barriers to trade. There are existing mechanisms to achieve this, including, of course, the common framework arrangements, which we are sometimes told are working well; the Government have never explained why these mechanisms are inadequate. Moreover, the devolved Administrations are required by law to adhere to international obligations such as trade treaties. If the Government are committed to the union, an internal market is needed that all parts of the union have bought into.
The committee took a great deal of evidence on the rule of law and has said very clearly that it applies to everyone, from government Ministers to the person in the street. We are all bound by and entitled to the benefit of the law; indeed, it is an essential characteristic of a democratic society and a fundamental principle of our constitution. The rule of law also includes compliance with international law—yet this Bill provides the Government with extraordinary delegated powers, which the Government themselves acknowledge are for the purpose of breaking international law. We believe that taking powers in this way to explicitly break international law is without precedent, and that for the Government to put such powers beyond the reach of judicial oversight is a step fundamentally at odds with the rule of law. For these reasons, I will support the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge.
There are other concerns; that is obvious. There are implications for the Ministerial Code, on which we raise the question of the need for clarification of Ministers’ duties to comply with the rule of law; there is also the question of the scope of delegated powers, as addressed by the DPRRC; and, of course, the European Union Committee has outlined issues in relation to the Northern Ireland protocol, about which the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer have spoken. A cynic might say that the rumpus around this Bill aids the Government by drawing attention away from the basic ambiguity in their original approach.
Finally, I reiterate my view about the lack of necessity for this Bill. There is general agreement that we need a thriving internal market. No one has argued against it and existing arrangements can deliver this. On EU relations, I do not know whether the Bill is part of the Government’s brinksmanship but, even if that were its purpose, it would be no justification for legislation to break the rule of law. I do know that this legislation is damaging to the UK’s international position, and that this can be in no one’s interests at all. I regret that the Government have introduced the Bill. I ask them to rethink their approach and, particularly, to accept amendments to Part 5.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]
My Lords, I join in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, on her maiden speech. Like others, I look forward to hearing her contributions, whether about Cumbria or the environment, which I think the House will anticipate.
I deplore that a government Bill should contain Clause 45(2)(a), which trashes the UK’s reputation for upholding its treaties and honouring its obligations and seriously undermines our ability to negotiate effective agreements. I believe it reveals that the Government are under the stranglehold of anarchists and disrupters. Indeed, I have no doubt that it suits the dark forces in the Government that this part of the Bill has diverted attention from the other deeply damaging proposals that cut across the devolution settlements, to which I now turn.
I was closely involved with the Scottish Constitutional Convention, which laid the basis of the Scotland Act and the subsequent further extension of powers. I am a passionate home ruler but deeply inimical to the break-up of the UK, which I believe will cause fundamental and lasting economic—and, indeed, emotional—division and hardship. In typically British fashion, devolution has evolved differently in each devolved Administration and is not written into a basic law, but it has become accepted and it works. One of the reasons for this has been the overarching umbrella of the European Union, now being removed.
Awareness of the implications of this was raised by the Joint Ministerial Committee on EU Negotiations in October 2017, with a joint communique setting out principles behind the common frameworks to which many noble Lords referred. As a member of the newly established Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee of this House, I am now aware that this work has been progressing slowly but constructively. A dispute mechanism is envisaged but has not yet been required, and it is the view of the devolved Administrations that this process is both fit for purpose and practical.
As the Constitution Committee stated, it appears that this Bill is anticipating problems that may never arise but seeking powers that prejudice the effective and consensual working of devolution. By contrast, the devolved Administrations can identify how the powers in the Bill would allow the UK Government to block or disrupt the working of devolution. This could affect building regulations, where, as has been pointed out, in Scotland we want higher insulation standards or we might want lower carbon specs. It could affect single-use plastics, where Wales and Scotland want tighter restrictions than England. The mutual recognition and non-discrimination rules could nullify such divergence, which is why the devolved Administrations argue that it could be an England-led race to the bottom.
Clauses 46 and 47 give the UK Government powers to initiate spending in devolved Administration areas without requiring the engagement or consent of the respective Governments. The motivation behind this seems blatantly disruptive. No doubt the people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland may welcome extra cash from the Treasury over and above their own sources of revenue—city deals are an example of that—but for such a measure to be pursued without the participation or consent of the parliaments or Governments is the total negation of devolution. What is more, to be pursuing this only months before crucial elections in Scotland and Wales is a monumental misjudgment by a Government who care nothing for devolution and talk unionism while trampling all over the settlements that are essential to holding it together.
The Bill is not just unnecessary; it is downright provocative. It shows utter contempt for the hard-won measures that are essential to holding the United Kingdom together. Ideally the Bill will not proceed. If it does, it must be with the removal of lawbreaking and with the requirement of consent from the devolved Administrations, which currently seems unlikely to be forthcoming or even sought. What is missing from the Government’s approach is any concern, consideration or comprehension of the delicate balance of devolution. This is well summarised in the report published by the Centre on Constitutional Change. When five archbishops are motivated to put their anxieties into print, it is time for the Government to recognise that this hastily concocted and ill thought-out Bill is not fit for purpose, whatever the purpose is meant to be.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I support the Bill because it is an essential element of our preparations to be an independent nation again. Before we joined the EU we did not need special internal market arrangements for trade in goods and services within the UK, but devolution has changed that. We need the Bill to ensure that the different parts of the UK can continue to trade with each other as at present without incurring costs or negotiating regulatory hurdles.
The beating heart of the Bill is about protecting the devolved nations. The Government’s UK Internal Market White Paper of last summer showed that Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales export more to other parts of the United Kingdom than to outside the UK. There are similar patterns for imports. Keeping the ability to trade within the UK on a barrier-free basis should be at the core of the belief set of each of the devolved nations. I have been surprised that they have not grasped this basic economic fact but have instead been focused on working up grievances about the Bill. The economic imperative is not the same for England, which trades goods and services outside the UK more extensively, but nevertheless, intra-UK trade is important for England too.
The Bill is also strongly pro-business. The plain fact is that most businesses in the UK do not export goods or services outside the UK. Roughly 90% of SMEs trade only within the UK. Keeping that intra-UK trade going without friction is of massive importance for the health of the UK economy and for the devolved nations.
Other sensible provisions in the Bill include ensuring that any subsidy control regime is UK-wide in order to avoid distortions in intra-UK trade. We simply cannot have an efficient and fair UK internal market unless subsidy control is exercised on behalf of the whole of the UK. I also welcome the new role for the Competition and Markets Authority.
I know that most of today’s debate will be taken up with the provisions of Part 5 of the Bill and the power that it creates to modify the European Union (Withdrawal) Act. The Government have been clear that they would use such a power only if it really were necessary to protect the position of Northern Ireland within the UK, that they would use it only as a last resort having exhausted all other routes, and, of course, that they would not put the issue of peace in the island of Ireland at risk. I am also clear that the other place would not let the Government do otherwise.
I hope that it is not necessary to breach international law, but we should remember that such breaches are not without precedent. Sometimes countries, and different Governments in our own country, have concluded that, faced with competing evils, the least harm is done by taking that decision. I hope noble Lords who have concerns about this part of the Bill will see that it has the best interests of the UK at its heart.
Lastly, I regret the highly political intervention today by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury and his fellow Anglican primates. Disestablishment is starting to look rather attractive.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB) [V]
My Lords, I regret that our virtual proceedings mean that one can no longer welcome maiden speeches across the Chamber but has to do so remotely. I do that now, both to the one already made and to those that are coming.
I make no apologies for concentrating my remarks in this Second Reading exclusively on Part 5 of the Bill and its Clauses 44, 45 and 47. Other parts of the Bill certainly require the customary careful scrutiny, and very possibly the amendment, that we normally give to legislation, but this section is unprecedented—indeed, unique—and requires more drastic treatment. Why so? Because never before in Britain’s modern history have a Government brought forward a Bill giving them the authority to unilaterally break international law and override our treaty obligations—in this case, obligations entered into less than a year ago and legitimised by legislation passed by this Parliament following last December’s election. There is no doubt about that, because the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland stood at the Dispatch Box in the other place and told us quite explicitly that it was so.
Does that have implications going far beyond the subject matter covered by this Bill? Indeed it does. This country has prided itself that its word was its deed. In the 20th century, we twice went to war—to world war—in 1914 and 1939, to uphold our treaty obligations, but apparently our word will no longer be our deed if these provisions become law. Moreover, it is the Government’s view—which I happen to share—frequently put forward at our own Dispatch Box, that it is in Britain’s national interest to sustain and strengthen the rules-based international order. That order is currently under severe strain. How much credibility will our advocacy of that order have if we start picking and choosing which bits of it we intend to apply and which ones we intend to ride roughshod over? Very little, I suggest. I can just visualise the justifications that the representatives of Presidents Putin and Xi will put forward next time they wish to break international law and their international obligations; they will be identical to the arguments being used by the Government to defend the measures brought forward to us today.
I insist that this is not a matter of which side of the Brexit argument you are on. That matter was settled last January when this House endorsed the deal that the Prime Minister struck with the EU—the very same deal that we are now being invited to override—and it was settled when we left the EU at the end of January. That is demonstrated by the fact that critics of these measures are drawn from both sides of that Brexit argument. What really is relevant is the risk to the Northern Ireland peace process if the Government persist in the course that they have set out on. The Government’s protests to the contrary ring quite hollow to me. The balance of analyses points to a real, genuine, serious risk to that process.
Those are the reasons why I believe the principled course of action is to remove those parts that I have referred to from the Bill. There is just one word that I can find to describe them: an aberration. That is why I shall vote with the Motion in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Judge.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds [V]
My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and look forward to her future contributions to this House. I fully endorse the arguments set out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. I concur with the concerns set out in the report cited by other noble Lords earlier. I even welcome the commitments articulated by the Minister, but I question how they can be trusted, given the underlying ethic of the Bill—and it is absolutely right for archbishops to ask questions of such matters.
Relations with potential partners usually depend on integrity. Trade, security, migration and so on all rest on fundamental trust. Trust cannot be one-sided, or it is not trust at all. Respecting one’s interlocutors is essential. This is inevitably evidenced in language. The Bill before us assumes that our interlocutors cannot be trusted and will behave in bad faith, and that we need to be protected from them. If they do not give us what we demand, we are free to do our own thing, including breaking the law and reneging on agreements made less than a year ago that were said at the time to be “oven ready”—a good arrangement that required “no more negotiations”. What the Bill does not ask is why our word should be trusted by others.
Integrity and morality matter at the level of international relations and agreements—unless, of course, we are now agreeing to reduce all our relations and transactions to some sort of utilitarian pragmatism. Morality also applies to how we remember history and establish what will shape the national mythologies that future generations will inherit. What story will be celebrated or commemorated next year, the centenary of partition on the island of Ireland: one that chose to end violence and respect difference, including different perspectives on identity, justice and unity, or one of a conscious abrogation of agreements built from bloodshed and courageous willingness to stem the wounds of grievance? Ireland, both the Province and the Republic, needs some certainty and shape in the future narrative, but what sort of certainty is built on a broken word, the negation of trust or the arrogance of exceptionalism?
Irish church leaders are surely right to be concerned about what the Bill implies for relations between the devolved institutions and with the UK Government. These leaders are not talking into fresh air; they straddle the border in Ireland and their deep concerns about a breach of the Good Friday agreement need to be listened to, not simply dismissed with a wave of boosterish optimism from Westminster.
Others will speak about the implications of closing an illegal route to challenge the Government’s implementation of the protocol, but let us be clear: parliamentary sovereignty does not translate easily into executive sovereignty. A decision to prefer short-term pragmatism over long-term ethics will lead to a future in which a question mark will hang over any statement by those whose word and adherence to the rule of law cannot be trusted. More is at stake here than economics.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my outside interests as set out in the register. In this important debate, it is vital that we do not lose sight of the bigger picture in two important respects. First, our society and our economy have been and continue to be battered this year by the effects of the global pandemic. All the Government’s deeply held fiscal aspirations have necessarily and rightly been jettisoned, as the Chancellor has done everything in his power to protect jobs, economic activity and the National Health Service. Our society and our economy are one and the same thing.
In 2016, the British people voted to leave the European Union and last December the Government won a clear mandate to see that policy through. In so doing, they are inevitably involved in complex negotiations, both with the European Union and, in practice, with individual member states, each with their own particular interests. Defending our economic interests is, and must always be, the paramount concern for Ministers, and that priority has never been more important.
A satisfactory trade deal with the EU was never going to be easy to achieve, with so many competing interests at play. Of course, there must be give and take on all sides. I have stated on many occasions that I believe a constructive and comprehensive post-Brexit trade deal between the UK and the EU is not only the best outcome but an outcome we must all avidly support. I think we all also agree that any repudiation of a treaty, or any action that might be seen as a breach of international public law, must be avoided if at all possible and used only as a last possible recourse in the most extreme situations. I strongly support the tribute paid by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, to my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie. We certainly miss him in this debate. However, after the damage inflicted by Covid-19, we surely cannot afford to allow anyone, internally or externally, to jeopardise the integrity or efficiency of our internal market in the United Kingdom. That seems to be the actuating principle behind the Bill. Of course, in a Second Reading debate, it is the principle that we are considering.
There is a second point, which is the role of this House. I never cease to be impressed by the exceptionally erudite and public-spirited contributions we hear, week in, week out, from these Benches, especially today with the brilliant maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock. None the less, we must not lose sight of where we stand in the delicate constitutional settlement of this land. It is our obligation fairly to consider propositions sent to us by the House of Commons and, where possible, to improve them. On the assumption that that convention is honoured and the Bill progresses, there will be bountiful opportunities to return to the details of this legislation. For now, however, with Her Majesty’s Ministers engaged in highly technical and demanding negotiations, the outcome of which is of the utmost importance to us all, I hope we will find ways of strengthening the hands of those who represent us, rather than seeking to tie them.
Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]
My Lords, most contributions so far have related to Part 5 and the Government’s somewhat ham-fisted attempt to unilaterally disavow an undertaking made only a few months ago. I agree with those sentiments. and with the reports of the Constitution Committee and the EU Select Committee and the contributions by their chairs, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. I will also support the Motion in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, at the end of the debate.
However, this is quite a big Bill, and I want to talk about something else. Before doing so, I welcome my noble friend Lady Hayman to the Chamber. I commend her speech, including the importance that she stressed of environmental standards, which relate to this Bill as much as they do to much of the legislation we will face over the coming months.
I want to talk about state aid, which is in the Bill but is dealt with rather superficially. It needs to be clearer before the Bill finishes its passage through this House. In a sense, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, referred to this in her contribution. She and I were members of an EU Select Committee that produced a report on state aid about two years ago. We rarely agreed on anything fully, but we do agree on the importance of this issue.
At its most acute, the issue of state aid could be epitomised by the issue in Northern Ireland. As a result of the agreement and the way the Government are now pursuing the matter, through the Northern Ireland protocol Northern Ireland is to be part of the customs union and, to a large extent, the single market. So if the Stormont Government gave a subsidy or preferential public procurement arrangement to, say, a Northern Ireland textile company, the main exports of which are to the Republic, and if its Irish competitors objected, would EU state aid rules prevail or would the UK internal market rule prevail? It is clear that we need a UK state aid regime and it is fairly clear how that will relate to our international obligations under the WTO and, I hope, to future bilateral free trade agreements. But it is not at all clear how it will operate in relation to the internal market, which is the focus of the Bill. If that same Northern Irish company’s main export were to Scotland, what then would the arrangements be? If it were to England, would it be different again, because there would be an equivalent objection from England-based competitors?
The fact is that industrial, employment and consumer policy—all of which are relevant to state aid considerations —are differentially devolved between the three Administration and centralised in England but not in the UK. Of course, even in England there is the expected intention to devolve more industrial and employment policy to the English regions, so the question could, at some stage in the future, apply to Greater Manchester, which may have a different industrial and employment support system from that in the West Midlands. How does that play out in the new state aid framework?
The central question is whether there is yet a draft framework for all of this in relation to state aid, at least between the UK Government and the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Governments. If not, what do the Government think it should look like and, above all, how should it be enforced? Is the office for the internal market, due to be established within the CMA, wholly a creature of the UK Government or will the devolved Administrations have a say in its governance and decision-making? During the EU regime, the Commission’s state aid arm had authority over member states, with prohibitions and fines at its disposal. That could be the case for the CMA.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I remind noble Lords of the speaking limit.
Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]
Before the passage of the Bill, we need to clarify these issues.
Baroness Suttie (LD) [V]
I also add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, on her excellent maiden speech. I look forward to hearing her speeches in the future.
What is perhaps remarkable about the speeches we have heard is that the overwhelming majority, on all sides of the House, agree that the Bill is both unnecessary and deeply damaging. As has been pointed out, we have only four minutes, and so I will make three points.
The first is simply to recall, as other noble Lords have, that this is a problem of the Government’s own making. The fact is that the Prime Minister insisted that it was possible to do three incompatible things. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke, so eloquently explained, the Government insisted that the whole of the United Kingdom could leave both the customs union and the single market while simultaneously avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland, as well as down the Irish Sea. Their solution was the Northern Ireland protocol. Just 10 months ago, the Prime Minister referred to the withdrawal agreement with the protocol attached as “fantastic” and “historic”. The Northern Ireland protocol, which is far from perfect, is none the less a carefully constructed compromise to try to maintain peace and stability on the island of Ireland and to protect the Good Friday/Belfast agreement.
My second point is that the Bill in reality does little to address the actual problem about which Ministers claim to be concerned. It does nothing about checks on goods crossing from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, only theoretically providing a power to avoid checks in the other direction. If the UK Government are concerned to ensure that everything possible is done within the protocol to facilitate GB-NI trade, they have the legal means at their disposal through the joint committee.
My third and final point is this: the people in Northern Ireland, from all communities, have been let down too often already by this Government. It is just less than a year since the Executive in Stormont were restored. The progress made in the last 20 years is not something that can, or should, ever be taken for granted. Repeated polling makes it very clear that a majority of people in Northern Ireland recognise the need for the protocol, despite its challenges. They do not want the Government to break international law on their behalf. Businesses need economic certainty and the people of Northern Ireland deserve much better than being used as a political football in the Brexit talks. The solution is clearly to negotiate a better, closer deal between the EU and the UK, and then to use agreed mechanisms to protect trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. If the Bill is intended to strengthen the mechanisms that hold together the United Kingdom, it is clearly not succeeding. If the Bill is a short-term tactic to strengthen the Government’s negotiating hand, it is hard not to conclude that the loss of trust that it has generated will do long-term harm to our international reputation.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
My Lords, comments of genuine legal concern criticising Part 5 must be respected, however disproportionate. However, most of the adverse comments are, frankly, sour grapes from remainers. That Britain would lose its reputation by passing the Bill is nonsense. There are endless examples of EU bad behaviour: the French shepherding illegal immigrants into British waters, or the EU wilfully breaking international law as with Airbus, et cetera, et cetera. The EU ignores the law with complete abandon. To quote the EU Advocate-General,
“it would be wrong to conclude that, once the Community is bound by a rule of international law, the Community Courts must bow to that rule with complete acquiescence and apply it unconditionally”.
There is a very strong argument that Part 5 would not be in breach of international law. There is not time to discuss detail, but the EU’s behaviour means that various articles of the Vienna convention give the UK the freedom to implement Part 5, if required. If anyone is in doubt, let me quote the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—one of this country’s most distinguished advocates:
“If, therefore, the UK and the EU were unable to reach an agreement on Northern Ireland/Ireland, despite good faith negotiations and despite the arbitration procedures, and if the UK were therefore to be faced (against its will) with a permanent backstop arrangement, the UK would be entitled to terminate the withdrawal agreement under Article 62 of the Vienna convention on the Law of Treaties.”
Furthermore, Section 38 of the withdrawal agreement Act, passed by your Lordships, fairly and squarely confirms the supremacy of Parliament. The Bill gives the power to act if Parliament so agrees. The Bill itself does not initiate anything, so whatever view you take, the passing of the Bill is not an illegal act.
The withdrawal agreement was signed in expectation of reaching a reasonable agreement. For the EU to threaten to withhold third-country status or use the Northern Ireland protocol to try and gain advantage in discussions is not acting in good faith. Monsieur Barnier saying that not even a pat of butter may go between England and Northern Ireland demonstrates this attitude. It is an example of the view expounded by Verhofstadt’s team that Great Britain will become the EU’s first colony. It is how Britain has been treated throughout negotiations. Last Thursday it’s the EU Council arrogantly restated that the its opening position was its continuing position. This is not negotiation but dictation.
With no clear argument against Part 5, we must put the interests of our country first and foremost. We must do our best to achieve what the people of Great Britain have consistently voted for and rid ourselves of EU control. Including Part 5 will show the EU that we are not a colony and are not prepared to be treated as one.
Baroness Andrews (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is with great pleasure that I join with others in welcoming my noble friend Lady Hayman to this House and congratulate her on her speech. I am sure we will hear many marvellous speeches from her, and it has been good to hear her in this remarkable debate this afternoon.
In respect of Part 5 of the Bill, I would simply say that the recent amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, speaks entirely for me. The changes that are made in this Bill in another place—which simply make Parliament an accomplice in breaking the rule of law—are totally unacceptable.
I want to focus on the risks in the Bill, and particularly on the way it threatens to restrict the existing powers of the devolved Administrations by imposing overriding constraints on the scope of the common frameworks. I declare my interest as chair of the Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee. For the past three years, and in the context of the incorporation of European law, the four countries of the UK have worked hard to create new consensual common frameworks specifically in order to secure a well-functioning internal market. Of the 40 or so frameworks in progress, some will carry their own legislative competence, but they will all, as appropriate, have their own dispute mechanisms in place. This has been done on a collaborative basis, by agreeing common standards across agriculture, the environment, health and safety—all balanced by respect for the devolved Administrations, in the future as in the past, to diverge in detail, as they see fit.
This managed divergence has led, and will lead in the future, to welcome innovations: not least, for example, for Scotland to introduce minimum alcohol pricing, or Wales a more rigorous approach to single plastics or to refusing GM products—so far, so good. The genius of the process is that co-operation and flexibility have built a stronger foundation of trust between the four nations, just at a time when intergovernmental arrangements have been at their most challenging. Despite the brake on progress caused by the no-deal preparations and now the pandemic, we expect five frameworks to be agreed in the next few months, and more to follow shortly.
This Bill, according to the chairs of both the Constitution Committee and the European Union Committee, threatens to frustrate and disrupt progress made so far and undermine future co-operation, because it does indeed—despite what the Minister has said—provide the Government with powers to alter the competences of the devolved Administrations. Scotland has already withheld consent; Wales and Northern Ireland are deeply provoked. Specifically, the provisions for mutual recognition and non-discrimination would generally require that goods and services that could be legally sold or provided in one part of the UK would have the same legal right to be put on the market in every other part. Forget chlorinated chicken; Wales could not even require different labelling to show the higher levels of fats in a food product. If England were to allow hormones in beef cattle, Scotland could not prevent the import and sale of such cattle. Unlike the European precedent, the only goal is to remove potential barriers to trade at all expense. All other public policy goals are abandoned.
The restraints on devolution set out in these extraordinary and unprecedented delegated powers came as a shock to the devolved Governments. Far from the powers being designed for co-operation, the devolved Governments were not even consulted. They see this as creating new risks, as well as being an attempt to reduce their powers. So my fundamental question to the Minister, once again, is: why is this Bill necessary? What is there to gain from it that cannot be achieved by the common framework principles and process? Why take these risks? It cannot be because the Bill will provide a dispute mechanism, because each framework already has that to resolve differences.
Today the Government received a unique and stern warning from church leaders across the UK not to risk destroying the trust that binds the four countries. I hope that the Minister will not only listen to what the House is saying but will have the wisdom and grace to change the Government’s mind.
Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)
My Lords, I support almost everything in this Bill, although I do regret that Part 5 is in there. I regret that the Prime Minister told Members of Parliament last October that the treaty is a great deal for the entire country and
“a great success for Northern Ireland”—[Official Report, Commons, 19/10/19; col. 581.]
and that the protocol is
“an ingenious scheme”.—[Official Report, Commons, 19/10/19; col. 594.]
But now he wants to rip it all up. I regret, therefore, that the Government either did not understand the implications of the treaty and the protocol, or that they did understand its consequences but, privately, always intended to breach the treaty.
The issues that the Government see as a pretext for breaking their word at some future date have existed and been debated at length for the past few years. This is precisely why the treaty contains processes to deal with them. Consequently, I regret that the Government have decided to call into question the treaty before exhausting the dispute resolution process that the treaty contains. Yes, Parliament will be given a vote before these powers can be used—but let us not forget that the Government’s original plan was no Parliamentary vote, which I regret says a lot about the Government’s intent. Furthermore, I regret that it appears that the very introduction and enactment of the Bill are in breach of the UK’s international obligations, even before these clauses are brought into force or used to make regulations. I would ask my noble friend Lord True to confirm whether this is so when he winds up.
More broadly, I regret that we are being told by some that, just because other nations may disregard treaties they have entered into, somehow this justifies us breaching a treaty we have entered into in good faith. Two wrongs do not make a right. The Prime Minister once said that
“the rules-based international order which we uphold in global Britain is an overwhelming benefit for the world as a whole.”—[Official Report, Commons, 13/3/17; col. 89.]
I agree. I just regret that Part 5 is now calling this into question. Above all, I regret that Conservatives who want to support the Government but believe in upholding the rule of law, are being asked to choose between party and principle. What is at stake here is not “leave” or “remain”; it is our approach to public life, how we think about our place in the world, whether we think it still matters that Britain’s word is its bond and, of course, underlying all of that, our belief in the rule of law.
My noble friends Lord Callanan and Lord True are men of integrity. I have known my noble friend Lord True for decades and I will always see him as a good friend, but on this we differ. Principle comes before party and so, with regret, I will be voting for the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, on an outstanding maiden speech. However, there is little time for niceties, because I believe that this is a contemptible Bill, in turn contemptuous of law and contemptuous of Parliament. We must, I suppose, thank the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for his frankness—it may yet cause him to lose his Cabinet place—in admitting at the outset the illegality inherent in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, suggested that that should now be disavowed. The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, had that opportunity when he opened the debate, but far from disavowing it he chose not to mention in any detail whatever the particular clauses that are the most controversial.
Following the admission of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, an amendment was passed in the House of Commons. There are those who argue that that amendment somehow cures illegality, but an illegality, whether authorised by Cabinet or by the Commons, is still an illegality, and it is misleading to claim otherwise. I would go further: it is an abuse of this House to invite us, when we are encouraged at this stage to accept the principles contained in the Bill, to accept the principle of illegality.
Like several noble Lords who have spoken, I have the privilege of holding the commission of Her Majesty as one of her counsel learned in the law. Will those who support the Government please tell me how I can fulfil the obligations and responsibilities of that privilege by endorsing the illegality contained in this Bill? If anyone is still in doubt about the illegality, they should read the analysis of Clauses 42 to 45 produced by the Bingham Centre. They should tell us which parts of that analysis they disagree with. They should go further: they should tell us which conclusions of the Constitution Committee of this House they regard as not being well founded. Generally, they should tell us how we can discharge the obligations and responsibilities of membership of this House by endorsing illegality at the whim of a Government.
We regularly recognise the legacy of John Major and Tony Blair in the production and continued observance of the Good Friday agreement. No one in government, however, paused to reflect on the importance of the Good Friday agreement in the domestic politics of the United States. Noble Lords had better believe the words of Speaker Pelosi: there will be no trade deal for Britain with the USA if there is any adverse impact on that agreement. The fact is that whether or not in the end the Government exercise the power to commit the illegality, the damage is done: our reputation is besmirched and the credibility of the United Kingdom undermined. This is shabby business and we should have none of it.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on her maiden speech and I look forward to many more on a variety of subjects.
This Bill illustrates how our constitution has been evolving in such a haphazard way over the last two decades, with ill-thought-through lurches into various forms of devolution without a comprehensive plan to co-ordinate them. We have succeeded in falling out with the devolved Administrations and have the consent of none.
I wish to speak to Clauses 44, 45 and 47, but the reason why they exist at all has its roots back in decisions taken one year ago. On 2 October 2019, Her Majesty’s Government produced a proposal for an amended protocol on Northern Ireland entitled Explanatory Note. This note said that the protocol was based first and foremost on our commitment to finding solutions compatible with the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, but if that was the commitment it has not been met.
The Explanatory Note did the following: it proposed to establish a regulatory border in the Irish Sea requiring checks on goods and produce moving between Great Britain and Northern Ireland; it required the establishment of border inspection posts as required by EU law, and traders moving goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland to notify the authorities in advance. Her Majesty’s Government proposed the establishment of a regulatory border in the Irish Sea with border control posts and the ongoing involvement of the EU courts in Northern Ireland. How on earth is this compatible with unionism?
For some inexplicable reason, the Explanatory Note of 2 October was endorsed by the Democratic Unionist Party. Arlene Foster issued a statement describing it as
“a serious and sensible way forward.”
This opened the floodgates for Brussels and Dublin, and two weeks later the deal was done. How any unionists can support any kind of border in the Irish Sea escapes me. The establishment of this border and the arrangements contained in the subsequent withdrawal agreement are a clear breach of the Belfast agreement. These proposals change the status of Northern Ireland and have the same negative effect as having a land border, which everybody has sought to avoid. Her Majesty’s Government now see Clauses 44, 45 and 47 as essential to keeping some semblance of cohesion in the United Kingdom, illustrating the shoddy nature of the negotiations conducted last year. I have little doubt that some EU negotiator did threaten to prevent food coming from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. That individual must have very little knowledge of Irish history.
Nevertheless, to plunge ourselves into a legal quagmire and various constitutional contortions is not the answer. There is another way: instead of blathering on about the Belfast agreement, which has been used as a political football by Brussels, we should use it as part of the answer. It never ceases to amaze me that those of us who negotiated the agreement are never consulted about its intentions or how some legislative proposals might affect it, even though there are many of us in your Lordships’ House.
The UK could legislate to prevent our territory being used for the export of non-compliant products into the EU market. We could also indemnify the EU if non-compliant products succeeded in getting through. We could, by treaty, establish another cross-border body for educating businesses and preventing any single market contamination, and join the EU to that treaty if some additional devolution to Stormont was initiated.
How are we in such a mess because of trade flows across the land border that accounts for 1.6% of Ireland’s total imports, or, to put in another way, 0.1% of EU trade flows? If we can break a protocol that we ourselves proposed a year ago, even though I continue to oppose it, all bets are off with regard to Scotland, Gibraltar and the Belfast agreement itself. Precedent, dear boy, precedent.
Baroness Boothroyd (CB)
My Lords, I was elected to Parliament some 47 years ago and have witnessed nine Prime Ministers tread the steps of No. 10 Downing Street. However, never in my parliamentary experience have I witnessed such a collapse of the people’s trust in a Government who promised so much and so quickly and who are now groping for desperate solutions to problems that they said would not arise or, if they did, could easily be resolved.
It has been a privilege to listen to such fine speeches this afternoon. Perhaps I thought they were fine because I agreed with most of them. However, let us not beat about the Euro-bush: the Prime Minister set the course that we are on and shows no remorse for steering us off it. The claim continues to be made that a no-deal end to our membership of the European Union is nothing to worry about and that we have every right to break a clause in an international agreement because we do not trust our European partners, but it was our European partners who joined us in signing that very agreement.
Future historians will not need a test-and-trace operation to find those responsible if we end up in a legal battle in the Supreme Court and an economic crisis that rivals the 1930s depression. I was a young girl in the 1930s and I saw the poverty and misery it caused at close quarters, so of course I was alarmed when I read that the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, a Cabinet Office and Treasury Minister, was reported to have said that British businesses and commerce were not as ready as they should be for the start of our new terms of trade with Europe in January. What terms of trade is he talking about? Those whom I know who are working in business and commerce would certainly love to know.
I ask the Government: can we break future terms, as easily as we appear intent on breaking the Northern Ireland protocol, if we do not like the way they work after January? The low regard shown by the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, for British industry and commerce went even further. He was reported to have said that our traders have their heads in the sand as they approach January’s deadline. I am sorry that he did not heed Denis Healey’s advice:
“When you’re in a hole, stop digging.”
The blame game has evidently begun, and the PM started it. He dictates a strategy and blames others if it does not work.
No sooner had the Prime Minister finished his sunshine forecast on Friday, of the prosperity he claims will surely follow there being no trade agreement with the EU, than a New York analyst made a withering comment that took my breath away. Our credit rating had just fallen dramatically but he did not write us off. He did not spare us either. He said:
“the quality of the UK’s legislative and executive institutions has diminished in recent years.”
Who can deny it? The Prime Minister’s claim that we shall survive no deal because we have
“high hearts and complete confidence”
in the future will be exposed as what it is: a sham.
The latest line from Downing Street is that we shall insist on legal texts in future negotiations. If the Government had paid close attention to Article 10 of the Northern Ireland protocol before signing it, they would not need to override it in this Bill. Trust in this Government, both nationally and internationally, is in short supply but our parliamentary democracy has deep roots and I trust that this House will defend our laws and traditions. Who knows? There is still time for yet another U-turn. One thing I am certain of, we shall not deserve our reputation and regain our self-respect until once again the world knows that our word is our deed and that we are committed to the rule of law.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con) [V]
My Lords, as president of the Steam Boat Association I know a bit about boilers. They are potential bombs and have the capacity to blow a vessel to smithereens. By law, they must be tested annually and have two safety valves to release steam if the pressure exceeds a safe level. The second valve is there to deal with the unlikely failure of the first. In the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, it does not cure the fault but it prevents the destruction of the ship. This Bill provides for that second safety valve in the event that the EU does not respect the disputes procedures under the withdrawal agreement, does not comply with its duties of sincere co-operation and threatens the very integrity of our United Kingdom.
After all, the withdrawal agreement was signed on the basis that a trade deal would be implemented in 2020. The Canada-style free trade deal was offered by Mr Barnier but now we are told is no longer available. It is easy to make a case now that the EU is negotiating in bad faith, a point made by my noble friends Lord Howard and Lord Lilley. I have some experience of this kind of duplicity on the part of the EU, which I share with the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. I go back to John Major’s opt-out from the social chapter. We thought that that meant that employment policies were subject to a veto by us but, hey-ho, the EU decided that working time was a health and safety measure and therefore subject to qualified majority. As I recall, the advice from the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and others at the time was that there was no point in us going to the court to argue on a point of law because the European court would always advance the acquis and was a political court. Let us not be starry-eyed about how the European Union acts in the interests of the rule of law.
I very much regret that my noble and learned friend Lord Keen is no longer on the Front Bench and that he was forced to resign even though he launched a lifeboat for the Government. He suggested that the Northern Ireland Secretary had answered the wrong question in the Commons when asked if the Bill breached or potentially breached the law. He was making the point that “potentially” was the right answer. As Advocate-General he told the House,
“in my opinion, the present Bill does not of itself constitute a breach of international law or of the rule of law.”—[Official Report, 15/9/20; col. 1129.]
That is good enough for me to support this Bill being given a Second Reading. It is for the Committee stage to consider this further, and I ask my noble friend Lord True to make it crystal clear in his wind-up tomorrow that these provisions in Part 5 would be used only in extreme circumstances and be subject to parliamentary approval.
I have enormous respect for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, although comparing this to the abuses of apartheid seemed a little over the top. My noble friend Lord Cormack is assiduous in his work in this House but I cannot vote for the amendment, which is nothing more than parliamentary graffiti. The Bill was passed by a huge majority in the House of Commons and, despite the amendment before us and more than 100 speeches, it will be given a Second Reading in the House tomorrow. Only the Liberals with their miserable mandate at the general election have contemplated throwing the Bill out. Rightly so, for this Bill protects, enhances and strengthens the union. More than half a million jobs in Scotland depend on the integrity of the internal market, and scores of powers are being returned from a supranational bureaucracy to our elected representatives. The very Act of Union itself was about creating a barrier-free internal market and it has brought about more than 300 years of prosperity.
I cannot tell the House how disappointed I was to see the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury putting his name, together with other senior Anglican bishops, to a letter in today’s FT headlined “Internal market bill undermines the strength of our union”. Those who wish to break up Britain will be much encouraged by their efforts.
Lord Haskel (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I too welcome my noble friend Lady Hayman and congratulate her on her maiden speech. I serve on your Lordships’ Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. This committee was formed in 1992 to deal with the growing tendency of Governments to seek wide order-making powers which give Ministers unlimited discretion. The Bill is a prime example of why that committee is needed. We draw your Lordships’ attention to 11 delegated powers in the Bill, which include seven Henry VIII powers, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, referred. These powers allow Ministers to amend, repeal or modify an Act of Parliament or a statutory instrument. Under Clauses 42, 43 and 45, Ministers are able to disregard any international or domestic law which they consider to be incompatible or inconsistent with the Northern Ireland protocol. That is why in paragraph 2 of our report we say that
“Some of these powers are extraordinary; others are unprecedented.”
As the Minister explained, the stated purpose of the Bill is to allow free trade within the United Kingdom. Clause 3 states that any item permitted to be sold in one part of the United Kingdom under devolved legislation is automatically available for sale in other devolved areas on the principle of mutual recognition of goods. This means that the lowest standard becomes acceptable. What is more, this requirement applies not only to the goods themselves but to their packaging, labelling, assessment, registration and documentation, as my noble friend Lady Andrews explained. This is despite government assurances that our standards will not fall when we leave the EU. Standards become a race to the bottom, as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, explained.
The committee’s view is that Clause 3 should be deleted. I understand that amendments will be brought forward to do this. There are further clauses in the Bill which override powers granted to the devolved Administrations regarding such things as consumer protection, financial aid and social welfare; indeed, powers are granted to UK Ministers to spend money over the heads of devolved Administrations, even on devolved matters.
Clauses 42 and 43 allow Ministers to disregard provisions of international or domestic law for technical reasons; this is one of the unprecedented powers to which our report refers. When your Lordships reported in September, the Bill was in the other place, and, as we say in our note dated 13 October, the Government did not take the opportunity to address the points which we raised. It seems to me that this disregard for the arguments of your Lordships’ committee is yet another example of this Government seeking to impose their will rather than seeking parliamentary approval. In doing so, they ignore the public interest in matters of law, diplomacy and the nation’s integrity. This undermines the integrity of public life and allows Ministers to break the Ministerial Code. The only justification seems to be that Ministers need these powers to act quickly, especially in an emergency. Well, Parliament can act quickly and in an emergency. Speed is no reason for imposing the will of Ministers on the devolved Administrations in this divisive manner.
Baroness Humphreys (LD) [V]
My Lords, it has been a great privilege to listen to the speeches of noble Lords today, especially those who have voiced the concerns of so many of us about this Bill and the impact its invitation to collude in the breaching of international law has already had on the UK’s standing on the international stage.
Politicians in Wales are equally deeply concerned by the contents of this Bill and the implications it has for Welsh devolution, and none more so than David Melding, the highly respected and long-serving Conservative Senedd Member, who resigned his position as shadow Counsel General last month. He cited the need to be able to speak out against what he considers to be,
“a lack of statecraft at this crucial time for the UK’s very survival as a multi-national state.”
Those three words, “lack of statecraft”, are the most telling; a stinging criticism from one of the Senedd’s most loyal Conservatives, and three words that sum up what is so wrong with this Bill. Statecraft involves diplomacy, co-operation, consultation and consensus, but these are words no longer associated with the delivery of the UK’s internal market, and despite the Minister’s conciliatory words and tone when introducing this debate, the words on the face of this Bill tell another story.
It is clear that the UK Government’s response to dealing with devolved governance issues that arise will be to resort to government by diktat. For example, the principles of mutual recognition and non-discrimination are, according to this Bill, to be applied to all goods and most services, with a highly limited list of exceptions which can be changed by UK Ministers through secondary legislation without consultation with the devolved Administrations. In Wales, this is seen as a fundamental assault on devolution, preventing the Senedd carrying out its duty of protecting the citizens of Wales from substandard goods and services.
The proposal that UK Ministers should take new funding powers to enable them to fund hospitals and schools in Wales without consultation with the Welsh Ministers who have the devolved responsibility for these areas is provocative, as is the threat to build the M4 relief road against the decision of the Welsh Government, a decision endorsed by the Senedd on cost and environmental grounds. This attempt to chip away at the powers of the Senedd is an example of Westminster colonialism at its worst. I understand the Government’s dislike of the EU flags seen on Objective 1 projects in west Wales and the valleys, and their need to see the union flag on new projects, but far better to make an investment in areas which are not devolved and for which the UK Government have actually been responsible for years and neglected.
As many noble Lords have already said, the irony is that this Bill is mostly unnecessary. Continued work on common frameworks with the devolved Administrations would ameliorate its impact. The work already carried out by the devolved Administrations, your Lordships’ committee and the UK Government until now has been an example of statecraft at its best. Most worryingly, the imposition of decision-making by Whitehall in areas of devolved responsibility will do nothing to aid the UK’s survival as a multinational state.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con) [V]
My Lords, I want to concentrate on Part 5 and the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. I have already publicly criticised the statement by Brandon Lewis that the Bill breaches international law. Since the Government have not withdrawn that statement, I have no choice but to vote for this amendment. However, I confess that I am in a dilemma. What the Government are doing certainly is wrong, but on the other hand, the provisions of the Northern Ireland protocol are potentially disastrous. It is a choice of two evils. How can we break international law, and, on the other hand, how could we ever accept tariffs being levied on goods going from one part of our country to another—a border in the Irish Sea? That is not the trivial matter that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, suggested; it is a threat to the Good Friday agreement. I am also sensitive to the danger of undermining at this moment the Government’s position in negotiations, if they resume.
Many eminent lawyers have spoken in this debate and their verdict has left nothing for the day of judgment, but is this just a legal matter? The Northern Ireland protocol is not a black and white, unambiguous document. It is full of contradictions and matters to be resolved later. There are plenty of examples internationally of politics trumping law. One thinks of the Maastricht treaty and the ignoring of all its provisions on deficits and debt. The disputes between the German constitutional court and the EU have some parallels with our present stand-off, as my noble friend Lord Lilley suggested. Then there is the case of the United States tearing up the Iran nuclear deal; that was an agreement, like the withdrawal agreement, which was lodged at the UN and then simply torn up because the new President took a different view. One may regret these things, but it is fanciful to suggest that the provisions in this Bill would prevent us criticising human rights in China.
The House must bear in mind one important point when considering this Bill. Even if the Commons votes to commence taking the powers in Part 5, the House of Lords would still be able to overturn the policy by voting against the statutory instruments that would negate the protocol. I ask my noble friend Lord True—who knows a huge amount about procedure, perhaps more than anyone else in the House—to confirm that this interpretation is correct, and that even after enactment there will still be opportunities for the Lords to vote against the Government if they choose to activate the policy?
The Government should never have got into this position. I am not convinced by their protests that the EU is not negotiating in good faith; if you lose a negotiation, it is easy to accuse the other side of acting in bad faith. However, the problem we have has been staring us in the face ever since the protocol was agreed in October 2019. That very month, the then Brexit secretary told the Lords EU Select Committee that there would be no export certificates between Northern Ireland and GB. A few hours later, he withdrew that and admitted that there would, but the PM continued in denial and said—including during the election—that if anyone got such a document, they should tear it up.
Today, the Government are trying at the last minute to strengthen their negotiating position by rescinding what they had previously, foolishly accepted. I believe that they have made a mistake in trying to take these powers. The amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, regrets the Part 5 provisions. If the amendment is agreed, what follows is for us to decide later, but since I certainly regret what the Government have done, I shall vote for the amendment.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I welcome my noble friend’s maiden speech and look forward to hearing others. In its summary of the Bill, the Constitution Committee mentioned, among others, the following words: does not justify; it is regrettable; engagement has been poor, limited and unsatisfactory; consultation is problematic; the Bill does not mention common frameworks; there is no time for adequate reflection; delegated powers are extraordinary and unprecedented; many are constitutionally unacceptable; and the Government should explain whether clause 6 seeks to constrain Parliament’s law-making power. It is, therefore, legitimate to ask about the drafting of the Bill.
When I was a Minister in the other place, 20 years ago, there was an occasion when I had to call a halt to a Standing Committee where I was in charge of a Bill. The details are unimportant, but it was only then that I discovered that policy officials do not talk to parliamentary counsel who draft the Bill. They commission the department’s lawyers, who then brief parliamentary counsel. I presume that this is to lock in the client legal privilege rules. So it is clear that government policy officials have briefed departmental lawyers to request parliamentary counsel to draft a Bill which, among other things, appears to “constrain Parliament’s law-making powers” and constrain the judicial review function so as to put ministerial regulation-making powers above the law in an unprecedented manner. Parliamentary counsel have carried out that instruction—and that I think is worrying.
The role of the House of Lords is to protect the parliamentary process. It should be a red line for this House. This Bill has the seeds of undermining the primacy of the House of Commons. I will repeat that. This Bill has the seeds of undermining the primacy of the House of Commons. Are there any limits to what can be put in legislation, or will parliamentary counsel simply use the Nuremberg defence?
As the Joint Committee on Conventions of the UK Parliament made clear in its report in October 2006, quoting the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, the Lords should be very careful about challenging the views of the,
“House of Commons on any issue of public policy.”
It is not an issue of public policy to agree legislation that neuters the parliamentary process, and neither the Government nor the Commons can claim it is. As such, this Bill, which is in no way a manifesto Bill, requires substantial amendments and deletions. Afterwards, we should hear from parliamentary counsel as to whether they operate within any boundaries with respect to defending the parliamentary process.
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
My Lords, I warmly agree with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, on her fine maiden speech. I particularly welcome her Welsh half and her comments on devolution, rural affairs and the environment.
I oppose the Bill, which goes way beyond the policy proposed by the Government at the general election. This House would be totally justified in refusing to give it a Second Reading, as the Government have no mandate for it. I salute the fine speech by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and unite with him in saying: “Not in my name either”.
The Bill gives draconian powers to UK Ministers over matters which have been long-standing devolved responsibilities. Those powers, which return from Brussels, should automatically come to the devolved Governments. If there is a need to establish an all-UK position on some such powers, that should be negotiated between the four Governments and implemented when there is consensus. I will not repeat the points made so effectively by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Andrews. There is a real belief across party divides in Wales, and expressed by Labour, Plaid Cymru and Liberal Democrat Senedd Members—and, yes, even by some Conservatives—that the Bill, in its present form, is just not acceptable.
The Welsh Government have lobbied Members of this House, begging us to reject the Bill as it stands. They make three salient central points, which were highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Newby. First, the Bill would destroy the hard work undertaken by the Welsh Government, in co-operation with other Governments in these islands, to establish common frameworks. It would emasculate the Welsh Government’s regulatory powers, ranging from the food sold in Wales to the qualifications of teachers in our schools.
Secondly, the spending powers arrogated to themselves by Westminster Ministers would undermine expenditure policies currently pursued by the Welsh Government, such as free school meals or the funding of road schemes such as the M4 relief road. If the UK Government assert that such funds are additional to the Barnett block, let them write that on to the face of the Bill and it might well be considered. Otherwise, it is a case of Westminster telling Wales how money within the devolved Welsh block should be spent—and that is just not on.
Thirdly, the intention to make state aid and subsidy policies reserved matters gives Westminster Ministers control over economic development throughout the UK when their actual powers in that regard are currently applicable only to England. Such steps would demolish the successful “buy local” policy applied by successive Welsh Governments in procuring products and services—a policy which helped bring Welsh unemployment levels down to the UK average. The Bill gives powers to UK Ministers to intervene in Wales over water infrastructure, sending a shiver of dismay that we are about to see another Tryweryn foisted on us.
Our experience of Tory government promises of major capital expenditure schemes in Wales over the past decade has been disastrous. They have promised: to electrify railways; to facilitate electricity generation projects; a new Wylfa in Anglesey; and tidal lagoons around the Welsh coast. They insisted on keeping power in Westminster; they just have not delivered. Every such election pledge has been broken, so why on earth should we trust them now? In terms of breaking solemn commitments, the Bill surely goes way beyond what is acceptable in its unilateral abandonment of international treaty commitments. It establishes beyond doubt that the Government’s word is not worth the paper on which it is written, and the challenge to this House is to insist that we will not pass any such legislation in our name.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con) [V]
My Lords, I join in congratulating and welcoming the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. I am sure that most of your Lordships will agree that—after defeating Covid-19—the highest priority for our country, if we are to face the challenges of the next 10 years, is to hold this United Kingdom of ours together. The problem is that devolution has created a whole world of delicate compromises and unfinished constitutional business. Then on to the scene comes the Bill, which I am afraid is a bit like a bull in a china shop.
My question on the devolution side of the Bill is this: I admit that the timing may be unavoidable but, as the chairman of the Constitution Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, asked, why on earth could not these issues between the different parts of the kingdom be handled mostly within the common framework procedure or consensually? Why was it decided to try to codify, in law, the thousand and one different complex and ever-shifting connections between all the myriad businesses across the devolved regions, rather than address them as they come along, which they will unceasingly, by ongoing practical co-operation—or maybe just by setting up the new internal market office?
As to the rule of law clauses which have so greatly disturbed your Lordships, and disturbed the legal profession, and indeed many of my good friends, including my noble friend Lord Howard, and now the Archbishops as well, I am a little less worried than some of my colleagues. It is quite correct, as the Constitution Committee’s report pointed, that the late Lord Bingham warned against a Government which “routinely”—and I emphasise that word—disregard their international law obligations, and I would not wish to live for one moment under such an Administration. But the reason I am not so worked up as some are in this instance, is that I believe we may be overlooking the degree to which the whole spirit of the withdrawal treaty and the Northern Ireland protocol was and already being undermined, and is now being undermined, by the other party, namely the Brussels negotiators and their legal advisers.
I believe that this is just what the Lord Chancellor meant when he rightly advised the Constitution Committee to consider the context behind the need for this Bill. Here, too, we are in an area of delicate ambiguity and compromise, as Northern Irish affairs always have been—as the Good Friday agreement was as well, and as I know full well from my years of working there at the height of the time of violence. So my question here, before rushing to judgment, is: why were these tangled problems of treaty interpretation, for that is what they are, not handled in the joint committee for settling disputes, which the withdrawal treaty set up? What happened in that committee? Was there a deadlock? Did the EU side make threats which were, in the Prime Minister’s words, “extreme and unreasonable” and undermined the withdrawal treaty? Were these clauses put into this Bill in fact justified as a response on that account? When it comes to would-be violations of the treaty spirit, are the critics, of which we have heard so many this afternoon, quite sure that they are looking entirely and solely in the right place?
We have asked these questions, but we have got no clear answers so far. Can we please have them now? Can we have a bit of chapter and verse about what actually went on the disputes committee? I know that this will not assuage my distinguished legal friends, nor the Church leaders, but it would at least explain more fully why the clauses got into the Bill and why they were felt to be necessary. Perhaps it would persuade me to oppose the two amendments, even though they have been spoken to by your Lordships at your most eloquent, and by people I most admire.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, on her maiden speech, which I heard with great pleasure from the Strangers’ Gallery.
In the limited time available, I will not dwell on the anxiety and shame I feel about Part 5 of this Bill, which others have expressed so eloquently. I hope and believe that your Lordships will assent to the amendment in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Judge. I also hope that, in the next few weeks, agreements will be reached with the EU which enable the Government to assent to removing these clauses from the Bill. In passing, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, and others, that the amendment passed in another place—that these clauses would not be brought into effect without a positive vote in the Commons—is not sufficient to remove the mischief. These clauses contain a threat which should never have been made, and which must have no place in the United Kingdom statute book. I invite the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, to consider the precedents that they would provide for an unscrupulous Government in the future.
I shall address my remarks to the situation that will arise if the Government seek to maintain the clauses and can get a majority in the House of Commons to that end. Your Lordships will then have to decide whether we maintain our opposition to them in the face of a majority in the elected House. I have argued in the past, and continue to believe, that this House must recognise the constitutional limitations on our power and must ultimately defer to elected House. But the issues on this occasion are of a different order. The Northern Ireland clauses in this Bill go to the root of our constitution. On this occasion, the power is in your Lordships’ hands, and we may not be used to that. The Government need the internal market provisions in this Bill by 31 December. They cannot, therefore, use the Parliament Acts to get the Bill through. If this House is resolute in rejecting the unacceptable Northern Ireland clauses, the Government will have to agree to remove them if they are to get the Bill passed.
The issues here are the rule of law and our constitution, as well as our national reputation. I believe that it is the role and duty of your Lordships’ House to defend these things, even in the face of an overweening Executive with a majority in another place, and I urge your Lordships to be resolute in doing so. We can prevent this disaster.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, on an excellent maiden speech and I look forward to many others.
I regard a Bill dealing with this subject as highly desirable, as the present law is principally contained in EU retained law not easily accessible to our citizens. During the discussion on the 2018 withdrawal Bill, the question arose of where powers released by the EU went in the level of our constitution. I took the view that the internal market powers went to the UK Parliament, as legislative authority for them had to go beyond the geographical limitations of the authority of the devolved legislatures, but that it was highly desirable that any exercise of them be the subject of discussion, and if possible agreement, between all four Administrations. The Scottish Minister with whom I was very happy to work closely at that time was optimistic that agreement would be reached. The Joint Ministerial Committee on EU Negotiations was already in place, and intensive work on securing common frameworks as the robust foundation for continuing co-operation has gone well. The Scottish Government have taken a constructive role in that work. Although they have formally taken up a distinct position, their support for independence has not prevented them agreeing to these matters and participating fully in them.
I suggest that this Bill would be greatly improved by providing that any issue to be the subject of a statutory instrument should be discussed in such a committee, and implemented only if it is agreed, or otherwise after a full debate in both Houses of Parliament, and that the Competition and Markets Authority should report to this committee as a matter of course.
Baroness Quin (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, and to recognise the work that he did in trying to make sure that we have a good system of common frameworks across the United Kingdom. I also add my warm congratulations on the splendid first contribution to this House by my noble friend Lady Hayman.
The context of today’s debate is of course the ending of the EU transition period, and indeed the ever closer threat of ending that transition without a deal. Last week, the Prime Minister sent to all of us what I thought was an extraordinary letter, which not only repeated the usual misleading claims about the pro-Brexit referendum result but also airily proclaimed that we would prosper mightily, completely ignoring the practical concerns and worries that businesses across the country and our own internal market have about the prospect of no deal. I ask the Minister—as we both come from the north-east of England—given that the head of Nissan has said that Nissan Europe would be “unsustainable” if there is no deal and tariffs are imposed, are the Government prepared to see that outcome? How could such an outcome help their stated policy of levelling up the regions across the UK? It is against this background and the end of the transition period that we have to consider this Bill.
Given that there is almost total support in support in Parliament and outside for ensuring that the UK’s internal market works properly and effectively after the Brexit transition, it is actually incredible that the Government have managed to produce a Bill that has been so roundly and universally condemned, both in Parliament and outside. Inside Parliament and this House, we have had powerful reports—which I hope will get much publicity—from the Constitution Committee, from the EU Select Committee and from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Both inside and outside Parliament, we have had concerns expressed by eminent lawyers, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, by the report of the Bingham Centre, and indeed in the letter—with which I strongly agree—that the Archbishops have published in today’s Financial Times.
The worries about the Bill are focused on the fact that it breaks international law, and not just once; it provides for future breaks of the law. In some clauses, it exempts the Government from judicial challenge, which is a dangerous principle. It also seems to break the Ministerial Code—perhaps the Minister can confirm whether that is true or not—it adds a lot of extra Henry VIII powers, and it elicits opposition from the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Senate and the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Others have made this point, but I would like to reinforce it: I do not understand why the Government did not decide to build on the common framework approach rather than coming forward with the provisions in the Bill. The situation in Northern Ireland is very serious, and became serious the minute the Government agreed to establish an effective border in the Irish Sea. I hope the comments that were made by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, which I am sure will be reinforced by my noble friend Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, will be taken on board and dealt with properly by the Government.
In conclusion, opposition to this Bill is strong, and it is not a question, as has been alleged, of moaning remainers. It is strong, because there is a strong feeling that the Bill is not in our national domestic interest and does huge damage to our international standing. For that reason, I shall vote for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Judge, and I hope, too, that the House of Lords, on this occasion, will be prepared to use the powers that have been given to it in our constitution and stand resolute—in the words the noble Lord, Lord Butler, a few minutes ago.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, having spent six days in Committee on the Trade Bill debating how we make treaties, and listening to the Minister say continuously how we will be a trusted partner around the world, I, too, regret that we are having to debate how the Government have breached one and intend to breach more. Alas, I had hoped to hear from the Minister, in opening, why and when agreed processes in the joint committee with the EU, and in joint ministerial committees with our nations, broke down, and why those agreements could not be reached, necessitating this Bill.
I want to address Parts 1 to 4, and I do so as someone who was born and lived on the border between England and Scotland and represented a border constituency all my life. Therefore, in my personal, professional and political life, I have seen at close hand the daily interaction between laws, systems, standards, approaches, and regulations—everything from licensing, trade and speed limits to Covid-19 regulations, building regulations and others, many of which predate the European Union and that approach.
I have also seen at close hand the work within the framework agreements. I recognise that there are powers that are being repatriated. The 2020 framework analysis by the Government showed that of 154 policy areas where EU law interacts with devolved competences that are being repatriated, 115 require no framework at all, 22 require a non-legislative framework, and just 18 require a legislative framework.
The Minister did not refer to a defence of Part 5, but I was curious that he referenced whisky and the odd situation, which will be news to English barley providers, in which they cannot sell to Scottish distilleries. They have not been barred from doing so since 1933 in the first legislation, and there are no restrictions. It will be news to the distilleries, which buy their malted barley from Simpsons Malt in my hometown in Berwick, in England, that there is somehow some threat to this. I hope the Minister can clarify that point. Under labelling, composition and standards, that will be covered by the common framework. In fact, that framework was published on 9 October, so where is the necessity for these elements in the example the Minister gave?
The joint ministerial council approach on the frameworks was outlined in a joint communiqué with Ministers on 16 October 2017, in which it outlined the definition and principles of enabling
“the functioning of the UK internal market, while acknowledging policy divergence … Frameworks will respect the devolution settlements and the democratic accountability of the devolved legislatures … based on established conventions and practices.”
Subsequently, last year, in the Cabinet Office update, which the Minister responding to this debate is responsible for, the government frameworks said that a dispute resolution mechanism was progressing:
“The UK Government continues to seek development of a shared approach to the UK Internal Market”
and
“we are considering how to manage … framework areas”
going forward. However, this Bill, as the Constitution Committee reported, gave two days’ notice to the devolved Administrations of the text and has a litany of over 30 areas in which there will be no consultation or limited consultation, which will be overlooked, and in which England will be treated differently from the other nations.
It does not have to be this way. Both Canada and Australia, which the Prime Minister is very keen to quote, introduced internal markets in the 1990s. Canada introduced an agreement on internal trade that came into effect on 1 July 1995. After a premiers’ conference, Australia, which the Prime Minister wishes to quote a lot, reached an agreement on principles for a mutual recognition scheme. An MoU was signed and, very symbolically, has the signatures of all the premiers and the Prime Minister.
The border area is one area where we will be living with the consequences of this, and we have seen nearly a decade of significant division and polarisation. Please, Minister, do not force a Bill against the spirit of what has been developed over the last three years, which is consensus and agreement. Do not herald a bad omen for a decade of danger for our beloved union.
Lord Skidelsky (CB) [V]
My Lords, I join others in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, on her excellent maiden speech.
I want to confine my remarks to Part 5 of the Bill. I find myself swayed by two completely opposite accusations of bad faith. The Government accuse EU negotiators of bad faith in seeking to erect unreasonable customs barriers between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. Opponents of the Bill say that the bad faith is our own Government’s. The withdrawal agreement set up a joint committee to resolve trade issues. The Government have chosen not to use it. So, as Ed Miliband argued in his powerful philippic in the other place, the Government were proposing to breach international law for bogus reasons.
However, having reflected on all this, I cannot support the amendment to the Motion and would like to explain why. To my mind, international law is not the main issue. Never before, many noble Lords have said, have a British Government sought to break international law, but never before has Britain faced a problem of extricating itself from as complex a political, economic and legal structure as the European Union. Law, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, explained, has to take account of political context, and as my hero, John Maynard Keynes, once said in answer to legal fundamentalists of his day:
“I want”—
lawyers—
“to devise means by which it will be lawful for me to go on being sensible in unforeseen conditions.”
Noble Lords know very well that not every contingency can be foreseen.
So I ask noble Lords to judge the legislation before the House on three different grounds: sufficient reason, motive, and consequences. On the first, I agree with the argument that sufficient reason has not been established for the override of Part 5 at the Government’s discretion. However, by Amendment 66, the Government have agreed to obtain parliamentary approval before activating Part 5, and I think that is a reasonable compromise between those who think that Part 5 is unnecessary and those who think it is essential.
Secondly, I sympathise with the argument that the Government signed the agreement in bad faith in order to meet the Prime Minister’s political requirements. However, most noble Lords have ignored the argument that it was always going to require some bad faith and legal creativity—to coin a phrase—to make the Brexit decision consistent with the Good Friday agreement. When Ed Miliband said
“A competent Government would never have entered into a binding agreement with provisions they could not live with”,—[Official Report, Commons, 14/9/20; col. 52.]
I am afraid that he set the bar of competence much too high. Contrary to the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, deliberate ambiguity has always been the hallmark of statecraft.
Finally, what will the consequences be? The legal fundamentalists say it will damage our ability to get an agreement, because it will damage trust in the Government’s word—a powerful argument. The pragmatists believe it will force the EU negotiators to come up with a workable exit formula. Time will tell whether the Government have calculated the balance of risks properly. My own feeling, contrary to much noble rhetoric, is that we are still largely in the world of posturing. That is the way the EU and many other international negotiations work: public posturing followed by a last-minute outbreak of common sense. I think that is the way it will turn out, and I do not want to do or say anything that will weaken the hands of our own negotiators.
Lord Dunlop (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as independent reviewer of the UK Government’s union capability and as a member of your Lordships’ Constitution Committee, whose detailed report on the Bill I commend, like others, to the House.
I doubt there is anyone in this House who does not support the goal of ensuring our UK domestic market continues to work seamlessly at the end of the EU transition period. This market, and the trade it generates, is, as the Minister said, an engine for providing jobs and prosperity in all parts of our country. The UK domestic market is an essential feature and asset of the union, so the Government are right to want to protect frictionless trade within the UK once we leave the EU’s legal orbit. They are right also to want to be able to guarantee to international partners that the terms of new trade agreements will be implemented throughout the UK. Today, the assurance regime is provided by an EU single market framework, and I agree with the Government that, going forward, we need an equivalent UK framework.
There are, however, two questions that need to be asked, and have been asked during the debate. Is this Bill necessary to achieve the Government’s stated aims? If the Bill is necessary, perhaps as a belt and braces insurance policy, is this the right way to legislate?
On the first question, I am doubtful. The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 already provides a mechanism for constraining the ability of the devolved Administrations to diverge, while a common frameworks process is taken forward to agree UK-wide approaches for the powers flowing back from Brussels—a process that has been yielding results. As we have heard, the devolved Administrations are also already required by law to adhere to international obligations, including trade treaties. Moreover, the Government’s own analysis makes clear the considerable economic costs for devolved territories should there be any disintegration of the UK market, so there are strong incentives for all those involved to agree common frameworks.
On the second question, by bringing forward a Bill in this form, the Government have reached for the proverbial sledge-hammer to crack a nut. For example, the UK Government previously agreed with the devolved Administrations a set of principles for common frameworks. One of these is to
“maintain, as a minimum, equivalent flexibility for tailoring policies to the specific needs of each territory as is afforded by current EU rules”.
However, the regime created by the Bill is more restrictive, with fewer public policy exclusions, than the EU framework it replaces. Whereas common frameworks are subject to joint decision-making involving the UK Government and the devolved Administrations, the Bill confers on UK Ministers extensive delegated powers to alter devolved competence and in places to exercise them without even the modest requirement to consult the devolved Administrations.
All this strikes me—and the Constitution Committee —as an unnecessarily heavy-handed approach to balancing the demands of free trade within the UK with respect for the roles and responsibilities of devolved institutions. Devolution is now integral to the UK’s constitutional arrangements. At a time of national crisis, when it has never been more important for central and devolved Governments to work together effectively, to risk destabilising those arrangements seems careless, to say the least.
The broader question for the House and for this union Parliament is: do we want our country’s future to be all about endless intergovernmental competition and conflict or about co-operation and confidence? I am in no doubt that a modern, thriving, forward-thinking and inclusive UK union needs to look and feel like a joint endeavour, a union less preoccupied with battling over competences and more concerned with winning over hearts and minds. That is why I hope the Government will demonstrate enlightened and imaginative leadership by working constructively to amend the Bill.
Lord Hain (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I was delighted to listen to my noble friend Lady Hayman, who will add high-quality, youthful value to our Labour Benches.
This Bill will breach the European Union withdrawal treaty, freely entered into by the Prime Minister less than a year ago, and the rule of law, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer so eloquently argued, significantly backed, among others, by a very recent Conservative Europe Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. It has also further damaged British-Irish relations by undermining the Ireland-Northern Ireland protocol, necessary to avoid a hard Irish border. As with the Trade Bill, there is an urgent need to insert clear protections for two international agreements the United Kingdom has entered into and ratified recently: namely, the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and that very protocol.
As the Bill undermines the Good Friday agreement of 1998, US leaders have stated bluntly that it could jeopardise any chance of a UK-US trade deal. Without the unifying framework provided by the EU, responsible for policies including state aid, the environment, agriculture, food manufacturing and animal welfare, the Bill represents a clear power grab by London from the devolved Governments. The Prime Minister has suddenly discovered the benefits of having a single market—the UK internal market of 66 million people, rather than the much larger and richer EU single market we have been a member of, of over 500 million.
Under the Bill, not only is state aid policy to be returned from the EU to Westminster but the UK Government also get new financial powers. Both proposals will further weaken the current intergovernmental arrangements, whose fragility has been exposed by Covid-19. Perhaps we should not be surprised that the Government adopt the posture of a public schoolyard bully when it comes to the devolved nations of these islands, where No. 10 seems to believe it holds all the cards and has nothing to lose—apart from perhaps destroying the United Kingdom.
For more than three years, the Governments of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have sunk their very large political differences with the UK Government over Brexit in order to address its fallout in terms of managing the UK internal market. This led to the common frameworks programme, which was intended to take the areas of the economy where—and I stress this—the UK Government believed there to be a risk to the integrity of the UK’s internal market from the removal of the constraints to regulate in accordance with EU rules. This Bill brushes all those common frameworks arrogantly aside.
Whether or not there is an orderly end to the transition period in December, Brexit will have implications for the totality of the relationships between Westminster and the nations and regions of the UK, and for those on the island of Ireland, with the financial provisions of the Bill tightening Westminster control over economic, industrial and regional development policy throughout the UK. This is likely to fuel calls for indyref2 in Scotland and, eventually, a unification referendum in Northern Ireland. It may be that this Bill serves to hasten the break-up of the UK, which is another strong reason to oppose it.
Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP) [V]
My Lords, when we, as one nation, fully transition out of the EU, we must face the new reality and its challenges together and continue to work to maintain and grow the links and ties between all four corners of this country. That means building on the work to date and improving relations throughout the United Kingdom. For the avoidance of doubt, I emphasise that my party, the Democratic Unionist Party, believes that the progression of the Bill is of the utmost importance.
Vast swathes of the withdrawal agreement were wholly unsatisfactory, as in essence they created an unthinkable scenario for anyone who values the United Kingdom: a virtual border in the Irish Sea. Strands of the withdrawal agreement also made provision for a series of potentially complicated and burdensome checks on food and agricultural products entering Northern Ireland from mainland Britain. As a result, some in Northern Ireland, instead of benefiting from the removal of red tape as we leave the European Union would be required to endure extra layers of it. I welcome the Government’s assurance to the contrary, but we must continue to do all we can to ensure that there are no long-term, damaging barriers between different parts of our nation.
The withdrawal agreement and the political declaration, although in parts unsatisfactory, recognise the autonomy of the EU and the UK. However, a unique difference remains between the two parties: while the United Kingdom is a legally defined and globally recognised sovereign nation-state, the EU is simply an international body. During its history, and at the outset of the withdrawal negotiations, the EU recognised the sovereignty of the United Kingdom. Since then, regrettably, negotiators and some spokespersons appeared to disregard this sovereignty by ignoring the settled status of Northern Ireland, thereby interfering in internal matters and potentially undermining the defined constitutional status of Northern Ireland. Comments from officials in Brussels have been unhelpful and have shown a disregard for Northern Ireland’s unique and deeply troubled past, our shared future and the UK’s legal status as a sovereign nation.
Though I welcome the Bill, it remains true that businesses in Northern Ireland are confused. They may still have to adhere to conflicting regulations. There may still be divergence and associated costs. A scenario is still possible whereby a firm located in Belfast is unable to benefit from financial assistance that is available to one in Birmingham or Swansea, and therefore finds it advantageous to relocate. Can the Minister specify whether the Government plan to include Northern Ireland in the provisions outlined in Clauses 42 and 43?
In the other place, my party sought to allay fears by ensuring, through amendments, that the Government carried out impact assessments. Our purpose was to bring some reassurances to businesses that are potentially unfairly disadvantaged compared to their counterparts in mainland Britain. It is essential that we ensure the long-term prosperity of Britain and the viability of businesses. One part of our nation should not be left behind simply because of the proximity of a land border. I firmly believe that there is widespread support for a sensible free trade agreement with the EU that allows the UK to establish itself as a strong. outward-looking trading nation. A free, independent and United Kingdom can, and should, be a major global force on the world stage once more. I support the Bill.
Lord Cavendish of Furness (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Browne. I have heard it suggested that there is no need for this Bill. Indeed, such doubts are rehearsed by the distinguished Select Committee on the Constitution in its 17th report. This may be technically and legalistically correct. However, I would contend that such a view overlooks a significant historical consideration. Before we joined what was to become the EU, a single unified internal market was for 300 years the constitutional bedrock of Great Britain, extended to Ireland 100 years later. The absence of the taxes, custom duties and other restrictions that were so crippling to much of mainland Europe created the conditions to usher in the industrial revolution. Now, as we prepare to leave the EU, it is imperative that we legislate to restore the conditions of a single UK market, tailored to the 21st century. Yes, the Bill is necessary.
There can be no doubt that the Government find themselves in a bind, one that is to a large extent of their own making. Furthermore, the European Union Select Committee, of which I have the privilege of being a member, has long warned of the problems that have now become so critical. I was also deeply saddened that a Minister of the Crown should speak in the other place as he did. As my noble friend Lord Bridges said, it is no mitigation to say that others, including the EU, breach international law. However, there appears to be no agreement among senior lawyers as to the legitimacy of the proposed measures that have given rise to such controversy. I cannot agree with the Constitution Committee’s witness who said:
“Let us accept that the Bill breaks the law.”
The Bill does not break the law, nor does it threaten to do so. According to Mr Martin Howe QC, no breach of international law could possibly occur until regulations under the clauses in question were actually brought into force; even then, whether or not making such regulations would amount to a breach would depend on the circumstances then prevailing and the reasons for making those regulations.
I have heard it said that the inclusion of the controversial clause is part of a negotiating tactic. There are further suggestions that the tactic has worked, to the extent that the EU withdrew from its indefensible position of threatening to withhold third-country listing. The problems that could arise from the failure to address the nightmare so-called direct effect could have catastrophic consequences, something that has been largely ignored by the media and, sadly, has earned scarcely a mention in contributions today. Scandalously, the Opposition Front Bench was entirely silent on the matter.
I support a Government who uphold and defend the country’s vital interests. I sometimes gain the impression that I am in a minority in your Lordships’ House. I hear it claimed that objections to the Bill are unrelated to Brexit. It is certainly the case that many noble Lords, much to their credit, have buried their pain and sadness occasioned by our leaving the EU and chosen to move on. However, this House is essentially a remainer House and its committees are remainer committees. There is nothing dishonourable in that but it seems to have led your Lordships’ House to move from acting as a revising Chamber to being one of opposition, a position apparently supported by the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell.
I have been a Member of this House for 30 years and I remember being on the Opposition Benches with a built-in majority. I recall how we acted with considerable restraint, as we certainly should have done. In those far-off days, Cross-Bench Peers tended to vote only on matters of their field of expertise while the Lords Spiritual were reticent in displaying their partisanship. It all seems such a long time ago. I mention this because it occurs to me that if this House is serious about trying to influence the Government, it might alter its tone. I reflect that on the great issues of the time, and many others, this House has put itself at odds with the Government, with the other place and, to judge by the general election, the people of this country. It bodes ill for an institution to persist in saying that it knows better than the people it is supposed to serve.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I add my warm welcome and congratulations to my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock. Despite the case just made by the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish of Furness, it is a puzzle to me that the Government have introduced this Bill, given the commitment agreed in the Joint Ministerial Committee—of Ministers of the UK and the devolved Governments—to develop by consensus common frameworks for the UK internal market. We are told that good progress has been made on that yet, with perfunctory consultation, the Bill has been brought in.
The Bill contains no mention of common frameworks. It takes powers to override devolved legislation by means of regulations passed at Westminster and to spend money in areas of devolved competence. It contains only patchy and vague provisions for future consultation on the exercise of the powers that it creates. It has provoked indignation in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and legislative consent is highly unlikely to be forthcoming. The Bill is disrespectful to the devolved Administrations. When the union is under great stress from Brexit and Covid, it is also reckless.
The Bill is disrespectful towards this Parliament. It contains egregious Henry VIII clauses, most notably Clause 53(2), which says:
“Any power to make regulations under this Act includes power … to amend, repeal or otherwise modify legislation.”
The Bill is disrespectful towards our treaty partners. It authorises breaches of the Northern Ireland protocol and the withdrawal agreement. The Government offer as justification that the EU may intend to interpret ambiguities in the withdrawal agreement—ambiguities that the Government were happy to write in a year ago—to the detriment of the UK’s internal market and the Good Friday agreement. Ministers may see this as a suitable tactic in the Brexit negotiations. It may also be a reckless reminder to other countries not to trust perfidious Albion.
The brutal declaration in the House of Commons by the Northern Ireland Secretary that the Government are deliberately taking power to break international law sounds a loud alarm. The Bill is disrespectful to the rule of law and the judiciary. In this regard it echoes thinly veiled threats to the judiciary in the Conservative manifesto, the notorious remarks in Conservative Home by Suella Braverman shortly before she was appointed Attorney-General, and attacks on lawyers by the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister at the Conservative Party conference.
The Government make the case in self-exculpation that their defiance of international law is legal under domestic law. They also insist that they are not precluding judicial review, although in Clause 47 they go to extreme lengths to insulate regulations made under the Bill from challenge. The Government cannot justify what they are doing by quibbling. Constitutionality entails acting in a spirit of respect towards the rule of law, including both international law and, in our domestic jurisdiction, the effective ability for persons to have redress in court for the misuse of executive power.
It consists in respecting conventions which, though uncodified, ought to be binding on Ministers and on Parliament. These conventions include respect for the role of other institutions which form part of the constitution, among them the devolved Administrations as well as the judiciary, and therefore acting with restraint towards them. Proper government keeps the convoy moving along together. It shows itself to be trustworthy. The doctrine of the omnicompetence of statute, undoubtedly valid, is gratifying to the vanity of parliamentarians and convenient to Governments, but such ill-judged deployment of statutory power as we see in this Bill risks imposing intolerable stresses on the cohesion of the constitution and of the United Kingdom.
The Bill is an expression of a loutishness that characterises this Government’s political dealings. Where will this debasement of our democracy take us if we collude in it?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I remind the noble Lord of the advisory speaking time. We cannot go beyond midnight, and if everybody goes over, some Lords will have to wait until tomorrow to speak.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab) [V]
In this House we must do all we can to limit the damage that the Bill causes, starting by supporting the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
My Lords, since I am speaking from Hayman House, my home in Gresford, it would be churlish of me not to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and congratulate her on her excellent maiden speech.
On 2 October 2019 the Brexit Secretary, Stephen Barclay, told the EU Committee of this House that Northern Ireland businesses would have to complete export declarations for goods moving from Northern Ireland to the rest of the UK. Shortly afterwards, on 7 November, the Prime Minister told exporters in Northern Ireland, in answer to a question, that if any business was asked to fill in customs declarations, he would direct them to throw the forms in the bin. That is his typical jocularity. He said:
“There will be no forms, no checks, no barriers of any kind. You will have unfettered access.”
That is what the provisions in Clauses 44 to 47 of this Bill are all about: to save face. The Prime Minister cannot admit that he told off-the-cuff porkies—or more likely that he did not understand the written agreement he had signed.
The Government say that the Bill does not in itself breach the written agreement: only potentially, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, argued earlier. The noble Lord, Lord Cavendish of Furness, went further a moment ago and asserted that there was no breach of the law at all. If I give a knife to a person of unstable temperament with the foresight that he will use it to stab somebody, I break the law. It is no defence to say that I thought that he would only use my knife “potentially”. These clauses are an instrument positively designed to empower Ministers, first, to act illegally and, secondly, to ensure that the powers of the court to stop them by judicial review are removed. It is as though I told the potential murderer, “Look, here’s a knife and I guarantee that you will not be prosecuted if you use it”. The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, said, “Well, all they’re doing is threatening to rescind an agreement they should never have made, to strengthen their negotiating position”. Well, it has not worked, has it? As the noble Lord, Lord Butler, said, it is a threat which should never have been made.
It would have been 1945, with Christmas approaching, when my father decided to make me a toy gun. He carved and varnished a wooden stock and added black piping to look like a barrel. On Boxing Day, I proudly took this toy gun out to play, but it was quite a tough area. It is in my mind’s eye now. I was approached by two youths who were four or five years older than me. They threatened to bash my face in if I did not hand the gun over to them. I did so, and you can see that it rankles after 75 years. A threat is not in the long run a good negotiating tactic. You may succeed for the immediate moment, but the resentment lasts for years; the reputation is damaged beyond repair. Why should the European Union believe any compromise the Prime Minister puts forward this coming week on state aid, fisheries or the like? He has weakened his bargaining position.
The Lord Chancellor justifies taking these powers on the basis that there
“could be a material breach by one of the parties”—
he does not say which party or what breach—of the withdrawal agreement. Do you have a better point, Mr Buckland? Robert Buckland comes from Llanelli. When the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, referred earlier to the oath of Queen’s Counsel, I remembered that it was another Llanelli boy and Lord Chancellor, Lord Elwyn-Jones, who took my oath of office in the Moses Room some 46 years ago. What, I wonder, would he have thought of such a manifest breach of his oath of office, which commences: “I swear by Almighty God to uphold the rule of law”?
The Duke of Wellington (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is a privilege to speak in this debate, but I notice that only a handful of noble Lords appear to support the Bill as presently drafted. I want to put on record that I very much welcome the intervention of the most reverend Primate and the letter signed today by the Archbishops.
This Bill has a significance for this House considerably greater than almost any other Bill that we have been asked to consider. Having over the weekend read the excellent report by the Select Committee on the Constitution, I am even more concerned as a layman by certain clauses in it, particularly Clauses 44, 45 and, especially, 47. In a single piece of proposed legislation, the Government have managed to antagonise almost everyone, including a multitude of counterparties and international public opinion.
First, many members of the United States House of Representatives are concerned about any move that could undermine the Good Friday agreement, and they have made it clear that this legislation puts at risk the future approval by Congress of a US-UK free trade agreement. Secondly, the Government have antagonised the European Union, which sees the legislation as abrogating parts of the withdrawal agreement signed only 10 months ago. Thirdly, they have antagonised the devolved Administrations, who feel that they have not been properly consulted and that the legislation goes against certain parts of the various devolution settlements. The Government have in fact admitted that in certain respects the Bill breaks international law.
It is therefore difficult to believe that government Ministers and their political advisers have really given sufficient thought to the consequences of this proposed legislation. Clearly, legislation is required to ensure that an internal market can operate in these islands, but it was always inevitable, in Mr Johnson’s withdrawal agreement, that there would have to be some sort of documentary border in the Irish Sea. That was not true of Mrs May’s deal, which unfortunately the other place repeatedly rejected. However, the Northern Ireland arrangements can still be negotiated in the joint committee, and as for the arrangements with the devolved Administrations, these can surely be negotiated within the common framework process. So parts of this Bill would seem unnecessary—a word so liked and used by Ministers when rejecting other Lords amendments to other Bills.
The most effective way in which this House performs its duty is to ask the Government and the other place to think again. Surely there could be no more important Bill than this one on which to perform that duty. Having read the various reports from the committees of this House, we must ask the other place to think again, particularly about Part 5. Should the Bill return to us unamended, it may well be necessary, as the noble Lord, Lord Butler, suggested, to do so a second time. In the meantime, I will vote tomorrow for the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, when it is put to a vote.
Lord Mancroft (Con)
My Lords, I would not dream of questioning the judgment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, in matters of the law—of course I would not—but I would say that the rule of law, as a matter of principle, is as important to me as it is to any noble Lord, however learned. However, like many legal matters, it is a question of fact and degree. I am not a lawyer but I have been involved in enough litigation to know that two Silks of equal distinction can produce very different and equally persuasive arguments for or against almost any legal question that any of us could pose.
These things are not, as some would like to have us believe, black and white. Like everything in life, they come in shades of grey. To my father, as a newly qualified barrister in 1938, the invasion of Poland in 1939 was not grey; it was completely black and white. However, having sat through the debates in your Lordships’ House in 2003, to me it was clear that many of the lawyers in this House came to a very different conclusion about the legality of the invasion of Iraq from that reached by the Labour Government. To them, it was not black and white; it was a matter of opinion.
In terms of degree, my belief in the rule of law, which I consider to be probably the most important principle that we espouse, has not stopped me from time to time—I hang my head in shame today—parking on a double yellow line. I do not suppose that I am the only noble Lord to have broken the law at some time or another. It would be hypocritical of us not to admit that we can all be flexible when it suits us.
I share with others regret that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State made the statement in the other place that set this hare running. I do not know whether it has been suggested that the Government felt that that declaration from the Dispatch Box would provide some form of legal cover in the event that some remainer obsessive decided to run another case to the Supreme Court in the hope that that court would be prepared to compromise its reputation by indulging in another political judgment.
It is primarily a political and not a legal matter when a foreign power seeks in negotiating an agreement, supposedly entered into in good faith, to use that negotiation deliberately to interfere with the delicate relationship between the component parts of an independent nation state, such as those of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is perfectly obvious that the European Commission very early on worked out that this was our Achilles heel, and has done its level best to exploit this for its own ends. That is not the conduct of a good neighbour and trading partner acting in good faith; that is the behaviour of someone who does not wish us well. It is in effect a trap, deliberately placed where it would do the most harm. But what Government, having spotted this trap, would continue to blunder on, rather than take whatever measures they could to avoid it? It is the Government’s duty to avoid a trap, almost at any cost, which is precisely what the Bill seeks to do.
A final point on the issue of national reputation: who is it, I wonder, who will think so much less of us for having ducked this punch, aimed as it was below our belt? For example, I am not very interested in China’s view of our trade arrangements with Northern Ireland, particularly in comparison with their behaviour towards Hong Kong. Nor will I take any lectures from Mr Putin about the rule of law. President Trump thinks we are mad not to have walked away from the EU years ago, and Mr Biden has already made his views—firmly in line with those of his Irish republican voters—clear, and there is no changing that. The current members of the EU obviously think the worst of us, and they always have done. But who cares?
I do business in South America and Africa, and no one I have ever met in either of those continents has the remotest interest in this squabble, but they would all love to do business with us. Our Commonwealth friends are not fooled by this stuff. Saudi Arabia and our allies in the Gulf share the same view as their new Israeli friends—that business is business, a view shared by our Pacific trading partners. If our reputation is harmed, I am struggling to see with whom.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab) [V]
My Lords, as the Attorney-General, I had a duty to advise Ministers of their legal obligations. This was not always straightforward, and I am particularly aware of how I strove to achieve and advise compliance with the law, particularly in Kosovo and the rules of engagement in Sierra Leone. Parliament and Ministers accepted my advice, though as a leading counsel I had to defend the United Kingdom before the international court in The Hague.
As the greatly admired Lord Bingham wrote in his book The Rule of Law:
“The rule of law requires compliance by the state with … international law”
and national law. Ministers, civil servants and our Armed Forces are bound by the need to observe international law. The rule of law is not negotiable; to defer breaches does not alter the fact that Parliament is being asked now to legislate in breach of its obligations. It is similar to blessing a potential burglar or murderer for any future wrongdoing.
We have already lost one esteemed and distinguished law officer. Is it not the time that we have a clear statement on where they stand from the Lord Chancellor, who has a statutory duty to maintain the rule of law, as well as the remaining law officers, who are clinging to office?
I turn now to devolution legislation. As one of the architects of Welsh devolution, which I began as a graduate student in Cambridge in 1953 and culminated in 1999, I regard it as my duty to safeguard the settlement. Once powers are devolved, they cannot be withdrawn. The Bill drives a coach and four horses through the devolved settlement. The Welsh Government tell me that the United Kingdom Governments have worked collaboratively on the common parliamentary programme for three years; this Bill neuters it and hollows out the powers of the devolved legislatures to regulate policy areas. There is no time to give examples. In the memorandum from the Welsh Parliament, it spells out its grievances.
I will make two points. First, the Bill contains, for the first time, powers for the UK Government to spend money over the heads of devolved Ministers—[Inaudible.] I ask the Minister to confirm whether that interpretation by the Welsh Government is right. Secondly, the Bill seeks explicitly to amend the Government of Wales Act to add the design and operation of state aid policy to the list of reserved powers. Again, examples have been given. Could we have a statement on that issue and on whether the Welsh Government are right? Again, I would like the Minister to confirm what the position is.
The brief for the Bill states that the devolved Administrations will see their powers increase significantly following the transition period and the transfer of EU powers, and will be able to use new and existing powers within the internal market system. Who is right: the Welsh Government or the Minister, as he set out in his speech? Is that factual brief correct?
I will ask one further question: is it the Government’s wish and intention to go back on the settlement of devolution over 20 years, or is the Bill an inadvertence that will undermine the unity of the United Kingdom? Is that what they want?
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, on her excellent maiden speech and by saying how much I look forward to hearing from my noble friend Lord Sarfraz very shortly.
Because of Part 5, very few are prepared to give the Bill their wholehearted support. I am not one of them, and, in the event of a Division tomorrow, I will without hesitation support the regret Motion moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. To do otherwise would be wrong as a matter of principle, but as a former law officer, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, and as a Member of the other place and of this House since 1992, it would also be a matter of personal shame to agree to such flagrant abuse of the rule of law and our international treaty obligations.
Set against last year’s unlawful Prorogation and the fact that Mr Dominic Cummings is the instigator of Part 5 and is the latest person to have been found in contempt of Parliament, I am not surprised, although I ought to be shocked, that, first, a Cabinet Minister could say that the Government intended to break international law, and, secondly, that the Attorney-General could apparently advise the Government that what was proposed was defensible as a matter of law. It plainly is not, even if some may think it has political advantages.
I have heard excuses for Part 5, which contains provisions that unquestionably breach international law or authorise such breaches, from Members of Parliament not previously noted for their interest in questions of international law and from government Ministers. They appear to confuse the sovereignty of Parliament with the Government’s treaty obligations. If sophistry is an unparliamentary description of what we have been asked to believe, let me say instead that the explanations for Part 5 are risible. They amount to bad law, poor diplomacy and inept politics.
Let us be clear: the European Union withdrawal agreement is not some ancient treaty entered into by two medieval monarchs when our customs and usages were very different, nor is it as difficult to understand as the Schleswig-Holstein question. It is only a year since the Prime Minister agreed to it—not just bits of it, but all of it, including the Northern Ireland protocol, the clauses referring to EU law, and the trading arrangements between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. It is barely six months since Mr Johnson, in the triumphant afterglow of the general election, recommended it to Parliament for translation into United Kingdom law.
We have not heard publicly from the Attorney-General. It is entirely normal for the law officers to keep confidential their advice to the Government, albeit that the Attorney-General has published a digest of the opinion of the three lawyers she selected to advise her. Its conclusions are not convincing, save perhaps as a political manifesto. Certainly they did not impress the Treasury Solicitor, Sir Jonathan Jones, who resigned rather than be party to this unlawful policy. Nor did they impress my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie, who, despite valiantly trying to bring the Government to a proper understanding of the rule of law and their obligations freely entered into as parties to international treaties, resigned as well.
However, it is not just a breach of international law; Part 5 also undermines our domestic law. Clause 47 is breath-taking. It will give Ministers the power to make regulations and renders those regulations unassailable, even if they break the law. Thomas Cromwell would be proud of this clause. It prevents legal challenge so that no court can rule against them. Government by ministerial decree is certainly not what we should see in a parliamentary democracy.
Under Section 25 of the Theft Act 1968, “Going equipped” is a crime. It is an offence, when not at home, to be in possession of an
“article made or adapted for use in committing a burglary or theft”.
Part 5 is the equivalent of the burglar’s jemmy. Government and law officers should not advocate their use and expect to retain the respect of Parliament or the legal profession.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
Like other noble Lords, I wish to focus today not on the broader provisions of this Bill but on Part 5. Giving Ministers the power to break the law seems to me an astonishing thing for Parliament even to contemplate, let alone agree to. I quite understand that there are situations where there may be argument about what the law is or whether particular matters fall within the provisions of a given law, but that does not appear to be the case here. The Government have acknowledged that they wish Ministers to be able to break a law. The fact that it would be in a “limited and specific way” seems to me to be irrelevant. Why should the residents of Greater Manchester not now feel that they can break the law in a “limited and specific way”?
The Government have advanced the argument that this is a provision that would only be applied if the EU had previously acted in an “unreasonable” way in implementing the withdrawal agreement. However, as we have heard many times, there is already a dispute resolution mechanism in place to deal with this situation, and, if this is deemed insufficient and the Government see the need for new primary legislation, why not enact it once the other party has patently broken faith? Emergency legislation could then be made specific and passed swiftly, and the UK would be reacting to a breach of trust rather than creating one.
However, I wish to make another, broader point about power this evening. In setting and carrying out its foreign policy, the UK is essentially seeking to persuade countries to do things they would otherwise not do or to dissuade them from doing what they otherwise would. Such persuasion rests upon the ability to convince or to compel, which, in turn, is based upon the power that we wield in the international arena. The underlying foundation of that power is undoubtedly our economic strength, but it also depends upon a degree of moral authority.
If we are to convince others of the force of our arguments, they need to know whether they can rely upon what we say, whether we deliver on our obligations, whether we are steadfast or blown by the latest wind— whether they would be prepared to buy a used car from us. Even when we seek to compel rather than convince, both our hard and soft power are most effective when arrayed alongside that of our partners, who know the quality of our contribution, who know that we can be relied upon to fulfil our undertakings and who trust us.
It is clear that certain clauses within Part 5 of this Bill have already undermined international trust in the United Kingdom. EU leaders are looking for harder and more specific conditions in any new agreement with the UK because they now view us as untrustworthy. Our power in the world has been diminished by this Bill and will be diminished further if it is passed unamended. This seems a strange way to advance the cause of global Britain.
Therefore, there are very clear practical reasons for doing something about Part 5, but, above all, there is the fundamental issue of principle. The Government exercise authority through the law; if they undermine respect for the law, they undermine both themselves and the stability of our society. This is surely not the path we, as a nation, wish to follow. I urge the Government to think again, and I shall certainly support the amendment of my noble and learned friend Lord Judge.
Lord Sarfraz (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is with great pleasure that I stand to give my first contribution in your Lordships’ House. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, on her very thoughtful maiden speech.
I have not been a Member long, but I have learned that this House is full of very kind and generous people who have been incredibly welcoming to me. I would like to thank the wonderful doorkeepers, Black Rod, the Clerk of the Parliaments and all the staff for their warm welcome. I am very grateful to them, as well as to my supporters, my noble friends Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park and Lord Choudrey. I am particularly grateful to the Prime Minister for giving me an opportunity to be part of your Lordships’ House. I have learned about the procedures of this House from my Whip, my noble friend Lord Borwick, and my mentor, my noble friend, Lord Leigh of Hurley. There is a tremendous amount I hope to learn from Members of this House across all parties, who have had such distinguished and diverse careers.
I grew up in Pakistan in a family with a tradition of military service. Both my grandfathers were officers in the British Indian Army and my father was commissioned as a naval officer at the Britannia Royal Naval College. I could not serve in the military because I have asthma, but I now have the opportunity to serve in a different way from the floor of this House. I understand that maiden speeches are meant to be uncontroversial, so I will keep my contribution short and sweet.
In global Britain, entrepreneurs in the technology industry will play a huge role. I am a proud member of the ethnic-minority community of the United Kingdom and I would like to work with my own community so that we can continue to make important contributions in the global economy. For example, the CEOs of Google, Microsoft, IBM, Mastercard and Adobe—among many others—are all from ethnic minorities. I refer to my interest in technology venture capital as set out in the register. We in the United Kingdom have been at the forefront of innovation for centuries. Many people believe that venture capital was invented in Silicon Valley but it was actually invented in Birmingham. In the 18th century, members of the Lunar Society would meet monthly to discuss, demo and fund the greatest technology innovations of their time.
In my career, I had the privilege of observing that one of the determining factors of success and failure is entrepreneurs having access to a strong domestic market. As global as technology markets are, entrepreneurs who can quickly and easily build a foundation in domestic markets are often the ones who have the necessary platform to then scale internationally. The history of virtually every successful technology company started with early commercial wins in a sizeable domestic market. We are fortunate that the United Kingdom is a strong domestic market, especially for entrepreneurs. We must make sure that our start-ups—whether in space technology in Glasgow, cybersecurity in Belfast, digital health in Cardiff, artificial intelligence in Oxford, life sciences in Cambridge, the internet of things in Manchester or virtual reality in Liverpool—all have access to a strong, stable UK internal market with certainty of rules and regulations. I am therefore pleased to support this Bill in your Lordships’ House.
Finally, I would like to thank my family, my parents, my wife and my beautiful daughters for their long-standing love and support, and I thank noble Lords for giving me an opportunity to participate in this important Second Reading.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow my noble friend Lord Sarfraz and congratulate him on his excellent speech. I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock.
As my noble friend rightly said, maiden speeches are meant to be uncontroversial. His contribution was in no way controversial; in fact, it was deeply encouraging and seriously important for the House as a whole. The Governor of Punjab, among many political and business leaders in Pakistan, paid tribute to my noble friend Lord Sarfraz on his elevation, saying that Aamer Sarfraz has helped to build a bright image of Pakistan in the international community. He said:
“You made Pakistan and British Pakistanis proud.”
At such a young age my noble friend Lord Sarfraz brings enormous experience as an entrepreneur and venture capital investor. He has also initiated many social projects, including training thousands of smallholder farmers in the Punjab, and has supported many charitable endeavours, including horse-riding therapy for children with special needs. I have no doubt that my noble friend will make many important contributions going forward. From a proud British Jew to a proud British Muslim, I say that I look forward to continuing to work closely with my noble friend for the benefit of British society from within our House of Lords.
My noble friend Lord Sarfraz made a strong point about the need to have access to a strong and stable internal market, with certainty of rules and regulations. I note that the Scottish Government called this Bill a “power grab”. On that point—that goods and services sold in part of the UK must be available for sale in the rest of the country—the Scottish government said it would,
“effectively be limiting standards across the country to the lowest of the four nations.”
I just cannot understand their pessimism. As for it being a power grab, it was no surprise that MSPs voted 90 to 28 to reject a legislative consent Motion. It is clear that the SNP would really like to hand back powers to the EU and/or keep most of them for themselves as an independent country. I joined the Conservative and Unionist Party, and I support this Bill’s intention to maintain high standards across the whole of the UK.
Like the noble Lord behind me, I am not a lawyer, nor are most of the people in our country. They want clarity. I was a reluctant remainer back in 2016 but I am not today: I am neither reluctant nor a remainer. Permit me to put these last few words simply—the sort of words that would be uttered in a pub, if we could get to one. We were a member of a club of 28, where, throughout, there was a rocky relationship. We voted to leave and tried to negotiate a mutual and sensible exit in good faith, but it seems that the good faith has not been reciprocated. There is still time for the EU to act in good faith, and there would be no need to break any laws at all. But, ultimately, we can create our own rules for our own club: the club of the United Kingdom.
Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock and the noble Lord, Lord Sarfraz, on their maiden speeches of excellent quality. It is really good to have two younger Members join us. I must also congratulate the Government on doing so much to bring about harmony. They have managed to unite so many speakers in this Chamber and all but one of the parties in the Scottish Parliament, to name just two groups.
One of the purposes of this Bill is to enact the political ideology of the ruling faction of the Conservative Party, which demands that unfettered access of business across the UK should be able to overrule any democratically decided public policy goals. BEIS’s own impact assessment makes it clear that market access principles will reduce the ability to pursue targeted social and environmental policy objectives. We were told that Brexit would result in the return of powers to the devolved Administrations, but instead significant powers have been retained by Westminster. This Bill goes even further, as it will take away existing powers.
The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, as I understood him, said that industry subsidies had never been devolved, but Part 7 of the Bill amends Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998 to eliminate state aid from the devolved powers that have rested with the Scottish Parliament for over 20 years. This happened without negotiation and with only the most cursory consultation.
The so-called level playing field is far from fair. How can it be when the players on the field are of massively different size and strength? It would be the equivalent of a football match between Chelsea and Partick Thistle. The big firms in the large countries flourish; small firms in small countries struggle. The Bill does not establish independent arbitration or dispute resolution. Once again, the UK Government will act as both participant and final arbiter and will, as usual, find in their own favour.
This legislation confirms what many of us already know: the current system of joint working between the UK Government and devolved Administrations is not fit for purpose. It does nothing to guarantee high regulatory standards. Instead, it creates incentives to lower standards. It prioritises the removal of potential barriers to trade at the expense of other public policy goals, such as health or the environment, regardless of the democratic decisions of the electorate in the devolved Administrations.
Andrew Bowie, Conservative MP for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, gave a stark warning in a recent newspaper article. He said,
“this Internal Market Bill, is just the start. The UK Government is back in Scotland. Get used to it.”
If ever a wedge would serve to divide the United Kingdom, this is it. We cannot in all conscience allow this dreadful legislation to be rushed through Parliament. We must ask the Government to think again.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, my first duty is to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sarfraz, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, on two excellent maiden speeches. It is not always like this, by the way. In his speech today, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury made it clear that we are an unelected second Chamber with a mainly advisory and revisory role, but along with those responsibilities is another power, rarely used but very important.
In 2006, along with my noble friend Lord Tyler, I sat on a Joint Committee of both Houses set up to examine the conventions that govern the relations between both Houses, and between Parliament and Government. The report and recommendations of that committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Cunningham, were adopted by overwhelming votes of both Houses and stand as the basic rules of the conventions between them—not Salisbury/Addison, but the Cunningham conventions. Paragraph 281 of that report said about the powers of the House of Lords:
“Nothing in these recommendations would alter the … right of the House … in exceptional circumstances, to vote against the Second Reading or passing of any Bill”.
It is that right to say no that stops this House being simply a debating society. In the 110 years since the first major reform of this House, its most passionate defenders have argued that the Lords was the safety catch to prevent an abuse of power by a temporary majority in the other place. A constant in all our deliberations has been the special responsibility of this House to uphold the rule of law.
Over the next two days we are considering a Bill on which a Minister of the Crown in the other place admitted a proposed breach of the UK’s international obligations, and where the Government’s senior law officer in this House, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, has resigned rather than be at the Dispatch Box today to try to defend it. When all five living ex-Prime Ministers express concerns about the Bill; when the joint briefing on it from the Law Society and the Bar Council calls for the removal of the offending clauses; when the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law says that these clauses are in fundamental opposition to the rule of law and damage our standing internationally; and when our own Select Committee on the Constitution calls in aid the late Lord Bingham and states:
“We agree with Lord Bingham that respect for the rule of law requires respect for international law”,
one is bound to ask whether this House could ever have before it legislation which better fits the term “exceptional circumstances” than that before us today.
I will vote for the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and it will undoubtedly be carried tomorrow. It does not, however, use the power of this House to remove the offending clauses—Clauses 44, 45 and 47—from the Bill. In that respect, it will allow us to go home feeling good but without having changed the mischief in the Bill.
I am clear that we should refuse this Bill a Second Reading, but am told by my more herbivorous colleagues that the Bill should go to Committee. I hope that during its passage through Committee and Report we will see an amendment to remove the offending clauses, and that, however many times it is brought back, this House will say no. If this is not an “exceptional circumstance” as set out in the 2006 report, I fail to see when this House will ever summon up the courage to use that power. Those who have a contempt for our parliamentary democracy and the rule of law will be emboldened by our failure, and this House will be diminished in the process.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]
My Lords, I too welcome the noble Lord, Lord Sarfraz, whom I have had the pleasure of meeting already, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock. I hope to work with her on the environment and animal welfare; that would be fantastic.
My noble friend Lady Bennett cannot be here this evening. She would like me to explain that we are dividing this Bill between us and she will speak on the internal and devolution issues. She abhors the destruction by this Bill of the rights of democratic devolution that have been embraced and exercised by the people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Scotland has long had a distinct education system with higher qualification standards for teachers. The Senedd too has plans for better control of single-use plastics than we have managed here in England.
I, therefore, will focus on international and rule of law issues in the Bill. First, I congratulate the Constitution Committee on its wonderful report on this Bill. I read it through and laughed with pleasure. I thank the committee for that. This debate has been extremely interesting because I did not think that anyone would have the audacity to defend this Bill, apart from the Minister. The Constitution Committee expressed the problem in relation to the law very well when it said:
“Society cannot afford to take this principle for granted or acquiesce in its violation. The rule of law is essential to an open and democratic society and the institutions which embody and protect it. Any Government that seeks to secure widespread compliance with the law must itself adhere to it”.
It is indicative that there are two amendments. One of them is from the Convenor of the Cross Benches, who is a former Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, and the other is from a Peer who was a Conservative MP for 40 years. These are hardly rebels of the usual kind. The Government have some cheek to introduce the Bill now, because it is less than a year since they campaigned on Boris’s deal as their main election gambit. This House passed that deal in recognition of the fact that the Government had won the election and it was a quasi-referendum on the deal itself. Now the Government come to Parliament to try to unpick key provisions of the deal that they themselves negotiated.
It is too easy to get bogged down in seeing this as the narrow political issue around Brexit and Boris’s deal; it is much deeper than that. I say to those few noble Lords who have talked about remoaners that I voted for Brexit yet I am deeply unhappy with the Bill. The Government are trying to use the principle of parliamentary sovereignty to justify this course of action. That is wrong. A classic example of parliamentary sovereignty is that nothing stops Parliament from passing a law to ban Frenchmen from smoking in the streets of Paris, but it would have no effect. Parliament has the power to pass legislation that violates international laws and agreements, but that does not mean that it is justified in doing so. There is, therefore, scope for your Lordships’ House to amend the Bill to remove the offending provisions. If, however, this Bill cannot be sufficiently amended, our role as guardians of the constitution will require us to reject the Bill in its entirety. I will of course support the amendment.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I join in the congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and my noble friend Lord Sarfraz on their maiden speeches, which I much enjoyed. I hope they enjoy this House as much as I have. I also hope they listened to my noble friend Lord Cavendish of Furness, who gave a slight word of warning that we have lost many of our friends in the other place, and we have not made any new ones, so our future is not quite as straightforward as we might all hope.
I want to talk about the extremely shabby way in which my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie was treated by this House and by others in the Government. He was a very fine lawyer, and probably one of the best Advocates-General for Scotland that we have ever seen. Those are not my words; they were the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, earlier today. We have lost an extremely able man, and the contributions of rather lesser men in your Lordships’ House have contributed to him being removed from office. I do not think that that has done any great favours to our House, or to Scotland.
In previous Administrations in which I served, in a very junior capacity, we always had problems of how you interpret legal situations. A tremendous onus is put on our law officers to decide whether things are legal or illegal. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, made reference to this, with respect to his time as Attorney-General under a Labour Government.
My noble and learned friend Lord Keen, on 15 September, made it absolutely clear that he thought the Internal Market Bill, which we are now considering, was within our obligations under the withdrawal agreement and was legal. A number of noble Lords have chosen during this debate to try to obscure that fact and say that somehow my noble and learned friend Lord Keen was conflicted. He was not. He said on that occasion that
“the EU has materially breached its treaty obligations and … we find that it may have acted in such a way as to fundamentally alter our obligations under the treaties.”—[Official Report, 15/9/20; col. 1131.]
So he was quite unequivocal on the fact that the Government were acting completely legally over this, and he was the law officer.
In my opinion, what he was referring to—these are my words—was the fact that the EU had decided to say that the border in the Irish Sea should remain even if we left the EU with no deal. That, of course, would have undermined completely the single market of the United Kingdom and was totally unacceptable to this country. So it seems quite straightforward that my noble and learned friend Lord Keen considered the actions of the Government to be legal.
Therefore, we have to ask what on earth my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was doing when he said that in some way this was a minor infringement or a technical matter that was only slightly illegal. I do not think that things can be slightly illegal—they are either legal or illegal—and I do not really know what Brandon Lewis was doing. He was actually called to the Bar himself in his youth. Why did he not question what he was doing by getting up and saying that this was only slightly illegal? That is rather like the curate’s egg—excellent in parts—or a woman saying that she is only half-pregnant.
At the end of the day, the advice that should have been taken by this Government was from its law officers. There may be many noble Lords in your Lordships’ House who do not agree with the judgment of my noble and learned friend Lord Keen, but he said that this was legal, I believe it to be legal, and for that reason I shall be voting against the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and supporting the Bill.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab) [V]
Let me join with others in welcoming new Members to this House. I hope that they will have as happy and fulfilling a time as I have had.
I wanted to express my respect and admiration for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and other noble Lords who have spoken up for the rule of law and our obligations under international law.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
We cannot hear you. Can somebody please try to change the sound for you, and we will come back to you?
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
In view of the difficulties experienced by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, we will move on to the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane.
Lord Lisvane (CB) [V]
There is so much wrong with this Bill that it is hard to know where to start—apart from, of course, warmly congratulating and welcoming today’s maiden speakers, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and the noble Lord, Lord Sarfraz.
I will make three points. First, on the use—or, I should say, abuse—of delegated powers, the Delegated Powers Committee has done its usual excellent job. It notes that this Bill contains 11 delegated powers and describes some as “extraordinary” and others as “unprecedented”. There are seven Henry VIII powers, allowing Ministers simply to rewrite primary legislation, with a much lower level of parliamentary scrutiny and public exposure. Overall, the Bill exemplifies the decline in the legislative process that I have observed for nearly half a century. Now it is, I fear, a disaster area, which the promised Constitution, Democracy and Rights Commission should examine as a high priority—although I have little hope that it will do so, or will be allowed to do so.
Secondly, on the Bill’s effect on the devolution settlement, it has successfully united three of the constituent parts of the—presently—United Kingdom in a chorus of execration at what they see as an attempt to undermine the devolution settlements and change the nature and scope of reserved powers. Noble Lords are expressing strong views on this aspect, but I simply draw your Lordships’ attention to the Act of Union Bill that I introduced towards the end of the last Parliament, in which the Constitution Reform Group chaired by Lord Salisbury seeks a more effective and equitable settlement between the constituent parts of the United Kingdom. A moment ago, I described it as the “presently” United Kingdom. I do not think that history will deal kindly with an Administration who contrive to take us out of not one union but two.
I conclude with the rule of law issues. Yes, Parliament can legislate in the way proposed—of course it can—but it should not and, I suggest, must not. The rule of law is not something just for lawyers and academics; it is for us all. As my noble and gallant friend Lord Stirrup said, if I break the Covid-19 restrictions, will the Government come to my aid when I say, “Yes, I was breaking the law, but only in a specific and limited way”? The attempt to present the law-breaking powers in the Bill as more acceptable by making them subject to approval by the House of Commons is naive. It is as though I were to say to your Lordships, “I have a revolver—but don’t worry, it’s empty. I’ve given the ammunition to a friend of mine. But when I ask, he’ll give it back and I’ll put the rounds into the weapon.” The answer is, of course, that I should not have the revolver in the first place.
I shall certainly vote for my noble and learned friend Lord Judge’s amendment, and when the Bill goes back to the Commons it should do so without at least Part 5. What happens then? I agree with my noble friend Lord Butler that this is an issue on which your Lordships should be prepared for a bumpy ride. It would not be possible to use the Parliament Acts in the time available, so the Government would have to rethink their approach.
Please let us have no chuntering about the Salisbury/Addison convention. In 2006, the Joint Committee on Conventions of the UK Parliament acknowledged the change in the nature of the convention over time—hardly surprising as it arose from very specific circumstances 75 years ago—but it still linked the convention only to manifesto commitments, with a reserve responsibility of this House in exceptional circumstances, as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, reminded us. No one could seriously suggest that departing from the rule of law has received electoral approval. I suggest that your Lordships should not be deterred by any assertions of unconstitutionality. If there is unconstitutionality anywhere, it is in this Bill.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I believe we can now hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
I am very sorry if people could not hear me. I hope noble Lords can hear me now.
I start by welcoming our new Members to the House. I also add my respect and admiration for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and all noble Lords who have spoken in support of the rule of law. I would have thought that all of us would be committed to it.
Some of our colleagues have mentioned our role as a revising and scrutinising House, but our role goes beyond that. Those of us who have the fortune to be in this House are stewards of the constitution. We are also the protectors of the rule of law. We are the people who guard rights and preserve for future generations the things that really sustain this society. We are also the people who are supposed to look at the long term when government may be pressed into or encouraged to think short term.
I urge this House to support the amendment from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. I am a director of the International Bar Association as well as a practitioner at the English Bar, and I recently hosted two webinars on this very Bill. Thousands of lawyers attended not just from the United Kingdom but from around the world. One of the webinars was on the impact on international law, and another on the effects here in the United Kingdom.
The legal profession in this country is united in its opposition to the Bill—the Bar Council, the Law Society, the lawyers and judges. Let me tell you, it is a very small club indeed who think that this Bill does not contravene the rule of law. It seems to me to be following a regrettable trend of undermining law more generally. We are seeing attacks on lawyers and the judiciary, and an effort to undermine the judiciary and its discretion. We are also seeing attacks on judicial review and other aspects of law.
When the webinars took place, international lawyers, much to my surprise, engaged from all over the world, shocked at the fact that Britain was doing this. They said, “It’s to you that we look when we are having difficulties with our own Governments. It’s to you in the United Kingdom that we look as the standard bearer for the rule of law.” One of our distinguished commercial judges, recently retired, said that the City’s position as a world-leading financial services centre is underpinned by our reputation in law. That is not something to play around with, even if you are doing it for a pragmatic reason rather than out of principle. As one or two other noble Lords have said, this is a matter of principle, and I believe that principle at times has to take precedence over party loyalty.
In one of the webinars, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, reminded us that we are asking a lot of our citizens in the United Kingdom at this time because of the pandemic. We are asking them to abide by certain rules that constrict their lives. We are asking them to obey the law. That our Government should be dismissive of law and be prepared to break the law at this time sends a very bad message. The Government should listen and remove the offending clauses and the whole of Part 5. I am afraid that to disregard the law is really a very poor prospect for this country.
Lord Alderdice (LD) [V]
My Lords, my perspectives are shaped by my Northern Ireland roots and the implications that I draw from Part 5 of this dangerous Bill.
The inevitable consequence of Brexit was a series of difficulties with the Belfast Good Friday agreement, which had brought to an end not only 30 years of terrorism but a disturbed historical relationship with Ireland that went back many centuries. Those of us who spent many years of our lives negotiating and implementing that agreement had assumed that if we could find a new future for the people of our islands, we could find a way of maintaining our relationships with the rest of the European Union. However, when it became apparent that Brexit was the will of a majority of people in England and Wales, the challenge was to negotiate arrangements that would maintain the Good Friday agreement while taking the UK out of the European Union and at the same time hold together the constitutional union of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Since Northern Ireland’s relationship with the rest of the UK and Ireland was already a singular one, it was clear that there would be significant challenges, especially if the British Government chose to leave the customs union and the single market. This was widely discussed in Northern Ireland during the referendum campaign and was probably the chief reason why the Ulster Unionist Party became pro-remain.
When Mr Johnson became Prime Minister, he and his party, including the members of the European Research Group, abandoned their Democratic Unionist allies and, last October, signed up for the revised protocol for Northern Ireland that Mr Johnson had negotiated. The DUP was betrayed, but Mr Johnson went on to fight the election on what he called
“a good arrangement, reconciling the special circumstances in Northern Ireland with the minimum possible bureaucratic consequences at a few points of arrival in Northern Ireland.”
The Conservative Party won the December 2019 general election, its manifesto based on the “great new deal” that the Prime Minister said he had done. Now, in presenting this Bill for the approval of your Lordships’ House, he has abandoned the commitment to the British people on which he was elected and seeks to break not only his manifesto commitment but international law. We should not be surprised; the Prime Minister has been entirely consistent—he has never felt the need to be bound by any commitments that he makes to people, nor by any rules or law. He was even prepared to mislead Her Majesty the Queen into approving a prorogation of Parliament, advice ruled to be unlawful.
Now he wants the rest of us in Parliament to collude with him in a flagrant breach of international law. That creates a constitutional crisis. While this House should generally restrict itself to giving advice to the Government of the day, I believe it has a responsibility of constitutional guardianship that is now being called into play by the Government’s premeditated breach of international law. Even the tabling of the Bill is a breach.
It is possible in the short term to toss facts, truth and the law to the side, but as this Government are beginning to discover, truth, facts, the law and broken relationships have a way of coming back to bite. Bluster, hyperbole and waving one’s arms around do not impress the Covid-19 virus; nor, increasingly, do they convince ordinary people in this country.
When one manifestly does the wrong thing—not making a mistake, but doing what is morally wrong and unjustifiable—history will find you out. Members of your Lordships’ House who support this Government’s disregard for the law should reflect on how past leaders have been hauled before the bar of history and their reputations irreparably shredded. Today’s remarkable debate in your Lordships’ House may even be the beginning of the end of this Government, for this is not a mistake or a misjudgment but a consistent pattern of behaviour that must be stopped before it destroys our United Kingdom.
Lord Barwell (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and the noble Lord, Lord Sarfraz, on their maiden speeches and for their extreme skill in staying uncontroversial on this most controversial of topics.
I find myself in a curious position today, wanting to defend a withdrawal agreement, parts of which I strongly disagree with. Those of your Lordships who know my background will know that I preferred a different withdrawal agreement, negotiated by the former Prime Minister. The current Prime Minister, and many members of the Government, opposed that withdrawal agreement and the backstop within it because, they argued, there was no way out of it and it would be unthinkable for the United Kingdom to break international law. What was once unthinkable is now government policy. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, said, we are being asked in Part 5 to give Ministers powers to break the law—powers to override an agreement that was agreed not in some dim and distant past but just a few months ago.
What justification are we offered for that course of action? We have had two. The Prime Minister, in an article, said that these were incredibly turbulent times; it was all done in a bit of a rush and now some problems have come to light. It is also being suggested to us that the EU has been unreasonable. I will leave it to your Lordships to decide whether you believe that the EU’s approach is unreasonable—I doubt I will convince anybody on that point—but I will say that it has been entirely consistent from the word go. The EU has argued that there could be no free trade agreement without a resolution of the issues in Ireland and Northern Ireland and that the UK could never have a Canada-style agreement because of our geographical proximity. The issues that have come to light, and which this Bill seeks to address in relation to customs or exit declarations for goods coming from Northern Ireland to Great Britain, or to state aid, have not materialised overnight: they are in the withdrawal agreement. The Explanatory Notes of the Bill say that they are in the withdrawal agreement, so these are consequences of the agreement that the Prime Minister signed. They are consequences that were pointed out by those of us who had reservations about that agreement at the point at which it was agreed.
As has been made very clear, there was no need to take the course that the Government have taken in this Bill. Article 16 of the withdrawal agreement provides a procedure to use if the agreement leads to economical, societal or environmental difficulties, where parties can take unilateral action.
None of these things is the real reason for what has happened here. The real reason is that David Frost, the Prime Minister’s chief negotiator, asked No. 10 to come up with something that would shift the EU in its negotiating position. My noble friend Lord Hamilton asked why the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said what he said. He said those words because he was told to say them. The opposition of this House, of five former Prime Ministers and of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury is what Number 10 wanted: it wanted to demonstrate to the European Union the extent to which it was prepared to take a different approach from all previous Governments.
I will end by making two very brief points. First, I am not a lawyer, but you do not have to be a lawyer to think that the rule of law matters. This is not some abstract concept: it has real world consequences. On Friday, Moody’s downgraded the UK’s credit rating; it referred to the weakening of the UK’s institutions of governance in recent years.
Finally, the tragedy of this Bill and the situation that we find ourselves in as a country is that the reason why the Brexit negotiations have proved so difficult is that the EU believed all along that the UK might end up breaching faith. I well recall a meeting with EU officials that I attended with Theresa May, where she asked why the backstop had to be set out in all that operational difficulty. She was told, “Because, bluntly, we do not think you will be there for much longer and we do not trust what is going to follow in terms of living up to any commitments.” That is the tragedy of this Bill. This behaviour was predicted and is one of the reasons why we confront this problem. Let us hope that we reach a deal, that the Government can withdraw these clauses and that we can find a satisfactory way out of this situation in which we now find ourselves.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is a real pleasure to follow such an impressive speech by the noble Lord, Lord Barwell. For myself, I wish to concentrate on the consequences of this Bill for the devolution settlement. I am aware that this issue might seem to be a sideshow compared with Part 5 of the Bill—perhaps a moment, especially for those of your Lordships who, like me, are participating virtually, to go away and do something else. However, like so many others, I urge your Lordships to take notice of it and take it very seriously.
Frictionless trade across all parts of the United Kingdom is, of course, what we all wish and must aim for, but this depends on the principles of co-operation and on mutual trust between all four nations. As presently drafted, the Bill and the way it has been introduced is deeply damaging to those principles. Mutual trust between the nations has never been lower than it is now: Scotland has refused to give legislative consent to the Bill and Wales, as we have heard, has indicated that it cannot give consent to the Bill in its present form. Of course, this Parliament can do what it likes, but a different approach is essential if the union is to hold together against a growing trend towards fragmentation that will—if this Government are not very careful—bring our precious union to an end.
The devolution settlements were guided by the market access principles of proportionality and subsidiarity that operate under EU law. There was room for a carefully worked out devolution of legislative power which enabled the devolved authorities to pursue their own legitimate policy aims as to the sale of goods where, in their judgment, this was in the public interest. Nobody doubts that the way this freedom has been handled works well at present. It is not in any way a barrier to trade between our nations; on the contrary, it has real benefits. It enables new trading policies to be tried out in one area before the rest. The Bill itself accepts that such divergences as exist at present can remain.
However, the Bill seeks to replace the freedom to develop local standards or separate policy aims in the future with centrally driven, overriding market principles. It does not seek to repeal the various exceptions to the list of reserved powers that are set out in the statutes, but its effect would be the same, as there would be no stopping traders bringing goods in from other areas that do not conform to the home area’s rules. The devolved powers are rendered worthless by this new system. UK Ministers are given powers to do things which contravene the devolution settlements without consultation, let alone consent. The opportunity to create an internal market by agreement through the continued development of common frameworks—about which the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, spoke so well earlier today—is being undermined because it is being ignored. The common frameworks are not even mentioned in the Bill.
The effect of the Bill has been described as a “power grab” by the Scottish National Party. I am not given to hyperbole—which I thought this was—but now, having read the Bill and the well-founded and withering report of the Constitution Committee, I can see why this expression is being used by them and now in Wales too. There is something very far wrong here; that is the challenge that we face. We do not need this Bill, but if we have to have it, it must be put right.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Sarfraz, a dynamic entrepreneur, on a very fine maiden speech, and also the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock. I look forward to the noble Baroness boosting the parliamentary choir and hearing a bit more about that Welsh farm.
I rise to pursue two points. First, I want to address the operation of the internal market provisions. Secondly, I will comment on the great issue of the day and provide some much-needed support for the Government’s position.
The Bill makes a great deal of sense. We need the internal market to function smoothly. As we leave the EU single market, our own UK single market will be even more important. As an economist by training, I believe in the theory of comparative advantage, and that applies across the UK. We need to avoid protectionist measures so, for example, the Scots and English can exchange Scotch whisky and London gin without hindrance or charge. I apologise for resorting to GCSE economics, but the point is a very important one, and it is equally valid for services—80% of the economy. I declare my interests in the register.
That does not mean small variations in law need to be prevented. The Scots have different rules on minimum alcohol pricing and the Welsh were early regulators on plastic bags—both areas in which I am interested—and that has worked fine. However, devolution can only go so far, or it will harm the common interest immeasurably.
I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on producing an impact assessment, and his help with getting the promoters of the agriculture and fisheries Bills to do the same. However, it is disappointingly light on numbers. I think a better effort could have been made at economic assessment and the dynamics of growth—or lack of it, without a proper free market—and that this would have shown how vital the UK internal market measures in the Bill in fact are.
I also have a question for my noble friend. Why has the Competition and Markets Authority been chosen to gather information and monitor the new arrangements in a fancy new Office for the Internal Market? I can see the advantage in terms of recruitment and retention at the CMA. However, the CMA is much more focused on the consumer than on business success and, at a time when we face grave economic difficulties, I find this worrying. It is also a politically charged area, so does it really make sense to delegate these vital powers to a supposedly independent body? PHE and Ofqual spring to mind as not wholly satisfactory analogies.
Much has been said about Part 5 of the Bill. I agree that in principle this approach is undesirable. However, there is at least a theoretical possibility that EU action could place the UK in an impossible position as regards the coherence of its own internal market. If that came to pass, we would be presented with a very unpleasant choice. I am sorry to say this, but the real problem stems from the nature of the withdrawal agreement which the present Prime Minister inherited in an extremely unsatisfactory state from the previous Administration. As my noble friend Lord Howell hinted, the UK-EU joint committee has not stepped up to the mark in resolving the issues for whatever reason, as it would have done had everybody acted in good faith.
So having a safety-net provision in the Bill for use in extremis, and only after a special parliamentary vote, is probably the least damaging way forward. The fact is that treaty requirements sometimes conflict with each other and some member states fail to observe important treaty provisions, such as the Maastricht criteria, as my noble friend Lord Lamont reminded us so eloquently earlier today.
Lord Hendy (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. I too welcome my noble friend Lady Hayman and the noble Lord, Lord Sarfraz, to the House, and I compliment them on their excellent speeches.
Like so many other noble Lords, I share the view that the Bill would cause this country to be in breach of the rule of law. Having spent over 40 years in practice at the Bar, over 30 of them in silk, I consider myself, like other Queen’s Counsel in this House, to be under a duty to oppose the Bill on that ground. I support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, in his amendment but shall not weary the House by repeating in a pedestrian way the arguments so elegantly and powerfully put by him and others.
I wish to raise another, different point. The Bill seeks to create a uniform internal market for goods and services, but it says nothing about the protection of those who actually make or provide the goods and services—the workers of the United Kingdom and beyond. I use the term “worker” as a lawyer, meaning someone who works for a living whether under a contract of service or a contract for services. The EU single market, from which this Bill takes inspiration, had much in the way of protection of affected workers; the Bill has nothing.
I accept that labour law—the law of the workplace—is not a devolved matter and therefore applies across the UK, with minor variations in Scotland and Northern Ireland, but that does not avoid the issue of social dumping. It is entirely foreseeable that measures are taken in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to protect workers in those countries from being undercut in England or abroad.
Let us take, for example, agriculture. In 2013, the coalition Government abolished the Agricultural Wages Board for England and Wales—a negotiating body representing employers and workers—the agreements of which on wages, housing costs, and, of course, dog allowances, became binding on every farmer and farm worker in England and Wales. The board was originally set up in 1924, a daughter of the Trade Boards Act 1909. Scotland retained its AWB. The Welsh Government, having lost the AWB for England and Wales, set up their own under their devolved power over agriculture. The UK Government considered it intolerable that Wales should exercise this kind of sovereignty to maintain higher pay rates for its farm workers and therefore challenged the Welsh Government in the courts, a case they ultimately lost in the Supreme Court. Wales therefore now retains its own AWB.
In consequence of the Covid catastrophe, there will be more such differential measures of worker protection. Even before Covid, the Welsh and Scottish Governments considered the use of conditions attached to public procurement contracts in order to enhance worker protection and develop social dialogue with trade unions —a concept alien to the Government in Westminster. This Bill should make provision to permit national Governments to discriminate on goods and services in order to maintain labour standards, as well as on the grounds set out in Schedule 1. I propose to move an amendment to this effect in Committee, should the Bill proceed.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is always good to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hendy. I start by welcoming and congratulating the two excellent maiden speakers. I doubt they were as nervous as I am making my maiden remote Zoom speech.
I shall vote for the amendment to the Motion moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. Like him and so many others who have spoken in this remarkable debate, I deplore Clauses 42 to 47 in Part 5, and I express my deep regret that our great country, champion for centuries of the rule of law, domestically and internationally, has reached the point of prospectively repudiating binding treaty obligations entered into less than a year ago. The damage to our international reputation and standing needs no additional emphasis from me. Similarly, I note the damage to our prospects of finding—as we now need to—trusting new treaty partners and, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, to London’s standing as the economically very valuable centre of international legal practice and dispute resolution by both litigation and arbitration.
I now turn to a rather different aspect of Part 5. It is my contention that these clauses are not merely unlawful and, therefore, intrinsically objectionable in principle; they are quite unnecessary—unless, quite outrageously, they are in the Bill merely to shift the dial to try to bully the EU into a more helpful stance, as the noble Lord, Lord Barwell, suggested. Assuming that they are in the Bill for “good faith” reasons, I strongly agree with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, that, were it ever to be necessary to legislate to breach international law, that should follow—not, as here, precede—that need.
However, I would go further and say it never would be necessary. I will explain why. Naturally, I recognise the imperative under the protocol that it applies to honour and not imperil the Belfast agreement and that it does not destroy the essential unity and integrity of the United Kingdom internal market. This requires reaching a sensible, workable agreement by negotiation or, if necessary, the decision of the joint committee under Article 16 on, for example, what are reasonably to be regarded as “goods at risk”.
However—and this is really the crunch point—if the Government say they truly fear the EU playing hardball on the wider negotiations, threatening to act quite unreasonably or acting in bad faith in its interpretation and application of the protocol, then, instead of our pre-emptively breaking, as these clauses do, the agreement ourselves, we would be able to treat them as being in breach. This would entitle us not merely to invoke, as we would, the dispute resolution mechanism provided for but, in the meantime, temporarily and pending the eventual outcome of any arbitration, to take all necessary and proportionate measures to protect our fundamental interests, which obviously include the Belfast agreement.
That is it: both parties owe the “good faith” obligations and that is plain under Article 5 of the Vienna convention. Neither side is entitled to act unreasonably, such as to frustrate the essential object of the agreement. With those thoughts in mind, it seems not merely outrageous in principle but, in fact, ultimately absurd to include provisions that could never be properly required given that there is, as the Government fear, bad faith on the EU side.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and the noble Lord, Lord Sarfraz, on their excellent maiden speeches in this Second Reading debate.
This is the first debate I have taken part in where I have had the opportunity for a dinner break and the chance to discuss with colleagues how the Bill is progressing. One remarked, interestingly, that you know the Government are in trouble when they are condemned by a former Lord Chief Justice and the Archbishop of Canterbury before the debate has barely got going. However, maybe something can be salvaged in this debate.
The first point that all noble Lords must remember is that, leaving aside the controversial Part 5 and Clause 47, the Bill is still important and necessary. We need an internal market Bill after Brexit. As the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, remarked earlier, we had an internal market in this country for 300 years, and it was effectively taken over when we joined the European Economic Community. Now, as we leave the European Union, the Government must make provision to restore the union and the internal market that existed before we became members of that community. It is my impression that although there is a lot of politics surrounding some of the provisions for replacing the internal market, none of the devolved Assemblies will lose powers that they already have. They will have the same powers when the Bill is passed. In that sense, the glass is half full.
There are, of course, some very controversial measures in the Bill and they are entirely of the Government’s own making. We face a conundrum which has been present ever since the country voted for Brexit and we started looking at how to implement the referendum result: either to have a border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, or a border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. The then Prime Minister, Theresa May, tried to find a way out of that conundrum, and did so very elegantly by seeking to keep us within the customs union. When I was in the other place, I voted for her withdrawal agreement—I was fond of remarking to some of my more ideological colleagues that I had voted for Brexit more times than they had. The Government then decided to return to a form of Brexit which brings us to where we are today: potentially having to choose, inevitably, between a border between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom and a border between Ireland and Northern Ireland.
Again, however, my glass gets slightly fuller, because I think that there may be a way out of this impasse. We know that, despite the confrontational attitude that seems to be adopted now by both sides, who are negotiating the future of millions of people in this country and the rest of the European Union, there is a potential way forward and we may have a free trade agreement. The European Union has said that it will hold a special Council in order to achieve that. I very much hope that that will come about. If it does not, and the provisions in the Bill reach a conclusion without a free trade agreement, we will face some very serious consequences. If, as I hope, we are able to preserve the internal market in the United Kingdom, but we do so under the provisions of the Bill without a free trade agreement, it is inevitable that we will get a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, either one that Ireland itself feels it has to impose or one that the European Union chooses to impose on its behalf. That will be extremely damaging for everyone in this country.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
My Lords, among the historic speeches today, including superb maiden speeches, I venture to address Part 1, on the application of market access principles to goods and public health. The Government say that this part of the Bill is necessary to ensure that no new barriers to trade arise after the end of EU transition, but how might such barriers arise given that, on 1 January, the whole UK will be governed by retained EU law? The current legal frameworks which limit but do not eliminate the rights of the devolved institutions to implement progressive policies in areas such as food safety or labelling will still be in place, but I expect that the Government will warn that barriers could arise from new policy initiatives from the devolved Governments. That is why they propose automatic application of market access, meaning that any goods which can be legally sold in one nation must automatically be offered for sale across the whole UK. What does this mean in practice? If, for example, the Welsh Government wish to change food labelling to improve warnings on sugar or fat content, or want to ban sugary fizzy drinks, they could in theory still do so, but the law would be wholly ineffective because products legally made in, or imported into, England and which did not comply could be freely sold in Cardiff and Caernarfon. This would neuter the ability of the elected legislatures in Cardiff, Edinburgh and Belfast to act within their devolved competences.
There is no imminent threat which renders this measure necessary. For the past three years, all four Governments have worked to create common frameworks in those areas which the Government here in Westminster identified as requiring limits on the extent to which any one part of the UK could diverge from the standards that we will inherit through retained EU laws. Quietly, and without any publicity in this House, good progress has been made on developing these voluntary frameworks, which will bind all Governments by each forswearing the right to diverge too greatly. A great deal of work has been undertaken by the committee chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, and was reported to the House on 24 September. Now, this Bill renders all that work superfluous.
The Government, representing the overwhelming share of the UK economy, are reneging on their commitment to the agreed frameworks. They can do whatever they want and whatever they agree in a trade deal without consulting the devolved Administrations. The Bill stops the devolved Governments adopting more progressive policies. It suddenly changes the rules of the game from those agreed and seems to tear up the common frameworks approach that the devolved Administrations have supported. Amendments in my name would protect these negotiated common frameworks and ensure that market access principles were used only when all efforts to agree a common framework had failed.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, has withdrawn from the debate, so I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley.
Baroness Crawley (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and the noble Lord, Lord Sarfraz, and commend their excellent contributions today.
This Bill comes to us with a reputation rather like that of the Vikings: dangerous, unloved, little respect for the law and disrespect for the kingdoms of Great Britain—it obviously leaves out pillaging, for which much thanks.
First, I add my voice to the rising chorus against Part 5 of the Bill, which as we know allows parts of the Ireland/Northern Ireland protocol to be disapplied. The protocol, being part of the withdrawal agreement, is an international treaty and trumps—if noble Lords will excuse the expression—domestic law. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, is right: Part 5 must go. But, reply the Government, the EU is acting in bad faith. However, there is no evidence. Show us the evidence. There is no evidence at all for that, states the House of Lords European Union Committee. Are we really no longer a member of the international rules-based order—because I did not get the memo? Perhaps the Bill is the memo.
The Bill allows Ministers to make regulations that are inconsistent with the UK’s obligations under Article 4 of the withdrawal agreement. But, say the Government, we may never use these powers. We will just threaten to break the glass and pull the emergency cord, meanwhile not actually being in breach of the state aid and customs provisions of the Northern Ireland protocol.
Ireland, our nearest and most important trading partner, does not agree. On the Government’s claims that these disapplying provisions are needed as a safety net against the possibility of a no-deal Brexit, the Irish Government have been very clear that the protocol is designed and empowered to operate in all circumstances, including the absence of an agreement on the future relationship between the EU and the UK. The UK Government may disregard the views of the Irish Government, but they may wish to take notice of the House of Lords Constitution and European Union Committees. Their recommendations on this sorry Bill are damning—to say nothing of the views of the Anglican Church.
I make my second and final point as a member of the new House of Lords Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee. My noble friend Lady Andrews and many other noble Lords made strong arguments that common frameworks are better instruments for creating the new internal market than is the Bill. Indeed, the Government themselves said that common frameworks, and the programme that they imply, would in fact map out the area of the UK internal market. These frameworks, whether on food safety, emissions trading, company law or whatever, have been worked up in partnership with the devolved Administrations. Although they are based on regulatory consistency, they respect the flexibility of the devolved settlements, as did the EU. Could the Minister say why the Government are not putting their energy into these consensual frameworks, rather than this divisive Bill?
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I add my congratulations and welcome to the maiden speakers, whom I look forward to getting to know. I sincerely thank our committees, on the constitution, EU affairs and delegated powers, for their expert and powerful reports. Part 5 of the Bill, with its attempt to override an international law commitment, in an agreement the Government themselves signed and then enshrined in domestic law less than a year ago, is breath-taking. The comment by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that the Bill breaks international law
“in a specific and limited way”
is destined to go down in history alongside “economical with the truth”.
It was commendable, if regrettable, that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, felt compelled to resign, as did the Treasury Solicitor Sir Jonathan Jones. I regret that this means we do not have a law officer here to answer the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, pithily summed up the situation in testimony to the Constitution Committee when he said of the Bill that
“the constitutional position is that it is an outrage, and the political position is that it is hugely damaging to our reputation internationally.”
The Constitution Committee concluded that Part 5 clauses
“represent a disregard for the rule of law”.
The Bill is only one aspect of the cavalier attitude of Conservative Governments in the last few years to the law and constitutional convention. Examples include: trying to trigger Article 50 without parliamentary approval; illegal Prorogation; and launching attacks on lawyers as “lefty human rights lawyers”, “activists” and “do-gooders”. Was it a coincidence that a knifeman threatened to kill a solicitor last month?
Then they are grossly under-resourcing the justice system; and “taking back control” not for Parliament but for themselves, through an accumulation of executive power and overuse of statutory instruments, to the extent that the legal commentator for the Financial Times, David Allen Green, called it “government by decree”. He quoted Lord Hewart, a Liberal politician and judge who became Lord Chief Justice and who said, in his 1929 book The New Despotism:
“The strategy is different”—
from the “old despotism” of Charles I—
“but the goal is the same. It is to subordinate Parliament, to evade the Courts, and to render the will or the caprice of the Executive unfettered and supreme.”
It sounds very modern.
The Government’s claim that the Bill is simply an insurance policy or safety net has spectacularly backfired. As our EU Committee observed, it has
“in effect, placed the United Kingdom in the wrong”.
The EU responded accordingly by insisting on tougher enforcement provisions and sending a letter of formal notice—the first step in infringement proceedings. The Irish equality and human rights commissions from north and south, as well as the Anglican Primates, have expressed deep concern that the Irish protocol to the withdrawal agreement might be breached, and the human rights and equality provisions of the Good Friday agreement overridden.
The Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law notes:
“The ideal of Magna Carta—that no one is above the law—is a source of global inspiration”,
and the Bar Council and the Law Society highlight the prejudice to the position of London as a centre for international practice and dispute resolution, and to our attempt to accede to the Lugano Convention.
The 20th anniversary of Human Rights Act has just passed, and it is the 70th anniversary of European Convention on Human Rights in a few weeks. It was a Conservative lawyer and politician, Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, as he then was, who was largely instrumental in drafting the ECHR. It is shameful not only that the modern Conservative Party is weakening its commitment to the convention and the HRA, but that our Prime Minister had to be forced by the EU, in order to protect security ties, to pledge not to “materially alter the spirit”—whatever that means—of the Human Rights Act. This was billed as a “compromise” by Mr Johnson.
Part 5 of this Bill is a disgrace. The noble Lord, Lord Howard, was quite right to say that Parliament should fix this Bill and not leave it to the courts; hence the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, should be supported.
Lord Jay of Ewelme (CB) [V]
My Lords, there is much in the Internal Market Bill that I am happy to support, but I have two reservations. The first is devolution. Bringing back for settlement within the United Kingdom questions which have for a generation been settled at the level of the EU was always going to be difficult. This is particularly so if, as I suspect, the United Kingdom is moving in the direction of a federal state—one of the great ironies of Brexit. The right way forward must surely depend on genuine consultation and negotiation among all four countries of the union, as has been happening over common frameworks. The Bill seems to be putting all this unnecessarily—and, indeed, dangerously—at risk, for reasons I simply do not understand. So I look forward to the noble Lord, Lord True, explaining why tomorrow.
My second reservation relates to Part 5 of the Bill. I have read the reports of the EU Committee and the Constitution Committee, and the Bingham Centre’s analysis of the Bill, and I agree with every word of the letter from the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues. It is clear that Clauses 44, 45 and 47 would constitute a breach of international law and, as the Bingham Centre’s report makes clear:
“A breach of the rule of international law is still a breach of the Rule of Law.”
These clauses go against all that the United Kingdom has stood for, nationally and internationally, for as long as I can remember. How can we persuade other countries to observe the rule of law if we are willing to break it ourselves? These clauses not only contribute nothing to the Brexit negotiations—indeed, it seems to me, rather the reverse—but reduce the future effectiveness of global Britain. They must be removed from the draft Bill; meanwhile, I will be glad to support the Motion in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Judge tomorrow.
Baroness Stroud (Con)
My Lords, I begin by adding my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and the noble Lord, Lord Sarfraz, on their maiden speeches. I look forward to hearing further contributions from them both over many years.
The Bill, as we have heard, makes provision for the continuation of the UK’s single market when the transition period ends on 31 December. This single, unified, internal market is a key block in the constitutional foundations of the United Kingdom. It is my understanding that the 1707 Articles of Union between England and Scotland, and those between Great Britain and Ireland in 1800, abolished all customs duties between the different parts of the United Kingdom. Accordingly, free and uninterrupted commerce across all parts of the newly united kingdom were seen as one of the most important advantages of the Act of Union, particularly in Scotland and Ireland, the citizens of which could freely trade into and out of the larger English market.
When Ireland was partitioned and the separate Parliament of Northern Ireland was established, the Westminster Parliament was careful to ensure Northern Ireland and Great Britain should continue to remain a single, integrated, internal market. The devolved legislatures in Scotland and Wales were created after the UK had joined the European community. Because the EU single market rules on state aid and free movement of goods and services apply to regional governments and legislatures as well as the central governments of member states, there was no need, during our EU membership, for specific UK-based rules maintaining the UK internal market against fragmentation. Now that we are approaching the end of the transition period, a vehicle is needed to maintain the free flow of trade across the nation in the post-Brexit world.
As we are all aware, though, there are two clauses in particular that will be subject to much debate and have already been subject to much debate during the passage of this Bill. These would allow the Government to restrict the so-called direct effect of two parts of the Northern Ireland protocol, which is part of the EU withdrawal agreement. These clauses have the goals of protecting the basic functioning of the United Kingdom’s internal market, as it operates between Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the event that it is not possible to reach an agreement with the EU on the UK’s future relationship with it; and allowing state aid in Great Britain to be dispensed under a framework of rules devised in this country, rather than being subject to European Commission control and European Court of Justice jurisdiction.
During the passage of this Bill, it is my intention to focus on and scrutinise, first, the degree to which, under the UK’s constitutional law, international treaties in general do not form part of the law. It is my understanding that, when an international treaty has made it necessary to make changes to the UK’s internal law in order to comply with it, the general practice has been for Parliament to pass legislation to make any necessary changes to the law. Secondly, I want to focus on the degree to which the jurisdiction clauses represent a gross departure from normal international treaty practice, under which sovereign states simply do not accept binding rulings by the courts of the other treaty party and agree only to subject themselves to mutual international courts or tribunals. Thirdly, I shall look at the degree to which, as a matter of UK constitutional law, the UK Parliament is entitled to legislate to remove direct effect from part of, or, if it so chose, the whole of, an international treaty.
I look forward to engaging in the debate on this Bill and hope that, in doing so, we can find a way through that addresses the challenge this Bill seeks to address and remember that having UK law subordinated to EU law and ECJ rulings was one of the main drivers leading to the British people’s decision to leave the EU.
Lord Trevethin and Oaksey (CB) [V]
My Lords, while listening to the many powerful speeches condemning part 5 of this Bill, I have wondered how the arguments in favour of these controversial provisions might be best presented. First, the phrase “breach of international law” is a loose expression, and the Minister in the Commons might well wish now that he had not used it. What is being contemplated here is better defined as a breach of an obligation arising under an international treaty, which is a better way in which to define the matter. This is a familiar contractual problem of quite a familiar sort: one party to the agreement wants to tear up certain provisions that it does not like.
Secondly, it is probably accurate to say that the contemplated breach is potential, not actual. The Constitution Committee concluded in paragraph 152 of its report that this is an open question. The actual breach may occur only if the power to disapply parts of the Northern Ireland protocol is exercised. Therefore, it can be argued that there is no current breach of a treaty obligation, only something rather less objectionable: the equivalent of a solicitor’s letter saying: “We intend to continue negotiating in good faith, but you need to know that we reserve all rights and, in particular, the right—if we have it—to tear up parts of the present agreement that we do not like, if it seems to us necessary to do so”. This is close to being what English lawyers call a “repudiatory and anticipatory breach of contract”, but it is probably on just the right side of the line.
Thirdly, Article 184 of the agreement requires both parties to use their best endeavours, acting in good faith, to negotiate the agreements referred to in the political declaration. That obligation should be read as being informed by the recitals to the Irish protocol. These repay careful reading. In particular, the parties affirm that the Good Friday agreement
“should be protected in all its parts”.
There is ample scope for argument on what may follow from that. It may be argued, as the Government have already argued, albeit faintly and without particulars, that the EU has in various ways itself been in breach of this good faith obligation. Reserving the right to disapply certain provisions of the agreement at some future point is not properly characterised as an outrageous and unlawful threat to renege. It is something different— namely, making it clear that, if the EU persists in conduct which the UK regards as a breach of Article 184, the UK reserves its right to treat the agreement, or part of it, as terminated or suspended. That, it may be argued, is a right that exists under Article 60 of the Vienna convention, which provides that a material breach of a bilateral treaty entitles the innocent party to terminate the treaty or treat it as suspended, in whole or in part.
Fourthly, to move away from the law of contract, it might be said that dealings between the EU and the UK over the last four years have shown very clearly, that in zero-sum adversarial contractual negotiations, it is sometimes necessary to play with a hard ball. The speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, displayed hard-headed pragmatism which Mr Keynes surely would have admired. The noble Lord correctly observed that the most complex treaties involve constructive ambiguity and, often, a degree of what might be called “covert bad faith”.
Those are the arguments. I do not suppose that I have persuaded the noble and learned Lords, Lord Judge and Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, with whose speeches I agree, and I have not come close even to persuading myself that Part 5 of the Bill is defensible. Clause 47 is an astonishing provision. In that respect, I listened with dismay to the Lord Chancellor’s recent answers to questions put to him by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. The Government seem to be largely ignoring the details of exhaustive dispute resolution provisions in the agreement—in particular, in Article 168 —which makes it mandatory to use them. Theyhave not done much more than faintly to sketch a case that the EU has acted in bad faith; if they want to rely on that, they should set it out in detail. This is a very wobbly position from which to launch a case that the counterparty is acting in bad faith. In the absence of such a case, there is no legal justification for threatening to tear up part of the agreement. Accordingly, I regret Part 5 of the Bill, and add that, while this House must act in accordance with its perception of what the rule of law requires, it should also bear in mind the admonition of the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, that we risk weakening the hand of our negotiators.
Viscount Trenchard (Con) [V]
My Lords, I too would like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and my noble friend Lord Sarfraz on their excellent maiden speeches. I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on introducing this Bill under fire, so to speak. It builds upon the common frameworks approach to which the UK Government and the devolved authorities are sensibly committed in order to preserve the status quo of intra-UK free trade.
At the time of devolution for Scotland in 1997 and Wales in 1999, the United Kingdom Parliament was free only to devolve those parts of legislative competence that it, as a member state, still retained. High-level principles and frameworks in many areas had already been transferred by the member states to the union. The Scottish and Welsh Governments are now disingenuously arguing that responsibility for these high-level principles and frameworks should be transferred from Brussels to Edinburgh and Cardiff. Does my noble friend agree with the arguments advanced by Nick Timothy in his article in today’s Daily Telegraph entitled “Devolution is a Mess That Fails the Public and Endangers the Union”?
As I am not a lawyer, I should not presume to enter into discussion of the finer legal points. However, I would ask my noble friend if he agrees that the EU and the UK had already broken international law when they signed the withdrawal agreement in October 2019 because it was a breach of the conditions of the Lisbon treaty. According to the website of the European Union, Article 50 provides for the negotiation of a withdrawal agreement between the EU and the withdrawing state, defining in particular the latter’s future relationship with the union. The wording of the article itself refers to negotiation with the withdrawing state, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the union. However, that did not happen.
I do not think for one moment that the UK’s international reputation as a country that upholds the rule of law is placed at risk by this Bill. I believe the conclusion of the Bingham Centre—that this Bill has serious implications for the rule of law—is based on a narrow legal interpretation of the facts, ignoring the refusal of the EU to negotiate Article 50 and our withdrawal in accordance with the treaty provisions. Our acquiescence to the EU’s demands for the two-stage negotiation was surely predictably going to lead to the present impasse. The world knows that the UK is still negotiating to leave the EU. To suggest that our trade partners will be shocked or surprised by this turn of events is not true. Indeed, the Prime Minister has always been clear and consistent that we want a Canada-style trade agreement and that we will not agree to an internal border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, dividing the United Kingdom customs territory in two.
I have the highest regard for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, but I would ask him if he knows why the EU and the learned lawyers of the Bingham Centre have remained silent and expressed no outrage at the finding of the German constitutional court that the ECJ exceeded its powers in its recent approval of the ECB’s public sector purchasing programme. I would also ask him if he thinks that Lord Diplock was right in 1964 in defending the sovereign right of the Crown to change its policy. The Crown needs the flexibility to use its sovereign rights as much as ever today, which should help it reach an 11th-hour agreement with the EU in the interests of all our citizens.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this has been a fascinating debate, with many important issues raised with skill and eloquence in all parts of the Chamber, and enhanced by two excellent maiden speeches.
I am a member of the EU Select Committee. The views I express in this debate are of course my own, though I should make it clear that I agree with every conclusion contained in the report which we published last week on Part 5 of the internal market Bill. The report was agreed unanimously, and I pay tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, who chaired our proceedings with skill, distinction and humour.
I also congratulate my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton and her colleagues on the Constitution Committee on their report which focuses on devolution arrangements in the UK and the rule of law. Other speakers have dealt with the devastating nature of those issues: the consequences for Britain’s reputation abroad if we appear prepared to ignore the rule of law, the threats to the 1998 Belfast/Good Friday agreement, and the aggravation of the risk that Scotland will leave the United Kingdom.
One concern which has not received much attention in this debate, except, I think, from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, is the threat posed to public health. Public health is a devolved responsibility, and the individual nations of the UK have different populations and different priorities. Scotland, for example, pioneered minimum unit pricing for alcohol and England led the way on prohibiting tobacco displays in shops. However, the narrow drafting of this Bill substantially undermines the ability of all parts of the UK to innovate and improve public health policy. This is because of the very limited exceptions for public health. Furthermore, the current exclusions, including the list of legitimate aims that override non-discrimination, can be removed or weakened by statutory regulation. In my view, the Bill must be amended to allow the Governments of the four UK nations to protect the health of their populations. Protecting human health must be included as a legitimate aim for overriding all market access rules. I shall be supporting amendments to this effect in Committee.
In my last few moments, I want to make a couple of other points. First, I want to emphasise that this is not a rerun of earlier Brexit debates. If anyone is in any doubt about that, one need listen only to the powerful speech by the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Lympne, earlier today. And this is despite the intemperate attack by some Conservative MPs on the most reverend Primate and his fellow archbishops for daring to have a letter published in the Financial Times today.
The second point concerns the role of your Lordships’ House. The work of our committees—the Constitution Committee, the European Union Select Committee and the Delegated Powers Committee—has been outstanding and has hugely informed today’s debate. If your Lordships believe that Part 5 should not be included in the Bill, we should not be afraid to say so when we vote on the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, tomorrow, and when we consider the Bill line by line in Committee. However, if Part 5 survives, I hope your Lordships will look closely at new Clause 56. It provides for the House of Commons to have to approve a resolution before Ministers can use the powers in Part 5 but it is silent about any role in your Lordships’ House. That is something I hope we can address as well.
Lord Hay of Ballyore (DUP) [V]
My Lords, as a proud advocate for our great union of nations, I will never shy from expounding the benefits of belonging to, and strengthening, the deep ties and bonds across the United Kingdom. In an Ulster-specific context, we must continue to do all we can to work across all sectors to ensure that Northern Ireland plays its full part in the long-term future growth of these islands. Working together does not always mean agreeing on every issue; focusing on the general work in hand means working together even if you disagree on certain issues.
As we look to the matter before us this evening, we should remember how far Northern Ireland has come and should be reminded of the lives lost and of families who have fewer seats at their tables today. As we acknowledge this, and reflect on historical differences, we should let the reign of peace and prosperity over the last two decades be an important guide looking forward.
Turning to the specifics before us, the Bill allows the United Kingdom to prosper together, and importantly goes some way toward protecting businesses in Northern Ireland in all eventualities. The Bill makes certain provisions for the regrettable flawed scenario in which parts of the withdrawal agreement would create potential barriers to internal trade. It is for that reason, above all else, that I support the Bill before your Lordships’ House today.
Presently, the EU can inflict significant economic damage on the people of Northern Ireland if a deal is not achieved. My party colleagues in the other place tabled amendments that sought to protect Northern Ireland still further. This Bill is therefore a necessary insurance policy at this stage, although it perhaps does not yet go far enough. Concern still exists for example about the Bill’s exclusion of Northern Ireland from protection against EU interference in state aid. It would be wholly unfair if business owners in Northern Ireland were unable to avail themselves of the same assistance available to similar companies elsewhere in Britain.
I support the general principles of the Bill, as it is aimed at preventing any fundamental undercutting of the union, which would damage business, create uncertainty, and dampen prosperity. There should be no question of further hurdles being introduced that would be barriers between parts of the United Kingdom. Regardless of the eventual free trade deal with the EU, there is a need for a sensible and mature approach to Northern Ireland. Regrettably, in some respects, that approach has been missing to date.
Key to all this is Northern Ireland’s economic reliance on the United Kingdom market, as total trade to Great Britain is significantly greater than trade to the EU. It is the duty of government and political representatives to put the interests of the people of the United Kingdom first. That means leaving the EU fully, securing our sovereignty, controlling our borders, and protecting the integrity of the United Kingdom internal market and our union.
In conclusion, we need to work collaboratively to ensure that the whole of the United Kingdom benefits equally from the various trade deals, economic opportunities and further prosperity that will come from being a free and independent nation state. We have to remain focused on ensuring that our exit from the European Union is a launchpad for a stronger, more determined and more united Britain.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to have the opportunity to participate in this debate. I warmly congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and my noble friend Lord Sarfraz, on their excellent maiden speeches, and I bid them a very warm welcome to the House.
My noble friend Lord Callanan set out the reasons why, in his view, the Bill is necessary, in particular to extend market access of goods, services, professional qualifications and other aspects, and to create a coherent internal market now that we have left the European Union. There were always going to be complex questions arising following Brexit, including what happens to the powers that are returned to the United Kingdom, and how those powers are exercised by the Parliament at Westminster and by the devolved Administrations. I pay tribute to the work of both the Government and the devolved Administrations through the common frameworks. This has been an example of excellent co-operation and achievement in reducing to just 16 or 18 issues that will require further legislation.
One area that has not been referred to a great deal during this debate is how agriculture will be dealt with following the adoption of the Bill in its present form. Scotland has a separate agricultural policy that is much the envy of North Yorkshire, Cumbria, Northumberland and other farmers in the border regions. It gives rise to the question of how those policies will be administered now through the common frameworks.
I follow what a number of other noble Lords said earlier, particularly the noble Baronesses, Lady Andrews and Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, in asking the Minister specific questions. What is the situation now, and where does the Bill leave the common frameworks? Is it intended that work will continue to proceed on the achievements that have been made to date on those frameworks?
I really have no quarrel with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, set out in moving his amendment, nor with my noble friend Lord Cormack. I also found myself in absolute agreement with my noble friends Lord Howard and Lord Lamont. What I regret most about the Bill in its present form—not just Part 5, to which many have referred, but Parts 1 to 4, although Part 5 in particular—is the fact that the Government are increasingly standing alone internationally and domestically, claiming that they alone are right and everyone else is wrong. There are 27 member states in the EU and they have reached, and maintain, a common negotiating position. It is a matter of note, and it is to be welcomed, that there is a change in that negotiating position announced by the EU today.
The Bill in its present form shows how we risk forming barriers and disagreements with the devolved Assemblies, which will be hoping to work as closely as possible with the Parliament at Westminster. As my noble friend Lord Vaizey has said, there is time, and hopefully scope, to retrieve this situation. I wish the passage of the Bill well, but in heavily amended form before its adoption.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
My Lords, I, too, welcome our maiden speakers.
Like many noble Lords, I find that the conclusions of the Constitution Committee, the European Union Committee and the DPRRC chime with my own concerns about the Bill. I concur with the many magnificent speeches today, led by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, about the rule of law. My humble offering is that the Government have made their bed, must lie in it and must use internationally respected ways to work with it to best advantage.
Regrettably, the theme throughout the Bill seems not to be about working with things but a rush to legislate around primitive principles, lacking the refinements of consultation, consent or even continuity concerning devolution. Really, the question is why. The Bill seems designed to upset. Is it part of the “revolution by disruption” plan, or was it thought that boxes needed ticking right now?
The UK internal market must be taken seriously, but why is there not time to stand still and work intergovernmentally and then legislate where needed, without recourse to Henry VIII clauses to make up for not yet really knowing what to do? The powers in the Bill are a land grab, taking the soul, if not the territory, of the devolved nations as well as sidelining Parliament, allowing anything to be changed by regulation.
I want to make points about the CMA and whether it is the right body and construction to be the embryonic unelected guardian of the single market. Paragraph 35 of the Constitution Committee’s report says it all. Why choose the CMA? Why not establish a properly independent body representing all four nations? Further, the input tenets in the EU lookalike texts of mutual recognition and non-discrimination have neither been agreed by all nations, via the frameworks or otherwise, nor maintain the degree of flexibility and subsidiarity that already exists in the UK.
The CMA itself is sponsored by a Government ministry and all the appointments are still governed by the Secretary of State—despite, for the OIM side, after consulting the devolved authorities. But this is a serious question: why the hermetically sealed and secretive CMA inquiry panel process? I understand it for matters of competition where commercially confidential information is considered and policy is well developed, but for the internal market it will be a matter of public interest and constitutional development. That surely should not be secretive. It will not be simply technical analysis. That leads to overbearing harmonisation; how often have we fought the EU over that?
Analysing the UK internal market must encompass subsidiarity and degree, at least once that has been properly agreed. Does the CMA have that expertise? Surely the evidence, procedures and reasoning need to be seen and, if I may say so, be robust enough to withstand public scrutiny. The Minister has already twice referenced the support of what are, in the end, relatively few of the total of UK businesses. Even within the unsuitable structure, unsuitably appointed, a minimum task group of three is too small and exclusive. Why should it be potentially smaller than the minimum number of judges sitting in the Supreme Court? Are panellists so superior? For such a constitutionally important matter, this all needs a rework.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I remind everybody that there is a four-minute advisory time. We are getting quite late and there are still rather a lot of speakers to come.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB) [V]
My Lords, shortly after the Singing Revolution restored democracy to Estonia, its legal profession welcomed a British delegation to Tallinn’s largest law firm. At the centre of its new partners’ table was a brass disc, proudly engraved with the words “pacta sunt servanda”. As a newly independent nation, our hosts knew the importance of ensuring that promises are honoured, whether in commercial agreements or international treaties.
The precise meaning of such promises is often disputed, but Part 5 of this Bill is no inadvertent or merely arguable breach of some vague or trivial international undertaking. Its whole purpose is to signal to our negotiating partners a kind of anarchic disdain: disdain for this Government’s recent, specific and binding commitments on export declarations and state aid, and disdain for the very principle—fundamental to our status in the world—that treaties must be observed. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, the Kadi case in which I appeared against the EU is no sort of precedent for a similar attitude on the part of the EU or its court. In that very case, the Court of Justice of the European Union affirmed its long-standing insistence that
“the European Community must respect international law in the exercise of its powers.”
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and a unanimous Constitution Committee have expressed the view that the Bill itself is in breach of the withdrawal agreement, or will be by the time it is entered into force. I agree, although perhaps it matters little since whether it is unlawful itself, the whole point of Part 5 is, on any view, to enable unlawfulness.
Then there are the judges: Francis Bacon’s “lions under the throne”. Here too, the Bill is deeply troubling. It not only authorises the Government to act unlawfully but deems such unlawful actions to be lawful. The lions are still on show, but they are comprehensively defanged by successive subsections of Clause 47. Deprived of their usual power to strike down unlawful regulations, they might as well be mounted on the wall.
Imagine, if we can, that the EU were to renege on the guarantees that it gave to British citizens in the withdrawal agreement. There would be justified accusations of perfidy and duplicity, yet it is, I am afraid, precisely such duplicity that we are asked to facilitate today. Can the strategic damage to our reputation as a trustworthy international partner be mitigated by any tactical advantage in the negotiations? Rather the reverse, I suspect, as the noble Lord, Lord Jay, suggested with all his diplomatic experience. Showing contempt for our existing agreement with the EU will hardly encourage it to sign a new one. More likely it will enhance the unity of the 27, at just the time when we should be testing it, and its determination not to give us the benefit of any doubt.
The Bill seeks to make Parliament complicit in a scheme that openly flouts two foundational principles: that agreements, once made, should be kept, and that government is not above the law. How could we possibly go along with that?
This is not a House of opposition, as the noble Lord, Lord Cavendish, rightly reminded us; but it is a guardian of constitutional principle and, as such, it needs to send a strong and clear signal. For my part, I look forward to supporting the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, to voting at the earliest feasible opportunity not for some messy compromise but for the simple removal of Clauses 44, 45 and 47, and, like my noble friends Lord Butler and Lord Lisvane, to strapping in, if necessary, for a bumpy ride.
Lord Bowness (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a little daunting to follow the learned speech of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, and the excellent maiden speeches that we have heard this evening. However, Brexit is a phantom that still haunts and divides us, and the major issues in the Bill, whether the stated intention to flout a freely entered-into withdrawal agreement or the potential disputes around the devolution settlements as affected by the Bill, are a manifestation of that divide.
I put it to your Lordships, with some regret, that the fault for that rests fairly and squarely on the Prime Minister and his cohorts of hard-line Brexiteers. He said that the divide should be healed, but nothing has been done to bring those of a different point of view close. Most of those who voted remain are ready to accept the realities of leaving the European Union but wanted a closer collaborative settlement. There has been no attempt to accommodate those views. We rejected the single market, the customs union, the Norway option, membership of agencies such as the European Aviation Safety Agency, and all the matters that benefit citizens—mutual recognition of drivers’ licences, blue badges and the European health insurance card, which are currently in limbo. But fear not: we have a blue passport.
The Prime Minister told us that he had achieved an oven-ready deal. He crowed about it and fought an election on its basis. The electorate were, it seems, sold a gold brick because, as it turns out, much of the political declaration that accompanied the oven-ready agreement has been abandoned, if not rejected. There is no more talk of the
“ambitious, broad, deep and flexible partnership”
and more, or of the level playing field.
Now, the famous agreement—signed by the Prime Minister and approved by this Parliament—is considered defective, and this Bill seeks power to flout international law and amend the agreement to make it acceptable to the leader of the Brexit legion. The enormity of what the Government want to do has been more than adequately expressed by other noble Lords of both remainer and Brexit tendencies. To produce a measure considered constitutionally and legally appalling certainly unites both sides, but not in a way that one would have hoped.
It is convenient to blame the European Union for the current situation but whatever difficulties we face in the negotiations, we are the ones who decided to leave. We have a very integrated market with the European Union, we are 22 miles from mainland Europe and we have been part of the system for more than 40 years. It is unrealistic to expect that the European Union will treat us as just another third country. Now, we have the spectacle of the Government almost rejoicing at the prospect of no deal. We shall be like Australia, which has such good arrangements that it is seeking a free trade agreement with the European Union. We want a Canada free trade agreement, but not just the Canada deal—we want Canada-plus, because we believe that we are in some way entitled.
We refused an extension of the transition—pointless bravado. Now we do not want to continue talking, even when the EU negotiators are ready to come here—more bravado. Small wonder that the EU has reacted to the Bill with a determination to stand by what has been freely agreed and signed by this Prime Minister. We should drop the provisions in the Bill which seek to undermine and change the withdrawal agreement.
I will vote for the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and vote for any amendments presented during the passage of the Bill which seek to amend the offending provisions. In considering how far we should press our objections, we need to revisit the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, when Conservatives and others maintained our objections for five rounds of ping-pong. We must not acquiesce in recreating our reputation as perfidious Albion.
Baroness Clark of Kilwinning (Lab)
I am pleased to join others in welcoming the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, whom I have known for a number of years, and the noble Lord, Lord Sarfraz, whom I met this evening, on their maiden speeches. I hope they enjoy their time in this place.
We have had a number of powerful speeches focusing on various technical features of the devolution aspects of this legislation, but I am not going to focus on specific provisions on whether it will still be possible for the devolved institutions to regulate on issues such as single-use plastic, or indeed on the state aid provisions. I am going to focus on the politics of the situation, and I do that as a former Labour MP in Scotland and as someone who was heavily involved in the independence issue in the lead-up to the 2014 referendum. The constitutional debate in Scotland completely dominated Scottish politics, both during the lead-up to that two-and-a-half-year-long referendum and increasingly as the referendum went on. Indeed, the issue has not gone away, and it is still centre stage in Scottish politics.
As the House is aware, the Scottish Parliament voted 90 to 28 against giving legislative consent to this Bill, and it was suggested earlier on that that was the SNP. I want to make it absolutely clear to this House that the only Members of the Scottish Parliament who voted in favour of giving legislative consent were the Conservative Members. Every other political party and every other MSP voted against giving legislative consent.
The Government will no doubt say again when they sum up—as they did at the beginning of this debate—that further powers are being devolved as part of the changes taking place, and that some of the powers coming back from Europe will be devolved to the devolved institutions. I respectfully say that that is not really the point; the issue is that certain powers are being eroded without consent, and certain powers of the devolved institutions are being eroded when the direction of travel should be transferring powers to those institutions. I was really interested in listening to the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, who considered whether it was a power grab or not.
It is absolutely clear that in Scotland in particular—and I will focus on Scotland, because that is my background—there is a genuine view that this legislation undermines the devolution settlement. The backdrop is that, since the 1950s, a significant divergence has taken place in the political views and voting of people in Scotland from those south of the border. To put it simply, Scotland has tended to vote for social democratic-type politics, while nationally we have had few Labour Governments elected in that period. Those political differences, and the differences in voting habits, have had a major impact in Scotland over many decades. It has thrust the constitutional debate into the centre stage of Scottish politics. Most people in Scotland simply believe that decisions affecting Scottish people should be made in Scotland, and they do not think it is fair if they get policies they feel they have not voted for.
It is often said that it was Margaret Thatcher’s Government who delivered devolution. The behaviour of this Government is again having a big impact on the constitutional debate, so I very much hope that they think again.
Baroness D'Souza (CB) [V]
My Lords, the Bill is littered with Henry VIII powers, the Government’s justification being that it allows for speed in decision-making and safeguards trade within the UK, notwithstanding that Parliament has already shown itself to be adept at speed in dealing with the current Covid crisis. The tendency on the part of a Government to extend their powers is a slippery slope; and power, once conceded, cannot easily be won back. It is therefore of great significance that relevant committees—the House of Lords European Union Committee, Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and Constitution Committee—have questioned and even strongly advised the deletion of such clauses that empower the Government through secondary legislation.
The Bill goes beyond what is needed to ensure economic and regulatory coherence between the four UK nations, and undermines the purpose of the common frameworks programme, as well as the principles of mutual recognition. The Bill challenges the Sewel convention, as evidenced by the Motion agreed in the Northern Ireland Assembly on 22 September, and the Scottish and Welsh Governments’ stated intentions to withhold consent for the Bill.
The powers that the Government afford themselves are breath-takingly wide, including the non-recognition or enforcement of rights, powers, obligations, restrictions and remedies contained in the withdrawal Act. The Bill allows Ministers to interpret, modify or disapply any of the provisions set out in international and domestic law, defined as any provisions of the European Communities Act, any other EU or retained EU law and
“any other legislation, convention or rule of international or domestic law whatsoever, including any order, judgment or decision of the European Court or of any other court or tribunal”.
The concession to parliamentary approval for the implementation of derogation clauses allowed the Bill to pass in the other place, but the Government have shown their willingness to ride roughshod over an international treaty. Can they therefore not also do the same with this commitment citing, for example, bad faith on the part of the EU to gain parliamentary consent? Legislation, once on the statute book, has a habit of being resuscitated for a purpose other than that originally intended; as such, this so-called safeguard amendment could well become a hostage to fortune.
Meanwhile, statutory instruments are increasingly bolstering skeleton Bills, and both recourse to judicial review and mechanisms to counteract secondary legislation are severely limited. A precedent is being set that challenges the rule of law. Clauses 44, 45 and 47 of the Bill must not reach the statute book. I too will support the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, as I concur with a lot of her views expressed here. I also offer my congratulations and best wishes to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and the noble Lord, Lord Sarfraz, on making their maiden speeches. I look forward to working with them. I will concentrate on Part 5 of the Bill, because I believe that it is totally unnecessary and very damaging. I refer to the bits that deal with trade between Britain and Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland protocol.
When the Conservative Party jettisoned Theresa May’s proposals and decided that “getting Brexit done” meant leaving the EU customs union, a formal border between the EU and the UK became inevitable. As regards Ireland, this interface could be located only along the north-south border on the island of Ireland or at UK ports, effectively a border in the Irish Sea. In signing the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol, the Government chose the Irish Sea, despite much rhetoric to the contrary. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, made this point earlier in this debate. In the process, the Government managed to set the nationalist and unionist communities against each other and undermine relations with Dublin by leaving the possibility of a hard border on the island of Ireland on the table for so long—the very issue which the Northern Ireland protocol sought to provide for and ensure did not happen.
Let me be clear that while all Irish nationalists—I am one myself—as well as the EU and others, opposed customs infrastructure on the north-south border and were concerned about the damage it would do to our historic settlement, no nationalists want a hard border in the Irish Sea. I share many of the concerns of my unionist colleagues in Northern Ireland and want to see minimal friction on goods travelling from Britain to Northern Ireland. I also want to see unfettered access to the GB market for Northern Ireland businesses. This should not be a cause of division. No one on the island of Ireland, north or south, wants heavy bureaucracy around trade with Great Britain.
The way to maximise the possibility of this highly desirable outcome is to sign a zero-tariff, comprehensive trade agreement with the EU. This is achievable, and I would like the Minister to comment on it in his winding-up. Instead, we have the internal market Bill, which, under Clauses 44, 45 and 47, proposes to empower UK Ministers to breach their legal obligations under the protocol and which reopens, dangerously, the whole political argument. I am totally opposed to this and I will vote tomorrow for the amendment to the Motion in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge.
Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]
I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, and my noble friend Lord Sarfraz on their maiden speeches, and I warmly welcome them to this House.
On the Bill before the House, I wholeheartedly support the amendment to the Motion in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, for all the reasons that he so admirably and eloquently laid out, and that in the name of my noble friend Lord Cormack. I share the deep regrets expressed by my noble friend Lord Bridges and agree with all the remarks of my noble and learned friend Lord Clarke.
The damning reports of three House of Lords Select Committees, and the exceptionally clear explanation presented to the House by my noble friend Lord Barwell, are clear indications of why it is our duty to ensure that the Bill, particularly Part 5, does not pass through this House. I cannot, in all good conscience, support the measures in the Bill, particularly Part 5 but much else, too. I am afraid that I will have to vote, on every occasion, against the Government’s intention to break international law. I congratulate the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury on his brave intervention, and I join other noble Lords in warning about the potential of the Bill, as presented to this House, to pave the way to authoritarian rule.
Principle must come before party, and this is the moment of truth when we must face up to the consequences of seeking to have the same rules within the four countries of the UK while pretending that these rules can somehow differ from those of the EU, particularly Ireland, without erecting borders either in the Irish Sea or on the island of Ireland. Should those mythical alternative arrangements to do away with the need for such borders materialise—arrangements that were promised to us a year or two ago—that would have been fine, but in their absence we must ensure that the Bill does not pass through this House as presented to us today.
Lord Shipley (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Bill will represent a further stage in the eventual break-up of the United Kingdom should it proceed unamended. It centralises power away from the devolved Administrations, gives excessive powers to Ministers, and undermines the rule of law.
In the Minister’s opening address, in which he justified the Bill, he said that the Government wanted a coherent internal market in the UK, with control of subsidies and fair competition. This approach sits oddly with this Government’s negotiating position with the EU, where we are leaving a coherent internal market seemingly to do the opposite with regard to subsidies and fair competition, and, in the process, to override the devolution settlement.
The Minister referred to a huge transfer of powers from the EU to the devolved nations following Brexit. He neglected to say that under this Bill the devolved nations would lose some crucial powers. It is little surprise that the devolved nations have reacted as they have.
In the face of the coronavirus pandemic it has been beneficial to have the devolved Administrations devising and piloting different approaches. We need to encourage new thinking that tests potential solutions, not stifle it on the basis that Whitehall knows best. As an example, the Welsh Government are proposing a ban on the sale of nine single-use plastic products, while the UK Government are proposing to ban only three. This Bill would mean that in Wales the six other products could still be sold, because they have been made in England, Scotland or Northern Ireland. We would therefore have lower environmental standards—levelling down, not up.
The Bill should include derogations that limit the primacy of mutual recognition for matters of environmental protection. In 2011, Wales led the way in introducing a charge on plastic carrier bags. It worked so well that the other parts of the UK followed, and the outcome today is a higher standard of environmental protection for us all. Public health is another area where devolved powers really matter, because they can help to effect positive changes more quickly than centralised structures. We have seen devolved Administrations give the rest of the UK a sense of direction with policies that improve public health. One example is Scotland’s minimum unit pricing for alcohol, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, has mentioned. There are other examples. As it stands, however, the Bill could lead to poorer public health outcomes in one country because of the right of market access from others.
There is a solution: the Government could set out a general public health exception to the mutual recognition principle, along with the necessary derogations on matters of environmental protection. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, pointed out, these are matters, first, for common frameworks. Market access principles should be considered only when discussions on common frameworks have failed. Even then, the power to introduce derogations would remain essential.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB) [V]
My Lords, I will leave detailed discussion of Part 5 to colleagues, but I will just say that I find the idea of a UK Government knowingly and deliberately breaking the law—to wriggle out of a deal signed less than a year ago—repugnant. It is not something that this House should accept. In the justifiable outrage over Part 5, however, there is a risk that the other flaws of the Bill get lost. As the Constitution Committee has explained so well, it has significant implications for the UK’s devolved structure.
There are three elements that are necessary for the efficient operation of an internal market: rules for market access, a framework for agreeing minimum standards, and a mechanism for resolving disputes. This Bill provides only the first element, the market access rules. If the EU’s single market had worked with only market access rules, it would have allowed, say, Romania to reduce its standards so that its businesses could produce, for export, substandard goods that could be sold freely here. We would not have accepted that as part of the EU, so why would we think it appropriate for our own internal market? I do not often say this, but the Scottish Government are right: this Bill undermines their devolved competencies. This works both ways, and the UK Government should be just as worried about, say, Scotland reducing its standards and selling substandard goods into the rest of the UK. As the Welsh Government pointed out, it incentivises a race to the bottom.
To avoid this, a system for agreeing minimum common standards is essential. We have heard that good progress has been made towards agreeing common frameworks, but the Bill completely ignores them. Indeed, it would undermine them. I would go as far as to say that, if the Bill is not amended to take account of the common frameworks, including the necessary flexibility described by my noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead, it will be more damaging to the UK’s internal market than no Bill. Like the Constitution Committee, I question whether this Bill is really necessary. Perhaps the Minister could explain why the common frameworks have been ignored and how a race to the bottom will be avoided.
The third element required for an internal market to work is a mechanism for dispute resolution. To be acceptable to all parties, any mechanism needs a high degree of independence, all parties should be represented, and it must have the ability to resolve disputes. The Bill creates the Office for the Internal Market, but that is neither independent nor representative. And it cannot actually resolve a dispute: all it can do is issue advice and reports. Does the Minister not see a contradiction in being ready to die in a ditch to prevent the European Court being the arbiter of a trade deal, but not allowing an independent arbiter in our own internal market?
There is general agreement throughout the UK—and I agree with it—on the need for an efficient internal market, but this Bill does not achieve that. We must adopt a more consensual approach between the UK’s constituent parts. After all, there is one overriding requirement for an internal market: the parties must want to be part of it. This Government in particular must know that the heavy-handed imposition of rules from the centre can lead to countries wanting to “take back control”. If the Government want to keep this kingdom of ours united, they would do well to remember that.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is an immense pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, who made some very powerful points. I too pay tribute to the maiden speeches of both the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, who made some very valuable points on the environment, and my noble friend Lord Sarfraz, who spoke powerfully about entrepreneurship. I also pay tribute to the report of the Constitution Committee, which I found very compelling.
This Bill presents two very real concerns for me. The first relates to the relationship with the devolved Administrations. Over the years, we have made progress in handling devolved relationships. Naturally, it was a little bit raw in the early years, but it has improved noticeably. There is a carefully constructed balancing of interests in the devolved world and we have seen that with the common framework: it exemplified that. I had the opportunity—indeed, the privilege—to see that at first hand: discussion, consultation, and often agreement. This Bill throws all that over, and that is regrettable. It is heavy-handed and pulls rank, and that is unwise. Acting like Goliath with the flexing of muscles is not an approach with much to commend it, particularly given the outcome of that particular engagement. We need consultation and real engagement if we are going to keep our union united.
My second real concern relates, of course, to Part 5. I very much regret the resignation of my noble and learned friend Lord Keen of Elie. I understand the reasons for it, but he is a lawyer of considerable ability and integrity, and of course he went on a point of principle. We should not lose sight of that.
The breaking of international law quite openly and, even when challenged, confirming the breach, is not a pretty sight. It represents a move against a treaty and a protocol that were only recently concluded and, indeed, hailed as a triumph. This Bill goes against a fundamental principle of our law, national character, constitution, history and deeply held principles as a country, taken on with mother’s milk: the upholding of the law. There can be no excuse for it. It is no excuse that we may not use it, that it needs a vote in Parliament or that other countries may breach international law. It is, quite frankly, inexcusable, and our Ministers must in their hearts know that.
Openly breaking international law is not the British way. From Magna Carta onwards, this country has stood for the rule of law, and this Bill should alarm us all greatly. It is not in our national interest for it to pass, as we see the tearing up of this deeply held principle sending a shudder through the reeds at Runnymede. I will certainly be supporting the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and seeking to improve this legislation, which is deeply flawed.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, have both withdrawn, so I now call the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom.
Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Bourne, with whose words I agree entirely. We have four minutes; I shall try to take no more than one.
In this Bill, the Government invite us to pass a law to break a law. That is not only wrong but patently absurd. If we believe in law, we should not break it. If we do not believe in law, then we should not be passing it. If the Government can break the law, why should the people obey it? If the UK can break the law, why should other countries obey it? So the damage of this Bill will last for the long term. In signing the protocol, we gave our word. Nothing has changed since then and we should keep our word. I shall support the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, because this Bill brings shame on this country.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock and the noble Lord, Lord Sarfraz, on their great maiden speeches and look forward to hearing them in the future. This has been an extraordinarily long Second Reading and an exceptional one in many respects. However, I think it is worth reflecting on the fact that some of the topics on which there have been the strongest feelings and arguments—for example, Part 5 of the Bill, the opposition to which I fully support—are not actually the topic that is foremost in the minds of the public at the moment. That, of course, is Covid-19 and their health and well-being.
So, like the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley—who spoke just a few moments ago—I will focus on what might seem to be a fairly narrow area: protecting the UK’s public health, in so far as this Bill will do so. Will the Bill improve it or not after we leave the EU internal market? Does it provide the framework, to which the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, referred, that will raise standards, or might the existing ones possibly be at risk?
The devolved Administrations’ views are very clear indeed: they fear the balance between market interests and the public health policies they have been pursuing will be at risk and that the Bill could undermine and diminish their ability to enact essential public health legislation for their countries. For example, on alcohol labelling, they pointed out to me that, currently, alcohol labels lack basic information, such as how many calories are in the product or the Chief Medical Officer’s low-risk drinking guidelines—they are not there. In recent years, both the Scottish and Welsh Governments have worked hard at moving forward with significant changes there. The English lead is well behind; we are looking to consult, but we are well behind on most of these issues.
The devolved Administrations say that the drafting of the mutual recognition principle in the Bill, which unlike the current rules allows no general exemption for protecting health, means that Governments within the UK may set higher labelling standards for products originating in their own nations but these standards will not apply to products sold within their borders that come from other parts of the UK or from overseas via another UK nation. Instead, those products must only meet the standard required in the part of the UK in which they originated.
This is just one of the many key public health policies that will be hampered by the Bill. Although the Government have included a public health exemption from non-discrimination, there is no corresponding exemption for the mutual recognition principle. Others have raised this point and I again ask the Minister to explain why it is necessary to water down the public health protections that have existed in our markets up to this point.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB) [V]
I should say that it is a pleasure to take part in a debate with so many distinguished speakers, such excellent maiden speeches and one informed by three such good reports, but it is not a pleasure because, like the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, I feel that we should not be here debating this Bill; it is a bad Bill. Like the Constitution Committee, I cannot see the need for it, and I cannot support the reopening of the devolution settlement, putting new limits on devolved competence or binning the common frameworks. However, for me, the central issue is stark and shockingly simple: a treaty is a contract binding on the states party to it.
Exactly 12 months ago today, Mr Johnson concluded a treaty. Some of us here said that we found its Irish protocol offensive in principle and likely to prove problematic in practice, but Mr Johnson said that we were wrong; it was fine; indeed, it was fantastic—his triumph. He won his majority and he used it to ensure that this Parliament ratified his treaty. It thus became binding on the country and on all of us, whatever reservations we may have had about it: binding in law and binding in honour—I repeat, honour. That is what this is all about; that is what makes it so shocking that Mr Johnson now asks us to empower him to override his treaty—not to seek to change it, just to choose to break it—and require the courts to ignore it whenever he decides they should.
It is no wonder the head of the Government Legal Service, Sir Jonathan Jones, resigned—I pay tribute to him for doing so. I cannot see how this House could in honour collude in legislating to break a treaty. This is not about frontier checks; it is not about Brexit; it is about honour and reputation. For what purpose are we going to throw all that away? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, pointed out that Mr Johnson has not told us what arrangements he envisages for the border between the EU single market and our single market. If he overrides the protocol, what will replace it? What will sustain the Good Friday agreement? Why, if Mr Johnson believes that he has grounds for complaint against the EU, does he not use the dispute resolution procedures in the treaty he signed? I refer the House to the nine questions in the letter that the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, as chairman of the EU Committee, sent to Mr Gove a month ago—they are at the back of the committee’s report. They remain unanswered; I think that they are unanswerable.
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that what we have here is a simple case of buyer’s remorse. Mr Johnson now dislikes what his treaty said. Just as he chose in the current negotiation to tear up the political declaration that he agreed on this day last year, so he proposes to tear out bits of the treaty. What price honour? He gave his word. Moreover, worse, he gave our word when, at his urging, we ratified his treaty. Ours is the responsibility for saving the national reputation, and in honour we must.
I will vote for the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and I trust that we will then move on to remove Part 5 and, if necessary, insist with the noble Lord, Lord Butler, and persevere.
“Perseverance, dear my lord, Keeps honour bright.”
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD) [V]
My Lords, some of the language of the Bill brings back distant memories from over 35 years ago. Proponents of free trade and open markets, including Margaret Thatcher as Prime Minister, argued then that the absence of a common framework for regulation across the European Community disadvantaged UK exports to our neighbours. It also meant that British standards usually copied US standards; American regulators exercised what lawyers termed “extraterritorial jurisdiction” over foreign markets such as the UK. For Mrs Thatcher, a European single market would mean that British Ministers could take an active part in negotiating international standards rather than swallowing American ones.
A generation later, in a far more integrated global economy, it has become clear that standards and regulations will emerge from one of three major global players: the United States, China or the European Union. However, our Government are pursuing an antique and absolutist version of Westminster sovereignty, breaking free of the EU. In practice, that means we will end up following either American or European standards on food safety, financial regulation and the internet without much influence on either—losing control, not taking back control.
The doctrine of sovereignty that underlies the Bill was set out by Albert Venn Dicey in his 1885 Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution. Dicey insisted that Westminster sovereignty was supreme and indivisible, internally and externally. Sir William Cash frequently quotes him and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, cited Dicey in this House when challenged about the subject. However, Dicey was writing at the high point of British imperialism when English politicians could assume that Britain shaped international law and other countries had to follow. The Empire has gone, but the mixture of imperial nostalgia and English nationalism that motivates hard-right Conservatives resists negotiating international law with other states. That is disastrous for Britain’s reputation, for London as a global centre for litigation and legal expertise and for our ability to negotiate future trade deals with others, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and others have noted.
Dicey’s approach to domestic sovereignty was shaped by his bitter opposition to Irish home rule. He refused to accept that powers could be shared with a parliament in Dublin. Conservative unionists follow Dicey, insisting that all authority in the UK rests in Westminster. That absolutist view, through opposition to successive proposals for home rule, led to Ireland breaking away from the United Kingdom.
This is a constitutional Bill. It goes to the heart of the rule of law within the UK as well as in relation to other states, and it threatens the further disintegration of our state, with Scotland leaving and Ulster moving towards reunification to leave England diminished and internally divided.
We are now watching right-wing Republicans bend America’s written constitution until it is close to breaking. We have even seen the embittered partisanship of American politics spilling over into this debate in the attack by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, on the Bishops who are addressing the moral dimensions of the Bill. We should not allow our increasingly authoritarian Government to bend the conventions of our own unwritten constitution any further.
Baroness Meyer (Con)
My Lords, of course the Government’s Bill has my support. It is sheer common sense. If the EU continues its obstinacy over fisheries and the level playing field, we are unlikely to have in place by the end of the year an agreement on the future relationship. It would be the height of folly not to have an insurance policy against that possibility. That is what the Bill provides—no more, no less. Without such insurance, we could find ourselves in a situation where the EU is able to tell us what we can and cannot do throughout the United Kingdom by way of state aid. That would be to continue to submit to the authority of the European Union and the European Court of Justice. How on earth is that compatible with the decision taken by the British people in 2016, which politicians across the spectrum committed to honour? It would also be in breach of the Act of Union 1800 and the Good Friday agreement.
Our American friends must understand that any threat to the agreement comes not from London but from Brussels. The EU has for four years sought to exploit the Good Friday agreement to its negotiating advantage. To change the terms of trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland without the explicit consent of the people of Northern Ireland is to violate the Good Friday agreement. Those in Washington and Brussels who profess concern for peace in Northern Ireland would do well to also consider that, without a UK-EU agreement, the only authority that could conceivably want a hard border between the north and the south is the European Commission—to protect what Brussels calls the integrity of the single market. The UK has no intention of erecting a hard border.
The withdrawal agreement and its Northern Ireland protocol do not stand in isolation. They are organically linked to the intended agreement on the future relationship through Article 184 of the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration. As was confirmed by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, in his letter to the Times of 15 March last year, without such an agreement we would be entitled, under Article 62 of the Vienna convention, to terminate the withdrawal agreement. Article 184 obliges the signatories to negotiate the future relationship in good faith. The EU has failed to show good faith and thus is itself in breach of the withdrawal agreement. There is no other way to describe a negotiating position which, to take one example, insists on the historic pattern of fishing quotas—the common fisheries policy by any other name.
There are two falsehoods here: that the UK is in breach of international law and that the British Government would violate the Good Friday agreement. The reality is precisely the opposite. The internal market Bill seeks to remedy a situation where, thanks to the EU’s bad faith and intransigence, the Good Friday agreement and the British constitution are imperilled. Can the Minister reassure the House that the Government are making an intensive effort to explain to our friends and allies around the world, including and especially the United States, the true state of affairs?
Baroness Greengross (CB) [V]
My Lords, like many of the previous speakers I am genuinely concerned about what is being proposed in this Bill. My main concern—the one I will address—is that the Bill could well undermine areas of medical research and access to new medicines. The Bill might also do considerable harm to the economic prosperity of the country, and it would breach international law—something I never expected to see a UK Government try to do, particularly through legislation.
I am the co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Dementia. According to NHS figures, there are 850,000 people living with dementia in the UK, and this figure is set to rise to 1.6 million people by 2040. The Bill increases the likelihood of a no-deal Brexit. In that scenario, access to new drugs and medicines could be delayed by 12 to 24 months, as the UK would no longer be covered by the European Medicines Agency regulations, and instead by a separate UK regulatory system. Also, dementia research that up until now has been carried out collaboratively with researchers and academics in the UK and across Europe could be delayed or undermined if we fail to negotiate a deal with the EU.
I did not support Brexit, but I accept the referendum result. What I cannot accept, however, is that the Government now seek to breach the terms of the withdrawal agreement with the EU only months after they voluntarily agreed to its terms. Britain is a trading nation. One of the things that makes us so successful at this is that we are a nation with a long-standing reputation for respecting the rule of law, including international law. The reputational damage to the UK that Part 5 of the Bill will cause cannot be overstated. A no-deal Brexit, and Britain gaining a global reputation as a nation that does not stick to international agreements, will harm us for many years to come. From an intergenerational fairness perspective, we lawmakers have a duty to do all we can to stop such an outcome, otherwise, we risk reducing the prosperity and well-being of those who will live in this country when we are gone.
There are many who are critical of the House of Lords and do not believe it makes a useful or important contribution to our democracy. With this legislation, we have an opportunity to show the nation the value of the second Chamber. Further, by opposing Part 5 of the Bill, the House of Lords has the opportunity to show the world that the UK is a country that does indeed respect the rule of law.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, imagine this: a foreign power—a trading bloc—is desperate to make an example of a former member state to discourage any others tempted to follow them to freedom. So desperate is this foreign power to protect its empire that since a withdrawal agreement was signed with the former member state, it has issued new threats to the very viability of the former member state’s internal market, and therefore to its future prosperity and security. In short, the empire cannot afford for the break-away member state to succeed. It must be seen to fail. That is the reality this country faces; a reality that I am amazed so many still choose to ignore. Surely when any UK Government realise that the UK is in great danger of being put in a headlock by new threats made since the withdrawal agreement was signed, it is that Government’s duty to counter the new threats through legislation empowering them to act if necessary.
I hear what some of my noble friends have said about Part 5 of the Bill, and I hope they know that, while I may beg to differ, I have the utmost respect for them. However, I fear that other noble Lords’ views remain rooted in a refusal to reconcile themselves with the reality of the referendum result to leave the EU. Nothing, it seems, will extinguish the Euro-federalist dream. But at a time when coronavirus casts such a dark shadow over so much of our lives, neither should we extinguish hope for a better future beyond coronavirus: hope for a return to the growth that will underpin our economic recovery and, with it, the security of the NHS and all that we hold dear.
We should not underestimate how much the Eurocrats stand to lose if the British people are allowed to make a success of their lives after Brexit. Their empire will implode. Brussels can go for broke if it wants to; the United Kingdom must go for growth. Pre-empting a foreign power’s threat to the integrity and viability of our internal market is essential if we want all parts of the UK to benefit from that growth. People will not understand if we fail now to protect them from the very real threat posed to their future well-being and prosperity from a foreign power, the EU, which above all else needs Brexit to be seen to fail. That means poverty, not prosperity. No Government could wish that on their own people. That is why, for the people’s sake, this Bill deserves our support.
Lord Desai (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I will not speak to the legal aspects of the Bill, as I am not a lawyer, and that topic has been well covered. I will simply share with your Lordships my curiosity as to what made the Government try to enact this piece of legislation, which, as many have said, is totally outside the normal character of the constitutional behaviour of the United Kingdom. Some noble Lords have referred to this, but this arises out of historical and contemporary amnesia, which have struck the party in power.
First, let me say that I was a remainer, but I have always respected the decision of the people. However, we should notice one thing, which not many people have realised: that the decision in the referendum was more or less a decision by England, not by the United Kingdom. Of the 34 million votes cast, 18 million were for exit, and 16 million against, and 32 million were cast were cast by the English electorate. The difference in the English electorate, 17 million to 15 million, was exactly the final result margin of 2 million. So Brexit has always been an English decision, not that of the UK. Because the party in power has always been predominately an English party, it has begun to renege on devolution, in which it had no part. It was my party which initiated devolution, during the great Blair Government, and that is now being undermined.
The present party in power, 100 years ago, partitioned Ireland, creating Northern Ireland. At that time, as people may remember, the behaviour of the Conservatives when in opposition against the Liberals, and later when in coalition, almost amounted to subversion of the law, encouraging people in Northern Ireland to defy all manner of laws. Now we have come to a stage when the party in power has almost forgotten Northern Ireland. Boris Johnson inherited this proposition of Brexit, although of course he supported it. But I do not remember anybody at the time of the referendum discussion realising that the geography of the United Kingdom is not just England, Scotland and Wales. There is a region out there, Northern Ireland, which everybody forgot—that because Northern Ireland shares a border with the Republic and because we have signed an international treaty to keep that border open all the time, it was logically and legislatively impossible for Northern Ireland to leave the European Union and also have a free border. The logical and legal impossibility of the separation of Northern Ireland from the Republic of Ireland, while the Republic stayed within the European Union, was not, to my memory, ever discussed.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Desai, because I want to talk about the union—the union of which we are all members. I remind the Government that the union that we now call our United Kingdom is very different from the union that existed prior to our membership of the European Economic Community. We have now had more than 20 years of devolution, and the Bill threatens the union as we know it. Many noble Lords have given examples of how it threatens devolution, and I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Shipley, who talked about the health implications, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, who also spoke on this matter. So there are big questions about the union, and they are what I want to address.
First, do we need the Bill now? I do not think we do, because there is no threat to the internal market at the moment. The common frameworks, which are close to agreement, could be used in their draft form, if they are not finally detailed and ready. Common frameworks do not even get a mention in the Bill, yet that work has been going on for two years.
Have the Government put in place appropriate dispute procedures? No, they have not. The Government’s engagement with the devolved Governments has not given an inch on their involvement. Will the Bill weaken devolution in our country? Yes, it will, because it produces override and bypass mechanisms that have the effect of reducing devolved powers. Will the Bill guarantee high regulatory standards? No, it will not, by creating a system that places you at a competitive disadvantage if you follow high standards. Will the Bill promote co-operation and trust between the Governments of the UK? That is an easy one: no, it will not. It will self-evidently not, because of the approach to devolution that the Government have shown. The evidence is that it has managed to bring together three very different democratically elected Governments in their view that it is not the right thing to do.
I will mention a few words on Part 6 of the Bill. That is the add-on part, related to spending. It is not clear how that links to the proposed regulatory structure for the UK internal market, which is the intention of the Bill. Perhaps, in reply, the Minister can say why this section is there at all.
In answer to an Oral Question of mine in your Lordships’ House earlier this year, the Government stated that Wales would receive, pound for pound, what it had previously received from the EU, and that that money would be controlled by the Welsh Government. The question that the Bill documentation does not address is whether the Government still intend to follow the pound-for-pound statement they previously made, and that any money proposed to be spent in devolved areas by this UK Government is in addition to the former EU funds replacement. I must say that the reference to “EU programmes” in the impact assessment says to me that the Welsh Government are set to lose control over these funds.
As it stands, it is very unlikely, almost impossible, to see this Bill having the support of all three devolved Administrations. However, with amendment, there is a very slim chance that it could meet with the agreement of the Welsh Government. I ask the Government to live up to the agreement they made in July 2017 that a UK internal state aid framework needs to be drawn up co-operatively and consensually between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations as equal partners. The Government must avoid actions that could lead to the breakup of this union, but to defend the union, you have to have respect for it, you have to have regard for it, and that is simply not apparent from the way this Government are proceeding at this time.
Baroness Meacher (CB) [V]
My Lords, I will keep my remarks brief and try to avoid duplication—difficult at this time of night. As a member of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, I must put on record, along with the great majority of the 100 or so speakers today, my deep disquiet that, in proposing the Bill, our Government have shown such disregard both for the international reputation of this country and for one of the most fundamental principles of our democracy: the supremacy of Parliament.
I applaud my noble and learned friend Lord Judge on his very powerful speech. I agree with every word of it and will certainly be supporting his Motion. For the sake of Britain’s standing in the world, I implore the Government to ensure that the Bill never reaches the statute book unless Clauses 44, 45 and 47 are removed, along with most, I would say, of the Henry VIII clauses, which have absolutely not been adequately justified by the Government's memorandum to Parliament on the Bill.
For the sake of the health of our democracy, I trust that the Government will respond positively to the appeal, in a letter to Michael Gove and Jacob Rees-Mogg, from the chairs of the Constitution Committee, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Secondary Legislation Committee. The letter sets out the considerable concerns of the members of all three committees about the truly extraordinary delegation of powers to Ministers in recent Bills, not just this one—although this one, the internal market Bill, is undoubtedly the most extreme and troubling example of this trend.
Finally, I call on the Government to respect the conclusion of the Strathclyde review of the role of the House of Lords in relation to statutory instruments. The review made clear that,
“it would be appropriate for the Government to take steps to ensure that Bills contain an appropriate level of detail and that too much is not left for implementation by statutory instrument.”
Do the Government really want to completely disregard a report commissioned by a recent Conservative Government? I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, would want your Lordships’ House to challenge the exceptionally pervasive use of Henry VIII clauses in the Bill and, indeed, the terrible Clauses 44, 45 and 47, and I very much hope that we can do this on a cross-party basis.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, like many Members I was horrified when I saw this Bill. I was, for many years, on an EU committee on benchmarking, and in those days people had to get used to the idea that if we get best practice in Europe, it is for the good of us all. The slogan we in the trade unions worked out in those days—Jacques Delors and all that—was something like “Europe is the league we are in”. Britain will go nowhere but backwards if we get out, and although we have accepted that there has been a referendum result, we are now going to make the situation far more adverse for our employment and investment prospects. Multinationals said, in a meeting I went to a couple of years ago, that their investment forecasts for Britain were going down even then, and now it is going down very much more than 50% for many industries.
It is so unrealistic to have the idea that we can complain about the 26 countries together wanting to stick with their standards, rather than them saying “Britain wants to change, in a negotiation between equals, so we will change all our standards”. I hear colleagues in this House suggest there is some rational motivation for this Bill, when I can only imagine it was from some late-night conversation in No. 10 Downing Street. That Conservative Party element wants to return to the heyday of Boris Johnson by doing something a bit more dashing, such as tearing up this aspect of the Good Friday agreement because some people have never liked it. Where the Irish question is concerned, the Good Friday agreement has of course been a great contributor to peace. It implies a certain degree of condominium between aspects of life in Northern Ireland and—with dotted lines to them—London and Dublin. If that is the issue lurking behind this it is, historically, such a ludicrous way for the tail to wag the dog.
If we go down this track now, there is a big question about whether we could have third-nation status within the WTO because part of the United Kingdom—Northern Ireland—would need to have one foot in the joint arrangements with Dublin, under the Good Friday agreement, and another foot in the United Kingdom. Therefore, it is hard to think that we would be a normal third nation. Before the lorries queue up at Dover on 31 December, we should start to think how we are going to get away from this ridiculous apotheosis of Boris Johnson’s idea of the world and see what we can do. We need a framework agreement not just for the British Isles but one such as Switzerland has with the European Union, at the least. That is not my ideal, but we cannot simply commit hari-kari in the way we are going.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, the justification for this Bill is to support and advance trade, and, as pointed out, to provide insurance against present negotiations breaking down. The existing internal market is supported by EU law until the end of the year, where this Bill provides for UK law to take over. This is a detailed Bill, which provides for what I call single market membership in respect of our trade with the rest of the EU, if we reach agreement with the EU to this end.
The question is raised; what happens if trade negotiations break down and the UK opts for the WTO? This looks unfortunately likely, from the Prime Minister’s comments yesterday, to be the case. It is clear, I am afraid, that the EU has been acting in bad faith in the trade negotiations, which the PM has pointed out involved a requirement to lead, and not a requirement to lead to a breakdown.
Presumably we could amend and use the Bill as we saw fit. We would, however, have a self-interest to make the Bill as helpful as possible to European importers and exporters to help optimise our trade. As we are leading historic free trade supporters, I am sure we will be happy to be driven by the free trade principles of mutual recognition and non-discrimination. The Bill will become an Act as of 31 December, assuming it passes both Chambers. Whether or not we do a trade formula deal with the EU, this trade legislation will be on the statute book and operative to ensure the smooth functioning of trade.
I turn now to the controversy. It was the UK Government who found out that the EU was seeking to misuse aspects of the Northern Ireland protocol in a way that was not intended and in order to gain advantage in future relationship negotiations. I am somewhat disappointed that no one seems to have made this point, and the whole problem with Clause 5 arises from that. It was for this reason that the UK Government created the safety net of Clauses 44 and 45, to give British Ministers the power to unilaterally interpret, modify or disapply parts of the Northern Ireland protocol.
The UK has agreed to require parliamentary approval of any government initiatives involved here—I think that this is Clause 56. I was always told as a student that there was really no such thing as international law, as there was no agreed single court of law to monitor it. But, in this situation, I am inclined to the view that it may be better to get rid of Clauses 5 and 6 and to address the issues raised in another way.
I remain a staunch supporter of free trade and appreciate the major contribution to upholding free trade afforded by the Internal Market Bill, but it has the weakness of underpinning oligopoly. Most of the trading requirements as witnessed by this legislation are too detailed, too difficult, too expensive and too demanding of businesses—
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, has withdrawn from the debate, so I now call the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD) [V]
My Lords, it appears that Brexit will not only have queues of trucks on roads leading to the Channel ports but will lead to an expected plethora of disputes in the internal market between parts of the UK. The Bill, by its very existence, acknowledges the divisive self-harm being inflicted on our nations by this clueless Government. We already have a common frameworks programme, so well detailed by my noble friend Lord German, and a commitment to collaboration in a regulatory manner. So I do not see how this Bill in any way helps or adds to the resolution of disputes in the functioning of the single market.
The latest proposed quango is the Office for the Internal Market. Its role will be purely to provide independent advice on dispute resolution. Well, we already have the Competition and Markets Authority, which has become a very large body in its own right. It will now also include the Office for the Internal Market—an added and expensive creation. It appears that in the current crisis in health, business and employment, the only growth industry is an expanding Civil Service. Sir Humphrey Appleby of “Yes Minister” would have been proud of it. An article in The Times today suggests that there is one civil servant for every 152 citizens, not counting employees of arm’s-length bodies. This Bill moves us nearer to the doubtful utopia of a civil servant for each and every citizen.
We can see at this very moment in the Covid pandemic how there are divergent policies between Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England. Can the Minister state clearly whether, in the case of a dispute not being solved after the valued advice of the latest quango, the UK Minister will make the decision? If so, that is a sure way to build up resentment in the devolved Administrations. Surely a more collaborative arrangement is required between the devolved parts of the United Kingdom.
This brings us back to the common frameworks programme, detailed, as I said, by my noble friend Lord German. There is no doubt that the advanced development of common frameworks has been complicated by the Bill before us today. The Bill aims for a draconian, even dictatorial, power to ensure that sales in one part of the UK will be acceptable in all other parts. This may be the desired result for some people under any arrangement, but it may not be the desired result in one of the devolved nations.
I require the Minister to explain how the Bill and the common frameworks are to function at the same time. The Bill is unnecessary and could well be very harmful. We should do all in our power to defeat the Bill in its current form.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Woolley of Woodford, has withdrawn from the debate, so I now call the noble Lord, Lord Naseby.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I am no lawyer, but after 46 years in Parliament, and five as Deputy Speaker, frankly my faith was somewhat shattered in the law when a decision went against the Government on the autumn adjournment, which seemed to me to be perfectly in order in parliamentary terms, and when we normally adjourn for party conferences.
Having said that, three aspects do concern me. First, obviously I am concerned about the amendment to the Motion, and I recognise that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, is sitting here in the Chamber. I am concerned if, as he says, we are undermining an international agreement, particularly by Part 5, and it appears that we are repudiating part of an international treaty which we have negotiated and which we in this House have signed up to.
However, I then listened to my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising. I had a copy of the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and as I understand it:
“If, therefore, the UK and the EU were unable to reach an agreement on Northern Ireland/Ireland, despite good faith negotiations and despite the arbitration procedures, and if the UK were therefore to be faced (against its will) with a permanent backstop arrangement, the UK would be entitled to terminate the withdrawal agreement under Article 62 of the Vienna convention on the Law of Treaties.”
Therein may be where the answer lies.
Secondly, I am concerned about the union with the devolved Assemblies of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and I have a particular concern about Scotland. There must be nothing in the Bill that makes it easier for Scotland to be difficult. Sadly, there is, and I am indebted to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which highlights the problems of how the consultation and the dispute processes would actually work.
Thirdly—I am not sure that anybody has actually mentioned this—there is the Office for the Internal Market, which will be part of the Competition and Markets Authority. Even here the portents are not good, because the CMA is regularly criticised for its poor performance, recently over bank reforms and sport monopolies.
This is a Bill fraught with difficulty, not least the reputation of the UK internationally, which is so vital for our future international trade. I shall listen with particular care to my noble friend on the Front Bench, in whom I have great faith, and I hope that he will be able to address the legal point. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is correct, and, if he is, it will be with my support for the Government that I will be voting in the Lobby.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, we have heard two interesting maiden speeches today. I warmly welcome my Cumbrian neighbour, my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock. What she said about the environment was not only right but very important. We look forward to hearing much more from her in the years ahead.
I put on record my appreciation for the forthright clarity of the reports of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, the Constitution Committee, jointly the chairs of the Constitution Committee and the European Union Committee, and of the brief from the greatly respected Bingham Centre.
Just what are the principal, inescapable mega-issues confronting us all in the UK? Climate change, migration, pandemics, conflict, limited natural resources, the biodiversity crisis, pollution, destruction of the natural environment, terrorism and international crime—they all require multinational co-operation. Not one of them can be dealt with effectively by the UK on its own. They require trust and discipline, hence the indispensability of the rule of law to underpin that essential co-operation. The UK has in the past been respected as a pioneer in the rule of law. What will the ideological, blinkered and visionless proposals in this Bill do to the respect and esteem which has been won for the UK by its principled leadership? What signals will they send to Russia, China, Belarus, Burma and Latin America?
This Bill is indeed a disaster. More immediately in the UK, the stability and trust that has been central to the cause of peacebuilding in Ireland is potentially jeopardised. The Good Friday agreement and the protocol are not just words to be cynically played with. They are crucial. What is proposed in this Bill could threaten that peace and stability which has been so painstakingly and imaginatively built. It is time to say enough. Security demands a more principled and enlightened commitment. How I welcome the reasoned amendment by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. I also totally endorse the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Butler, on any forthcoming ping-pong experience.
Regarding devolution, the same ideological zeal to recentre control in No. 10 crudely challenges all the progress and success so far in constructively building towards the new constitutional settlement achievements for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We must beware, for the future peaceful stability of the UK itself. The lowest common denominator becomes the reality. On a practical level, what of the lead given by England in the provision to help curb deaths from cigarettes and other tobacco? What of the legislation in Scotland on alcohol pricing? What of the spring water and bottled water standards established in Wales? What prospects now of their being part of a firm base from which to develop civilised policy for the future? We can now see starkly what “take back control” really meant: control for an ideologically ruthless No. 10. It is high time for us to make a firm stand.
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, there is a definite need to give Northern Ireland goods unfettered access to the UK internal market. The Northern Ireland protocol, as part of the withdrawal agreement, creates a unique status for Northern Ireland to remain part of the UK’s customs territory. The EU’s customs code, Community rules and single market rules will continue to apply to goods after the transition period ends on 31 December 2020.
After the transition period, these provisions can rightly continue to apply, with the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Nothing in this protocol should prevent the UK ensuring unfettered market access for goods moving from Northern Ireland to other parts of the UK’s internal market.
The UK Government are committed to having legislation to guarantee unfettered access for Northern Ireland businesses to all of the UK market in place by 1 January 2021. This commitment was made in January 2020 to restore devolved government in Northern Ireland in 2020. We cannot break this commitment. If we do, the UK’s reputation will be severely damaged. We are respected internationally for not breaking commitments that we have made in law.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
The noble Lord, Lord James of Blackheath, has withdrawn, so I now call the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria.
Lord Bilimoria (CB) [V]
My Lords, the UK internal market operates across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and it is the economic glue that binds our four nations. It is key to helping increase prosperity and raise living standards and opportunities for people and businesses across all parts of the UK. The internal market is critical for the UK to remain attractive to foreign investors and to maximise opportunities from new trade deals.
Firms across the UK have operated with the devolution settlement for more than 20 years. The United Kingdom Internal Market Bill must provide certainty that products made in one part of the UK will not face additional barriers to the market in another part of the UK and, with this, ensure that consumers in one part of the UK are not disadvantaged by having access to goods and services limited.
The UK is a highly integrated market. For the internal market to continue to operate effectively, firms across the UK have been clear that three principles must guide its implementation: first, that there should be no new barriers to trade; secondly, that there should be collaboration across the UK; and, thirdly, that there should be fair, independent and trusted adjudication.
The CBI, of which I am president, welcomes the Government’s plans to give powers to the Competition and Markets Authority to establish the Office for the Internal Market, which will also have the responsibility to report to the devolved Parliaments and Administrations. Where Northern Ireland is concerned, a free trade deal with the EU would minimise the need for strict controls on a range of goods entering Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK, bolstering the Northern Ireland protocol, maintaining the integrity of the UK internal market and respecting the all-island Irish economy.
The United Kingdom Internal Market Bill must work in lock-step with the implementation and operation of the Northern Ireland protocol. England, Scotland and Wales—that is, Great Britain—are Northern Ireland’s biggest market for external sales, being larger than all export sales combined. Over 7,000 businesses in Northern Ireland rely on the GB market, which is worth over £11 billion annually. For this to work effectively, the Bill must work in lock-step with the Northern Ireland protocol and respect the all-island economy between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Firms in Northern Ireland have always been clear that they want to see the protocol work. In respect of trade flows from Northern Ireland to Great Britain, the protocol provides that nothing in it shall prevent unfettered access to the GB market for trade in goods.
On 16 October, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, the chair of the EU Select Committee, and the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, the chair of the Constitution Committee, wrote in the Times:
“It is clear that the Internal Market Bill authorises violations of the UK’s obligations in international law. Setting out explicitly to break international law in this way is unprecedented and undermines the rule of law. The bill also risks destabilising devolution arrangements when it has never been more important for central and devolved governments to work together effectively.”
Today, the UK’s five most senior Anglican churchmen joined forces to denounce the Government’s new legislation, claiming that the internal market Bill could set a “disastrous precedent”.
Across the UK, firms are clear that the UK internal market is an essential aspect of how they operate their businesses. Yesterday, the CBI and 71 trade associations and professional bodies, representing 190,000 businesses and 7 million employees, called for politicians on both sides to carve a path towards a deal. The automotive, aviation, chemicals, creative industries, farming, food and pharmaceuticals sectors are united: securing a quick agreement matters greatly for jobs and livelihoods. Clarity on an ambitious deal would turbocharge business preparations, increase confidence in the UK as a place to invest and help to ease the sustainable implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol. This follows an intervention earlier this week by leading European businesses from France, Germany and Italy calling for a solution. Now is the time for historic political leadership. After four years of debate, there must be resolution; 2021 can then be a year to rebuild rather than regret.