House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Johnny Mercer)
The Ministry of Defence and the Office for Veterans’ Affairs are working together with colleagues across Government to improve access to social housing, employment and healthcare, as well as digitising the Veterans UK services. Defence Transition Services is delivering tailored support to service leavers and their families. The Government have delivered a veterans’ railcard and have announced a guaranteed interview scheme in the civil service and a national insurance holiday for veterans’ employers.
Gareth Davies
RecruitME in Grantham is a specialist recruitment business run by veterans for veterans. Will the Minister join me in congratulating it on its recent award for services to veterans, and will he outline what the Government are doing to encourage more employers to hire a hero?
Johnny Mercer
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and the company he mentions. I am clear, and this Government are clear, that the single biggest factor in improving the life chances of any veteran in this country, and their family, is having a job. The Government are fundamentally changing what it means to be a veteran by offering a national insurance contribution holiday, guaranteed interviews and things like that. Working with partners in the private sector, we will make this the best country in the world to be a veteran.
Chris Clarkson
I thank the Minister for his answer. The protections in the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill have been warmly welcomed in constituencies such as mine, but obviously we also have veterans of Operation Banner, so will the Minister reiterate the Department’s intention to bring forward the same protections for people who served in Northern Ireland?
Johnny Mercer
I am happy to reiterate again the Government’s position that those who served on Op Banner will be entitled to equal treatment from the protections that we are bringing forward on Third Reading of the overseas operations Bill tomorrow. I am clear that this is the first Government who are actually dealing with this very knotty and difficult issue. Northern Ireland veterans can be confident that we will not forget them—we will not leave them behind.
Selaine Saxby [V]
Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Veterans Charity, which ran a Halloween-themed charity car wash in my North Devon constituency and raised almost £500 this weekend? Will he also join me in recognising the vital co-operation between Government and the charity sector, with the Veterans Charity having helped 650 veterans this year alone?
Johnny Mercer
I pay tribute to all the groups up and down this country who work tirelessly every day to improve the lot of our veterans, particularly the ones in my hon. Friends’ constituencies. There is a shift in the provision of veterans’ services in this country towards more of a balance between the third sector and statutory provision, but we will always require a blend of the two, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her lobbying for this cause.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Johnny Mercer)
We have a range of measures supporting recruitment and retention, and continue to refine the armed forces offer. Measures include competitive pay, financial incentives, flexible service, and retention-positive accommodation programmes.
Sir Desmond Swayne
What is the Minister’s estimate of the quality of new recruits? Hopefully they are better than we were.
Johnny Mercer
I can safely assure my right hon. Friend that standards have risen significantly since he and I were accepted into the military. We make no bones about it: the standards to get into our military are some of the highest in comparison with our peer nations. We employ some of the finest people this nation has to offer, and under this Government we are seeing a conscious shift towards how we look after them and value them as our finest asset.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
As part of the national covid-19 response, Defence has supported NHS trusts in a variety of ways, with the distribution of personal protective equipment and diagnostic equipment, the planning, construction and staffing of Nightingale hospitals, and service personnel to conduct testing. We have established a winter support force of approximately 7,500 to ensure our continued support throughout the winter 2020-21 period.
Christian Wakeford
I welcome the Prime Minister’s comments about the armed forces using their logistical expertise in helping to combat the virus. However, can my right hon. Friend assure us that that will not come at the expense of the armed forces’ vital work defending the nation?
Mr Wallace
Throughout the coronavirus pandemic, I have ensured both that we have supported our colleagues across Government in tackling the virus, and that our critical defence outputs have continued to be fulfilled every single day. The continuous at-sea deterrent, our Royal Air Force quick reaction alert force and a range of other critical capabilities, and our operations, have all been and will continue to be safeguarded.
Jacob Young
Our armed forces have been instrumental in testing for covid-19, and soon they will be supporting the roll-out of mass testing in Redcar too. Does the Minister agree that in the run-up to Remembrance Sunday, we should focus not just on the loss of life in battle but on the commitment our armed forces make to serve our communities every day?
Mr Wallace
Throughout the covid support force, the armed forces have committed personnel and time and effort in helping the rest of government to meet this challenge, including local government.
With regards to remembrance, despite the covid-19 restrictions in place this year, every effort will be made to ensure that the occasion can be marked appropriately and that the contribution of our service personnel is recognised. We should all take time this week to reflect not only on the sacrifices of past conflicts, but on the sacrifices of and work that our armed forces personnel are doing right now all over the United Kingdom in making sure that this country gets through the worst of covid.
Andrew Jones
The role played by our forces in the construction of the Yorkshire and the Humber Nightingale hospital in Harrogate was very impressive. They brought engineering, logistical and organisational expertise to the project, working alongside the NHS trust and Harrogate convention centre. Will my right hon. Friend focus on the additional, complementary skills that our forces can bring to combatting this virus, particularly the speed with which they can act and be deployed?
Mr Wallace
My hon. Friend highlights the important effort that the military made in setting up the Nightingale in Harrogate. I visited it during the set-up time, and it is also welcome that that Nightingale has been used for other NHS tasks, which is an important step in building NHS capacity where it is under pressure elsewhere. Of course, we should make sure that we always bring to bear the best of our armed forces to help wherever we can right across the board. Resilience is Defence’s middle name, and it is that key part of our skill that we are bringing to support most of government across the country.
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
We welcome the recent Government announcement from the other place of the 7,000 personnel who will be brought to readiness ahead of the winter period. In light of that, does the Secretary of State agree that Government should keep the House regularly updated on the numbers of personnel being deployed, how they are being deployed, and if any further strengthening of the numbers of personnel deployed will be necessary as we progress through the winter period? Can he provide an update now?
Mr Wallace
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point, because I am very happy to inform the House on a periodic basis, perhaps every two weeks or weekly, of the MACA—military aid to the civil authorities—tasks that are being fulfilled. I can place that in the House of Commons Library. In the previous lockdown, we committed more than 10,000 troops. The number is 7,500 at the moment, but we always keep that under review. During the last lockdown, we actually only used at most about 4,000 or 5,000 at any one time, but of course we stand by to help. At the moment, there are over 20 MACAs in place and being used, and as we speak, we are examining some significant asks from a number of local authorities.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
The Government announced on 21 October that they will conduct a one-year spending review for 2021-22. The implications of that decision for the integrated review are currently being considered. The Government will provide an update to Parliament once this has been decided.
Alec Shelbrooke
At the annual NATO Parliamentary Assembly in 2019, a report was published about the growing maritime threat from Russia. Will my right hon. Friend meet me and other members of the Assembly so that we may feed into the review of forward and ongoing naval demands for the foreseeable future?
Mr Wallace
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his work in leading the UK delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. The UK, along with NATO allies, takes the maritime threat from Russia very seriously. This tempo and assertiveness of our operational output will continue for as long as Russia continues to pose a threat and challenge to freedom of navigation. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces would be delighted to meet him and his colleagues to discuss it further.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
As we belatedly go into this second national lockdown, can we as a House pay tribute to the role of the armed forces? I say to the Defence Secretary that his commitment to update the House regularly on the use of the armed forces in this second lockdown is very welcome. If he is willing to make further use of the forces this time, this House and the public will back him. I also pay tribute to the professionalism of the special forces who took back control of the Nave Andromeda last week. With the integrated review in mind, this is a timely reminder that while high-tech weapons are essential, our highly trained British troops are indispensable. The Secretary of State promised at the Dispatch Box “a multi-year integrated review”, with
“a four-year spending settlement…for capital and a three-year settlement for revenue”.—[Official Report, 21 September 2020; Vol. 680, c. 607.]
When will it be published?
Mr Wallace
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for paying tribute to the armed forces. He is, of course, right that the armed forces have gone above and beyond in making sure that we get through this covid process. Because of their training and the skills that they possess, we can answer the call to help with resilience throughout the country. We will not hesitate to take advantage of all their skills. The demand must come from the ground up—from local authorities or, indeed, the rest of Government. We stand by our offer to any part of Government or the devolved Governments to help in that struggle.
As I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke), the integrated review will be resolved; where we are going to go with it will be resolved. We are thinking through the impact of the Treasury’s announcement that there will be a one-year spending settlement. Once we have thought through those consequences and worked through the implications, I will report straight to the House on what that means.
John Healey
Is it not the regrettable truth that the Chancellor has cut the ground from under the Defence Secretary and our British forces? The Secretary of State rightly said that previous Tory defence reviews have
“failed because they were never in step with the spending plans”.—[Official Report, 6 July 2020; Vol. 678, c. 647.]
They were a cover for cuts, which is why our armed forces are nearly 12,000 short of the strength promised in the 2015 review; essential equipment, from new tanks to the new radar system protecting our aircraft carrier, is long overdue; and the defence budget has a £13 billion black hole. A fully fledged, fully funded strategic defence and security review is needed now more than ever. What does he say about the failure to deliver on that?
Mr Wallace
I think the right hon. Gentleman delivered the speech for a potential future statement. No one has said yet that the integrated review will be delayed or curtailed. What we are saying is that we are studying the implications of the one-year spending review on that. Once we have worked through those implications, he is of course welcome to make his points across the Dispatch Box. I know that he is keen to make those points, but I respectfully suggest that he waits until we have thought through the implications. Then we can have that discussion in Parliament.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
Ahead of Remembrance Sunday at the end of the week, we wish well all of those organising events in a different fashion. The day does not lose its meaning at all.
On the integrated review, I am sure that the Secretary of State is more frustrated than most. As an avid reader of National Audit Office reports, he will know that pushing spending to the right will ultimately leave him with less money to spend. A multi-year settlement, as long advocated by SNP Members, would allow future-proofed planning. Can he tell us what the consequences of the postponement are for the future nuclear warheads system and, in particular, the W93?
Mr Wallace
As I said to the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), the first thing is to wait until we have worked through the consequences of the one-year spending announcement by the Treasury. I, or indeed the Prime Minister, will then be happy to come and update the House about what that means for the integrated review and the consequences that follow.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
Unfortunately for the Secretary of State, we can all see where this is going, as he knows as well as we do. In April, he wrote to members of Congress stating that
“support to the W93 program in this budget cycle is critical to the success of our replacement warhead programme and to the long-term viability of the UK’s nuclear deterrent.”
We read in the press about his Department’s alarm that a victory for the Democratic nominee in tomorrow’s election could stymie congressional and US support for that programme. As his Treasury and UK alliances have let him down, does he agree with Tom McTague’s assessment in The Atlantic today that
“if the election of one president or another is an existential challenge, then perhaps the issue is Britain’s strategy itself”?
Mr Wallace
I do not agree at all, and I think the hon. Gentleman may be slightly confused because, whether it is one year or multi-year, it does not mean to say that the defence budget goes to zero. We will still have a £41 billion budget—one of the biggest budgets in Europe—which will allow us to continue with not only running the armed forces but investing in them. Of course, the challenge that we have always been open about is the black hole in the overall finances, which we will have to take steps to meet. I am sorry to disappoint some of his anti-nuclear colleagues, but that does not mean the end of the nuclear deterrent or the submarines. The budget will not resort to zero after the one year. We should first work through what one year will mean, versus multi-year. It is not the first one-year funding settlement, and it is not the first defence review that is trying to fix underfunding and over-ambition. I distinctly remember serving in the armed forces when Labour’s ones did exactly the same.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
I can tell the Secretary of State what a one-year funding settlement will do: it will make the integrated review next to meaningless. The Prime Minister gave me a direct assurance that the integrated review would not be delayed. If “global Britain” is an instruction and not a strap line, this review is the road map to how we advance our defence posture to support our foreign policy ambitions. Any delay to its publication with its full spending commitments will send a poor signal to the world that we are absolutely serious about re-establishing our global credentials and could prompt questions about our justification to retain a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. May I urge the Defence Secretary to complete this review as promised, with a multi-year funding settlement, taken in isolation if necessary, if the spending review is to be delayed?
Mr Wallace
My right hon. Friend raises some interesting observations. First, I ask him, as I have asked others, to wait until we see the implications of the Treasury’s announcement of the one-year review. Until that time, speculation is just speculation, but of course he might like to take his message to the next Treasury questions, where Treasury Ministers, too, can hear his views of the impact.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
Defence continues to play a vital role in the response to the covid-19 outbreaks. Defence is currently supporting 34 MACA tasks, including providing environmental health technicians to support Liverpool city region and planning teams to support Nottingham City Council and the Lancashire local resilience forum.
Nick Fletcher
What role does my right hon. Friend see the armed forces playing in the event that a vaccine is to be rolled out?
Mr Wallace
Defence has already deployed military personnel to the vaccine taskforce, with personnel supporting central organisation within the task and exploring how defence could bring logistics support to the national roll-out of a future vaccine.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Jeremy Quin)
The MOD leads on strategic export campaigns to our NATO partners, and from my personal contacts, including recent trips to Estonia and Poland, I know how respected UK military kit and innovation are. We work closely across Government to support British exports and western security.
Aaron Bell
I recently had the pleasure of meeting the chief executive of Meighs & Westleys at its site in Newcastle under Lyme, where it manufactures high-integrity castings for the UK naval supply chain. It is already exporting 5% directly to the United States and another 5% through intermediaries. Will my hon. Friend praise the company for its export success so far, and will he work with the Secretary of State for International Trade to encourage further export success in the future?
Jeremy Quin
I absolutely congratulate the company on its successes, both at home and overseas. I work closely with colleagues in the Department for International Trade, particularly in the defence and security exports team, and I will happily, via my hon. Friend, introduce the company to that team to see what they can do to assist it.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
As shipbuilding tsar, I am working with Cabinet colleagues to supercharge the British shipbuilding industry. Driven by the ministerial shipbuilding working group, in the past 12 months the Government have signed the contract for five Type 31 vessels to be built in Rosyth, developed a maritime enterprise export plan to pursue export opportunities that will hopefully deliver state-of-the-art British ships to our global allies, and launched a major analysis of the skills required in the broader maritime sector through the Maritime Skills Commission.
Peter Gibson
My father worked as a shipwright at Smith’s dock on Teesside, and I know that the UK has a proud history as one of the greatest shipbuilding nations in the world. As we leave the EU, may I ask my right hon. Friend what steps he is taking to ensure that all parts of the UK benefit from shipbuilding opportunities supporting the military?
Mr Wallace
The Government’s ambitious shipbuilding agenda is reinvigorating this industry, including where my hon. Friend’s father worked. We are working to review old yards, to diversify the industry’s portfolio to promote smaller innovative vessels, and to strengthen the national supply chain, which underpins this. We will support tens of thousands of jobs across the UK, securing benefits for every corner of the Union and bringing shipbuilding back home to the UK. We are intending to use as many of our defence contracts as possible to incentivise investment by the owners of yards and, indeed, to invest in the workforces.
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab) [V]
Will the Secretary of State heed the pleas of his Back Benchers and listen to the shadow Secretary of State’s recent “Built in Britain” strategy for the defence industry? I reiterate: follow the shadow Secretary of State’s strategy to ensure that the UK engineering and manufacturing industry endures the covid recession; invest in British engineering and manufacturing, in British people and in the British economy.
Mr Wallace
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because I agree with everything he said; that is what we have been doing. We will invest, where we can, in UK equipment. We also sometimes have to balance the urgent operational need of our service personnel: if there is something they need now or in the very short term and we simply do not have the capability to deliver it, we will sometimes have to look where we can to get them the best equipment. There is always a fine balance between making sure our forces have the very best at the very moment and long-term investment. I am determined that we invest both in the people who use our equipment in the MOD and in our industry as far as possible across the board.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Johnny Mercer)
The Government have been proactive in providing support to the charity sector in response to the covid-19 pandemic. The MOD and the Office for Veterans’ Affairs have played a leading role in this effort by providing £6 million in funding for the armed forces community through the covid impact fund.
Cat Smith
In June, the Office for National Statistics reported that almost one in five adults were likely to experience some form of depression during the covid-19 pandemic. Given that service and veterans’ charities have seen a spike in demand for their services, can I ask what steps the Department is taking to support veterans, serving personnel and service family members during this very difficult time?
Johnny Mercer
It is completely accepted that this period of lockdown and the lockdown that is coming present particular challenges for a veterans community that, in some small parts, may be struggling with the situation. We have worked hard to go down the pathway of blending the statutory and state provision, working with our third sector to make sure that people are being looked after, on time, in suitable care pathways. We have more to do, but we are a lot better than we used to be and I am confident that we will be the best country in the world in which to be an armed forces veteran in due course.
Chi Onwurah
The north-east sends a higher proportion of people into the armed forces than any other region and we are proud of our veterans. Forward Assist helps them to transition into civilian life. When it moved online, it found that referrals quadrupled, with those coming from as far afield as Germany, and there was overwhelming demand for mental health support. It needs funding to improve its digital infrastructure and find mental health professionals to provide support, the need for which will go up again, with the second lockdown. Will the Minister provide that?
Johnny Mercer
I pay tribute to Tony and all of the team at Forward Assist, who do an incredible job in the north-east and are a good template for others to follow across the country. More money is going into veterans’ mental health than ever before, in terms of the transition liaison service, the complex treatment centre and the high intensity service that we are bringing on board later this year. We are always happy to look at doing more, but I am confident: the need is expanding and we are meeting a great deal of it at this time.
Kim Johnson
The Liverpool Veterans headquarters has seen a significant increase in demand for its services throughout this pandemic and especially for mental health support. This situation is likely to worsen in the coming months and the support this local charity offers will be in greater demand. The resources it has are stretched beyond capacity and the £6 million just alluded to is not enough. Can the Minister explain how he will redress this shortfall?
Johnny Mercer
By using the transition liaison service, the complex treatment service and the high intensity service. Those are the three frameworks through which all mental healthcare pathways for veterans in this country will go. There is an opportunity for third-sector companies, such as Forward Assist and the others that have been mentioned, to bid into those programmes—indeed, they are already running some of the programmes in the north-west and north-east. That is the future: a blending of third sector and statutory provision. There is resource in the sector and we need to do more to make it easier for people to understand, but I am confident of the way ahead.
Kate Osborne
Each death by suicide is a tragedy. Suicide is of great concern to the military and veterans community in my constituency of Jarrow and throughout the country. Will the Minister outline the scope of the Department’s study on the cause of death of military personnel who were deployed on combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan? When will the study be published?
Johnny Mercer
We currently have a number of studies going on. This country has traditionally been a poor collector of data when it comes to veterans’ affairs. We are looking at a cohort study of 20,000 people who went through Iraq and Afghanistan and what happened in their lives. We are also looking into each individual who takes their own life and studying the 12 months prior to that incident to work out whether there was anything that any Government or third-sector provision could have done to intervene. I accept that we come from a low base when it comes to data, but that is now changing and I hope we be able to do the best job that we can in fighting veteran suicide.
Gerald Jones [V]
The Minister will know about the recent announcements of job losses at Help for Heroes, in addition to the closure of all but one of its recovery centres because of a reduction in funding as a result of covid-19. As that is the case for one of the UK’s biggest household names, which is under huge financial pressure and having to make such difficult decisions, what further support will the Government give to service and welfare charities to fill the gaps in the coming months? We know that the demand is there.
Johnny Mercer
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise this issue. I spend every day fighting to get more money into the sector. The veterans care sector is changing, and aspects of it needed to change. We have seen a decrease in giving as the overt nature of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan has faded, yet the demand continues to go up. That delta is being met through the new programmes that I have outlined. There is always more to do and I am happy to speak to the hon. Gentleman outside the Chamber to hear his particular concerns.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab) [V]
At the previous Defence questions, the Minister said:
“For too long we have over-relied on the third sector”—[Official Report, 21 September 2020; Vol. 680, c. 611.]
when it comes to veterans’ care, and I totally agree. As far back as June, Cobseo reported that one in 10 armed forces charities will have to close in the next 12 months as a result of coronavirus. The pressures will only intensify with the second lockdown imminent, so what urgent action will the Minister take to ensure that no gaps in charity provision and vital support arise over the next four weeks?
Johnny Mercer
I want to be clear with the hon. Lady. A rationalisation and professionalism is definitely currently going on in the veterans’ care charity sector, and in respect of many aspects that needed to happen. My concern is veterans, the provision for them and what it looks like to the veteran. We are working hard to bring together seamlessly the panoply of care, whether it is in the third sector or statutory provision, and we will get there. There are financial challenges, but I am confident that we can meet them and that this country will be the best place in the world to be an armed forces veteran.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Johnny Mercer)
We are unstinting in our admiration of and gratitude for our armed forces, who perform exceptional feats in incredibly difficult circumstances to protect this country. We rightly expect the highest standards of our service personnel, and we owe them justice and fairness. We have introduced the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill to help to tackle vexatious claims and end the cycle of re-investigations against our armed forces personnel and veterans. The Bill’s Third Reading and Report stage are tomorrow.
Stephen Metcalfe [V]
I thank my hon. Friend for his response. Can he give me and the whole House assurances that veterans’ rights to claim against the MOD will in turn remain protected?
Johnny Mercer
Yes. The majority of personal injury and clinical negligence claims by service personnel and veterans against the MOD do not relate directly to overseas operations so will be unaffected by the Bill. Veterans will still be able to bring claims relating to overseas operations against the MOD within a reasonable timeframe. For example, in the event of a late diagnosis, service personnel and veterans will be able to bring personal injury claims against the MOD for up to six years from their date of knowledge.
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Johnny Mercer)
The Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill will not prevent service personnel and veterans from bringing personal injury claims against the Ministry of Defence in relation to overseas operations within six years. Historically, we assess that the vast majority—around 94%—have done so already for claims relating to overseas operations. We will, of course, aim to ensure that everybody in the armed forces community is made aware of their right to bring claims and of changes to the relevant time limits for doing so in relation to overseas operations.
Mark Jenkinson
I thank the Minister for his answer. Does he agree that the rhetoric around exemptions from torture mislead colleagues and the public and only serve to misrepresent the purposes of this long overdue Bill?
Johnny Mercer
No, but let me be really clear on these issues around torture. Nobody on this side of the House, or on whatever side of the House they are, would want to reduce our safeguards against torture. We have to be realistic about what this country has put its servicemen and women through in terms of historical allegations. Credible allegations will always be investigated. It is not right to say that it is almost impossible to prosecute, and people peddling that view know it to be untrue. I am happy to work with anybody to improve this Bill, but we must operate in the real world.
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Johnny Mercer)
The MOD’s Veterans Welfare Service provides advice and information on areas such as health, statutory benefits and pensions to all ex-service personnel and their families. Other areas of veterans’ welfare, such as health and benefits, are the responsibility of the respective Departments, and my officials work closely with them to ensure a joined-up approach.
Stuart Anderson
What steps is the Minister taking to remove negative stigma around mental health issues for veterans?
Johnny Mercer
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his tireless campaigning on these issues. It is true to say that we are light years away from where we were, but there is still more work to do. The vast majority of people and families of those who have taken their own lives have not spoken out and have not reached out for help, and that remains the biggest challenge in fighting the issue of veterans’ suicide. We have made great progress and I pay tribute to all those who have come with us on that journey, but it is clear that we have more to do and I am determined to lead that fight.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Johnny Mercer)
As I said in response to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mark Jenkinson), the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill will not prevent service personnel and veterans from bringing personal injury claims against the MOD in relation to overseas operations within six years from either the date of incident or the date of knowledge. Claims by service personnel and veterans that are not related to overseas operations are unaffected by this Bill.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy
As Members begin to wear their poppies across the House, I want to remind the Minister of comments from Charles Byrne, the director of the Poppy Appeal campaign. He said that
the six-year long-stop could be a breach of the armed forces covenant,
and that the six-year limit is
protecting the MOD, rather than service personnel.
The Government say that the Bill is about protecting veterans, so, given that this is what many veterans’ organisations are saying, will the Government think again about the six-year limit, and will they also commit to promoting awareness of how to bring forward civil claims against the MOD to ensure that no veteran is unable to make a civil claim in the future?
Johnny Mercer
It is not true to say that many veterans’ organisations take the same view as the Legion on this case. Neither the Legion nor the Government are the guarantor of the armed forces covenant. I am absolutely 100% sure that this does not breach the armed forces covenant. If we were to wilfully translate it in a way in which it was never intended, then I accept what has been said, but that is not what the armed forces covenant is there to do. It is there to ensure that there is no disadvantage for those who serve, and this Government are the first to legislate, in the armed forces Bill next year, to make it illegal to discriminate against servicemen and women and veterans for their service. I am afraid therefore that I disagree on that point. It is a good Bill. It is fair and proportionate, and people should support it tomorrow.
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
The protection of UK territorial waters is a cross-Government responsibility. The Ministry of Defence contributes to this by providing a multi-layered capability to deter incursions into territorial waters. This includes a range of assets based in Scotland, from surface ships and submarines based on the Clyde to the new Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft based at RAF Lossiemouth. That is a good example of how United Kingdom defence contributes to the security of all these islands.
Allan Dorans [V]
Can the Secretary of State tell us his plans to ensure that our armed forces can cope with multiple tasks, including combating people and drug trafficking, and foreign incursion into our territorial waters and airspace, as has been seen recently? Will they specifically live up to the Government’s promise to establish a frigate factory on the Clyde?
Mr Wallace
First of all, the hon. Gentleman will know that one of the ways in which we cope with securing our borders—both inside and further afield internationally—is by burden sharing and working across a range of agencies, including with the Scottish Government, who have control of fisheries protection. On the issue of a frigate factory, first and foremost, the last two major shipbuilding contracts for defence have both been placed in Scotland: the Type 26 on the Clyde and the Type 31 at Rosyth. Good United Kingdom shipbuilding will, of course, always involve Scotland—as long as Scotland remains part of the United Kingdom.
Alan Brown [V]
Scottish waters comprise over 60% of the UK’s waters, yet we have no surface warships. In fact, the most northerly surface warship base is located at the south coast of England, which means that scrambling a fleet ready escort takes over 24 hours to reach Scottish waters. Given that there are almost monthly transgressions into Scottish waters and we need regular patrols, why is the Rosyth base being scrapped?
Mr Wallace
The hon. Gentleman’s claim could have some credibility if his party was not busy trying to scrap the HM submarine base on the Clyde and to push the submarines out of Scotland.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Jeremy Quin)
The Ministry of Defence only uses non-disclosure agreements in its commercial arrangements by exception, when there is a specific need. Although no trend analysis has been undertaken, it remains the case that NDAs are only used where absolutely necessary.
Mr Jones
I accept that NDAs are important in terms of financial contractual obligations, but is the Minister aware that his Department is asking industry, at pre-bid stage, to sign NDAs that actually exclude those companies from being able to speak to MPs or Ministers? I understand that some US primes such as Boeing and Lockheed Martin are refusing to sign them—quite rightly—so why is the Department now getting companies to sign these NDAs for contracts such as Skynet?
Jeremy Quin
I am not aware of any company complaining about NDAs. If the right hon. Gentleman is aware of some, I would really encourage those companies to get in contact with me directly and I will take it up.
Jeremy Quin
There are many means, including through trade associations, whereby companies can put the word to Ministers if they are concerned. NDAs do have a valuable role, including protecting the interests of the commercial entities themselves; they normally work both ways. Many companies are reluctant to share intellectual property, and research and development, with another entity without having their own position protected, so NDAs have a benefit for companies as well.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Jeremy Quin)
We have maintained a close and ongoing dialogue with defence manufacturers throughout the pandemic to ensure that companies are effectively supported. I am pleased to confirm that orders have continued to be placed throughout the crisis.
Geraint Davies [V]
Airbus and Tata Steel in Neath Port Talbot are strategically important to the Welsh economy. Is the Minister ensuring that procurement is brought forward in terms of buying aircraft and building ships to help British steel and Airbus? Boeing, for example, has a lot of orders in America that supports it as a primary competitor, and we see such support in Europe as well. What is the Minister doing for Airbus and Tata Steel?
Jeremy Quin
There are elements of programmes that are being brought forward. The prime focus now, however, is on supporting the cash flow of the companies and suppliers. We have the means of doing so and we have been doing so. We have also been encouraging primes to support their own supply chains. From what I hear from trade bodies, that has been happening. I am pleased by the way the whole of industry has leant in during this ongoing pandemic and the support they have been given right the way across.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
The Ministry of Defence takes the threat posed by malicious disinformation campaigning by state and non-state actors very seriously. Working with allies and partners across Government collectively, we monitor such activity closely, assess the risk, and take action to counter it if appropriate.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
The Government are committed to ensuring that we have the best possible process for timely and effective investigations into serious allegations arising from future military operations overseas. That is why, building on the review of the service justice system done by His Honour Shaun Lyons and former chief constable Sir Jon Murphy, I announced on 13 October that I have commissioned a review to be led by Sir Richard Henriques. Sir Richard Henriques was appointed to the High Court bench in 2000, has tried several high-profile terrorist cases, and has conducted several reviews for the Crown Prosecution Service and the Metropolitan police. His review will consider options for strengthening internal investigation processes and skills, thus helping to ensure that in our future complex and demanding operations around the world, our armed forces are continuing to uphold the highest standards of conduct. It will not revisit past investigations or prosecutable decisions.
Mr Bone [V]
Does the Secretary of State believe that not having a multi-year defence settlement would be catastrophic?
Mr Wallace
My hon. Friend will know that last year we did not have one either, but we got a generous settlement from the Treasury for that one year. It is of course the case that any Department that has a heavy reliance on capital spending prefers a long-term spending commitment from the Treasury. That was true a decade ago and it is true today. That is our preference. However, we are also living in a time of covid-19—a less than a once-in-a-generation challenge to both the coffers and indeed the conduct of this country. As a result, we will have to review each issue as it comes. As I have said, we are in the middle of a form of negotiation trying to see what the impacts of the announcement will be.
Mr Speaker
Can I just say that topicals are meant to be short and punchy? We have got to get into that habit.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
As we have seen this afternoon, there is growing cross-party concern over the Secretary of State’s overseas operations Bill. Will he now accept, after 10 Committee sittings, that it is clear that the Bill simply does not do what it says on the tin—to protect British troops overseas from vexatious litigation and repeat investigations? Will he also accept that, as we have seen this afternoon, the Minister in charge is in denial about the Bill’s flaws and dangers? Will the Secretary of State himself therefore join me tomorrow for Report stage so that we can work together on the changes needed to make this legislation fit for purpose?
Mr Speaker
Order. I say to the Front Benchers once again, if you are going to ask questions in topicals, they have got to be short and punchy. That is the idea of topicals. I call the Secretary of State.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Jeremy Quin)
As a leading European ally, we work closely with allied nations and do not need formal EU programmes to do so. However, I understand that the EU is in the final stages of agreeing third country participation rules for PESCO, and we look forward to seeing them in due course.
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP) [V]
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Johnny Mercer)
I have met the widow of Dean Sprouting on a couple of occasions, and I am more than happy to do so again. This incident has been investigated. It is a tragic incident. I am happy to speak with her again, but I am not sure there is too much more we can do.
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
Johnny Mercer
This is a very important time of year for the country. We encourage people to remember in their own way. There will be guidance given out by local authorities, but remembrance events will be able to go ahead. There will be a small national ceremony at the Cenotaph that we encourage people to watch on television.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
Johnny Mercer
Well, it is veterans ID, not voter ID. The veterans ID card should have come out at the end of last year. It has been delayed. Everybody who leaves the military now gets a veterans ID card, but there are challenges in backdating it and dealing with things such as fraud. We accept that and we are working through it at the moment. I will have an update in due course.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Mr Wallace
Defence continues to invest in Scotland and the critical capabilities based there. Both RAF Lossiemouth and Her Majesty’s Naval Base Clyde are expanding and will be home to the new maritime patrol aircraft and all Royal Navy submarines. MOD expenditure with industry in Scotland has increased for the fifth consecutive year, supporting 10,200 jobs—the equivalent of £320 per person in Scotland. Approximately 10,000usb regular armed forces personnel, 5,000 reservists and 4,000 civilians are based in Scotland.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab) [V]
Johnny Mercer
Again, that is completely incorrect. The Royal British Legion does not think that. It thinks that there is a risk, and it has outlined that risk. We have taken that risk into consideration, and the Bill does not breach the armed forces covenant. It is a good piece of legislation and the House should support it tomorrow.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
Johnny Mercer
This country has a very long-standing system to ensure that we have strong safeguards against that sort of behaviour. Everyone deploying to Mali will be equipped with the mission-specific training that we have done on operations over many years now. We have some of the highest and most rigorous standards in the world, and that will be continued in operations in Mali.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Jeremy Quin
I can confirm that a baseline capability will be sailing with the carrier strike group next year.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con) [V]
Mr Wallace
My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) confirmed that the Salisbury Novichok attack in 2018 was carried out by the Russians and that Russia had an undeclared chemical weapons programme. We have repeatedly called on Russia to declare a Novichok programme and uphold its international obligations under the chemical weapons convention. We have brought in sanctions against those responsible for Navalny’s poisoning and we will keep every measure under review.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Jeremy Quin
I am speaking to my colleagues across Government about how we can help with the programme of planting more trees in the environment. There is a large programme ongoing in the estate, and I can assure the hon. Lady that we are very proud of the sites of special scientific interest under our control and what we are doing for the natural environment.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
Johnny Mercer
My hon. Friend is a strong advocate, and Accrington has a long and proud history of providing people for the armed forces. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces would be delighted to do a visit with her and to look at all the recruitment offices to see whether there is a space that needs to be filled up in Accrington.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Mr Wallace
All I can say at this moment in time is that we are engaging with potential bidders, and we will ensure that we build a ship that is the best of British but also incorporates the best capabilities that we can deliver for the money and for our armed forces.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
Mr Wallace
At the beginning of the covid outbreak, the military were deeply engaged in the roll-out, building and running of the covid Nightingale hospitals, including the transfer of reserve medics from the NHS into that service. We will continue to review that. We are working inside the Department of Health and Social Care to see what its needs are, and I stand by to deliver them.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Mr Wallace
I will have to look at the detail of that case, and I am happy to write to the right hon. Gentleman. Compensation and liability are obviously linked to who is at fault, and I will ensure that I furnish him with the details.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
The changing of contracts at HM Naval Base Clyde, as part of the future maritime support programme, is an exercise in outsourcing. It will lead to job cuts and weaker terms and conditions and create an unnecessary operational risk to our UK defence capabilities. Why is the Secretary of State doing this?
Jeremy Quin
I think the hon. Lady is referring to the change from one outsourcing contract to another. We have gained a lot for the taxpayer from the existing contract, and hopefully more will be driven out in the future. We will do nothing that could endanger national security.
Mr Speaker
In order to allow the safe exit of Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for a few minutes.
Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
Before I call the Prime Minister, I wish to make a short statement. I regret that the main elements of the Prime Minister’s statement were announced over the weekend. I understand that the statement was due to be made today, but was brought forward due to the leaks to the media. After speaking with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House, who went to great lengths to reassure me that the leaks were not from Downing Street, I expect the Prime Minister to keep the House updated on his leak inquiry. I also hope that, if the leaker is identified and is a Member of this House, that Member will make a full apology to the House for their discourteous and unacceptable behaviour.
I would like to point out that the British Sign Language interpretation for this statement is available to watch on parliamentlive.tv.
Covid-19 Update
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
With permission, Mr Speaker,
I will make a statement on the measures we must now take to contain the autumn surge of coronavirus, protect our NHS and save lives. On Saturday evening, the chief medical officer and the chief scientific adviser described the remorseless advance of this second wave. The extraordinary efforts being made by millions of people across the country—especially those in very high alert areas—have made a real difference, suppressing the R rate below where it would otherwise have been. But the R is still above one in every part of England—as it is across much of Europe—and the virus is spreading even faster than the reasonable worst-case scenario. There are already more covid patients in some hospitals now than at the height of the first wave: 2,000 more this Sunday than last Sunday.
While the prevalence of the virus is worse in parts of the north, the doubling time in the south-east and the midlands is now faster than in the north-west. Even in the south-west, where incidence remains low, current projections mean that it will start to run out of hospital capacity in a matter of weeks. The modelling presented by our scientists suggests that, without action, we could see up to twice as many deaths over the winter as we saw in the first wave.
Faced with these latest figures, there is no alternative but to take further action at a national level. I believe it was right to try every possible option to get the virus under control at a local level, with strong local action and strong local leadership. I reject any suggestion that we are somehow slower in taking measures than our European friends and partners. In fact, we are moving to national measures when the rate both of deaths and infections is lower than they were in, for example, France.
We are engaged as a country in a constant struggle to protect lives and livelihoods, and we must balance the restrictions we introduce against the long-term scars they leave, whether for business and jobs, or our physical and mental health. No one wants to impose measures unless absolutely essential, so it made sense to focus initially on the areas where the disease was surging and not to shut businesses, pubs and restaurants in parts of the country where incidence was low.
I want to thank the millions who have put up with local restrictions, sometimes for months on end. I thank them and the local leaders who have understood the gravity of the position. We will continue so far as possible to adopt a pragmatic and local approach in the months ahead. But we are fighting a disease, and when the data changes course, we must change course too. To those in this House who believe we should resist further national measures, let me spell out the medical and moral disaster we face.
If we allow our health system to be overwhelmed—exactly as the data now suggests—that would not only be a disaster for thousands of covid patients, because their survival rates would fall, but we would also reach a point where the NHS was no longer there for everyone. The sick would be turned away because there was no room in our hospitals. That sacred principle of care for anyone who needs it, whoever they are and whenever they need it, could be broken for the first time in our lives. Doctors and nurses could be forced to choose which patients to treat, who would live and who would die.
That existential threat to our NHS comes not from focusing too much on coronavirus, but from not focusing enough. If we fail to get coronavirus under control, the sheer weight of demand from covid patients would deprive others of the care they need. Cancer treatment, heart surgery, other life-saving procedures: all this could be put at risk if we do not get the virus under control. Even though we are so much better prepared than before, with stockpiles of PPE and ventilators, the Nightingales on standby, and 13,000 more nurses than last year, I am afraid that the virus is doubling faster than we could ever conceivably add capacity. Even if we doubled capacity, the gain would be consumed in a single doubling of the virus.
And so on Wednesday the House will vote on regulations which, if passed, will mean that, from Thursday until 2 December in England, people will only be permitted to leave home for specific reasons, including: for education; for work, if you cannot work from home; for exercise and recreation outdoors, with your household or on your own, or with one person from another household or support bubble; for medical reasons, appointments and to escape injury or harm; to shop for food and essentials; and to provide care for vulnerable people, or as a volunteer.
Essential shops will remain open and click-and-collect services will continue, so people do not need to stock up, but I am afraid that non-essential shops, leisure and entertainment venues and the personal care sector will all be closed. Hospitality must close except for takeaway and delivery services. Places of worship can open for individual prayer, funerals and formal childcare, but sadly not for services. However, Remembrance Sunday events can go ahead, provided they are held outside and observe social distancing. Workplaces should stay open where people cannot work from home, for example in construction or manufacturing. Elite sport will also be able to continue.
Single adult households can still form exclusive support bubbles with one other household, and children will still be able to move between homes if their parents are separated. The clinically vulnerable and those over 60 should minimise their contact with others. While we will not ask people to shield again in the same way, the clinically extremely vulnerable should only work from home.
I am truly sorry for the anguish these measures will impose, particularly for businesses that had just got back on their feet—businesses across the country that have gone to such trouble to make themselves covid-secure, to install Perspex screens and to do the right thing. Each of these actions has helped to bring R down, and their hard work will stand them in good stead, but it is now clear that we must do more together.
The Government will continue to do everything possible to support jobs and livelihoods in the next four weeks, as we have throughout. We protected almost 10 million jobs with furlough, and we are now extending the scheme throughout November. We have already paid out £13.7 billion to help the self-employed, and I can announce today that for November we will double our support from 40% to 80% of trading profits. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor will also extend the deadline for applications to the covid loan schemes, from the end of this month to the end of next, to ensure that small businesses can have access to additional loans if required.
We are not going back to the full-scale lockdown of March and April, and there are ways in which these measures are less prohibitive. We have, for instance, a moral duty to keep schools open now that it is safe to do so, because we must not let this virus damage our children’s futures. Schools, colleges, universities, childcare and early years settings will remain open, and I am pleased that that will command support across the House.
It is also vital that we continue provision for non-covid healthcare, so people should turn up to use the NHS and to get their scans. They should turn up for appointments and collect treatments.
Let me stress that these restrictions are time limited. After four weeks, on Wednesday 2 December, they will expire, and we intend to return to a tiered system on a local and regional basis, according to the latest data and trends. The House will have a vote to agree the way forward. We have updated the devolved Administrations on the action we are taking in England, and we will continue to work with them on plans for Christmas and beyond.
While scientists are bleak in their predictions over the short term, they are unanimously optimistic about the medium and long-term. If the House asked me, “What is the exit strategy? What is the way out?”, let me be as clear as I can that the way out is to get R down now, to beat this autumn surge and to use this moment to exploit the medical and technical advances we are making to keep it low.
We now have not only much better medication and the prospect of a vaccine, but we have the immediate prospect of many millions of cheap, reliable and rapid turnaround tests with results in minutes. Trials have already shown that we can help to suppress the disease in hospitals, schools and universities by testing large numbers of NHS workers, children, teachers and students.
These tests, crucially, identify people who are infectious but who do not have symptoms, allowing them immediately to self-isolate and stop the spread of the disease and allowing those who are not infectious to continue as normal. This means that, unlike in the spring, it is possible to keep these institutions open and still stop the spread of the disease.
Over the next few days and weeks we plan a steady but massive expansion in the deployment of these quick turnaround tests, which we will be manufacturing in this country and applying in an ever-growing number of situations, from helping women to have their partners with them when they are giving birth on labour wards to testing whole towns and even cities. The Army has been brought in to work on the logistics, and the programme will begin in a matter of days. We have dexamethasone, the first validated life-saving treatment for the disease, pioneered in this country. We have the real prospect of a vaccine, as I say, in the first quarter of next year; and we will have ever more sophisticated means of providing virtually instant tests.
I believe that those technical developments, taken together, will enable us to defeat the virus by the spring, as humanity has defeated every other infectious disease, and I am not alone in this optimism. But I cannot pretend that the way ahead is easy or without painful choices for us all, so for the next four weeks I must again ask the people of this country to come together, to protect the NHS and to save many thousands of lives. I commend this statement to the House.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement and for his call on Saturday to brief me on developments.
The central lesson from the first wave of this virus was that if you do not act early and decisively, the cost will be far worse, more people will lose their jobs, more businesses will be forced to close and, tragically, more people will lose their loved ones. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor failed to learn that lesson; as a result, this lockdown will be longer than it needed to be—at least four weeks—it will be harder, as we have just missed half-term, and the human cost will be higher.
On 21 September, when the Government’s own scientists—SAGE—recommended an urgent two to three-week circuit break, there were 11 deaths from covid-19 and just over 4,000 covid infections. For 40 days, the Prime Minister ignored that advice, and when he finally announced a longer and deeper national lockdown on Saturday, those figures had increased to 326 deaths a day and 22,000 covid cases. That is the human cost of the Government’s inaction.
The reality is that the two pillars of the Prime Minister’s strategy, the £12 billion track and trace and regional restrictions, have not only failed to stop the second wave, they have been swept away by it. At every stage, the Prime Minister has been too slow, behind the curve. At every stage, he has pushed away challenge, ignored advice and put what he hoped would happen ahead of what is happening. At every stage, he has over-promised and under-delivered. Rejecting the advice of his own scientists for 40 days was a catastrophic failure of leadership and of judgment. The Prime Minister now needs to explain to the British people why he failed to act and to listen for so long. But tougher national restrictions are now needed, the virus is out of control and the cost of further inaction would be huge, so Labour will provide the votes necessary to make this happen.
But we will also demand that the Government do not waste these four weeks and repeat past mistakes, so can the Prime Minister answer some very simple and direct questions? Will the Government finally use this period to fix the broken track and trace system and give control to local authorities, as we have proposed for months? We all agree that schools should be kept open, so will the Prime Minister finally put in place the additional testing, support and strategy needed to make that happen? Will the Prime Minister confirm that the new economic package—I think it will be the Chancellor’s fourth in five weeks—will be at least as generous as in March? Despite the partial step he announced today, will he go further to close the gaping holes in support for the self-employed, and will there be further support for the 1 million people who have already lost their jobs since March?
How does the Prime Minister plan to get a grip on messaging and rebuild public trust? After all, this announcement is only happening today because it was leaked to the national papers before it came to Parliament.
Finally, can the Prime Minister clarify what the process will be for exiting lockdown? Will it be only when the national R rate is below 1, or will some regions exit lockdown before others? I noted the Prime Minister did not make this clear in his statement. This really matters, because even before this national lockdown, millions of people have been living under restrictions for months—Leicester, for example, is on day 127—and after everything the British people have been through and are being asked to sacrifice again, they need confidence that the Government actually have a plan; that there is light at the end of the tunnel.
I know how difficult this next month will be, and the months to come. The lockdown will be harder, longer and more damaging than it needed to be, and now more than ever we must stand together as a country, as families and as communities, and show once again that at a moment of national crisis, the British people always rise to the moment and support those in need.
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for supporting these measures, and I think he is right to do so, but I make absolutely no apology whatever for doing my level best—our level best as a Government—to avoid going back into a national lockdown, with all the damage that entails for people’s livelihoods, for people’s mental health and for jobs across this country. That was our intention, and it is absolutely true, as the House has learned today and has seen, that the virus has risen across much of northern Europe. That does not mean that it was wrong to go for a local approach, and it does not mean it was wrong to support NHS Test and Trace, because both of those approaches—both of those means—have done a fantastic job, in their way, of bringing the virus under control and reducing the R. It is lower than it would have been without those heroic local efforts, and it is lower than it would have been without NHS Test and Trace. In my view, the right hon. and learned. Gentleman should stop continually knocking NHS Test and Trace, because we need people to self-isolate. I will accept many criticisms, but the one thing I do think we need to get right is that we need to see people self-isolating to a greater extent than they currently are. It would be good if people across this House could therefore back and support NHS Test and Trace, because it is absolutely vital.
Turning to some of the points that the right hon. and learned Gentleman made, yes it is absolutely true that we are going to protect schools particularly, and we are massively expanding testing for schools. Earlier in my remarks, I mentioned what mass testing can do for particular institutions: schools, hospitals, universities and others. He asked about help for the economy, for businesses and for the self-employed. He perhaps did not hear what I said: we are massively increasing help for the self-employed, and will continue to support businesses and livelihoods across this country. I once again thank my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for the creativity he brings to these problems.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked when these measures would end. As I have already told the House, they will end on 2 December. The House has the right to decide, and will vote on whatever measures it chooses to bring in, but we will then go back to the tiered system based on the data as it presents itself. He asked the people of this country to stand together against the coronavirus, and I could not agree with him more. All I respectfully say to him is that I think the people of this country would also like to see the politicians of this country standing together a little bit more coherently in the face of this virus.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
The impact of the pandemic goes well beyond covid patients to all parts of the NHS, the economy, and our personal and social wellbeing. Does my right hon. Friend agree that for this House to be able to determine that decisions across all parts of Government have been taken on the best available evidence, a new parliamentary Committee—perhaps time limited, or made up of Privy Counsellors—should be established to reassure the British public that the cure is not worse than the disease?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for the very interesting suggestion that he makes. I must tell him that throughout the pandemic, individual departmental Select Committees, as well as the Liaison Committee, have shown that they are more than capable of scrutinising these issues. However, I leave it up to the House to decide what arrangements it chooses to make.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP) [V]
It is right that the UK Government extend furlough as a consequence of new lockdown measures; it is right that economic support is put in place when Governments restrain work opportunities as a consequence of the health measures; and it is right that flexibility to take necessary financial decisions is also held by the devolved Administrations when they are taking lockdown decisions. That is why, since the start of September, I have asked the Prime Minister on no fewer than six separate occasions to extend the furlough scheme—yet every time the Prime Minister rejected that call.
This weekend’s last-minute U-turn on furlough has finally buried the nonsense of a Union of equals. People across these islands saw exactly what happened at the weekend: a mini-extension to furlough was granted only at the 11th hour when one part of the United Kingdom needed it. This is a democratic disgrace. The Prime Minister acted only when England needed support; when Scotland needed full furlough support, Westminster said no.
For many, this U-turn is already far too late. Thousands have already lost their jobs unnecessarily. Many good businesses have gone under and millions of the self-employed are still excluded.
Today I have one very direct question for the Prime Minister: if requested by the devolved Governments, particularly if they need to put in place additional lockdown measures, will the Prime Minister guarantee that the Treasury will make 80% furlough payments available when Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish workers or businesses need them over the coming months? It is a simple question, Prime Minister. For once, give us a straight answer to a question which the people of Scotland want to know. No more ducking and diving—is it yes or no?
The Prime Minister
The answer is yes because the furlough scheme is a UK-wide scheme and it applies across the whole of the UK. It is true that Scotland is currently taking a slightly different approach, but the right hon. Gentleman was talking complete nonsense about the non-application of furlough in Scotland—absolute nonsense. The Treasury of the United Kingdom has supplied £7.2 billion to support the people of Scotland, and quite right too. That has protected 900,000 jobs in Scotland, thanks to the might of the UK Treasury.
Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
I will not be supporting the Government’s legislation on Wednesday, because as we drift further into an authoritarian, coercive state, the only legal mechanism left open to me is to vote against that legislation. That is all we have left, Mr Speaker—if my constituents protest, they get arrested.
Given that the people of this country will never, ever forgive the political class for criminalising parents seeing children and children seeing parents, does the Prime Minister not agree with me that now is the time for a written constitution that guarantees the fundamental rights of our constituents—a constitution underpinned and enforced by the Supreme Court?
The Prime Minister
What the people of this country want, rather than delectable disputations on a written constitution, is to defeat the coronavirus. That is why I think that overwhelmingly they understand the need for these measures and the need for us to come together as a country and get the R down in the way that we are proposing.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
In confirming that the Liberal Democrats will back this new lockdown, can I tell the Prime Minister that we will hold this Government to account for failing to listen to the scientists, refusing to lock down weeks ago and costing many more lives?
Throughout this pandemic, many people have been let down by this Government—the excluded self-employed, students, key workers. But I want to ask the Prime Minister about one particular group who have been forgotten: unpaid carers. Many carers have been struggling for months, often relying on food banks as they care for other people. Will the Prime Minister follow the advice of Carers UK: increase the carer’s allowance by £20 a week—the same rise as for universal credit—and give these incredible people a lifeline?
The Prime Minister
I am very grateful to carers—unpaid carers, in particular—for everything they have done to keep this country going throughout the pandemic. I will look at the right hon. Gentleman’s proposal but remind him of the colossal interventions we have already made, worth £200 billion, to support jobs and livelihoods across the whole of the UK. We will continue, as I say, to put our arms around the people of this country.
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
Brecon and Radnorshire has around 50 miles of the border between Wales and England. My constituents, who are already in lockdown, regularly travel across the border for work, healthcare and education. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that essential travel across the border is not only permitted, but encouraged, and that the Welsh Government should not be using this pandemic to create artificial barriers between Wales and England?
The Prime Minister
I understand my hon. Friend’s frustrations and know how deeply difficult it is for people throughout this country to go through the restrictions on our normal way of life that we are asking of them again. I apologise to her and the House for what we are obliged to do, but we must ask people, unless it is absolutely necessary, to stay at home and stop transmission of the virus, and that applies throughout the UK.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
We were promised a Churchillian response to this virus, but rather than a Churchillian response, we have had a response more like that of Lord Halifax, because while we have had the rhetoric of defiance, this announcement today is really an announcement of defeat. We have surrendered our freedoms; we have surrendered our economy; we have driven people to despair with daily doses of doom-laden data. Can the Prime Minister promise us that, once we get past this latest lockdown, if there is another upsurge we will not get a bout of the same destructive medicine, but we will get a policy that allows this country and individuals to run their own lives and not be ruled by this virus?
The Prime Minister
I sympathise very much with the sentiments the right hon. Gentleman expresses about the loss of freedom and people’s frustrations; I do understand that, but I must say that I think what the people of this country want to see is this virus brought down. They want to see a reduction in the infection rate and, alas, at the moment this is the best tool we have to do that when we look at the whole national picture. But I am optimistic when I look at the scientific interventions that we have coming down the track, and even the medical and scientific advisers, who are not normally full of cheer on this matter, are optimistic when they consider the therapies, the prospect of a vaccine and the prospect of mass testing of the kind I have outlined to the House.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con) [V]
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. I accept that we need to do something to ensure hospitalisation numbers are controlled and the R rate falls, but will he please review the regulations around socially distanced outdoor sports such as golf and tennis, as these are good forms of exercise for all ages and present very little risk of infection?
The Prime Minister
I sympathise again with that point, and I am glad my hon. Friend makes it. All I can say is that hon. Members and members of the public should get on to the website and look at exactly what is permitted, but the reality is that we have to break the transmission of the disease, and that is why, I am afraid, I must, with great sadness, tell my hon. Friends that we have to make these restrictions for the next four weeks. I bitterly regret it, but that is what we have got to do.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC) [V]
We have learned so much since spring: we have learned that we are expected to act grateful in Wales; we have learned that the Treasury is only there for us when the home counties of England go into lockdown—a casual dismissal of devolution that cost people their jobs; the news simply came too late. The Prime Minister may not have noticed yet, but he and his Chancellor are fronting a membership drive for the independence movement YesCymru, which added 2,000 members in two days this weekend. Would he accept my grateful thanks?
The Prime Minister
I am always grateful for any kindness from the right hon. Lady, but I can tell her that, generally speaking, our co-operation with the Administration in Cardiff has been excellent, and I have no doubt that it will continue to be so.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
The Prime Minister is clearly and quite properly trying to do everything possible to cut infections and deaths from covid-19. To that end, over the weekend, a number of eminent scientists called on the Government to try to resolve the vitamin D deficiency issues in the United Kingdom to reduce the severity of the pandemic. There have been dozens of studies over hundreds of countries in the last six months that show—or imply, anyway—that that could reduce infection rates by half and case death rates by half again. The Scottish Government are sending four months’ supply of vitamin D to everybody who shielded in Scotland. Given that it is low cost and there is no medical downside, will our Government consider the same approach in England?
The Prime Minister
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend. He is entirely right that we are indeed looking at the possible beneficial effects of vitamin D, and I know that we will be updating the House shortly.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) [V]
Extending support for the self-employed is welcome, but it does nothing for the more than 3 million self-employed and freelancers who were unfairly left out of previous schemes and are still excluded—huge numbers of those working in the arts and hospitality in my Brighton constituency, for example. Will the Prime Minister look at that again and take one small but simple step that would help? Will he acknowledge that the minimum income floor under universal credit discriminates against anyone with an unpredictable and variable income, and will he delay its impending reintroduction?
The Prime Minister
I can tell the hon. Lady that we are supporting the arts, as she knows, with a £1.57 billion package. They are vital for our country; they are massively important to the UK economy. Her point about the minimum income floor for universal credit is one that the Government well understand and that we are looking at actively at the moment.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
May I thank the Prime Minister for the bitter medicine that he has had to deliver over the last two or three days? I assure him that I will support his measures, because nobody has put forward a viable immediate alternative that would avoid the overwhelming of the NHS, but what can he do to strengthen public confidence in the Government’s covid response? He has started today to set out some of the features of what might be called a plan for living with coronavirus—a combination of vaccines and testing, and tracking and tracing. Will he consider setting that out in a White Paper? Would that include transformation not just of the logistics of test, track and trace but of its leadership, so that it can run a coherent and viable campaign to change behaviour by consent and co-operation, and get compliance and public confidence in that programme? Finally, will my right hon. Friend publish more of the analysis and data behind the decisions he has had to take so that people can understand more clearly why the Government are making these decisions and there is more transparency and accountability?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for all his excellent suggestions. We are certainly happy to publish all the data. I tried to set out to the House earlier on our plan for the way forward. He is absolutely correct that it relies not just on getting the virus down now, in this four-week period—that is the objective—but on ensuring that we make the maximum possible use of the various scientific developments, not just the vaccine and new therapies but, as he says, improved testing. I can certainly assure him that the military will be closely involved.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
My constituents did everything asked of them. They obeyed the rules, at great personal sacrifice, and now they are being asked to do it again because of the Government’s failure. Trust is absolutely now at rock bottom. The Prime Minister’s two key planks to rebuild that trust are around test and trace and the tier system. First, he needs to sack Baroness Harding. I know she is a friend and I know it is difficult, but test and trace has clearly been a failure. He needs to give that £12 billion resource back to the experts on the ground locally who know how to use it and to support people isolating. Secondly, he is going to return to the tier system; that is all we know about what will happen on 3 December. What is the real plan? If the tier system has worked—Bristol is currently in tier 1—are we to expect Bristolians to return to tier 1 on 3 December?
The Prime Minister
First, again NHS Test and Trace—whatever the drawbacks, whatever the frustrations that people legitimately feel—will achieve its target of 500,000 capacity by the end of October. It already has achieved that target, and I think that is a considerable thing to have done. I thank everybody working in NHS Test and Trace for their efforts. As I say, we need people to self-isolate to give the system the effectiveness that it needs.
I can tell the hon. Member that, when we come to 2 December, the tier that areas go into will depend very much on the effectiveness with which we have all followed the instructions that we are giving today, and that is the guidance she should give her constituents.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
Lockdown is a necessary evil and comes with a lot of pain, and like my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe), many of my constituents in Bracknell have contacted me to express concern about the effective closure of gymnasiums, golf clubs and tennis clubs. Given the proven benefits of exercise and the lack of any clear evidence that these activities have contributed to an increase in the R rate, might the Prime Minister be willing to reconsider the current guidance within the next four weeks?
The Prime Minister
Again, I must apologise to my hon. Friend for not being able to offer the House a huge list of exemptions to the rules that we are setting out, because once you unpick at one thing, alas, the effectiveness of the whole package is compromised. That is why I want everybody to work together for the next four weeks, as I say, to get the R under control so that we can open things up again in time for December.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
What is the Prime Minister and the Chancellor’s estimate of the additional economic cost of implementing this second lockdown now, for four weeks or possibly more in the run-up to Christmas, compared with implementing it for two weeks when the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies first recommended it back on 21 September?
The Prime Minister
As the chief medical officer said I think on Saturday night, there is “no right time” to close businesses, or to close pubs and restaurants. We do not—no Government—want to do that. We hope very much that this limited four-week action will get the R down, and I think it is greatly to be preferred to a rolling series of lockdowns of the kind that I believe were being proposed.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
I thank my right hon. Friend, in particular for laying out the scientific data on which this decision is based. Most people will say they are prepared obviously to do the right thing in order to eliminate and defeat this virus, but could he set out the criteria that he will use to ensure that we can come out of this partial lockdown on 2 December? The risk is that things could get worse over these next two or three weeks before we see an improvement, and people want to know what they have to do to make sure that we get the infection rate down and make sure it stays down.
The Prime Minister
Just to repeat the point that I think I made to the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), the R is above 1, but it is not much above 1—it is not much above 1—and if we work hard between now and 2 December, I believe that we can get it below 1. But whatever happens, these restrictions end on 2 December, and any further measures will be a matter for this House of Commons.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) [V]
What plans will be put in place to address the spiralling waiting lists for cancer services, and what additional support are the Government giving to the many thousands of people who have had their cancer treatment disrupted due to the pandemic?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Member makes an excellent point. It is precisely to protect cancer services and to ensure that non-covid patients get access to the treatment they need that we have to put in place the package of measures that we have announced today.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con) [V]
I understand that the data leaves the Government with no choice but to enter a national lockdown, but given the huge consequences that that entails, can my right hon. Friend give assurances that the new tools at his disposal, particularly the 15-minute tests, will be sufficiently ubiquitous and effective in the coming weeks to avoid any future national lockdown after November?
The Prime Minister
That is certainly the intention, and that is why we are massively ramping up the tests in the way that my hon. Friend describes.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
The Prime Minister’s furlough is in place until December; the German equivalent is in place until December 2021. That is the kind of certainty that employers and employees in Glasgow North are looking for. He said that the furlough scheme is UK-wide, so does that mean that, if parts of the United Kingdom are still in a lockdown beyond December, devolved Administrations will have the resources they need to extend the 80% furlough?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman must have missed my answer to the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford). I can tell him that the furlough is a UK-wide scheme that applies throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. I remind him that the UK has already contributed £7.2 billion to support the people of Scotland throughout the crisis.
Sir Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)
Before Wednesday, will my right hon. Friend publish a full impact assessment, setting out the cost of the lockdown in terms of the jobs that will be lost, the businesses that will fail, the enormous toll on people’s mental health and other aspects of their health and the lives that will be lost as a result of lockdown, as well as those that we hope to save?
The Prime Minister
There are many estimates of the economic impact that the country has already sustained and many projections of the losses in employment that we, alas, expect. Against them, we must set the tragic loss of life that would inevitably ensue if the House failed to act on Wednesday.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab) [V]
It has been 33 weeks since the start of the first lockdown. In that time, one in 20 people who are part of the working population have had no work, but have been ineligible for furlough, self-employed financial support and business grants and loans. What is the Prime Minister’s message to the millions of people who have had no financial support about how they should put food on the table for their families?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because he raises a very important point. We have put another £9 billion into the welfare system, principally by uprating universal credit, and that will go through to next year, as he knows.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
The lockdown since March has been devastating for many people and only very reluctantly will I be supporting the latest lockdown measures when they come to the House on Wednesday. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the real problem is for people’s mental health, whether it is elderly people who are in care homes or who are desperately missing their families; business people who are seeing their life’s efforts ruined around them; or, of course, families with very young children who are isolated and, frankly, miserable? Will he do everything possible to make sure that this lockdown is a compassionate one and that those who are vulnerable and who have mental health problems will be supported through it?
The Prime Minister
Indeed, that is why we put another £12 billion into supporting our mental healthcare. The general point that my right hon. Friend makes is very important. That is one of the reasons why no Government would want to impose these measures lightly and why we want to make sure that we get through them as fast as we can.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister rightly spoke of the importance of strong local action and strong local leadership, but he needs to acknowledge that his dithering and delay, and the lack of communication, has made local leaders’ jobs far more difficult. Will he and the Chancellor commit today to talk to the core cities to assess the economic impact of lockdown on them and, in the first instance, the need for a winter support package to tackle issues such as rough sleeping, food poverty and mental health, as the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) said?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to the hon. Lady. We are in constant contact with government—regional, local and city—at all levels throughout this country to help it to protect and support our constituents. We have given about £3.7 billion to local councils and we will continue to support local government throughout the crisis.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
It is important that Parliament should have the chance to scrutinise the scientific advice behind these recommendations, so I am grateful to Sir Patrick Vallance and Professor Whitty for agreeing to appear before the Select Committee on Science and Technology tomorrow. But will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is his policy to have the minimum level of restrictions on businesses and people in every place, consistent with the need to avoid overwhelming the NHS?
The Prime Minister
That is the policy very accurately summed up, but for better elucidation and understanding of it I urge people to get on to the website to see exactly what they need to do.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
I accept the need for extra restrictions in order to get on top of the R rate and bring it down, but it is disturbing that the Government do not seem to have any specific targets that they seek to achieve through this lockdown. When we have the debate on Wednesday, will the Government be coming back with specific targets they want to achieve by 2 December?
The Prime Minister
These measures are time-limited—they elapse on 2 December—but I repeat that the objective is to get the infection rate to stop doubling and to start halving. To do that, we need to get the R down below 1—it is currently estimated to be between 1.1 and 1.3; I think the Office for National Statistics said recently that it was 1.6, but it has been coming down. Our intention is to use this period to get it below 1 and get that infection rate halving, not doubling.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
Some northern Mayors are playing a dangerous game of trying to divide the country along geographical lines. I remind the Prime Minister that lots of leaders in the north of England, including those in my area, want to work with the Government to defeat this virus and will not run off to the nearest TV studio once they have engaged in that partnership with the Government. May I, however, push him on the issue of mental health? This is causing particular issues for many people with anxiety. Will he ensure that therapies such as talking therapies and charities that work with those who have anxiety conditions will be properly funded throughout this whole process?
The Prime Minister
Yes, indeed. My hon. Friend will have seen that there are specific exemptions for volunteers and people who are helping—for therapists and others. We continue to put many millions of support into mental health charities, in addition to supporting NHS mental health.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) [V]
When local leaders asked the Government to maintain the furlough scheme at 80% when tier 3 restrictions were imposed across much of the north-west, north-east and west midlands, they refused. Instead, the lowest-paid northerners were told that a 67% wage subsidy was sufficient for them. When similar restrictions were extended to the rest of England over the weekend, the Chancellor appears to have changed his mind, shaken the magic money tree and returned to 80%. Does the Prime Minister understand why the north believes it is being treated with utter contempt? Can he now confirm that the Government will maintain an 80% wage subsidy for any ongoing tier 3 restrictions after the national lockdown is lifted?
The Prime Minister
The crucial point here is that the measures we are enacting today—or that I hope the House will vote through on Wednesday—are very different from the tier 3 measures, and therefore the package of support is, appropriately, different as well.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
Small businesses across the north-west have been operating under significant restrictions for some time. I have seen for myself the ingenuity and creativity with which business owners have adapted, as they have reported weak demand and reduced cash reserves. Many of them were looking forward to the run-up to Christmas for some relief, so can my right hon. Friend outline the measures that will be introduced to protect livelihoods and secure jobs in the north-west and Warrington South?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to the people of Warrington for everything they have done; I know that they have had a very tough time. It has been tough to control the disease there, as it has been across many parts of the country, and they have done a great job in bringing the R down. I think there is the prospect of a much brighter future ahead if we can make a success of these national measures and open up again in December, to give people the chance of some shopping and economic activity in the weeks leading up to Christmas and beyond.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
We all know that those who want to break up the United Kingdom love nothing more than a manufactured grievance, but I have to tell the Prime Minister that he does nothing to help those of us who want the United Kingdom to stay together when he is the one manufacturing the grievances. His position in relation to the future access to furlough funds for Scotland and the other devolved Administrations is unfair and untenable, and it has to change. He does not need to take my word for it; he can ask the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross), the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, who takes exactly the same view.
The Prime Minister
I must respectfully remind the right hon. Gentleman of what I have said repeatedly throughout this afternoon: the furlough scheme is UK-wide and it will continue to apply in Scotland—of course it will.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for his statement, and I take note of his answers to my hon. Friends the Members for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) and for Bracknell (James Sunderland) that there are outdoor recreational activities, such as swimming at the Beccles lido, that can take place in a socially distanced and responsible way. I urge him to reflect on that. Will he also ensure that indoor leisure and hospitality businesses that are required to close will receive the necessary support to get them and their staff through this crisis?
The Prime Minister
In all intellectual humility, we will look at all the suggestions made by right hon. and hon. Members across the House. We will look at any exceptions that we can sensibly make, but I just go back to the point I made earlier that it is difficult to take out one part of the Jenga block without disturbing the whole package. I hear what my hon. Friend says, and I can assure him that indoor and outdoor businesses will certainly be receiving support.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement today. I understand that there will be a Barnett consequential for Northern Ireland, and I welcome the Government’s commitment to that, but I ask him to recognise that the closure of many sectors in England has a massive impact across the United Kingdom, particularly given that so many companies in Northern Ireland supply the English market, and that UK-wide support is therefore needed. What will the Barnett consequentials be for Northern Ireland?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and we are making sure that people across the whole of the UK get the support that they need. I think that things have been tough in Northern Ireland lately, and the overall package has been worth about £2.4 billion so far, but obviously there will be more to come.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
I strongly support these painful measures, and the Prime Minister’s transparent reluctance to take away people’s liberties will reassure many people that they are absolutely necessary. It will not surprise him that I want to ask him about the testing of NHS staff. In July, Chris Whitty told the Select Committee that he supported regular testing of NHS staff if there was a surge. We now have that surge, but less than half of NHS trusts are testing all their staff on a weekly basis. Will the Prime Minister reassure NHS staff that they are not infecting their own patients, reassure cancer patients that it is safe to go into hospitals, and reassure the country that the NHS is not going to become a covid-only service, by saying that when we start this new lockdown, we will also start weekly testing of all NHS staff?
The Prime Minister
We are rolling out testing of all NHS staff as fast as we possibly can, and we are all too aware of the risk of nosocomial infection of the kind that we saw last time. One of the things that we are doing this time is greatly expanding the use of novel mass testing devices such as the LAMP technology, with which I am sure my right hon. Friend is familiar, in NHS settings. As I told the House earlier, we want to get to a world in which we are testing these particularly vulnerable institutions—hospitals, care homes, schools and universities—with regular mass lateral flow testing of the kind that I have described.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Participation in sport is vital for our nation’s physical and mental health. The Prime Minister triumphantly announced at his press conference on Saturday night that the premier league would continue, but his announcement today means that local amateur football will not be able to continue. Golf clubs and gyms will be closed despite their valiant efforts to ensure that they are covid safe. Will the Prime Minister publish the scientific data behind this set of decisions?
The Prime Minister
I am happy to provide all the scientific data on which these decisions have been made, but I think that the House will appreciate that for any particular human activity, one can always find an arguable exemption from these measures—or from many of them. The difficulty is that to be consistent and have a package that works, we need a thoroughgoing series of measures of the kind that we have described. I bitterly regret that we have to curtail for 28 days football clubs and sporting activities in the way that we are—I bitterly, bitterly regret it—but I believe that that is necessary to get the R down.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con) [V]
This lockdown will inevitably have very serious consequences for our economy, and for the livelihoods of millions of people up and down the country, for many years to come. My right hon. Friend has rightly stated that he does not wish to see the NHS overwhelmed, but, equally, we do not wish to see the UK economy overwhelmed. Will he therefore agree that perhaps we need a more balanced debate about lockdown, involving both scientists and economists more prominently? With that in mind, would he consider the Government’s chief economic adviser—or similar economic expert—joining the Government’s scientific experts for the No. 10 press briefings?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that point. I am not sure that I want to put the Government’s chief economic adviser through the experience of the press briefings, but we are always aware of the economic consequences and the downsides of what, alas, we are forced to do at the moment. That is why it is vital that we work together and get the R down below 1 again; it is only just above 1, and I do believe that we can do it by 2 December. We can then open up the economy again in the way that I know both he and I would like to see.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Small businesses in my constituency of Edinburgh North and Leith, and right across the UK, are facing permanent closure. The rainy day funds are exhausted, the personal investments of owners and partners are about to be lost, and the millions of people that they employ are facing redundancy. Will the Prime Minister give a guarantee that this will be treated with the same urgency with which a UK Government treated a threat to the banks a few years ago, and will he commit to directing major cash resources to small enterprises and the self-employed to see them through this period? Any recovery will be built on their backs. What will his Government do to protect them?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Member is completely correct in what she says about the recovery; it will be on the backs of small and medium-sized businesses up and down the land. As she knows, that is why we have extended a massive package of support including £25,000 grants, bounce back loans and all the investments that have been made—a total package worth £200 billion. For those now forced to close by these restrictions, there are grants of £3,000. There are also grants of £2,100 for those that may not be legally forced to close, but which are adversely affected. As she knows, we have also put in place cuts to VAT and deferred business rates until next year.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
I am pleased that, in his answer to the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock), the Prime Minister acknowledged the burden on businesses. After a difficult year, independent traders and hospitality venues in Rugby and Bulkington were looking forward to their peak sales period in the run-up to Christmas. Is the Prime Minister confident that the cost to businesses through the loss of turnover and jobs is a price worth paying? Can he reassure them that, after this short-term pain, it will be back to business on 2 December? Why can pubs not sell takeaway beer to go with their takeaway food?
The Prime Minister
Again, there is a budget of measures that we need to bring together to get the R down, and alas, when we start unpicking one bit, logically, a lot of the rest of it comes out. My hon. Friend’s fundamental question is the right one. I think that the people of this country want to put human life first, and they want to save as many lives as possible. That must be our overriding aim, and it is our overriding aim. We think that if we enforce these measures properly, if people self-isolate and if they are contacted in the way that they should be, we can get the R down below 1 in the way that I have described, and we can have businesses able to open up again and do Christmas business in so far as they possibly can.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
The Prime Minister knows that Luton suppressed the virus by increasing local testing capacity to track and isolate the virus and by the huge effort made by our diverse community to do our bit. With the virus increasing across the country, what protections will he put in place for black, Asian and minority ethnic communities, who we know are at risk and are currently disproportionately represented in ICU admissions?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to the people of Luton for everything that they have done, as I am to everywhere across the country that has worked so hard to get the virus down. It is absolutely true that some people, such as black and minority groups, have proved particularly vulnerable. They need enhanced protection and enhanced testing arrangements, which we put in place long ago, and particularly to ensure that people who are working in conditions where they may be more vulnerable to viral load from others get the protection that they need.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
I have listened carefully and engaged in many detailed briefing sessions about this latest escalation. To respond to my constituents and questions from Members across the House, can the Prime Minister give some clarification on the rationale for gym closures and restrictions on places of worship, especially as so many in Hyndburn and Haslingden have worked extremely hard to make sure that they are covid-secure?
The Prime Minister
The rationale is very simple: it is to reduce the overall spread of the virus and get the R down below 1. That is the rationale.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Charities have never been more needed. As fundraising opportunities have dried up and retail stores are closing down, charities are predicted to have a £10 billion deficit, and yet they are providing more and more services. What additional resources will the Prime Minister provide to ensure that they can deliver vital services at this time?
The Prime Minister
I mentioned the support that we have been giving to mental health charities across the country. We will be doing much more over the winter to support the voluntary sector, which, as the hon. Lady rightly says, does a fantastic job of helping in this crisis.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
People and businesses in Burnley and Padiham have had additional restrictions on them for most of the last seven months. While everyone is willing to make sacrifices, that is now taking its toll on our local economy. Could the Prime Minister assure me that not only will the support be put in place to get through the next month, but that when it comes to rebuilding our economy, the Government will put the same vigour into making sure we build back better?
The Prime Minister
I certainly will. It is in order to allow the economy to open up again in December that we are taking the steps we are now. I believe that this crisis must be met, as my hon. Friend rightly says, with a huge Government plan to build back better, which is exactly what we are going to do.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) [V]
The Prime Minister will know that Rochdale, Greater Manchester and large parts of the north have been under some form of restriction for many, many months. When we come out of this in early December, the one thing that the Prime Minister has to guarantee—he has not given us this today—is not simply that testing will have large numbers, but that the trace element of test, track and trace will really work. If it does not, he will be letting down the people of Greater Manchester, with the sacrifices they have made, and, frankly, the whole of the country.
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he says about the importance of testing. He is right. The capacity is massively increasing; as I said, it is up to 500,000. We are now testing more than any other country in Europe—I think 30 million tests have been conducted—but what needs to happen is that those who are contacted need to self-isolate. We will be making a big, big push on that because at the moment, alas—I must be absolutely candid with the House—the proportion of people who are self-isolating in response to the urgings of NHS test, trace and isolate is not yet high enough.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
My right hon. Friend knows very well that the big challenge of lockdown for many people is the loss of agency, the loss of control over their own lives, and the inability therefore to control the mental health impacts that follow. He has had to balance—I understand this difficulty—health today over the implications for health tomorrow. What is he going to do to encourage agency in local communities, to encourage volunteering and to encourage charities? Even now, when many people would be getting ready to organise Remembrance Sunday services, the Government’s advice is sadly not up to date today, and I am sure that he will want to put that right so that people can take control of their own lives and have agency at this difficult time.
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but I said in my statement earlier that Remembrance Sunday services can go ahead, provided they are socially distanced and outside. I think he is absolutely right in what he says, and we expressly want to encourage volunteering to help others in this difficult time.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
Last Friday, 361 beds in Nottingham’s hospitals were occupied by covid patients—that is 40% higher than in April at the peak of the first wave. The trust has already been forced to cancel operations and there is still a huge backlog of elective surgeries from the first lockdown. Further cancelled operations will have a very serious impact on some patients’ quality of life but, frankly, the Prime Minister’s dither and delay in Nottingham, in going into tier 2 and in going into tier 3, and now on a national lockdown has made that almost inevitable. What extra support will he provide to Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust to ensure that every single one of my constituents who needs healthcare can access it this autumn?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to the people of Nottingham for what they are doing. The hon. Lady is absolutely right: it has been a very tough time, but they have been working very hard to get the infection rate down, and we will continue to support them. Specifically on the NHS, we are making a colossal investment, as she knows—a £34 billion investment even before the epidemic hit us. It is the biggest ever investment in the NHS.
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
Cases in the south-west remain lower than in most of England, although the numbers are heading in the wrong direction. We are well prepared in Devon with the Nightingale hospital in Exeter. We must take steps to ensure that our NHS is not put under severe strain this winter and keep our hospitals open for non-covid admissions. We have a duty to protect lives and livelihoods, and our local economy is already incredibly fragile. What assurances can the Prime Minister give East Devon that come 2 December, without a shred of doubt, the return to a regional tiered approach will happen to reduce the spread and keep businesses going?
The Prime Minister
I can tell my hon. Friend without a shred of doubt that these measures are time-limited and expire automatically on 2 December, and we will go back into the tiered system, depending on the data—though he is entirely right in what he says, alas, about the spread at the moment in the south-west. But it will depend on the state of the data at the time.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP) [V]
Since the start of the first lockdown, we have been talking about the second wave, and we knew the current trajectory weeks ago, so it beggars belief that the Prime Minister ended up having to make an emergency announcement on Saturday. The devolved nations had to wait until infection rates in the south-east of England reached a dangerous level, and five hours before furlough was due to end, before he took action. Now that he acknowledges that we are in the second wave, will he devolve responsibility for furlough to the Scottish Parliament to ensure that we can support individuals and businesses in Scotland when they most need it?
The Prime Minister
As I have said several times today, Scotland has, at the moment, a slightly different approach. It retains a tiered approach, but furlough remains a UK scheme and available across the whole country.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
Professor Karol Sikora of the University of Buckingham Medical School concluded about the first lockdown:
“Many seriously ill people stayed at home, they protected the NHS, but it didn’t save their lives.”
This week, with Macmillan reporting up to 50,000 people with undiagnosed cancer due to covid restrictions, what reassurances can my right hon. Friend give me that, if this House does vote for a second lockdown on Wednesday, the Government will do absolutely everything necessary to avoid a repeat of Professor Sikora’s devastating conclusion from the first lockdown?
The Prime Minister
I understand the point that Professor Sikora makes, and I also understand the concerns of everybody who has cancer or who has a family member who suffers from cancer or any other life-threatening disease. It is precisely to protect those non-covid patients and to give them access to the NHS that we cannot allow our health service to be overwhelmed, as it would be on the current projections. That is why we must take the action that we are taking now. I hope that he sees the point and why it is precisely because we want to help cancer patients that we need to take this action now.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
My constituent Elizabeth O’Connor lay in agony for six hours after fracturing her hip and breaking four ribs waiting for an ambulance. Her distressed daughters were unable to comfort her or to see her when she was initially admitted to hospital. Elizabeth suffers from dementia and lives in a care home. Throughout this pandemic, the Government’s treatment of care home residents, staff and families has been negligent and unforgivable. The very least that the Prime Minister can do is allow one family member to be treated as a key worker for visits to help ease some of this suffering. Why will he not do so?
The Prime Minister
I am so sorry about the case that the hon. Lady describes. I have met, as I am sure Members across the House have, bereaved family members of those who have lost their lives in care homes, who have not been able to visit them, and it is an absolute tragedy. All I can tell her is that we are doing our absolute best to allow people to visit their relatives in extreme circumstances, making sure that they have the necessary PPE. What we cannot have is another outbreak of the kind that we saw in care homes and, alas, the virus is transmitted readily in care homes and between care homes and we must not see that again.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con) [V]
I commend the Prime Minister for his statement and will be supporting the Government on Wednesday. We must prioritise saving lives wherever possible, but may I suggest that the elderly should be allowed more leeway? Given that Sweden recently removed shielding advice for its over-70s, concluding that the general risks to their health from loneliness and isolation outweighed those from the virus, what cost-benefit analysis have the Government undertaken as to the balance of risks to public health and society from lockdown on the one hand and from the coronavirus on the other?
The Prime Minister
We are not bringing back shielding, as I mentioned earlier, although we do think that the elderly need to take special steps to protect themselves. In connection with Sweden, actually the Swedish example is not quite the slam-dunk that perhaps people think. Sweden does not, for instance, allow pupils over 15 to get back into school, whereas we prioritise keeping our schools open. That is the balance that we strike the whole time—a balance between keeping our economy moving as far as we can, keeping our schools open, and defeating the virus. That is what we are trying to do.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
We are now halfway through our firebreak lockdown in Wales, and much of the north-west, the north-east and the west midlands has faced significant local restrictions for months now. When devolved Administrations and local government argued that the 67% furlough scheme was insufficient, the UK Government said that it was the best they could do. Yet when similar restrictions were extended to England, including large swathes of the south, they then changed their minds and have gone back to 80%. Why do this Government have one rule for the south of England and another one for the rest of the United Kingdom?
The Prime Minister
The answer is that we have a different package of support for different measures, and that is entirely what you would expect. There is now uniformity, and it is our view that furlough remains available throughout the UK.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will know the basis on which the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 is subject to judicial review. Would he look at the advice given to MPs by Lord Sumption this morning that now that Parliament is sitting throughout this lockdown, we could increase parliamentary scrutiny and the legitimacy of the lockdown by moving to using the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 instead of the Public Health Act 1984?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I can certainly reassure him that this measure is time-limited and will expire on 2 December. As for the legal basis, the Civil Contingencies Act has a strict test known as the triple lock that must be met before emergency regulations under the Act can be made. One of these tests is that there must not be existing powers elsewhere, and the Public Health Act 1984 offers clear powers to impose restrictions on public health grounds. That is why, despite his very useful suggestion, the Public Health Act is the more appropriate route.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
No one is more disappointed with this lockdown than my constituents in North Norfolk. It is a bitter pill to swallow, as we have consistently been one of the lowest infection areas in the entire country. But the simple fact now is that in the past four weeks our hospital admissions have gone up over tenfold. So will the Prime Minister please tell us, and reassure my constituents, that we must now have these measures simply to protect my local health services so that they are not overrun?
The Prime Minister
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the clarity with which he puts the dilemma. Even in areas where the incidence has been very low, it is now climbing very fast.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP) [V]
It was reported at the weekend that the chair of the UK Government’s vaccine taskforce showed official sensitive Government documents to an event for US venture capitalists—a move that a former chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life described as “seriously ill-advised”. With jobs being awarded, even in the midst of a pandemic, without recourse to the approved recruitment processes, and billions of pounds of public procurement being awarded without going through open processes, what steps does the Prime Minister plan to take to restore public confidence in the competence and probity of his Government, and to help to reassure people that there is not a cronyvirus at the heart of his Government that requires eradication every bit as much as the coronavirus outside of it?
The Prime Minister
I thank people who are working pro bono on NHS Test and Trace, who come under repeated attack, or on our vaccine taskforce. It is thanks to their hard work that the UK is among the frontrunners in being on the verge of being able to deliver a vaccine. If and when a vaccine is produced next year—I must tell the House that it is by no means certain, but if and when it emerges—it will be at least partly thanks to their hard work.
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
Will the Prime Minister please ensure that he works with the devolved Administrations to get a united approach for Christmas? My constituents and local businesses can ill afford the hokey-cokey of Wales out, England in, Wales back in and England back out.
The Prime Minister
We continue to work with the devolved Administrations and will do so throughout this pandemic.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab) [V]
Will the Prime Minister indicate what assessment he has made of the idea of keeping gyms open during the new lockdown to support people’s health and mental health? A low prevalence of transmission is attributed to the industry, and I have many people almost begging to be able to exercise in gyms.
The Prime Minister
With great regret, I must repeat the answer that I have given to colleagues from all parties this afternoon, which is that we have to put in a full package of measures to get the virus down. I set them out earlier, but people who wish to know exactly what they are should look at our website.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
I support the Prime Minister on the difficult balance and the difficult decision that he had to make this weekend, but I urge him, before he signs off on the guidance for care homes, to do everything possible to help families who visit loved ones in care homes and to look into things like the idea of a designated family member who would be tested regularly and able to visit.
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that we want to do everything we can to enable loved ones to be visited in care homes. It is an exceptionally difficult dilemma, but we think repeated testing offers the way forward.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
The Prime Minister could possibly be a bit confused. In his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), he said that the furlough scheme is available “throughout the UK”. On 16 October, the Welsh First Minister asked the Chancellor to extend the furlough scheme from 67% of pay to 80%. On 19 October, the Chancellor told the First Minister that that could not be done for “technical reasons”. What are those technical reasons? Or is this more about the fact that when it suits the Prime Minister, furlough applies to the whole UK, and when it does not suit him for party political reasons, it does not?
The Prime Minister
We are going back into measures across England that are necessary to drive the R down. They differ from the measures currently obtaining in Scotland, but in so far as people across this country need furlough, in Wales or elsewhere, they have access to furlough. It is a UK-wide system.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
Doctors are between two and five times more likely to take their lives than the general population. In 2018, my constituent Dr Jagdip Sidhu was a consultant cardiologist at Darent Valley Hospital. He was at the cutting edge of medical treatment but, alas, could not cope with the pressure that he faced and, sadly, he took his own life. Does the Prime Minister agree that it is vital that we do as much as possible for the welfare of clinicians during what is going to be a very challenging time for the profession?
The Prime Minister
I am deeply sorry to hear about that loss of life—the suicide of my hon. Friend’s constituent, Dr Jagdip Sidhu. All I can say is that we are doing everything we can to support NHS care for its staff, their wellbeing and their mental health. I urge anybody in the NHS who is aware of a colleague who is struggling with their mental health to come forward and seek help.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
Will the Prime Minister please tell the House how many people he estimates were laid off in anticipation of the furlough scheme ending before its last-minute extension, and whether he will make an apology to them?
The Prime Minister
I think most fair-minded people would think that this Government have done everything they can to support people throughout this crisis. We are not only extending the furlough scheme but massively increasing help for the self-employed. We have already put £200 billion into supporting people across the country and we will continue to do so.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
I agree with my right hon. Friend that keeping children in school is the right thing to do. However, across the country, children who have received a positive covid test are being sent home, yet there will be circumstances in which they return to school, only to be sent home again because another pupil in their class has contracted the virus. In those instances, will the Government consider allowing children who have returned after testing positive to stay in school, since they are most likely to have built up an immunity to the disease?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend raises an important point. That is why we want to roll out the mass testing in the way that we are: to isolate the positive cases, liberate the negatives and allow children to remain in school as much as possible.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
A local mum, Mel, texted me this morning. She is terrified because she works in a supermarket and has only recently returned to work after shielding because she has a serious medical condition. As lockdown returns, she is worried that if she shields again, she will lose her job, but if she does not, she will lose her life. What employment protection will the Prime Minister offer those who are clinically vulnerable in jobs that cannot be furloughed, so that people like Mel do not have to choose between their lives and their livelihoods?
The Prime Minister
I would like to study the case that the hon. Member mentions, because we are saying to those who are clinically vulnerable that they should not go to work but work from home. I would be grateful if the hon. Member sent me the details of her case so that we can establish exactly what help her constituent is entitled to, because she should be entitled to furlough.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
My constituents in Keighley and Ilkley have had local restrictions since July and we are now in tier 2. Today, we were due to go into tier 3, with announcements on that last week, but that has been cancelled because we are now going into national restrictions. I cannot stress enough, on behalf of all my constituents and my local businesses, particularly the small and medium-sized businesses, which are the backbone of Keighley and Ilkley, the importance of clarity and clear and concise messaging, as well as financial support for all those who are impacted. Will my right hon. Friend explain why tier 3 is no longer appropriate to slow the impact on hospitals, and shine a light on the exit strategy from the national restrictions?
The Prime Minister
I understand why the people of Keighley feel frustrated after so long. Their efforts have not been in vain in tier 3—they have helped to get the R down and to depress the incidence of the disease—but we must now make a national effort to get it below 1 because it is taking off again. The way out, as I have already told the House, is to do that now, over November, open up again in December, and get going with all the technological improvements that I described, particularly the mass testing that I outlined. That, I believe, is the way forward, but it depends on our getting the R below 1 now.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab) [V]
Many of my constituents from all faiths have raised serious concerns about the restrictions that will effectively close religious institutions at a time when people need more than ever the comfort and security that their faith provides, putting a heavy burden on people’s mental health. Places of worship have gone to great lengths to put covid-secure measures in place and have demonstrated that congregational prayers can safely happen, with Bradford Council for Mosques in particular leading on that work. I urge the Prime Minister to look again at places of worship and more measured policies. Given that they have had no financial support since the beginning of the pandemic, will he ensure that they get the financial support they need?
The Prime Minister
I really appreciate what mosques around the country have done to make themselves covid secure, and what has been done in Bradford and elsewhere. I know how frustrating it is for places of worship that we have had to take these steps. All I can say is that we need to take them together as a country to get the R down and to get the virus down. We will continue to ensure that people get the support they need in the way that I outlined earlier.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement: 2020 has been desperately difficult for the whole country, and I know that he is committed to ending these new measures by 2 December. Many of my constituents are worried about what will happen afterwards, so can he commit to doing everything he can to ensure that we will have some sort of normal Christmas and at least have measures in place so that households will be able to mix by 25 December?
The Prime Minister
Yes, and I am conscious that we have Diwali, Hanukkah and many religious celebrations coming up in December. I do want people to have as normal a Christmas as possible, and that is why I think it is very important that the whole country comes together to follow these measures. I am sure that if we do, we can get the R down in the way that I have described, and people will have as normal a Christmas as possible.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP) [V]
The Prime Minister has rightly stated that this lockdown is to protect the English NHS. When it comes to support, he also keeps telling Scottish MPs that we have just to be happy that the extended furlough scheme is UK-wide. If we really are in a partnership of equals, will he confirm that businesses in Kilmarnock and Loudoun will get the same level of support if it is needed in the future to protect our local NHS, or will it only be available during this period of protecting south-east England?
The Prime Minister
Of course, the whole of the country will get funds to protect the NHS, as it has throughout this pandemic. As I have said already this afternoon, there has been £7.2 billion already in Barnett consequentials just to tackle covid.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
The Prime Minister has an unenviable set of decisions that he has to make, but will he recognise the frustration that residents in East Sussex feel? We have one of the lowest covid rates of any county across England—admissions for covid in East Sussex Healthcare Trust are currently 20 and not one placed in a high-dependency unit—so the residents have clearly done the right thing, but they are faced with a national lockdown. Can the Prime Minister demonstrate to me that the damage that will be caused to East Sussex by locking down—to our economy, our liberty, our lives and our livelihoods—would be a lot worse were we to do absolutely nothing?
The Prime Minister
Well, it is a very difficult balance to strike, as he rightly says, but I think that the medical data is, alas, overwhelming. The virus is doubling everywhere, including in East Sussex, and eventually the NHS would be overwhelmed even in East Sussex with, I am afraid, catastrophic consequences. We can prevent that by taking the action that we are, and that is why I hope he will support it.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
I do not know about you, Mr Speaker, but I am still not clear what has actually changed from two or three weeks ago, when the Prime Minister ridiculed my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, apart from the Prime Minister yet again changing his strategy. As he himself has said, infection rate rises have slowed over that period and hospital admissions reflect the infection rate from two or three weeks ago. This was entirely predictable, and indeed it was predicted. Given that the Prime Minister cannot stick with a plan for more than a week, can he now give some real clarity about the criteria for the exit strategy from this national lockdown?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady asks what has changed in the past couple of weeks. I am afraid the facts have changed, and the number of people admitted to hospital, as I said, is up every day. We now have 2,000 more people in hospital this Sunday than last Sunday. We cannot escape these inescapable facts. She also asks about the exit strategy and, as I have told the House several times, the way forward is to get the R down below 1 with a package of measures that I believe carries support across the House, and to exploit the many technical advances that we are making.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
I say to the Prime Minister that as a Conservative I do not believe that collapsing the economy is ever the right solution to any problem. That is why, I thought, we campaigned so hard to stop the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) becoming Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister therefore tell me how many collapsed businesses and how many job losses he and his Government believe are a price worth paying to continue pursuing this failed strategy of lockdowns and arbitrary restrictions?
The Prime Minister
I share my hon. Friend’s desire to protect the economy, and I believe fervently that we need to get as big and as fast a bounce-back as we possibly can, but I also think, alas, that the data is inescapable. If we are to avert the loss of many thousands of lives, this is the only option. If he looks at the statistics and the sheer number of fatalities that we could incur, I believe he will agree that it is the right way forward.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
I have heard what the Prime Minister said about congregational worship for faith groups, and it strikes me sitting here that the measures taken at Ealing abbey—four to a pew with every other pew roped off, hand sanitiser and a one-way system—are exactly what we have in this place. Does this not therefore seem contradictory? Does he have any message of hope for the monks there? As someone who might be marching down the aisle himself, does he have any message for the weddings industry? I have an Asian wedding costumier. She thought she would be ruined by the restrictions, but now weddings are completely gone. Does he have any hope for any of these people?
The Prime Minister
The wedding industry, in common with everything else, will we hope very much be able to start again on 2 December.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
Maternity leave does not just mean sleep deprivation; I have been in Stroud on the ground witnessing the superb local response from our NHS and from businesses working to get covid safe, Slimbridge Swans going up in their league and shops opening on our high streets, but now the Government are telling us to park that and hibernate. Can he speak directly to my tier 1 Stroud communities and convince them that their efforts have not been wasted and that all those covid-safe businesses and organisations will be out of lockdown in December or sooner if we can provide evidence to show that?
The Prime Minister
Yes, of course, because it is thanks to the efforts of her constituents in Stroud that the R is not very far above 1 right now. If we all follow the package of measures that I have outlined today and we all stay at home in the way that I have described, we will be able to open up again on 2 December.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
Does the Prime Minister understand that extending the furlough scheme on the very day it was supposed to end, and doing so for just a month, means that in reality many of my constituents whose jobs were furloughed have already been made redundant by their employers in anticipation of its non-availability after 31 October? Can those people be re-employed and furloughed until the scheme’s new endpoint? Can he tell me whether people who have changed jobs since the original furlough scheme was closed to new applicants are eligible to be furloughed by their new employers, who might not have registered for the scheme by the time it closed to new applicants a few months ago?
The Prime Minister
I hope very much that people will not have been laid off in anticipation of the end of furlough, because there is the job retention scheme and the bonus as well at the end of the year. To discover exactly what entitlements people have under the extended furlough scheme, they should get on to the website. I think that most people appreciate that the Government have done a huge amount to support people throughout the crisis and are continuing to do so in the latest phase, as well as supporting the self-employed.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
My constituents in North West Durham understand the very difficult decisions that the Prime Minister is having to take and the very difficult balances he is having to strike, but will he confirm to them and to the House that the tier 4 measures will end on 2 December? Also, will he confirm for the many local parents who have got in touch, concerned that schools could be closed, that schools will remain open throughout this period?
The Prime Minister
Schools will indeed remain open. I thank the teachers, parents and pupils of this country. I can confirm to my hon. Friend that these measures will end on 2 December in exactly the way that I have set out.
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP) [V]
Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland taxpayers pool their tax resources to the Treasury, but when it comes to sharing it seems that only English taxpayers benefit from flexibility. In this crisis, we cannot have the English tail wagging the three nations dog, so I will ask this question again: will the Prime Minister give the Scottish Government and the devolved Administrations the powers to requisition the cash from the Treasury to support furlough schemes when that cash is required in each nation?
The Prime Minister
The furlough scheme is a UK-wide scheme. It is of course available to Scotland and the people of Scotland. At the moment Scotland has slightly different arrangements, but £7.2 billion has already been given in Barnett consequentials to support the people of Scotland throughout the crisis, and more will be forthcoming.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) [V]
I have been very supportive of the Prime Minister’s policy of having local and regional lockdowns, depending on the severity of the disease in a particular area, and there is some good news today: I understand that 5% fewer covid cases were reported today than seven days ago. Can the Prime Minister explain why the new lockdown measures will not be tier 4 and only apply to areas where there is significant infection, keeping the other areas in the lower tiers, allowing businesses to continue to trade and families to continue to mix?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support, but the reality is that at the moment the virus is doubling across the country. We have to take the measures that we have outlined to get the increase down, and we will then be reopening in the way that he describes and recommends, going back into a tiered system, reflecting what is happening locally and regionally.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I am afraid that for too many people leadership has now become a crucial factor. Has the Prime Minister considered making way for someone with a skillset better suited to get us through this crisis?
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
I do not mind saying that my constituents believe in the Prime Minister’s leadership and have felt reassured by the measures this Government have put in place to protect them. However, given that there is an economic impact from this lockdown and that will have an impact on livelihoods, what can the Prime Minister do to reassure my constituents, who have striven so hard since the relaxation of the lockdown on 4 July, that there is a brighter future and there will not be mission creep in terms of a lockdown beyond 2 December?
The Prime Minister
I cannot say often enough that this is a time-limited lockdown and it ends on 2 December unless this House decides to extend measures of one kind or another. Any further measures will be a matter for this House, and it is fully my intention that the lockdown should end on 2 December.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab) [V]
May I echo the frustration expressed by hon. Friends representing Welsh constituencies that the Prime Minister acted on furlough only when setting out England-wide action? As he has not explicitly said this, will he confirm that furlough support will be backdated in Wales? What funding will come to Wales as a result of the business grant support announced on Saturday?
The Prime Minister
We will continue to support all parts of the UK, as we have throughout this crisis.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I applaud very much the Prime Minister’s attempts to avoid a national lockdown. There are no simple answers—that is very clear—which is why data is so important. Oxford’s Carl Heneghan has said, sadly, that the Government’s advisers have made predictions, projections and illustrations that, when validated against what happened, were “abysmal”. Does the Prime Minister share my concerns that these are not isolated cases and that academics are showing concern about the data? Will he please publish in full the four studies that have gone into the work this weekend, as well as a fuller analysis of lockdowns versus shielding policies so that people can start to understand and trust the information being put out?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is entirely right to want to look at all the data and all the projections, and I am very happy that we have shared everything; everything that I have seen is available to him as well.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
There are 79 care homes in Enfield looking after sick and vulnerable residents who are at a greatly increased risk of death if they catch coronavirus, so can the Prime Minister give me his assurance that Enfield Council and Enfield’s care homes will not be put under pressure to take covid-positive patients upon their discharge from hospital?
The Prime Minister
Yes, indeed. We are making sure that no patients are discharged from the NHS without being properly tested, and in so far as they may go into care homes for reasons that are absolutely unavoidable, those care homes must be Care Quality Commission-approved environments where they can be properly looked after and not at risk of infection.
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
As models of athleticism, the Prime Minister and I know of the benefits of regular gym-going—not only for physical health, but for mental wellbeing. Knowing that repetition is not a cardinal sin in this House, will he therefore reconsider the intention to close gyms, particularly given the great endeavours that they have made to make themselves covid secure?
The Prime Minister
I am really grateful to my hon. Friend, who is echoing a point that has been made by many hon. Members around the House. I would love to be able to exempt all sorts of activities, sporting or otherwise, but we must get the R down. This is the package that does it.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) [V]
This pandemic has made the problems with our social care system clear. High staff vacancy rates and a reliance on agency staff contributed to the spread of the virus. Lack of funding meant a struggle to afford inflated prices for PPE. The weakness of our social care system ended up costing lives.
During the first wave, social care was an afterthought for the Government. To ensure that it is better supported in the second wave, will the Prime Minister confirm that the Government will consider investing the £3.9 billion in social care recommended by the Health and Social Care Committee, as a starting point for reform?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady makes an excellent point; I am glad that she cited the amount that we have already invested in social care. We do indeed intend to use this moment to deliver long-lasting reform of social care in this country.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
The Prime Minister is right: the furlough scheme is UK-wide for the next month. But the crucial answer that we need is whether it will be available to other nations of the United Kingdom if, in future, the science demands that further lockdowns are required anywhere in the country. If he cannot give that commitment, will he explain why it seems that an English job is more important than a Welsh, Northern Irish or Scottish one?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but I must repeat what I have said several times already this afternoon: the furlough scheme is a UK-wide scheme. If other parts of the UK decide to go into measures that require the furlough scheme, then of course it is available to them. That has to be right. That applies not just now but of course in the future as well.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Arts organisations have responded with flair to the existential crisis of the loss of their audience, but just as they are about to recover by going for live streamings from closed venues—I am thinking of organisations such as the Cambridge Jazz Festival and the London Jazz Festival—they face a new threat. Will the Prime Minister confirm that those closed venues will be treated as a workplace and allow them to continue?
The Prime Minister
I will study the matter that the hon. Gentleman refers to. I cannot see any reason why that should not be the case, but I will get back to him.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP) [V]
I think I just heard the Prime Minister confirm to the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) that if the Scottish Government require furlough funds beyond 2 December, those will be available to Scotland. Can he now get to his feet and confirm that that is what he said and that that is what he meant?
The Prime Minister
The furlough scheme is a UK-wide scheme and will continue to be available wherever it is needed.
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
Sport and exercise are hugely important for the health and wellbeing of the nation. Youth and children’s outdoor sports are low risk in terms of both age groups and the activities, while people can take part in other sports such as golf without ever coming into contact with another soul. Such activities could help to mitigate some of the more negative impacts, both physical and mental, of lockdown, and in my view the benefits outweigh the risks. Will the Prime Minister consider very carefully allowing some of these outdoor low-risk activities to continue?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but I must repeat what I said earlier on: there is a wide range of activities that many people would like to pursue, but the risk is that they will have chains of human contact whether they like it or not, and increase the risk of transmission. That is why we have set out the measures that we have.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Did the Chancellor veto an earlier, shorter circuit breaker lockdown, or can the 40 days of dither and delay that are likely to cost thousands of extra lives lost and billions in damage to our economy all be laid at the door of the Prime Minister?
The Prime Minister
The answer to the hon. Lady’s first question is “absolutely not”, but as I have already explained, any Government will hesitate for an age before imposing lockdown measures that take such a toll on people’s mental health, their jobs and their livelihoods. If she looks at what we are doing, we are doing it earlier in the curve than some other European countries. I think it is the right thing at the right time, and I very much hope she will support this package of measures.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con) [V]
I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement. My specific question is with regards to support for the independent small business sector. My constituent Rodney Chambers operates a small card and gift shop in Gillingham. Cards and gifts are considered non-essential, so he will now have to close his shop just before the Christmas period—the busiest period of the year for him. At the same time, he will see another shop down the road in Gillingham selling cards and gifts but also cleaning products, and that shop will be able to stay open. That, to me, seems unfair. Given the Government’s excellent support for businesses in the previous lockdown, can the Prime Minister please ensure that those small business that now have to close will be given the extra support they need in these difficult, challenging times?
The Prime Minister
I appreciate that there are many apparent inconsistencies in a package of measures that no one wants to impose on this country, and my hon. Friend is right to draw the distinction between the two shops he describes. What I can tell him is that, in common with all businesses throughout the country, they will continue to receive the support that they need.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
Whether it is the self-employed, small business owners who pay themselves via dividends, or people who were timed out last time, there are still 3 million people excluded in the UK. Will the Prime Minister resist the temptation to simply roll over the current arrangements, and address those 3 million excluded? I have to say to the Prime Minister that these measures are unpopular but they are necessary, and people will buy into them if they feel supported, but they will not buy into them if they feel they are continuing to be excluded by this Government, nor will their friends and family.
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. That is why we want to put our arms around the people of this country; it is why we are not only putting a huge amount of investment in jobs and livelihoods, but supporting the universal credit system by putting another £9 billion into welfare, plus making big investments in councils to help people who are falling on hard times. He is right to draw attention to those tough cases, and we will do everything we can to help them through this, but it is very important that everybody who has the disease and who is contacted does the right thing and self-isolates.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
As No. 88 on the call list, I thank the Prime Minister for remaining on his feet and answering so many questions. I would like to point out two things: one is that golf is a really popular sport, and if people are not allowed to go into the golf club except to use the facilities—the toilets—rather than the bar, would it not be possible for them to be able to exercise, playing their golf, with maybe a maximum of two people, if not four? That would give them exercise and help their mental health.
The other point is that supermarkets can sell alcohol, but pubs cannot sell it at all if they are doing a takeaway service. Small breweries are really going to suffer because of this, because they have beer in their tanks ready to go that they will have to pour down the drain again. Could we not look at creating a level playing field for selling alcohol on a takeaway-only basis?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for the ingenious suggestions that she makes. We will take them away and study them both carefully—both points are valid—but I must repeat to her, regretfully, the point I have made many times this afternoon about the overall budget of risk that we carry, the need to get the R down and the need to stop the spread of the disease, which is now paramount. Golf and everything else will be able to resume, I devoutly hope, on 2 December.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Beyond this belated national lockdown—let us say on 2 December —will northern workers in tier 3 areas be worth 80% of furlough or 67%? Which will it be?
The Prime Minister
That is an important point, but we will be deciding which tier regions need to go back into, if any, as we come towards 2 December—in the week before 2 December. We will be announcing that then, and we will also be announcing the financial package at that time.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
Would my right hon. Friend be very kind and explain to my constituents, who contacted me in their hundreds over the weekend worried about their mental health, their jobs and businesses, why in Gloucestershire, which had only one hospitalised death last week, it makes any sense to lock down all those people?
The Prime Minister
That is exactly why we wanted to pursue the local approach for so long, and that is why I think it was always right to try to avoid a national lockdown for as long as we could. The difficulty is that the overall rate across the whole country is now speeding up and the virus is doubling across the entire country. I would be happy to publish all the data, as my hon. Friend knows.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Yesterday, Sir Jeremy Farrar made it quite clear that the scientific evidence and advice given to the Government had been crystal clear that they must go earlier and harder. Their delay, of course, is now impacting businesses, education and health across the country; according to the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, the cost of the two-week delay is £20 billion. My question is very simple: it is an expensive mistake, so who is going to pick up the tab?
The Prime Minister
There is a wealth of scientific advice, and we have heard from other parts of the House this afternoon that there are scientists who do not believe that these measures are necessary. We have to look at the balance of the advice. We had to take a very difficult decision based on the welfare of the country, the health of the country, saving lives but also protecting the economy. That is why we came to the judgment that we did.
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con) [V]
I have a particular concern with regard to those individuals with a health problem that is not covid-related. My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady) asked whether the Prime Minister had made an impact assessment. He responded with regard to the economy, but he did not confirm whether there had been an assessment of the non-covid health impact across primary, secondary and tertiary care—not just hospital beds—or, indeed, whether he would publish it. I should be grateful for his confirmation that there is one and that he will publish it.
The Prime Minister
Yes, indeed. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady) if I did not understand his question, but we certainly can publish all the evidence that we have about the consequences for non-covid patients of failing to keep the autumn surge of covid under control. There is abundant evidence that overwhelming the NHS in the course of the next few weeks and months would do huge damage to people’s ability to access the services they need for cancer, for heart disease and for many other types of interventions that people need, in addition to covid. I would be very happy to share that with both my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) and my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab) [V]
When SAGE advised a national firebreak lockdown, the Welsh First Minister introduced one, which my constituents are now undertaking here in Cardiff West. Given the Prime Minister’s statement today, does he agree that Mark Drakeford was right to act?
The Prime Minister
As I have said throughout this afternoon, I make no apology for doing my utmost to keep this economy going and to keep our kids in school, as indeed we are, and for avoiding the consequences of a national lockdown. The hon. Member will have heard the voices that have been raised across the House throughout this afternoon, both in favour of a lockdown and the many passionately against it. We have a very difficult balancing job to do—balancing lives, balancing livelihoods—and that is what we are doing.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con) [V]
These are challenging times, but I have some warm words for the Prime Minister for the work that he is doing. Oakberry Christmas tree farm, run by Richard and Gail in my South Leicestershire constituency, is one of Britain’s premier growers and sellers of festive trees. Thankfully, Oakberry Trees comes under the category of garden centres, and is therefore able to remain open over the next few weeks. Can my right hon. Friend give some words of encouragement—of cheer—to those businesses that are able to remain open in providing essential goods and services to our constituents as long as they remain covid-compliant in their working practices?
The Prime Minister
Yes. I thank my hon. Friend, and I am very glad that Oakberry Christmas trees is able to remain open. I am told that it provided No. 10 with a free Christmas tree five years ago; that is not meant to be any kind of hint, by the way. I know that it is one of the UK’s premier Christmas tree farms, and I thank them for what they are doing.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP) [V]
The Scottish Government have repeatedly called for months for an extension to the furlough scheme. However, such calls were completely ignored, with the uncertainty resulting in the loss of many jobs here in Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill. He may not wish to think it, but that is the reality of this Prime Minister’s governance. It is lost on absolutely nobody that the Prime Minister refused to extend furlough until the 11th hour, and only did so when the situation in the south of England ran out of control. At the risk of seeming disbelieving, I must ask him to confirm his U-turn: does the Prime Minister now fully commit to an extension of the furlough scheme available across all nations of the UK on a when-required basis to protect further against otherwise preventable job losses in Scotland and elsewhere?
The Prime Minister
Listening to the Scottish nationalists, one would have thought that furlough had not applied in Scotland over the last few months. It has been available throughout the UK throughout this period, and will continue to be a UK-wide solution.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
The Prime Minister is doing his best, and I for one have great grace for him on the impossible decisions he has to take. I have to say to him that the weariness and, it must be said, anger of my constituents in Winchester that we are here again are palpable. There is also widespread scepticism about whether a second national lockdown is right or fair on Hampshire, but we have covered that issue many times, I know. To help us all, can the Prime Minister tell me what we did not do in June and July, when rates were right down after lockdown No. 1, that we should have done, and what therefore are the lessons for after 2 December as we try to make the most of lockdown 2.0?
The Prime Minister
I thank the people of Winchester for what they are doing. I know how frustrating it is, and believe me—I hope it is obvious from everything I have said this afternoon—I entirely share people’s frustrations, but NHS Test and Trace has achieved many things with, as I said, the 500,000 capacity now per day. Where I think we should have pushed harder was on actually insisting that, when people were contacted, they isolated. It does not look to me as though the numbers or the proportions have been good enough. We need to get those up in the next phase—but we can and we will, and we will get it done.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
We all recognise that the Prime Minister has got a difficult job, but by God he is doing it badly. He said a few moments ago that he is having to balance lives and livelihoods, but does he not realise that his delay is costing lives and livelihoods? Businesses will fold, people will lose their jobs and the strain on our NHS will be greater because he failed to take the advice of SAGE and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer). Will the Prime Minister at least now acknowledge the failure of his policy and start getting in front of this business, rather than always playing catch-up and costing lives and livelihoods?
The Prime Minister
I make no apology for continuing to resist going back into a national lockdown, with all the consequences for mental health and for people’s lives and livelihoods, in the way that I did. If we look at what has happened, we see that, alas, in this country, as across much of Europe—I pay tribute to people in areas where the incidence is low, who have kept it low—there has been an upsurge of the virus overall. Plenty of scientists and medical advisers were absolutely categorical that a local and regional approach was commonsensical and rational and right. Indeed, the Labour party supported it, if I remember correctly. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman even supported it. What they then decided to do is a matter for them. What I think the people of this country want to see at this very, very difficult moment is politicians coming together to take the country forward, to agree on the measures—[Interruption.] The Labour party supported what we were doing. The people want us to agree on the measures, and to get the country through these latest measures to tackle the autumn surge and out the other side on 2 December, because that is the best way forward for our country.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
We are almost at the end of this statement now and the Prime Minister has answered the questions with his characteristic charm and skill, but, however strong, I am sure he will not resist the offer of more help and hope. So will he join me at daily mass in Westminster cathedral tomorrow? Would he like to witness the extreme social distancing, the constant cleansing after services and the mask wearing—all factors taken far more seriously there than almost anywhere else? Would he like to respond to Cardinal Vincent Nichols and give him the evidence as to why there is any possibility, after all these measures, of religious services spreading covid? Could the Prime Minister offer some hope to the faith communities? Could he perhaps reply to the letter I have sent to him, where we suggest further compromises, for instance, whereby we would have to apply by email before we attended services? Can he offer us any hope at all?
The Prime Minister
Of course I can. I thank my right hon. Friend for what he has just said and I am so sorry that the faith communities temporarily must go through this difficult period of not being able to observe services in the way that they want and I would like. This is only for 28 days and the hope I can offer—the candle in the darkness—is that we will, if we get this right, be able to go back to something much more like normal life before Christmas and people will be able to celebrate Christmas, in churches and elsewhere across this country.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Experts are clear that lockdowns merely defer, rather than solve, the problem and buy us time. They are united in the opinion that until we have a vaccine, a robust system to test, trace and isolate every case is the best way both to keep people safe and to protect our economy, yet we have heard nothing today that will address the woeful rates of contact tracing or how we improve support and incentives for self-isolation, which the Prime Minister has admitted is not working. What is he going to do to ensure that we avoid a boom and bust cycle of lockdowns and that he will not squander this lockdown like he did the last one, with us back here in January or February discussing the same issue again?
The Prime Minister
If I may so, the hon. Lady raises the most important point, the one we have been circling around all afternoon. In common with much of the rest of Europe, we are seeing an autumn surge now. I believe we have the right package of measures to address it. As for how we avoid endlessly going in and out of these types of measures in the way that she describes, I think the answer lies not just in getting people to self-isolate, but in mass testing—the lateral flow tests and the loop mediated isothermal amplification, or LAMP, tests of the kind I have described, which will not only help to drive down the R by isolating the positive cases, but liberate the negative cases to go about their lives much more normally. That is the game changer we can all look forward to.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister for answering all 99 questions before mine. My constituents have pretty much been under local restrictions since the start of August, with the impact on local businesses, wellbeing and mental health. I ask the Prime Minister to continue to ask the Chancellor to support businesses in the supply chain for the hospitality industry, such as food and drink businesses and microbreweries, and to look again at whether we can have some covid-safe outdoor exercise such as golf, tennis and exercise classes to support wellbeing and mental health.
The Prime Minister
I will look carefully at my hon. Friend’s point about microbreweries, which he has raised with me before. We can have covid-secure golf, covid-secure tennis, covid-secure whatever he likes in 28 days’ time. We just have to get through this difficult period. I apologise for it; I am sorry that the nation has to do it, but it is by far the best way forward for the country.
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 now suspend the House for three minutes.
Business of the House
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
I should like to make a short business statement following on from the earlier announcement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
Tomorrow’s business remains as previously announced. However, the first item of business on Wednesday 4 November will now be a motion to approve the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) (No. 4) Regulations 2020.
This will be followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Agriculture Bill and consideration of Lords amendments to the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill.
The House will then be asked to approve the following regulations: the draft Blood Safety and Quality (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020; the draft Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020; the draft Human Tissue (Quality and Safety for Human Application) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020; and the draft Quality and Safety of Organs Intended for Transplantation (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
The business for Thursday remains unchanged to that previously announced, and I shall also make a further statement announcing future business on Thursday.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for his business statement. My party, of course, agrees with the business changing in this way. We have just heard the Prime Minister make one of the gravest statements. We are going to enter a lockdown of four weeks, and we are asking our fellow citizens to do something that they have not done before. The Leader of the House and the Prime Minister sometimes talk about “Captain Hindsight”, but was the Leader of the Opposition not Captain Foresight, because he called for a lockdown two weeks earlier? He did so because, as the Leader of the House will know, the number of deaths could be higher than it was in March.
We are asking people to stay at home, and many of our colleagues will be staying at home. The Leader of the House read out a list of legislation. In UK Parliament Week of all weeks, many of our colleagues cannot even represent their constituents. They are excluded from taking part in debates. They are excluded from voting. That is not only bad for their constituents; it is bad for democracy. Worst of all, we all have to line up together to vote. There is one simple way of dealing with that. May I ask him again to think very seriously, in this grave time, about us going back to remote voting? Those who can be here and need to be here will be here, but we must think about the safety of the House staff who have to marshal us into what we hope will be two different queues. I ask him to think very seriously, at this very serious time, about us going back to remote voting and to enable our colleagues to take part in debates on behalf of their constituents. I am sure he will agree that it is outrageous that they cannot represent their constituents. They must do that. He must look at this immediately, to save lives and livelihoods.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The right hon. Lady is aware that, just before the recess, the House took the decision to extend the current arrangements for virtual participation to March 2021, to ensure that people who cannot be here for a range of reasons can vote by proxy and participate in interrogative proceedings. I therefore think it is inaccurate to say that there are Members who cannot vote, because proxy arrangements have been put in place that allow them to do so. Those arrangements were agreed without either debate or Division, so they had consensus across the House. If there were to be any changes to our voting system, they should be introduced through consensus. As the right hon. Lady knows, I am looking at the option of expanding proxy voting to make it available to all Members of the House, regardless of whether or not they need to be away from the parliamentary estate. I hope to bring forward a motion to that effect soon, which the House will have an opportunity to agree.
It is important that Members are here and that the business of the House carries on. Why is that? We have to ensure that these new coronavirus regulations—some of the tightest restrictions on the freedoms of the people of this country ever introduced—are properly debated and that the Government are held to account. We have to ensure that constituency issues can be raised freely, fairly and clearly by hon. and right hon. Members. We have to ensure that the transition period legislation is introduced and passed into law by 31 December. It is crucial that we are able to do those things.
We found during the fully hybrid proceedings that we were not able to carry on with the full range of activities. I am glad to say that Westminster Hall has returned. We are operating a full schedule of business, so that democracy is allowed to flourish. I think the right hon. Lady underestimates the need for democratic accountability. Being present in this House is as important as any other essential service.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
May I ask the Leader of the House to confirm—forgive me if I missed this—that the debate on the second lockdown on Wednesday will be a full day’s debate? I do not think that 90 minutes would really do it justice. In his statement earlier—in answer, I think, to the question from the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones)—the Prime Minister said that all the scientific information that underpins the decisions that the House is being asked to take would be published. May I ask the Leader of the House: by when will that information be published so that we can make a proper decision on Wednesday?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The motion on Wednesday will be a motion under an Act and it will be a 90-minute debate. I understand my right hon. Friend’s pressing for further time for debate and I would normally be very sympathetic to it, but immediately after I have finished, there is a day’s debate on the situation relating to covid, the Prime Minister has just answered questions for two hours, and on the Thursday before we went into recess there was a full day’s debate on the coronavirus. I therefore think that the time for debate has been as ample as it can be considering the pressures of business. One of the problems is that there is never enough time to debate all that one would wish to debate, but under the circumstances it is right to follow the normal proceedings of this House. I am sure that if a commitment has been given to publish information, it will be published in a timely way.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) [V]
The measures to be debated on Wednesday will be for England only and it is not for Scottish MPs to determine what restrictions the people of England should suffer. But I do hope that the Leader of the House will understand the real anger and frustration that the people in Scotland will have when they look at what is happening. For months we have asked for an extension of the furlough scheme and for months we have been told no, but now that stricter measures are thought necessary in England, furlough is to be extended across the UK. Despite repeated questioning earlier, the Prime Minister was ambiguous about whether furlough would now be available to support measures undertaken by the devolved national Governments if such measures were not felt necessary in England. As it stands, we must therefore assume that if the measures proposed for England are discontinued on 2 December, furlough support will be ended in Scotland too—even if businesses there were still mandated to close. This is not acceptable and it means that we need an urgent debate on the inadequacy of the devolved settlement when it comes to dealing with this matter, and on the need for greater policy and fiscal competence to be given to the Scottish Parliament.
With England in lockdown and people being told by the Government to work from home if they can, I, too, ask the Government to lead by example and now introduce procedures to allow virtual participation in debates and electronic voting. Most people will find it difficult to understand why MPs are being encouraged physically to travel across the country and gather in one place when they do not need to do so. Certainly, representing our constituents is essential, but we do not need to be here to do that. The Leader of the House knows well that the technology exists to allow Members to fulfil their duties while working remotely. If this second lockdown is not sufficient, what will it take for him to authorise switching those systems on?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Well, it is very fortunate that we were able to hear the hon. Gentleman in full this time; the last time that he appeared, the technology did not work and we lost his dulcet tones momentarily. It is also worth reminding hon. and right hon. Members that the other place lost its remote voting system, and that hindered the progress of business. It is important that just as hospitals and schools provide essential services in health and education, so Parliament is performing its essential constitutional role of scrutinising the work of the Government, debating key issues, and, above all, making and changing legislation. Our role has been a vital one throughout this year and continues to be so throughout this month—a time when the House is holding the Government to account for their approach to tackling the widespread impact of coronavirus, legislating to shape the nation’s response to the pandemic and legislating in order for our country to be ready for the end of the transition period. Now is not the time to hinder the ability of MPs to scrutinise Ministers and legislation, but that is exactly what would happen if we were to follow the hon. Member’s suggestion for a full return to hybrid proceedings and ending elements of our business entirely. I therefore continue to say that we have our duty to do, and our duty is to be here, to hold the Government to account, and to legislate for the needs of our nation.
With regard to the hon. Member’s earlier point, I have referred him week in, week out to the many billions of pounds and the hundreds of thousands of jobs that have been protected in Scotland thanks to the United Kingdom taxpayer. It is unquestionably the case that the strength of the United Kingdom has allowed all parts of that United Kingdom to cope with the pandemic. That would have been harder to do that without that support and without that unity. It seems to me sometimes that the Scottish nationalists want devolution when it suits them, but that when there are bills to be paid, they want somebody else to pick up the bill.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Can I ask the Leader of the House to ensure that we have adequate time to debate the consequences of this new lockdown on those people who for many months have hardly seen their relatives in residential care? This is one of the most painful aspects of the covid emergency, particularly for people whose capacity is impaired by dementia or learning disabilities. It is hugely painful for them that their relatives are not allowed to visit them. We are apparently allowed to exercise with one other individual outdoors, so is there any way in which that could be extended to enable people to see their relatives in care homes, albeit using an outdoor setting?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I have the greatest sympathy with what my right hon. Friend is saying. I have referred in this House before to a constituent of mine who wrote to me about going to see a parent with dementia and having to do so from the other side of a window, which was difficult and upsetting. For people in these circumstances, it is really tragic that the coronavirus has made it so difficult for families to be together. In terms of time for debate, there is a debate immediately after this, and I hope that my right hon Friend will be speaking in it and raising this point, because it is one of such great importance.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab) [V]
The Government’s advice to clinically extremely vulnerable people is to stay away from their workplaces and work from home where possible. Will the Leader of the House commit to setting a good example and allow Members such as myself to participate in debates and votes remotely, as we could at the start of the first lockdown? I know that he is reluctant to do that, but as the Prime Minister has said, we must make sacrifices to save lives. This is not just about keeping MPs safe; we must also consider everyone who works on the parliamentary estate.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Lady has the opportunity to vote by proxy, and her vote can therefore be recorded. She also has the opportunity, as she has just shown, to participate in interrogative proceedings. On debates, the whole point of a debate is that there is a back and forth, and that requires interventions. It is not possible to do that remotely, and I must therefore refer her to the answers I have already given.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his response to the letter I sent on behalf of the Liaison Committee concerning what might change as tighter restrictions were applied. His letter arrived before the Government’s announcement. Is there anything in it that would change as a consequence of the announcement?
Mr Rees-Mogg
As I have referred to the letter, I think that a copy must now be put in the Library, if it has not already, in accordance with the guidance offered by “Erskine May”. The letter is, I think, an answer to my hon. Friend’s earlier letter. If he wishes to write to me again, he will get a further reply.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab) [V]
Can I urge the Leader of the House to provide a specific debate on dementia, for two reasons? First, we saw in the last couple of days the revelation that Sir Bobby Charlton is, sadly, now suffering from dementia. That means that half the team that started in 1966 have now been diagnosed with dementia, and several have died with it. It is about time, therefore, that the football authorities in this country and overseas took the dangers of playing football and concussion seriously, because, otherwise, we will be letting down a whole generation of footballers who need proper support. Secondly, as I understand it, there is now a nine-month waiting list in the Court of Protection, which means that, this year, many families whose relatives have been diagnosed with dementia will simply not be able to go to court to sort out their loved ones’ financial and health arrangements—they are simply waiting months and months and months to be able to get things sorted. That adds phenomenally to families’ anxiety and depression, so can we please have a debate on dementia—not as part of covid, but just on dementia?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am extremely sympathetic to what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and I think it is an issue that is of concern to the whole House. I was unaware of the issue that he raised with respect to the Court of Protection, and I shall take that up after this session with my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor. Government time is very pressed, as I said in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), and therefore it is difficult to provide all the time for all the debates that I would like to provide time for, but the cause that he mentions is one with such widespread support that it is very much one for the Backbench Business Committee.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
The Leader of the House has been encouraged to lead by example during this lockdown. What example does he think it would set to those teachers and other key workers whom we are asking to go to work on the frontline if Members of Parliament decided that they could do just half their job elsewhere?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend puts it absolutely brilliantly. We have to lead by example. We expect our schools to remain open, and, as I have said in this House before and I will say it again, we see in this House the cleaners working every day and the security staff working every day. We should be joining them. We should be proud to be doing the same as them and working here physically. Duty may not be a fashionable word, but it is the right word to use. It is our duty to hold the Government to account and to legislate, and to do that properly, we need to be here.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
During the last lockdown, secure procedures were put in place for MPs to work fully remotely. That is contrary to the image that has been created that we worked only part-time and that democracy ceased, which it did not. May I ask the Leader of the House again: should we, as rule makers, not lead by example and demonstrate through our own actions that this lockdown is different from being in tier 2 or tier 3? We all need to adapt our work practices to the new situation and put the safety of our citizens first and make sure that we recognise that covid is still a killer. We should lead by example and adapt our working practices.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am surprised that the hon. Lady, my constituency neighbour, should ignore so much of the work that goes on in the House outside the Chamber. During the previous lockdown, there were no statutory instrument Committees and no Committee stages of the House upstairs, so legislation could only go through if it went through on the Floor of the House. There was no Westminster Hall, which is a major means by which the Government are held to account. She says that business carried on fully remotely—it did not. We did a fraction of our job and it is our duty to be fully back at work to ensure that there is proper accountability. To think that all that ever happens is in this Chamber is, I am afraid, a misunderstanding of how Parliament works.
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to ensure our constitutional rights and duties as Members of Parliament to attend this House, to put to the Government any issues that our constituents need to be raised and to retain a fully functioning legislature?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have to have a fully functioning legislature. We have to be here to do that. Without being here, business simply was not getting through. We have the important date of 31 December by which time legislation to end the transition period has to be through. We have the very important coronavirus regulations to pass as well, and they need to be discussed and debated on the Floor of the House. The idea that this can be done properly in an absentee landlord way is absurd.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We have a comms issue with Debbie Abrahams that we hope to rectify before the end of the business question, so we go straight on to Marco Longhi.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House be kind enough to again reinforce the importance of this House continuing to meet in person? We should be setting an example as key workers. We are asking other key workers to go to work for us to keep this country going, so should we not set that very example by continuing to work here ourselves?
Mr Rees-Mogg
We have the most brilliant broadcasting team who have worked like billy-o to make a hybrid system operate and to allow virtual participation, but still we find that people do not come through. So my hon. Friend is absolutely right: we need to be here physically so that we can have proper accountability, and we need to be an example to the rest of the country. There is this feeling that seems to arise on the Opposition Benches that we are a separate type from all our constituents—that we are workers who can just not do it physically and allow others to take their role in hand. No, we must be here physically; we must do it thoroughly. My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I have been overwhelmed with emails and contact from constituents very angry at the Government’s dither and delay and the mixed messaging and lack of support. The Leader of the House is absolutely right to say that I need to be able to represent that anger in Parliament—in the Chamber and in Westminster Hall—but I do not need to be here physically to do it. I do not need to get the train and put people at risk, and put people here at risk, in order to represent my constituents. Will he not build on the fantastic work that the House officials did in developing a virtual Parliament and let us be able to have a virtual Parliament that works for the people and keeps people safe?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Lady does herself an injustice, because she does need to be here, as she has just shown. The passion about her representation of her constituents comes across thoroughly and robustly when she is here in person; when it is remote, at this point she is cut off and we cannot see her sighs, her gesticulations and her concern. All of that goes—it is all cut off in its prime—whereas when she is here she is able to represent her constituents forcefully, and she can do so in a safe way because the House has ensured that measures have been introduced. There is a Perspex screen over there. The Dispatch Boxes—the gift of New Zealand given to us after the war—are cleaned after every Minister or shadow Minister has stood at them, ready for the next session. We have three-minute intervals to ensure the safe exit of people and entry of the new lot. The Commons has done a phenomenal job. The authorities, Mr Speaker himself and his Deputies, the Clerks, particularly, and Marianne Cwynarski have done brilliant work to make this a covid-secure workplace. Therefore, the hon. Lady should do what she does so magnificently and hold people like me to account.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
The Prime Minister has just spelled out the terms of the second national lockdown, and I do hope the House supports these important measures. However, we are six months into a national crisis and yet the Cabinet-led decision-making structure has not fundamentally changed, and the bandwidth of government is being severely tested, impacting on other important issues such as a fully funded, integrated review. With at least another six months to go, could I suggest a review of how this crisis is being managed and by whom, with a separation of strategy design and operational delivery, and improved command, control and communication?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his comments. I think the question really is that we are dealing with a changing situation and changing facts, and therefore government has to be flexible in its response. He may be suggesting rather inflexible ways of managing the response to the crisis, which, of necessity, needs to have flexibility and adaptability at its heart.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Let us hope this works—by video link, Debbie Abrahams.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab) [V]
My apologies, Mr Deputy Speaker; a thunderstorm seemed to interrupt us before.
I want to express my profound disappointment in the Government’s delay in announcing a national circuit breaker, which, as we have heard, will have cost lives and livelihoods. My concern is that the Government will have learned nothing from the first wave of this pandemic and will carry on with a privatised test, trace and isolate system, which has never been fit for purpose, is a key reason why we are where we are, and will unfortunately hit our cash-starved local authorities as they will be left to pick up the pieces from this Government’s incompetence. Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Government report directly to Parliament, not through the press, on what they will be doing differently in the second lockdown, including when local authorities can expect, as promised, reimbursements for the spending that they have already had to bear during this pandemic?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The testing capacity is now at 480,000, 9.6 million people have been tested at least once, and 30.5 million virus tests have been carried out, which is more than in any other European country. I saw my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care lurking behind the Speaker’s Chair, and I think he deserves a great deal of credit for the enormous amount of hard work he has done to get up to those 30.5 million tests. That is not to pretend there is not more to be done—there is, but what has been done so far is absolutely remarkable, from a standing start.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I think the expression of sheer despair from my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) in response to that answer has just demonstrated that we can see people’s reactions on screen.
The Leader of the House is waxing lyrical about how important it is for us to be here and fully play our role as representatives—I am asking my third question of the day, and I am more than happy to do that—but he cannot say that on the one hand and then allow only 90 minutes for the regulations to be debated on Wednesday. Surely at least half that time will be taken up by the Front Benchers. That means that there will be very little time and very few Back Benchers will be able to speak up on behalf of their constituents. That is just not right.
Mr Rees-Mogg
We are having a debate immediately after this session, we have had two hours from the Prime Minister, and we had a debate on the Thursday before the House rose. Therefore, a great deal of time has been made available out of the scarce resource that time is within this House for debating the coronavirus, and our Standing Orders provide for 90 minutes under an Act.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
My right hon. Friend mentioned earlier the security staff, the Doorkeepers, the cleaners, everybody who keeps us safe in this place and the catering staff. He did not mention our personal staff who work in our offices. I would like to make a plea to him that he does not decide, or that it is not decided in this place, that we do not need those staff. We employ them because they do a job for us. I know we are supposed only to have two, and I do—and I only need two in this place—but I need them to work with me to prepare me and get things ready for when I am in this House. If I did not, I would have them in the constituency. I make a plea that we do not say to many young people who are our assistants here that they have to sit in their bedsits or small flats in inappropriate seating, in inappropriate rooms—maybe only on their bed—to work from home, because I do not think that is appropriate and professional.
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend makes an important case for those who work for Members of Parliament. It is a matter for the House of Commons Commission, rather than for me personally, but I do know that the Commission will be urging Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority-funded staff to work from home between now and 2 December. I know that this will be difficult for some members of staff, as it has been before, but it is important to minimise the number of people on the estate to those who have an absolutely essential function here that is to do with the operation of the Chamber and the House at large.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) [V]
A significant number of MPs, like myself, have been excluded from speaking in debates on legislation for the last five months, due to being at high risk from covid or having a vulnerable family member, and I take great offence at the inference of the Leader of the House that I am somehow shirking my duty by not being willing to travel hundreds of miles each way every week. With England going into lockdown, the Prime Minister has just said that the most vulnerable should only work from home, so I, too, call on the Leader of the House to restore and maintain full virtual participation until next year to ensure that all Members can fully represent their constituents throughout the covid crisis and the end of the EU transition.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
Further to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), I think the Government will regret holding a 90-minute debate on Wednesday. I appreciate the Standing Orders, but the Government are the Government and could make changes if they wanted to.
The Leader of the House mentioned duty, and our duty is to be here. It is about being not just here in the Chamber but in the Committee Rooms and in Westminster Hall, and the conversations that are had that allow us to do our jobs and hold Ministers to account. The Prime Minister said a lot today about next-generation tests—quick turnaround, 15-minute tests. If we can do it every week for premier league football clubs, given the importance of this Parliament sitting and doing the job that the Leader of the House rightly outlines, have he and the Commission examined the idea of weekly tests for Members of this House?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I would have enormous sympathy with those calling for more than a 90-minute debate if we had not already had so much time for debate. The overall time needs to be taken into consideration, given our challenging and full programme. I assure my hon. Friend that there will be more time to debate the issue over future weeks, and no doubt more statements by my right hon. Friends.
As regards testing, I hope it is not indiscrete of me—I look at my opposite number, the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz)—to say that the Commission did have a discussion on testing and we did have a presentation, and that it is something that is under consideration. We would, though, have to look at what other demands there were on the capacity.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Leader of the House for and fully support his statement on the forthcoming business. I understand the reasons he gave and they were very well put over. Will he confirm that debates in Westminster Hall—including the one scheduled for Tuesday 10 November that I have secured to highlight obesity and the covid outbreak and the need for urgent intervention—will go ahead? Will there be an opportunity on Wednesday to ask questions on the statutory instruments on blood safety, human tissue and the quality and safety of organs intended for transplantation?
Mr Rees-Mogg
There will be three hours available for the grouped debates on SIs, and Westminster Hall debates will continue. One of the really important reasons why we are continuing to meet in the way that we are is to ensure that the other activities that are so important in holding the Government to account and representing our constituents do continue.
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
Over the weekend, I mulled over the question of a second lockdown and considered the seemingly binary choice between lives and livelihoods. In that scenario, I feel compelled to support lives, but of course it is not that simple, is it? In his statement earlier, the Prime Minister mentioned that all the information available to him either is or will be available to us. In order to make a proper decision, surely we need to know what other options have been considered, because in truth it is not a binary choice. We need to know why those options were written off; the projections of the economic and health impacts of lockdown; and why we have chosen the course that we have chosen. That is really important so that we can make a proper decision on Wednesday, so will my right hon. Friend do everything he can to make as much of that information available to us as possible?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend said that he listened to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I think that is the greatest reassurance that any of us on the Conservative Benches can have. There has not been a more freedom-loving Prime Minister of this nation in decades, if not in over a century. The most freedom-loving Prime Minister we could think of having has come to this very difficult decision. Against the Opposition’s siren calls to close us down ages ago, he did it when he was convinced that that was what had to happen. He did not want to take away our liberties and our freedoms, and he did so after proper deliberation and consultation and, as he said in his statement, with a heavy heart. That should give my freedom-loving friends on the Government side of the House and across the House the confidence that the Prime Minister has made the right decision on the best information, which I am sure will be published according to the schedule that he will set out.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Leader of the House for his statement.
Points of Order
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Earlier today during the Prime Minister’s statement, I made the point that across health, the economy and social wellbeing, covid has a massive impact. It is not limited to the national health service. Members of Parliament of all parties will have had letters from constituents who believe that the costs of lockdown across those areas are so great that the cure is, in effect, more dangerous than the disease. I do not believe that to be the case, but I do believe that we in the House of Commons have a duty to reassure our constituents about the full disclosure of information that can be made available to use.
That is why I suggested that, along the lines of the Intelligence and Security Committee model that we already have in Parliament, we set up a covid Committee that can look across all the different Departments and cross-reference what happens on the economy with what happens on health and with other areas. As you will know, Mr Deputy Speaker, the Prime Minister said that that was a matter for the House, not for the Government. I understand that New Zealand has already introduced such a system. Can you advise us on the next steps for the House if we wanted to take forward such a model so that we could reassure our constituents, hand on heart, that we had seen and examined all the information that was available, and could command disclosure of any data that we needed to make that case clear?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for notice of his point of order. I heard the question that he posed to the Prime Minister and the response that he was given. The creation of a new Committee would require the House to pass a resolution determining the membership, terms of reference and so forth. Motions that would have a direct consequence of additional expenditure under the House of Commons administration estimate of £50,000 or more would require the Clerk of the House to produce a memorandum setting out the expected financial consequence. I hope that is helpful. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes further guidance on that, he should seek it directly from the Clerk of the House, Dr John Benger.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Thank you very much for that explanation. I am entirely with my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) in his request to the House. These are unique circumstances and this is a time when the House is finding it difficult to do its job properly. I would like to give notice that we wish to press the matter further.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I give the House a specific reason why I think the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) is valid? I questioned the Leader of the House about publishing information. In answer to a question from the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), the Prime Minister said that all scientific information pertinent to the decisions that the House is being asked to make would be published. Later, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely), the Prime Minister said something slightly different: that he would seek to publish all the information that he had seen in making his decision. Those two things are not quite the same. The sort of Committee that my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset described would enable the House, rather than the Government, to be in control of the process. I commend the suggestion for that reason.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I thank David Davis and Mark Harper for their points of order further to that of Dr Liam Fox. I have nothing more to add to the guidance that I initially gave, but I am grateful to the Leader of the House for staying to listen to the three points of order. As I said, I hope the right hon. Members will now seek further guidance from the Clerk of the House, Dr John Benger.
We will now suspend the sitting for a few minutes for sanitation of both Dispatch Boxes and the safe exit and arrival of Members of Parliament.
6.28 pm
Sitting suspended.
Virtual participation in proceedings concluded (Order, 4 June).
Covid-19
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered covid-19.
This global pandemic calls on us all to make the best judgments that we can on behalf of our nation. This disease attacks us all because we are human, and it is only by coming together as humanity that we can solve it. It is a communitarian disease that passes from person to person among those who are closest to each other, and it is as a community that we must tackle it. The virus raises profound questions for each Member of this House, too, representing our constituencies as we do, to make the best judgments that we can in the face of uncertainty, immense challenge and with great weights on each side of the scales, in the best interests of the nation that we serve.
We have heard today from the Prime Minister of the grave steps on which the House will vote on Wednesday. We know of the real impact that those steps will have on so many lives and livelihoods. We know the hardships that would be faced and the jobs lost, and we cannot save them all, but the alternative of not acting would be so much worse.
When faced with such a deadly adversary, we cannot stand aside and let it spread unchecked through our communities when we know the devastation it would cause, not just to the NHS and not only in the mounting death toll, but I firmly believe the impact on our economy would be worse too. The devastation that the virus would wreak if unchecked would impact the NHS’s ability to treat covid and non-covid patients. For all those who need treatment in the NHS right now, the action we propose will help to ensure that the NHS has what it needs to give them the world-class care that we have all come to expect.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I applaud the congratulations that the Secretary of State has already extended to NHS workers. What message does he have for my constituent, Faye McDonnell, a student nurse? Will she be paid during this crisis? Will my other constituent, Kirsten Doran, a theatre nurse, be paid the increase in pay and fair pay that nurses are campaigning for?
Matt Hancock
Of course the NHS in Northern Ireland is the responsibility of the Administration there. I know of the issues around nurses’ pay, which has been the subject of much interest. I will not go into the individual details, but I recognise the case that the hon. Gentleman rightly makes on behalf of his constituents. We in this House support the staff of the NHS across the UK—in all four nations in all four parts of the NHS.
Across the UK, however, the case is the same. For people who need NHS treatment now, whether it is for covid or any other condition, the best course of action is to suppress the virus. Partly because of that, I therefore believe that the only strategy a responsible Government can take is to suppress the virus and support the economy, education and the NHS as much as possible until science can come to our rescue.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
We are undoubtedly in a serious situation, and I am sure that the Secretary of State agrees that we need to take political gamesmanship out of the debate. Considering the measures and the month-long lockdown that have been announced for England, does he share my concern at the actions of some of his colleagues in Wales who have worked the whole situation up into a political frenzy with regard to the ongoing lockdown in my country?
Matt Hancock
The hon. Gentleman invites me to get involved in political controversy in Wales while rejecting the principle of getting involved in political controversy. Having thought about it, on balance, I am going to sidestep that particular political controversy. As it happens, I strongly think that the public expect us to work together in the national interest, and that is what we propose to do.
A crucial part of that national interest is protecting the most vulnerable. When coronavirus spreads rapidly, it reaches all parts. Many of the most vulnerable can live only with care and support from those outside their home, or live in multigenerational households. We must protect the most vulnerable from the disease, and we will, with renewed shielding advice and support for care homes, but we cannot rely on that alone.
There is no quick fix to this pandemic; there is no silver bullet. What makes this fight so tough is that the virus thrives on all the things that make life worth living, such as the joy of social contact and the communal events that give us so much happiness and fulfilment, but we must persevere together to get it under control.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
One of the key things that we will depend on after the lockdown is over—assuming that the House gives its support—is a really effective contact tracing system. The Secretary of State knows as well as I do that, in the last couple of weeks, the system has been reaching only 48% of the contacts of those who have tested positive. The Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies says that for the system to be effective, it needs to reach 80%. In the 28 days of lockdown, what specific steps will he take to get it to 80%?
Matt Hancock
My right hon Friend is right; I was going to come on to that issue. Of course the contact tracing system needs to contact as many people as it can. The figures that he refers to include a huge array of different types of contact. I will update the House on the improvements that we have seen in contact tracing, including an increase in the absolute number of people who have been contacted and in the proportion.
We absolutely need the proportion to go up. A critical part of that is people’s engagement with the contact tracing system, as well as the system itself. Some of the proportion who are not reached are not reached because their contact details are not given. It is quite hard to blame the people who work in NHS Test and Trace, who are working so hard on it, for that particular reason. It is important to go into the details of why a particular contact is not made and try to improve all those details. That work is ongoing, but I accept the challenge.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
As well as boosting contact tracing rates, which are absolutely critical, I hope the Secretary of State will address the issues with the app that have been revealed this weekend; it has not been contacting people who should have been contacted. Self-isolation is also important. The Prime Minister admitted today—he finally acknowledged—that self-isolation rates are far too low, but we have heard nothing about what steps are to be put in place. We need carrots, not sticks—support and incentives for people to self-isolate. The Secretary of State mentioned multigenerational households; there are many overcrowded households, particularly in inner cities, and therefore high-risk people who cannot self-isolate at home. Has he given any consideration to setting up self-isolation support facilities that those people can go to?
Matt Hancock
Of course, self-isolation following contact or following a positive test, or in quarantine from abroad, is absolutely critical, and we have brought in measures to improve self-isolation, such as the £500 payment and strengthening the enforcement around it, and we are always looking for what we can do to strengthen self-isolation; the Prime Minister was absolutely right in what he said earlier, and there is a huge amount of work under way on it.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Two weeks ago, I asked the Health Secretary about the button that was meant to be on the app to release a reference code for people to claim the £500. The Health Secretary specifically came to the Dispatch Box to say that they just needed to press that button. That button does not exist—it did not exist then and it still does not exist today—so why did he make that intervention and how is he going to rectify the situation so people can claim that £500?
Matt Hancock
Yes, the button is coming; it is in development. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), who made the previous intervention, also spoke about the app. There was an upgrade to the app towards the end of last week, and I want to put on record my thanks to the app team, who have done such a great job in improving the app by, as the hon. Member for Twickenham said, improving the targeting so that more people are targeted and more people get the message. The app is also now getting fewer false positives so people can have more confidence that if they are contacted by the app and told to isolate, they need to do so. The button will come.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
People up and down the country made enormous sacrifices during the first lockdown, and they were promised a world-beating contact, test and trace system. Some £12 billion has been spent on Serco to provide that. In areas such as mine with high levels of deprivation, health inequalities and high numbers of vulnerable people, people are already dying, and we do not have an effective testing and tracing system. So, given where we are, may I appeal to the Secretary of State to make resources available to areas where we have the local capacity to do testing and tracing, to help improve the system as quickly as possible in this lockdown?
Matt Hancock
Yes, as we have discussed many times, that is happening—absolutely—and it is the link between the national and the local that is the solution here. I will come on to testing in more detail later because I have some new things to say about it. In the meantime, the other thing we need to do, of course, is make sure that for this second peak—the second wave—we do all we can to support those institutions that are helping us through it, and first among those is, of course, the NHS.
The NHS is better prepared for this second wave, and I want to thank the NHS and everybody who works in it for their efforts over the past few months to ensure that we are better prepared. We know infinitely more things about coronavirus now than we knew as the first wave hit. Our Nightingale hospitals, for instance, stand ready and are being restarted in the parts of the country that need them. The independent sector has stepped up to the mark to help us work through the backlog of the vital elective operations and to help keep going with elective operations, even through this second peak. We have hired more staff, with 13,700 more nurses and 7,800 more doctors. We have provided £3 billion of extra funding across health and social care. Personal protective equipment is widely and freely available, and infection control procedures have been significantly strengthened, based on better understanding of transmission of the virus, including aerosol as well as droplet and fomite transmission.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
I am glad to hear that preparations are under way. I have had several emails from constituents in Bosworth who are worried about their routine operations; their follow-up might be lost. They remember what happened in the last lockdown, when they were not able to get that follow-up. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that all NHS appointments will be going ahead as best they can?
Matt Hancock
Yes, absolutely, and my hon. Friend makes a critical point. If in Bosworth someone is waiting for an operation on the NHS, they are more likely to get it if we keep the virus suppressed—in fact, if we keep it down, they will get that operation and we will get it done. Unfortunately, in the parts of the country where things have got too high, non-urgent, non-cancer elective operations have had to be cancelled. That demonstrates that, both for covid and non-covid health reasons, it is better to keep the virus suppressed.
I was halfway through my long list of the things that the NHS has been doing to prepare over the summer. At the moment, we are delivering 159 A&E upgrades; as far as I know, that is the biggest number of concurrent upgrades to emergency care in the NHS’s history. We have radically expanded telemedicine in primary and outpatient care. We are introducing 111 First, with an expanded 111 service to help people get the care that they need.
The NHS has learned how to treat covid patients better too, of course: not just by discovering treatments such as dexamethasone, in which the NHS played a critical part, but by improving clinical techniques—earlier oxygenation and later ventilation, for instance. As a result, our rate of hospital-acquired infection is down and the number of people who survive covid in hospital is up. We have been able to set an explicit goal that all cancer treatment should continue throughout this second wave, which speaks precisely to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans) made.
But even with this expanded NHS and with the better treatments, the extra investment and the brilliance of the whole NHS team, who have done and learned so much about the virus and worked so hard to prepare—even with all that—and even if the NHS were twice as big as it is now, it could not cope, and no health service could, if the virus continued to grow as it is now. We must control the virus, to protect the NHS and ensure that it is always there, to treat patients with covid and patients with all other conditions.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
One of the wonderful things that my right hon. Friend has done is make available so much data. I am looking at the case data for Liverpool, and there it is—daily cases by specimen date. Thank goodness the number is now falling, and on a seven-day basis, again, it is falling. I am just wondering why now anyone in Liverpool would say anything other than that the Government’s previous strategy is now working. Why on earth, then, would people in other areas that are not even as badly off as Liverpool—or indeed Manchester, where the cases seem to be stabilising—want to see an even tighter lockdown?
Matt Hancock
Unfortunately, in Liverpool the overall case rate includes a very high peak among students. The over-60s case rate, which is also published on the same website, shows a flattening, but a flattening at a very high level, such that Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust has already had to cancel non-urgent, non-cancer elective activity.
The danger of a plateauing at a high level, as the chief medical officer set out, is that if the rate starts to go up again, we are already under significant pressure in the NHS in Liverpool. The same argument goes for Tyneside, where again the overall case rate appears to be coming down, which is good news. The number among the over-60s, however, is flattening, again at a very high level, and in other parts of the country, including areas in tier 3, the numbers were going up.
It is not good enough just to control R and keep it lower than its natural rate; we have to get it below 1 to be able to change from a doubling time to a halving time of this virus. Even I—the most enthusiastic supporter of the tier system—can see that, unfortunately, cases were rising and the cases among the over-60s are rising, including in the areas with tier 3 restrictions. It is important to strip out from those data the outbreak among students. I have talked before about there being two overlapping epidemics: one among students and one among the wider community.
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
My right hon. Friend lists the many commendable achievements of the national health service in the period since the first wave, but the main contention is that this policy is for ICU capacity issues. What specifically has been done over the summer to increase that capacity?
Matt Hancock
There has been a significant capacity increase in critical care, which includes ICU but is not only ICU. We have a wider definition of critical care, which is important. Many people with covid do not need formal ICU intubation; they need critical care, including oxygenation, when they are not anaesthetised but on oxygen treatment. On that measure of critical care, which is the care required for covid, there has been a significant increase, including significant investment in the NHS around the country. I should have had that on my list.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
Further to my right hon. Friend’s answers to my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), it has been a fact for a long time that the three figures that are reported most often are the number of tests, the number of cases and, regrettably, the number of deaths. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the media and we should focus much more on the data on NHS capacity? That, rather than tests and cases, should be the message.
Matt Hancock
They are all important. Often, people focus on the cases, because they are one of the earliest indicators of the direction. The case rate among the over-60s is highly correlated with what happens to hospital admissions a week or 10 days later. That is why we focus on the over-60s case rate and now publish that data too, because looking at that as well as the overall case rate is important.
Nevertheless, my hon. Friend is absolutely right that although the translation of cases into hospitalisations and poor health outcomes is harder to estimate, the number of hospital admissions with covid is a concrete fact that we cannot get away from. We cannot escape the fact that that is rising and has been rising sharply. Even if we expanded the NHS enormously—we have, both in critical care and in terms of the potential capacity in the Nightingales, should it be needed, but even if we doubled the size of the NHS—once we are on an exponential growth curve, it would still be too small to cope if the virus were to run riot.
Jonathan Edwards
Returning to ICUs, the Secretary of State knows that nurses working in that environment are highly specialised; it takes a high degree of extra training. How confident is he, considering the potential for fatigue and for nurses to fall ill, given that this may last many months, that the line will hold against covid in ICUs?
Matt Hancock
With this action, I am confident that we can make that happen, but it is one of the reasons and justifications for this action that we are taking. The action is serious, and I do not deny or demur from the consequences that the action will bring. My argument is not that this action is good or anything other than regrettable; it is that the action is necessary because the alternative is worse.
I would like to address the specific point made about mental health. It is good to be here next to my hon. Friend the Mental Health Minister. There were a number of questions about mental health addressed to the Prime Minister earlier. Restrictions such as these do have implications for people’s mental health—of course they do—and we are expanding mental health support to address that. However, we also know that coronavirus itself, and the impact of high levels of covid on the NHS, has a significant impact on mental health too. The Royal College of Psychiatrists has said:
“Stricter measures to control the virus are needed to minimise Covid-related mental illness as much as possible.”
Today it said:
“The new lockdown will significantly impact mental health but allowing COVID to go unchecked would also have serious consequences for mental illness. We must ensure that people get the support they need.”
So yes, I am worried about mental health, but in my book that is another reason to bring this virus under control.
Turning to physical health, in the worst-hit areas we have already seen the cancellation of some non-urgent, non-cancer treatments, such as hip operations and cataracts. Without action to bring R below 1, the NHS would be overwhelmed, no matter what we did to expand the NHS and protect the vulnerable, and then we could no longer guarantee that solemn promise to every citizen that our NHS will be there for you when you need it. We must not let that happen.
I want to say this very directly to all those who need NHS services this winter: help us to help you. If you are asked to go to hospital, that is because it is the best place for you. I want to say this to all the staff working in the NHS: we will support you this winter. We are grateful for the sacrifices you are making and we will get through this together.
As we have learned more about this virus, we have been able to strengthen social care, too, and our winter plan sets out the work done to improve those protections, including free PPE, regular testing and the systems for safe discharge that will be so important over the coming months.
Finally, to escape the clutches of the pandemic, we must harness ingenuity and scientific prowess to make the breakthroughs that will help us turn the corner. Testing technologies are improving all the time. We are expanding our existing technologies, and since the pandemic hit we have been putting everything behind our mission to expand our testing capacity. In April, on schedule, we delivered the target of 100,000 tests a day. The Prime Minister then set the goal of testing capacity of half a million a day by the end of October, and I can tell the House that thanks to an enormous effort under the leadership of Baroness Harding and Sarah-Jane Marsh, to whom I give heartfelt thanks, we have hit our target. Testing capacity across the whole UK is now 519,770 a day—a phenomenal national achievement. We now have the largest testing capacity in Europe.
It has been a hard road. As with any new technology, there have been ups and downs, but I always knew we would get there. I am very proud of the team. The next stage is to harness the new technologies—the lateral flow tests that can take a matter of minutes, the high-throughput tests and the point-of-care tests, which are now bringing capacity into the hotspots and on the spot in our NHS hospitals. That is all part of a mass testing capacity that we are building right now, which, alongside the work on vaccines—that is progressing well—will give us so much greater protection from this disease in the months to come.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
Before the Secretary of State moves on, just on the point about vaccines, it was reported yesterday in The Sunday Times that Kate Bingham, the chair of the taskforce, spoke at a commercial conference where attendees paid $200 to attend and revealed commercially confidential information. Certainly at the least she apparently revealed information about a vaccine being ready by Easter, which is welcome, and that the Government have done a rehearsal to get the vaccine distributed—again, that is welcome—but why has she revealed that information there? Why has the Secretary of State not revealed that information here? Members may want to take some of those things into account before they vote on Wednesday. Did he authorise her speaking at this event, and can he update us on what she said?
Matt Hancock
The covid vaccine taskforce is about the procurement of the vaccines. That is a matter for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. The Department has put out a statement and made clear the circumstances around that conference. What I would say is that I am very happy to answer any questions on vaccines. As the hon. Member says, we have procured a number of vaccines. We have procured six in total, two of which are the two leading vaccines in the world. The taskforce has done an excellent job of making sure that we have one of the strongest procurement pipelines for vaccines in the world.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
While we are still on the subject of vaccines and the Secretary of State is answering questions, the biography of Kate Bingham on her own website on SV Health Investors says that she is in fact leaving the taskforce at the end of 2020. Who is replacing her and what confidentiality agreements will she be asked to sign on her return to an entirely profit-making business?
Matt Hancock
It was a fixed-term appointment in order to do that vital work, and was always due to come to a close. This comes back to the old thing that we have across these Dispatch Boxes: on the Government side of the House, we want to harness the capabilities of everybody; on the Opposition side of the House, unless a person is in the public sector, they do not seem to get the credit. I think we should welcome everybody who is willing to put their shoulder to the wheel to drive the action that is necessary to improve this country’s response.
Matt Hancock
This is probably about how we should not use the private sector in test and trace, despite the fact that we have hit our target of more than 500,000 tests a day on time, as we have each of the targets for testing. I am very proud of that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Matt Hancock
I am happy to answer any detailed question about the provision of vaccines in this country.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
Does the Secretary of State accept that there are those of us in this House who like a mixed economy and who recognise the role of the private sector and of business, but that that does not undermine the need for any Government to have transparency about procurement and to protect the spending of taxpayers’ money?
Matt Hancock
Yes, absolutely. With comments like those, the hon. Lady should come over to this side of the House if she wants to be part of the big team effort. She obviously did not get the memo that says, “If you sit on the Opposition side, you have to attack anybody in the private sector who is helping.”
We have to pull together, because coronavirus is a powerful adversary. It has the power to overwhelm our hospitals, disrupt our economy and suspend the moments that make life so special, so we must take the hard but crucial steps to get it under control, and we will stand behind every single person who joins in this national effort. Everybody has a role to play, and as we come together once more, we must all work and make sacrifices to protect those who we love at this time of national need.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
As I am sure colleagues can see, a large number of people wish to participate in this debate. We did not manage to get everybody in the last general debate, so I am imposing a time limit for Back Benchers that will start at five minutes.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
I appreciate that there are Members who applied for the previous debate and could not get in, so if Members will forgive me, I will take very few interventions. It would be a shame if Members could not get into this debate, as happened last time.
On 21 September, SAGE advised the Prime Minister to adopt a time-limited circuit breaker, and warned that
“not acting now to reduce cases will result in a very large epidemic with catastrophic consequences”.
On 13 October, when we debated the tiered approach, I warned that
“the embers are burning brightly”
nationwide, and that
“further action is going to be needed.”—[Official Report, 13 October 2020; Vol. 682, c. 205.]
Later that day, the Leader of the Opposition proposed to work with the Prime Minister in the national interest and help to introduce a time-limited, two-week circuit break across the school half term.
What was Downing Street’s response to our offer to work together? Downing Street branded us opportunistic. The Chancellor criticised us, describing the proposal as
“a damaging, blunt, national lockdown”
that would cause
“unnecessary pain and suffering”.—[Official Report, 22 October 2020; Vol. 682, c. 1252.].
Even though this morning he defended the decision to go into lockdown, there are now briefings—I am sure the whole House will be shocked by this—that the Chancellor does not really support this lockdown after all. I have been around for a long time, and I know that when a Chancellor tells a Prime Minister that he supports him, while simultaneously letting Tory Back Benchers think that he backs them, that is definitely a man on manoeuvres.
Then we have the Foreign Secretary, who said that
“the idea of a short, sharp circuit breaker is, frankly, something of an enigma. No one can say, if you go into a national lockdown at what point you get out of it.”
Well, quite.
That brings me to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office—a man renowned for his long-standing loyalty to the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson)—who, in recent days, performed a pirouette with great panache. Two weeks ago on “Sophie Ridge on Sunday”, when asked whether a circuit break could be introduced, he gave an emphatic “No!” But yesterday, when asked on “Sophie Ridge on Sunday” whether the Prime Minister’s lockdown could extend beyond four weeks, he said yes. No wonder the Foreign Secretary is confused with that level of consistency from his Cabinet colleagues.
Then, of course, we have the Prime Minister. Two weeks ago, he said a lockdown would be the “height of absurdity” and he said that a lockdown would “turn the lights out”, yet here we are on the eve of a longer, deeper and more restrictive lockdown than we proposed. Fundamentally, this is about the Prime Minister’s judgment. Since SAGE advised a lockdown in September, over 4,000 lives have been lost. Infections have increased from 4,000 a day to over 20,000 a day. The numbers in critical care on ventilation have increased from 154 to 815. Deaths have been doubling roughly every two weeks since the beginning of September.
Thousands more, sadly, are likely to die over the next fortnight. Tragically, this lockdown is too late for them. Andrew Hayward from SAGE said earlier today on the radio that
“if we had chosen a two-week circuit break…we would definitely have saved thousands of lives and we would clearly have inflicted substantially less damage on our economy than the proposed four-week lockdown will do.”
On Wednesday, Labour Members will, in the national interest, vote in support of the necessary measures, but the House should be clear that this lockdown will be longer and more damaging because the warnings from SAGE in September and then from the Opposition in October were dismissed by the Prime Minister. There is a sorry pattern to this Prime Minister’s handling of the crisis.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
The shadow Health Secretary risks inadvertently misleading the House in suggesting that SAGE was recommending a two-week circuit-breaking lockdown. As he knows, it has strongly suggested that what it was talking about was a series of lockdowns. Is that still Labour’s position?
Jonathan Ashworth
I am sure the hon. Gentleman is familiar with the minutes from SAGE, which read:
“The shortlist of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) that should be considered for immediate introduction includes:...A circuit-breaker (short period of lockdown) to return incidence to low levels.”
That is the proposal that we endorsed, and it is the proposal that was rejected on 21 September by the Prime Minister. Now the Prime Minister is putting the country into a four-week lockdown, which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster conceded yesterday could last beyond four weeks. This is fundamentally about the judgment of the Prime Minister, and indeed the Chancellor, who, we know from briefings, blocked the Government from making the choice to go for lockdown earlier.
Throughout this crisis, we have seen mistake after mistake. The preparations for this pandemic were poor and insufficient. The lessons of Exercise Cygnus were not taken on board. The country’s stockpile of PPE was allowed to dwindle, leaving frontline health and care workers unprotected and placed in harm’s way. I hope we can get a cast-iron guarantee that the same will not happen again this winter. Instead of putting the public health teams in charge of tracing, Ministers turned to outsourcing companies, with management consultants paid more in one day than care workers would be paid over four months. Week by week, the numbers followed up by the test and trace system fall. Directors of public health, who want to get on with contact tracing, complain that it takes days for them to receive the information on cases.
The app was months too late, and yesterday we learned that it has an not even been alerting people properly. The Secretary of State is supposed to be the digital whizz kid, and he could not deliver the app on time, and it has not been working sufficiently. Far too many test results are still not turned around in 24 hours, even though we know that we need speed when dealing with a virus that spreads with such severity. There have been 1,300 outbreaks in care homes since the end of August, and care staff still wait more than two days for results.
As we have heard, there is still inadequate financial support for people who need to isolate. It should be no surprise that there were reports of less than 20% of people isolating, given that they are expected to make a choice between feeding their families and their health. Rather than giving people proper, decent sick pay, the Chancellor spent hundreds of millions subsidising meals in restaurants through the summer. There is now evidence from academics to suggest that that led to the spread of the virus and seeded the virus in the early stages of this second wave. We welcome the announcement of the 80% furlough, but furloughed workers in the midlands and the north will conclude that their jobs were worth 13% less than those elsewhere.
The experiences of other countries were needlessly ignored, warnings were downplayed, and the precious advantage of time was squandered. Tragically, that has been as true in September and October as it was in February and March. The Government did not learn. It does not require a crystal ball to listen to scientists and make timely decisions in the national interest, so lessons must be learned, and this lockdown must be used wisely.
I welcome what the Secretary of State said about expanding testing capacity, but we also need to turn around the PCR—polymerase chain reaction—tests quickly for those with symptoms. They are still not turned around in 24 hours. If we are going to have extra capacity in the system, I hope there will be a commitment to turn those tests around in 24 hours for those who need them. We need to expand access to testing to more people, to rebuild confidence across society. UK universities are leading the way in piloting regular saliva testing for students, and some have extended that to the wider community. Rolling out these saliva tests across communities paves the way for weekly testing of key workers such as transport staff, care staff and, especially, NHS staff.
We have been calling for months for the Government to roll out a programme of regular, routine testing of frontline NHS staff. Surely, as we move into winter, that should be a priority. The saliva testing innovation should be brought on stream quickly to do that routine testing of all frontline NHS staff. If we could roll that out—I know that the Secretary of State agrees with me on this, and I do not disagree with him on the objective; I am urging him to use these four weeks to get a move on with it—it would allow us to identify asymptomatic carriers and protect the most vulnerable in society. Will he come forward with a plan to work with our universities on saliva testing, which he knows is very exciting and could make a huge difference?
Contact tracing has to be fixed. It has not been working properly through the call centre approach. The local directors of public health would do a more effective job, but they need to get the contacts within 24 hours, not within days. If they get those contacts within 24 hours, they can introduce as a matter of routine retrospective contact tracing, which finds where people got the virus from and identifies super-spreading cluster events. That approach has been taken in countries such as Japan, and we know that it is more effective. I know that it is happening in some hotspots, but it should be routine across the country.
As I said, we need reassurance that people will get support for isolation. In this lockdown, we will have a spending review, and the test of that spending review is how it will support our national health service and social care sector for the rest of this covid period. We entered this crisis after years of underfunding in the national health service, with capital budgets repeatedly raided—[Interruption.] There were years of underfunding in the national health service—of course there were. The national health service used to get a funding increase of around 4% to 5%. It got something like 6% to 7% a year under Labour Governments. Under this Government, for 10 years, it has got around 1%. Everybody knows that the NHS went into this crisis after years of underfunding. Everybody knows that the NHS went into this crisis with capital budgets having been repeatedly raided, which has left hospitals with a £6 billion repair bill. The NHS entered this crisis with around 15,000 beds having been cut since 2010.
Matt Hancock
We cannot let this stand—what a load of nonsense. The NHS went into this crisis with the highest funding level in its history, with more doctors than at any time in its history, with more nurses than at any time in its history and with the biggest hospital building programme in its history. The investment from this Government in this NHS is the highest that has ever been made by any British Government in history, and that is why it is only we who are the party of the NHS.
Jonathan Ashworth
The national health service has been systematically underfunded for years under this Tory Government. The NHS went into this crisis without adequate levels of PPE for frontline staff, with nurses using curtains and plastic bags to protect themselves on the wards in the face of this horrific virus. [Interruption.] They are sighing, but they sent our staff into the face of danger without the proper protection; that is what happened going into this crisis, because of years of cutbacks and underfunding of the national health service. The cutbacks and underfunding mean that we have lost 15,000 beds in the national health service since 2010, and that our public health budgets have been cut by £800 million under this Tory Government and because of years of austerity for the NHS. There are people with serious mental health problems who will be spending this lockdown in Victorian-style mental health dormitory wards because of the cutbacks in the capital funding for the NHS.
Matt Hancock
The hon. Gentleman mentions dormitories in mental health services. Dormitories have plagued mental health services for years and years and years—and who are the first Government to not only commit, but to put the funding in to end dormitories in mental health services? It is this Conservative Government. It is not only that this Government are the Government for the NHS and that we are the party of the NHS; we are also the party investing record sums in mental health services, with the biggest increase of all the increases in funding going into mental health services, including to end the dormitories in mental health services that have existed ever since the NHS was created.
Jonathan Ashworth
The Government have been cutting capital budgets in the NHS, which is why we have still got those horrendous dormitory wards, including at Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust and Derbyshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust. Years of Tory cutbacks have meant that clinical commissioning groups have been raiding child and adolescent mental health budgets in order to fix the wider revenue gaps in the NHS. That is because of 10 years of underfunding in the national health service. We went into this crisis with an NHS that did not have enough staff—short of 80,000. It has seen 15,000 beds cut and public health budgets cut by £800 million. Hospitals have been left with £6 billion of repair bills and with these Victorian dormitory wards that have not been updated for years. The Secretary of State cannot stand there and say that the NHS had enough investment going into this crisis, because if it had we would not have had staff without PPE.
Stephen Doughty
Perhaps my hon. Friend will take a look at the situation in Wales. Thanks to investment from the Welsh Government, I have a brand-new mental health facility at Llandough Hospital in Cardiff South and Penarth, with state-of-the-art facilities to deal with mental health issues in Wales.
Jonathan Ashworth
Wales also has a much better test, trace and protect system because the Welsh Government did not outsource it to Serco. Of course, the Welsh First Minister showed some leadership and actually imposed his short firebreaker, when the Secretary of State’s leader was running away from the difficult decisions that were needed and was not following the advice of the scientists.
The spending review is due towards the end of November. The test will be whether the NHS and the social care system are given the funding they need. One matter that the Secretary of State did not go into in great detail—perhaps the Minister for Patient Safety, Mental Health and Suicide Prevention, the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries), could respond when she sums up—is what protection will be in place for the social care sector. We understand why we need to have a lockdown, but we know that a lockdown is going to be particularly devastating for those in receipt of social care. Many people have made great sacrifices, not being able to see their loved ones in social care throughout this period. There is a great worry that many loved ones are literally fading away in social care, not able to see their daughters, granddaughters, sons and grandsons.
We really need a system in place so that loved ones can see their families in social care. Some of the testing innovations that the Secretary of State has spoken of, which we welcome, should be used so that relatives can see their loved ones in social care regularly. He did not mention that today, but this is going to be a real issue in the coming weeks. I hope that the Minister of State can reassure the House that there will be a sufficient plan in place for those in receipt of social care to be fully protected throughout the four-week lockdown and the winter more generally.
Rushanara Ali
Does my hon. Friend agree that not only do those in care need additional protection, but the black and minority ethnic death rates in the first lockdown were unprecedented? The Government published the disparities report, yet they do not have an action plan as we go into a second wave. We can see the numbers already; BAME deaths have already happened in my constituency in this wave. What are the Government going to do to protect those from BAME backgrounds who are particularly at risk?
Jonathan Ashworth
This is a really important point, which my hon. Friend has raised many times in the House. We know that covid particularly thrives on inequalities in society and is particularly brutal with respect to socioeconomic inequities. We have seen the disproportionate impact on those from BAME backgrounds, particularly those who live in constituencies such as hers and mine, in overcrowded housing or in low-paid, public-facing roles. The Public Health England report and other reports published in recent weeks by think tanks all make welcome and sensible recommendations about targeted testing and particular protections in the workplace. Those need to be implemented because we know that this virus is particularly cruel when it comes to inequalities. That is why I have always made the broader point that getting through this virus in the end not only relies on mass testing—we agree on that—and the wider distribution of a vaccine, but fundamentally relies on a wider health inequalities strategy. We went into this crisis with inequalities getting wider, life expectancy going backwards and child mortality rates worsening. That is the result of 10 years of austerity, as Sir Michael Marmot says. If we want to get on top of this virus, which is now endemic, we are going to need a fully resourced and wider health inequalities strategy.
Jonathan Ashworth
I will, but this will be the last time, because I want to finish.
Jonathan Edwards
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I invite him to agree that the Treasury needs to up its game on its co-ordination with the devolved Administrations because, when Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland wanted to go into lockdown there was no extension to the furlough, yet there is when the policy comes to England. The Treasury needs to be working with the devolved Administrations so that they can pursue their chosen public health policy.
Jonathan Ashworth
The hon. Gentleman makes a completely valid point, although it is not just about the devolved Administrations; the Chancellor should work more closely with the various civic leaderships across the country. When it was the north being locked down, they simply did not get the economic support for the jobs and livelihoods in their areas. If the Government are moving to a tiered system post this lockdown, whenever it ends, I hope that they will not make that mistake again.
If this pandemic has taught us anything, it is surely that our NHS and social care service, and the staff who care for all of us, need to be fully funded and supported in the months ahead. We will support this lockdown on Wednesday—we will vote for it—but the British people are again being asked to make huge sacrifices, so, in return, Ministers must not waste this lockdown. They must take action to improve the test and tracing system, they should expand the new testing techniques and we must give the NHS and our social care system the support they need to get through the months ahead.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
I wholeheartedly support these measures. When we look at the starkness of the data presented to the country at the weekend, we see that the issue is not whether the lockdown is wise, but whether we use the lockdown wisely. I hope that the Health Secretary will forgive me, as his predecessor, if I set out one or two of the things we need to use the next month to sort out if we are to ensure that this is the last coronavirus lockdown and that it is a short one.
First, it will not surprise the Health Secretary that I say this, but we must introduce weekly testing of NHS staff. In the first wave, up to 11% of coronavirus hospital deaths happened to people who picked up their infection in their own hospital. For the basic principles of patient safety and staff safety, we must make sure that that does not happen a second time; otherwise cancer patients will worry whether it is safe to go to their hospital, staff will worry about whether they are infecting their own patients and we will see the NHS again descend into being a covid-only service. We had some hospitals in London where more than 40% of staff were infected in the previous wave. It would be unforgiveable to let that happen again. I know that the Secretary of State is sympathetic and would like to do this. I would just urge him to do it as soon as possible.
Matt Hancock
My right hon. Friend knows that I agree with him. Indeed, we are rolling this out now, but we do need to get it everywhere.
Jeremy Hunt
I would be very grateful, and I know that staff everywhere would be grateful, if my right hon. Friend could give some indication of when all NHS staff can be confident that they will be tested, but I thank him very much for that answer.
Secondly, I hope the Secretary of State will not mind me saying that this is the moment when we have to fix contact tracing. To be reaching only 60% of people’s known contacts is not good enough. He knows that, and he does not try to defend it—
Jeremy Hunt
No, no. This is the point: when we have 50,000 people being infected every single day, it is a massive logistical task, but if we are honest, we still had problems when it was a tenth of that number being infected every day. This is the moment to recognise the uncomfortable truth that this would be better done locally, with local authorities taking the ultimate responsibility. While we are making these changes to the contact tracing regime, to have only 20% of people who are infected and told to self-isolate actually complying suggests only one answer, which is that we as the state should pay their wages for the period that they have been asked to isolate. That is expensive, but it is less expensive than the cost of them not complying with the important direction to isolate.
On a more technical matter, I ask the Health Secretary to consider whether there is a way we can speed up the approval of the new therapeutic drugs that are coming online. As he knows, we generally wait until both safety and efficacy are proved before approval is given to a new drug. However, in a pandemic, would it not be right to allow the mass marketing of drugs to go ahead as soon as they are deemed safe, even though we cannot guarantee their efficacy? That could save lives, and any delay might mean that people could not get the benefits of those new drugs.
I want to finish on the issue of population testing. My right hon. Friend and I have had many discussions about this and again I know that he is sympathetic. We are in an immensely stronger position because of the huge improvements in testing capacity that he rightly celebrated in his earlier comments. However grave the situation we are in now, it would be a whole lot graver if we had not increased testing capacity from 10,000 a day to 100,000 a day, and then to 500,000 a day last week and potentially 1 million a day by Christmas. We are not far off the 2 million a day that would be needed to test the whole population every month.
Now is the time for us to tell the public how we are going to chart a course to that destination, because this is the only true light at the end of the tunnel. Charting a course to that destination means charting a course through the incredibly complex logistics and through the technology that will be necessary to record who has or has not had their positive test on time, but if we can show people that there is a date next spring by which the whole population will be tested on a regular basis, we will also be showing people that there is a way through this pandemic. In that way, our national depression would be lifted and we would be able to give the hope to our constituents that is now in such desperately short supply.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
Covid-19 has produced the biggest health and economic challenges since the war. Those two factors are inextricably linked, and until we have the virus under some kind of control, the economic impact will continue to be felt in all areas of our economy and, indeed, our country. We must end the fallacy promoted by excitable columnists and their right-wing chums that there is a choice to be made between protecting the economy and protecting the people. There is not, and those who spread this dangerous nonsense should know the damage and distress they are causing. For example, the founder of Pret a Manger has said:
“Society will not recover if we do it again to save a few thousand lives of very old or vulnerable people.”
I wonder what Mr Metcalfe’s elderly relatives thought of his outright dismissal of the value of their lives. That sort of dangerous and nonsensical rhetoric implies that there is some sort of trade-off between premature death and our society’s wealth. I do not accept that for a moment, and I hope that this Government will condemn those attitudes completely. Society itself is linked to the economy and, until we are past this virus, ensuring that people stay alive, safe and healthy is not just the right thing to do as human beings, but the right thing to do for our wider society and prosperity.
The economy is not an abstract concept; it is where my constituents, indeed all our constituents, earn their living. As a constituency Member representing an airport, I am all too aware of the huge pressures that the aviation industry in particular has been under during these past eight months. I totally respect the UK Government’s view that travel outwith the UK will not be allowed for residents of England. They are entitled to draw up restrictions that best fit England, but they will have an impact on aviation and airports across England, and the Prime Minister and his Government have to recognise that. Even with furlough, this industry, which directly and indirectly employs nearly a million people across the UK, needs the kind of bespoke support that the Chancellor promised at the beginning of this pandemic. Regional economies across the country face disaster if that support is not forthcoming. There must be a recognition that the restrictions that come into force this week in England require not only a furlough package, but targeted intervention in key sectors of our economy, including in aviation. That targeted intervention must also encompass the wider transport industry.
Already we have seen Alexander Dennis announce 650 job losses driven by a collapse in demand for buses from operators. We face the prospect of high-skilled, high-value jobs being lost forever, because the Government will not come up with a plan to secure our manufacturing industry that faces a short-term crisis in the middle of long-term growth and strength. The Transport Secretary stood at the Dispatch Box in July and promised £3 billion to help build 4,000 buses. That is welcome, but that money and those orders are needed now to protect the remaining jobs at Alexander Dennis and beyond, otherwise by the time that money gets spent, we will be buying those 4,000 buses overseas rather than supporting indigenous businesses and jobs.
The Scottish Government are doing everything in their power to stimulate a sustained economic recovery, but while other Governments are able to borrow to finance a response, the Scottish Government are unable to do so. In fact, Transport for London will be able to borrow 400% more this year than the entire Scottish Government will be able to borrow for this year. Such are the constraints that are put in place by the devolution settlement.
That being said, Scotland is seeing some early tentative success in driving case rates down with the measures introduced in the central belt last month. That is down to the hard work and collective action taken by the majority of people in Scotland. Indeed, Scotland’s five-level restriction system went live today. It is a system aligned as much as possible with England’s three tiers for simplicity and the easier application of Treasury support. This has been hard for all, but harder still for many. It is also clear that the situation is still finely balanced, and that balance is not helped by devolved and local authorities being hamstrung by a Treasury that does not recognise that the world and the UK constitution have moved on in the past 30 years, and that its grip has to loosen, especially as we are in the middle of a public health emergency.
I urge the Treasury to come to its senses and agree a framework with the devolved Administrations that gives real flexibility on furlough and allows Governments to protect jobs and protect the economy. Announcements of this kind need to be taken in close consultation, not by surprise announcements on Twitter or from a No.10 podium. Following the failure to confirm this over the weekend, the general secretary of the Scottish Trades Union Congress said that continued UK Government opposition to flexible furlough
“would mark a new low point in the UK government’s treatment of Scottish workers and public health in Scotland.”
Even the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross), the leader of the Scottish Conservatives here, believes that that should be the case. He asked,
“how could a Unionist government not restart the scheme if a second lockdown is required in Scotland?”
Let us try to forget the fact that he has come a little late to the party and embrace the fact that he has shown up at all. None the less, it does take something special to unite the Scottish Tories and the Scottish trade unionists, but that was and is the reality in Scotland following the Prime Minister’s Saturday night address.
We face a fairly chaotic situation now following the Prime Minister’s answer to the aforementioned hon. Member. He arrogantly dismissed questions from many Members from across the UK—not just from SNP and Scottish Members—about furlough being extended to Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland when it is needed. He went on to give a fairly woolly assurance to the hon. Member for Moray who is now running around quoting him, trying to claim a grand political victory for the Scottish Tories when, a very short time ago, there was no agreement that the furlough scheme actually had to be extended at all. The sad thing is that the statement the Prime Minister gave is not what the Scottish Office is saying, it is not what the Scottish Conservative shadow economy spokesperson said on the radio and, crucially, it is not what the Treasury is saying to the Scottish Government. I am not saying that I mistrust the Prime Minister, but until I see an assurance in writing from the Treasury, I will assume the status quo remains.
Of course, this U-turn, coming as it did well beyond the eleventh hour, has come far too late for many businesses and many workers who are without a livelihood as we approach the bleakest winter for job prospects for decades. This disrespectful approach to the devolved Governments confirms what most people in Scotland have thought for years—that it is Greater London that drives the political agenda of the UK. When devolved Governments joined business leaders and unions to ask for furlough to be extended to save jobs and give Cardiff, Belfast and Edinburgh flexibility in their public health approach, the Government said, “No, we can’t afford it.” When MPs, Select Committee reports, business groups and others called for support for the 3 million excluded from Government programmes, the Government said, “No, we can’t afford it.” When the Mayor of Manchester asked for Treasury funds to support the local lockdowns, the Government haggled and said no. But when it was suggested that an English national lockdown was required and that London and the south-east would be affected, the Chancellor suddenly remembered where he had put the magic money tree and said yes.
The truth is that the Government like to call themselves a one-nation Government, but if there was any doubt whatever which country that was, we can now see it, plain as day. Even if only for their precious Union, the Treasury must see sense, treat the devolved Governments and the people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland with respect and agree a scheme that recognises the different needs across these isles. It must be on the same basis as the Chancellor has delivered for England.
Jonathan Edwards
May I add to the point that the hon. Gentleman is making? He will be aware that the Welsh Government have given care workers a £500 bonus, but I have constituents whose families have lost benefits because the Treasury has treated that bonus for care workers working during the pandemic as income. It is disgraceful.
Gavin Newlands
That is the first time I have heard that and it is absolutely disgraceful. The DWP and the Minister should really look at that. It is not on, particularly in the pandemic situation that we are facing at the moment, and the hon. Gentleman makes his point well.
We are now 60 days away from a potential no-deal Brexit. The EU offered, indeed practically begged, the UK to postpone negotiations until we have all collectively dealt with the pandemic, but the fanaticism of the British state in believing that they could carry on singing “Rule Britannia!” in the middle of the biggest health emergency the world has seen is breath-taking. I am extremely worried—I do not believe I am alone—that we could be headed for a situation in the new year that will have an impact on our collective response to the pandemic, and which may cost unnecessary lives. No one disputes the scale of the challenge faced by the Prime Minister and his Government. It is a challenge that Governments across the world and these isles are having to face, but there should be no doubt that the Prime Minister and his colleagues are failing that challenge.
The Government are driven by old chums, cronies and cash—taxpayers’ cash. There is no logical reason why someone who was at the helm of a company responsible for one of the biggest data breaches in British history is now in charge of England’s Test and Trace system. There is no logical reason why that Test and Trace system has been privatised into the hands of Serco, Deloitte, G4S, Mitie, Sodexo, Boots and a labyrinth of subcontractors, agencies, consultants, spivs and chancers, or that substantial PPE contracts should be awarded to a loss-making company in Gloucestershire that—coincidentally—happens to be run by a Conservative councillor.
The contempt for those outside the gilded circle extends to anyone outside the M25. When the Mayor of Greater Manchester called for employment support when tougher regulations were introduced in his area, he was accused of playing politics. When the First Minister of Wales asked for additional support to help his people during the firebreak, he was ridiculed and ignored. When the First Minister of Scotland asked for flexibility in extending furlough in the event that Scotland needed it, she and the Finance Secretary were told no.
The people of Scotland can see the chaotic and bumbling style emanating from No. 10, and an analysis of recent polls suggests our judgment of the Government, and the Prime Minister in particular, is bleak and total. The Prime Minister’s job approval rating in Scotland is minus 58%, whereas the First Minister enjoys a job approval of plus 49%. That is a lead of 109 percentage points. I have been, quite sadly, avidly interested in politics for a very long time—since an unnaturally young age—and I have never seen anything quite as stark as that. Indeed, YouGov found that the First Minister was more popular than the Prime Minister in England. I suspect that this is why, in recent days and weeks, we have seen the hon. Member for Moray running as fast as he possibly can from the Prime Minister. But the real concern for the Government and many Members of this House is the clear increase in the level of support for Scottish independence. The poll had support at 58%. With this latest polling debacle that the Minister for the Union has presided over, I suspect that the first 60% poll is now within sight. The message is clear. If this Government continue to make decisions that ignore the wishes of those outside the M25, they do so at their precious Union’s peril.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
If I may just respond to the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), I do not feel that this House is ignoring Scotland; I feel that this House has voted for very large sums of extra money to be devoted to Scotland. But perhaps my Government need to be more mindful of the fact that these things can be so easily misconstrued in the heat of Scottish politics, and it is the responsibility of the Government to make sure that they are not so misconstrued.
This crisis was incredibly unexpected, even though it took months to arrive, and almost every western Government was extraordinarily ill-prepared for it. There have been unprecedented challenges, inevitable mistakes, much experimentation, much learning and much wasted, but much achieved. However, the politics of this country inevitably tends to revert to type, and we have seen a bit more of that in the House of Commons today with what we do best in here, which is to disagree with each other for the sake of disagreement. Somehow we have to try to rise above that in this crisis.
The opposition to these measures on the Government Benches reflects declining public confidence in the Government’s covid response, and it is public confidence that the Government should, above all else, strive to address. So what needs to be done to strengthen public confidence? We heard quite a lot about that in the speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt). A lot of it is about having a plan, explaining a plan, and giving people hope that there is a plan. The measures announced on Saturday are another reaction that has set the course for the next four weeks, but beyond that, the Government have not published any plan. I have been asking for some time for a plan called “Living with coronavirus”. There may be a single vaccine that gets us out in one go, but that is most unlikely to happen, so we will go on needing to manage the spread of the virus for many months and possibly even years. How are the Government going to do that? The Royal Society certainly does not expect an instant vaccine.
There are basically three choices facing this House. The first is to control the virus with more of these economically ruinous lockdowns. We all agree that that is not going to be acceptable, and we have heard frustration being expressed by some of my colleagues. The second is to expand the NHS to gargantuan proportions so that we can deal with as many people who get infected. We cannot afford to do that and we do not have the capacity to do it. The only solution is to try to manage the virus, perhaps with vaccines but certainly with Test and Trace. We have had six months to get Test and Trace to where it is. Let us celebrate the 500,000 tests a day and the huge organisation that has been established, but we should ask ourselves what needs to be done in order for us to have as effective testing and tracing as people have in Japan and in Korea. They had years practising in the aftermath of SARS—severe acute respiratory syndrome. We have had to achieve this very much more quickly, but that does not mean that we cannot adapt those experiences of very different societies to our own immediate future to make sure that we do a much better job.
We need to carry on improving the data. The fact that Test and Trace is divided among four different directorates in four different locations, and that the data directorate has had three directors general in the past five or six months, does not suggest that there is much continuity or co-ordination across Test and Trace.
We need to deliver a campaign to change behaviour on the street. This cannot be done from a spreadsheet in Whitehall. It cannot be done from remote call centres with unfamiliar telephone numbers. It can only be done with person-to-person human contact. Go and ask the Japanese how they are doing it. It is very analogue. It is very old-fashioned. There is an app— every country has an app—but an app is a tiny proportion of what people can achieve. People are not going to use an app if they think it just results in them being rung up by some stranger and told what to do. That is not working.
Above all, NHS Test and Trace needs a single command structure and a single plan. However localised the delivery is, and I am very much in favour of using local authorities—the local authority pilots that have been carried out already have proved very much more successful in contacting a much higher proportion of people—every local authority should be so funded. However, we need a central headquarters, preferably run by a military capability that can bring this together and win this together.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. In order to get everybody in, after the next speaker I will need to reduce the time limit to four minutes, which is what was in place in the debate before the recess. Perhaps colleagues might like to tell the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) when he returns that it will be four minutes for his speech.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
Dither, delay and disaster—that was the Prime Minister’s own word today—and, of course, it did not have to be this way. There has never been a starker contrast between the gross failings of the Prime Minister and the leadership shown by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, my hon. Friends on the Labour Front Bench and our Welsh Labour First Minister, Mark Drakeford, in calling for action at the right time and taking action at the right time on a firebreak lockdown. Instead, we saw a Prime Minister who ridiculed the proposals, describing them as “the height of absurdity”. His office described the Leader of the Opposition as “an opportunist”. The Chancellor blocked those who wanted to act sooner, and now we are seeing the same mistakes repeated that we saw earlier in the year. Forty days have been wasted, with the consequence that England will now face a longer, harder lockdown and worse consequences.
What a contrast with Wales, where our First Minister set out a difficult but clear set of restrictions, with common-sense exemptions, when he announced our firebreak weeks ago. He has communicated throughout with, and engaged and listened to, our elected representatives, councils, businesses and trade unions—the hallmark of his approach throughout this crisis—bringing Wales together to tackle the tough reality that covid presents. Today, he has set out that on 9 November our firebreak will end, not in a free-for-all, but with a sensible, clear, national set of measures, where people will be encouraged to do the minimum, not the maximum, allowed and we will prioritise the safety of their families, their friends and our NHS as we continue to be led by the evidence and the threat of this virus.
The consequences of the wider approach taken by the Prime Minister could not be more serious for our collective health and the economy. As the Independent SAGE meeting last week suggested, over the next four weeks, we will now potentially see deaths locked in in their thousands in England if the trends continue, and the mental health and the economic impacts will be for longer and deeper. That is the cost of delay, and I have never known a more incompetent and reckless Prime Minister, Chancellor and Government.
Matt Chorley reported what Tory MPs tell him in private—they often tell us in private, too. There were comments such as:
“Shambolic. Rudderless ramblings. Constituents getting in touch furious or in tears”,
“Grim grim grim”
and
“I think it could be his Suez”.
At least they have the guts to be honest in private, but others, extraordinarily, would rather brazen it out in public. The Minister for Patient Safety, Mental Health and Suicide Prevention claimed that only a crystal ball could have predicted the need for a second lockdown—it is absolutely extraordinary. Has she even been reading her briefs? Anybody can see from the graphs, the trends or the historical examples—
The Minister for Patient Safety, Mental Health and Suicide Prevention (Ms Nadine Dorries)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Stephen Doughty
No, I will not—the Minister made her comments very clear publicly. Of course, others were simply patronising. [Interruption.] Oh, go on then—I will give way to her.
Ms Dorries
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. The cases of infections, particularly in the over-60s, and the demand on hospital beds far exceed the previous reasonable worst-case scenario.
Stephen Doughty
Yes, and of course the First Minister and the Health Minister, my colleague Vaughan Gething, saw the same evidence, took action and instituted a firebreak lockdown when it was needed.
Other Tory MPs have been simply patronising. The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa, the right hon. Member for Braintree (James Cleverly), said:
“If you want to see how a Labour government would be dealing with the current COVID-19 situation just look at how they’re doing in Wales.”
Well, yes, Minister—we would be feeding kids throughout the holidays and running a fully functioning test, trace and protect system throughout the UK. The figures speak for themselves: since June, 94% have been reached and 95% of their contacts have been reached. Instead of contracting it out to Serco and the other companies under the shambolic oversight of one of the Prime Minister’s pals, we would be acting decisively across the UK, in accordance with the scientific advice, when it mattered.
The Welsh Conservatives are all over the place today, describing our lockdown as “disproportionate and unnecessary” and refusing to back the Prime Minister’s plans for a lockdown in England. What an absolute shambles. A firebreak lockdown is right and has my support, but those affected need the right economic support from the UK Treasury. We have again seen the UK Government wait until the last minute to act to support people in Wales, meaning a huge amount of anxiety for people in my constituency and preventable job losses. That is not to mention the delays in the announcement of support for the self-employed and the failure to do the right thing on furlough and co-operate with Wales in time for our measures to come into place. That the Government instead played petty partisan politics is deeply disappointing and will undoubtedly have led to people losing jobs.
We now need clear answers to a number of questions. Will we see backdated support to address the Chancellor’s failure to act in relation to Wales until he decided to announce the England-wide measures? Will there be confirmation of what the Prime Minister said about the support available if we go into measures again after 2 December? I think he said it would be available “wherever it is needed”. What transparency will there be on the additional support for Wales as a result of the business grant support announced for England? What will happen in terms of universal credit and support for families who are deeply affected by losing jobs and income? We need to see an end to the game-playing.
Lastly, I wish to refer to the issue that I brought up earlier, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth): vaccines. It is crucial that we have hope in these dark times. I thank our NHS, care workers and key workers, and all the brilliant scientists and medical professionals who are working to improve testing capability, drive new treatments and find a vaccine. There are, though, serious questions about the involvement of the chair of the vaccines taskforce in an online seminar costing $200 a head for American investors, and the sharing of official sensitive documents. It is absolutely right that the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves)—and my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South have been asking questions about the conflicts of interest, why that information was shared with that group of people instead of with this House, and whether that was inappropriate. I hope we get some answers from the Cabinet Secretary on those questions, because they are very serious and we need hope and optimism on a vaccine and the information given to this House.
It is clear that we need support for our economy and all those affected, and we need clarity on a vaccine. People need hope in these dark times.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. The time limit is reduced to four minutes.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
This morning, I chaired a meeting with the psychologist Emma Kenny. She spoke absolutely brilliantly so I shall shamelessly steal and abridge her speech from this morning. She said:
“Human beings are not meant to be isolated, in fact you are less likely to die if you smoke 15 cigarettes a day, than you are if you are lonely. Loneliness kills, which is why the Alzheimer’s society have been telling us for many, many months that care home restrictions are dangerous to their residents, the elderly literally wither and die…when they are kept from their close and loving bonds.
We are social creatures, and we need to physically experience the presence of others if we are to thrive. This is what makes us human, this is what keeps us healthy, and this is what kills us when we are denied.
And denied is what we have been, and what we continue to be. Research is telling us a terrifying story, and one that will be told for many, many years to come, one whose ending will be decided based on moments like today.”
Emma Kenny went on:
“I, and so many of my peers believe fiercely that children, more than any other demographic require safeguarding, legally and morally our democratic society should wish to protect children from harm. In fact, the Children’s act clearly, and rightly states that children’s welfare should be the paramount concern, and that physical, emotional, social and educational harm is unacceptable on any level where children are concerned…Yet, harm, abuse and neglect is exactly what the current restrictions are causing.
The last seven months has seen an exponential rise in reported levels of stress, anxiety and depression, with research finding that 80% of young people are experiencing a decline in their mental health. Suicidal thoughts in young people are also sharply rising, these are children, and they are so afraid, so traumatised, so concerned about their future, that they are deciding whether to experience a future at all. Indeed, the Government and the media have taught children to be afraid of living, of playing, of loving.
One of the biggest killers in the UK is poverty, in fact, poor people die on average ten years younger than their affluent peers, meaning they will not have the luxury of reaching the age of a Coronavirus death, and yet who are restrictions affecting most? The poor.
Children and young people are having their security ripped apart on every level. Their education, which for some children is the only consistent safety and care that they experience has been…desecrated, and thrown into chaos.
They are watching their parents lose jobs, they will soon watch them lose their homes, because restrictions are killing the economy, ruining businesses, and devasting the employment landscape, meaning that many adults will struggle to find work again... This silence”—
they are silenced because of lack of internet access—
“means that they cannot tell you their stories, and their story will unequivocally be to end restrictions so that they,”
those parents,
“can feed their children, and remain in the jobs and homes that they deserve to keep.
The Data is now there for all to see, and it unequivocally evidences the continued”—
Emma Kenny says—
“overreaction of this leadership.
Even more concerning is that scientists and medics who modelled their predictions correctly are constantly shut down, excluded and positioned as loose cannons in the scientific and wider community, even though each has been willing to stand in their truth at a cost to them financially, reputationally and institutionally. Why? They have nothing to gain, and everything to lose, but their integrity, compassion, and scientific dedication, along with their care for the wellbeing and future of the human race means that they cannot remain silent, no matter how loudly they are shut down and attacked, no matter how greatly they lose.
Truth tellers are always willing to lose, because,”
as she says, as her father taught her,
“the right way, is rarely the easy way, but it remains the right way nonetheless.”
She finishes by saying that:
“Churchill said, ‘All the greatest things are simple, and many can be expressed in a single word: freedom; justice; honour; duty; mercy; hope.’”
She asks us to do our duty,
“to restore justice, to show the working classes mercy, and to return the very foundation that democracy is built upon. Freedom.”
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Many of the decisions we make in this House pass over the heads of the general public, sometimes because they only affect a small group, and other times because they take a long time to show an effect. But as the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) has starkly illustrated—I will not go through it all for the sake of time—the decisions that we are making today will have an immediate impact on people across the country and a detrimental impact on their businesses, wellbeing and health.
I will make three observations. First, many of the decisions that we have made and are making here are based on the views of experts which, unfortunately, we have accepted uncritically. Of course, it is human nature, when we are faced with situations that we do not understand and that have a bad impact on our lives, to turn to those who we believe have some knowledge and understanding.
In primitive societies, when famines, plagues or diseases struck, people turned to the medicine men, who came with a bag of bones that they threw on the ground. They then made their analysis and told people what sacrifices had to be made to satisfy the gods. I suspect that our sophisticated society is not much different. We call them chief medical officers and they bring their computers with their models. They tell us what the problem is and what the sacrifices have to be, regardless of the impact on society.
We are criticised for criticising experts, but given some of the predictions that we have heard, we have to ask whether they have shown that they understand it. We were told that there would be 500,000 deaths by now and, in the middle of September, that there would be 50,000 new cases a day by the middle of October. Neither has happened. We bought, or ordered, 90,000 ventilators because we were told that the national health service would be overrun; we used fewer than 4,000 of them. I could go on. We have to ask whether we uncritically accept the words of those who say that they are expert advisers.
Secondly, we must look at the entirety of the impact of the decisions we make. Unfortunately, we seem to have become obsessed with coronavirus and the impact on the health service, without looking at the impact on the economy and on people’s lives.
Thirdly, we must ask ourselves what the alternatives are. The evidence shows that this disease does not affect the whole of society. It has a disproportionate impact on a particular part of society—elderly people—yet we are using instruments that affect everybody. Very few deaths occur among people of working age, and many who are infected do not go on to have any real detrimental effects, yet we treat everyone the same. I do not have time to explore this, but the Great Barrington declaration advocates a targeted approach, and I believe that the Government should be looking at adopting that approach, rather than this blunt instrument of bashing the economy and bashing the populace in an unmerciful way.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
The prospect of another lockdown is truly awful. Constituents are writing to me totally distraught at not being able to visit their families or facing the collapse of their business, and even those who are about to have a baby are wondering how on earth they are going to manage. If the Government have properly assessed the harm to all our citizens—to the nation’s mental and economic health—and still concluded that covid is a bigger threat than all the unemployment, all the lost dreams, all the health issues going undiagnosed, and all the loneliness and depression, then this time let us do it smarter and with compassion.
I want to make a few brief points. First, we learned in the first lockdown that general support for businesses is a good thing, but now we also know that some in certain key business sectors have been all but destroyed by the lockdown, such as hospitality businesses, weddings and events organisers, exhibitions, merchandising companies, and festival events organisers—in fact, anyone who depends on large gatherings. So while Whitehall Departments have distributed welcome support across the economy, we now need more targeted support for those businesses that can be saved in the longer term and, frankly, a tough conversation where they cannot.
Secondly, we need to support businesses to adapt to the new reality. We saw in the first lockdown the brilliance of some: a gin distiller turning its trade to manufacturing hand sanitisers; a dry cleaner becoming a face mask manufacturer; and many tradespeople developing perspex screens for tills. So what are the Government going to do to help businesses adapt and find a way through this?
Thirdly, we now know that some businesses that could carry on may be tempted, because Government support is so broad-ranging, to down tools, furlough staff and wait until better times emerge. The taxpayer should support businesses to get through this, but not those choosing to sit out the lockdown, leaving staff at home worrying when they could be out working. So, overall, my first plea to the Government is to target support for business during this new lockdown in a smart way.
My second plea to the Government is to implement the lockdown in a compassionate way. In the first lockdown we all took the science at face value; we were glued to the daily updates and followed the advice on what we could and could not do. I believe that this time around, however, there is likely to be a genuine issue with compliance. Many of our citizens are struggling financially, while some are struggling emotionally or worrying about their loved ones, and others are simply feeling, “I’m not likely to die of covid and I’m not willing to give up my freedom for the sake of a few who might die.” To be clear, I am not condoning non-compliance in any way; I am giving a snapshot of what I am seeing in my email inbox.
The conclusion I draw from the views of my constituents is that it is essential this time that the Government do not just tell people what to do, but explain to them why this is important. The new restrictions must make sense to an ordinary sensible adult and should be defensible and explicable, yes, by an ordinary sensible MP. Outdoor swimming pools, village football, tennis and golf—do they really present a danger of spreading covid? As my constituent pointed out to me at the weekend, “When I play golf, I spend the whole time on my own in the bushes, looking for my ball.” If those outdoor pursuits, which provide such a lifeline, must stop, those whose liberties are being denied need to understand precisely why.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
If we had had a short circuit break at the beginning of autumn, fewer people would have been sick and fewer people would have died. The reality now is that we face a long, harsh lockdown at the very time people need support. I am worried about the loneliness those long dark nights will bring and the impact on people’s mental health. It is damaging not only for people, but for our economy.
I want to suggest two things that could make a difference over the lockdown period we will have to endure. They could make the difference that turns the tide and ultimately saves lives. The first suggestion is local contact tracing. I present it to the Minister with evidence for why we need localised test analysis and contact tracing. On testing, the delay in getting results is far too long. The local resilience forum in North Yorkshire said that after 24 hours, only 16% of tests are returned; after 48 hours, 60% are returned, and after 72 hours, 96% are returned. That is too long to wait to lock down the virus. If we could process those tests locally—test locally and process locally—we could have the results overnight. The University of York Aptima, a local laboratory, has the capability to do that in York. We need some seed funding from the Government, then we can process more than 6,000 tests a day in our city alone.
The evidence on contact tracing is clear. We have heard this evening that Serco turns round only 48% of contact tracing. City of York is already at 83% and had they had more effective data, which they could if they ran the system, they believe they could get to 100%. Indeed, last Wednesday, they did. The difference is stark. A quick response is key to getting on top of the virus—testing quickly, contact tracing quickly and isolating the virus quickly, as opposed to isolating people and the economy. The evidence is clear and I hope that the Government will respond to the suggestion of a localised system of public health.
Just over a week ago, the case rate in York was 307.2 per 100,000 cases. Since we have been doing our own contact tracing, it has fallen to 189.4 per 100,000 cases. That is the evidence the Government need to hold on to to recognise that local contact tracing is effective. It delivers, it saves lives and it will ultimately see off this virus with some of the other measures mentioned.
Secondly, as we unlock the economy, I want to suggest a new approach. When we deal with public health in workplaces, we give workplaces the all clear and certify that they are safe. If a work or community environment is covid secure and certified to be so, it should remain open. As we just heard with the golf example, they do not carry the risk of the virus. If those places are not secure, improvement notices should be issued and venues should remain closed. That is a simple, public health approach, which will make a difference without harming the economy further.
Those are two simple suggestions that can turn the ship around and make the ultimate difference. We need to do that because we cannot risk the NHS, we cannot risk our economy further and ultimately, we cannot risk lives. I trust that the Minister will respond positively this evening.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
There are several points that I want to cover. First, I will just reiterate to the Minister what I said to the Leader of the House. I really do not think that a 90-minute debate on Wednesday is adequate for the decision the House is being asked to take, which will potentially cost 10% of our gross domestic product. It seems to me that that warrants a slightly longer debate to allow Members from both sides of the House to set out the concerns and questions that they might have and to properly represent their constituents. I would ask Ministers to reflect on whether they think a 90-minute debate is actually adequate.
I know Ministers have referred to the debates we have already had, but of course we have not seen the regulations yet. We are not planning on seeing them till tomorrow. I anticipate that they will be quite lengthy and that there will be many questions about them. I suspect Members who are lucky enough to participate in the debate will have just one or two minutes to make their points, and I really do not think that is adequate. Even at this stage, it is not too late for the Government to think again and give us a full day’s debate on Wednesday, perhaps even with the House sitting later to enable that to be taken into account.
Mr Steve Baker
With apologies to the House, I just want to ask my right hon. Friend if he agrees with me that there has been rarely enough time for this subject—in particular, this evening—and whether the Government might consider putting on longer debates routinely.
Mr Harper
I take that point. I do have sympathy with the Government—I was a business manager—but it seems to me that the decision the House is being asked to make on Wednesday is an incredibly significant one that will impact on every single person who lives in England and, because of cross-border traffic, a very significant number of people who live in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland as well. It seems to me that a longer debate would be more sensible.
The second issue I want to turn to is also one that I raised earlier with the Leader of the House, referring back to what the Prime Minister said in the statement. He said, in answer to the question from the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), that the Government would publish and make available to Members all scientific information that underpinned the decisions the House is being asked to take. The House will know that one of the key pieces of information presented at the press conference on Saturday and referred to by the Prime Minister is the graph that sets out the scenarios for the number of deaths that may take place, and there is also the modelling that the NHS has done on the need for beds. As far as I am aware, none of that information has been published. The reasonable worst-case scenario, which the Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries), referred to in her exchange with the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), has also not been published. The only thing that has been seen is a leaked version that went to The Spectator.
Again, it seems to me that, if we are going to make this decision, we need to see that evidence quickly so that we can make such a decision. The reason why I want to see it—I have an open mind as to what I am going to do on Wednesday, but this is the reason why I have a problem—is that in my area the prevalence of the virus is fairly low and the rate of prevalence among members of my community who are over 60 is low and flat or falling, so it seems to me that there is very little evidence that there is going to be a significant problem in our local hospitals, and that was reinforced by conversations we have had with those NHS professionals.
I am willing to accept that there may be evidence to say otherwise, but because what Ministers are saying is at variance with what I am being told locally, I do need to see some evidence. I am afraid that just seeing a graph, without seeing any of the assumptions or the data that underpin the models, particularly when they give such significantly different results, is not good enough. Let me give the Minister an example. Carl Heneghan, the professor of evidence-based medicine at Oxford, and Daniel Howdon, a senior research fellow, looked at the graph that was presented, and have pointed out that the worst of these scenarios suggested that on 1 November there would be 1,000 daily deaths, which is about four times the level of the actual number of deaths taking place. That does at least cast some doubt on the accuracy of that scenario, which is why I want to see all of the data.
At the conclusion of the debate I ask the Minister to confirm that that information, as the Prime Minister committed to earlier today, will all be published tomorrow at the latest, so that we have a proper chance to scrutinise it before we are asked to take a very significant decision on Wednesday. I hope she is able to give that assurance, which I think will reassure not just Members on both sides of the House, but the millions of constituents we represent, who will expect us to take that decision with great care.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
There are millions of people up and down the country asking a very simple question: what on earth is the plan? The lockdown in March was unprecedented, and we had just two to three weeks’ notice of what was happening in other countries, but we squandered that knowledge. There are no excuses for squandering the last eight months. I am pleased that the Government have now held a four nations summit to agree guidance for Christmas, but we need to know when we will see that comprehensive, uniform guidance for family gatherings, so that families can start to plan and look forward to Christmas. When will we have guidance on transport, student return and asymptomatic testing?
Many Members on both sides of the House have repeatedly raised the issue of delays in non-covid cases. I would like to ask the Minister to look in particular at those suffering with either Crohn’s or colitis. Those two diseases are incredibly debilitating for a number of people. In many cases, they are as severe and sometimes as fatal as cancer, but they are often overlooked. Surgery for many Crohn’s and colitis patients has been pushed back by months, worsening their health outcomes. Will the Minister meet me and Crohn’s and Colitis UK to discuss its concerns?
Then we have test, trace and isolate. Again, the concerns have been well rehearsed by Members on both sides of the House. We need to see a plan to fix the test, trace and isolate system. We know that it is a three-legged stool—all three pillars of it need to be working. The Government proudly boast about how many tests are happening, but those tests have a limited value if they are not turned around in 24 hours, if contacts are not traced and if people are not self-isolating. The Government have also talked in the last 24 hours about lateral flow tests suddenly being available. That is good news, but when will public health directors hear back from the Department of Health and Social Care about when those will be provided? They have said that they would like to get some of those tests, but they have not heard back from Government about when they will receive them.
Another issue that has been raised time and again with the Government and with me as the MP for St Albans is care home visits. Relatives are having to watch their loved ones die of loneliness and a lack of contact in care homes. Thirty-minute visits and Zoom calls are just not sufficient for those people, who need the care, love and human touch of their relatives.
Finally, when will there be a plan for schools that provides safety and certainty for students, parents and teachers? Without knowing whether or how exams will take place next May, teachers are at their wits’ end, not knowing what they should be teaching right now. They are being asked to keep their schools open without any assurances about when they will get their test results turned around in 24 hours. How will we keep students, parents and teachers safe if we are going to keep schools and colleges open? Up and down the country, people have lots and lots of questions. They want a Government who will plan ahead and stop lurching week to week from crisis to crisis. When will the Government come up with a plan?
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
I understand that I am quickly building a reputation in this House for being somewhat grumpy and contrarian—[Hon. Members: “Building?”] Or indeed cementing the pinnacle of it. I can understand why those on the Front Bench may regard me as one of the characters from “The Muppet Show”; perhaps Statler and Waldorf—some cantankerous muppet perched high up in the gallery.
My brief remarks this evening, believe it or not, are meant to act as an encouragement to the Government in the work that they are doing, but I must begin by quoting the phrase, “We’re all in this together.” I have never found that phrase particularly convincing, not least because it is often expressed by those who tend to be all right regardless of the circumstances. During this pandemic, I fear that it is ringing hollow, despite the many valiant efforts of intervention made by the Government. I am afraid there is a great divide in the country—I say this with the best humour possible—between well-paid white-collar public sector workers such as us, who make the decisions and on whom there will be no economic effect, and those of our constituents who are suffering great financial hardship. There is considerable and understandable resentment from those who have, as a result of whatever technicality, been left behind.
Regrettably, the Government’s invidious policy choice in tackling this covid pandemic will inevitably impoverish society for a generation. The only means we have of limiting that impoverishment is finding a way out of a cycle of lockdowns. I think of those who are worse off than ourselves—those who are poorly housed; those who are insecurely employed; those who are victims of abuse; those with long-term mental health conditions; and indeed a younger generation entering a job market where they have little prospect of finding a job worthy of their qualifications and abilities.
There is understandable talk about and need for the Government to be positive and to boost morale—that is not something that one of my speeches could ever be accused of; I have never sought to boost morale particularly—but I gently suggest that “adequate” is a level of expectation that the country could understand and appreciate. My greatest concern of all is that there is a level of over-promising, and the greatest over-promise risks being the promise of a vaccine. We need to inculcate personal responsibility again in the population. It is an interesting observation that the more measures, rules and laws we pass, the less the sense of compliance, as things appear to be done to rather than with others.
There is much talk of this four-week semi-lockdown, if I can call it that. It is a four-week period that must be used wisely; as has been said, it is a time to sort out test and trace, but frankly I think it is also a time for the Government to reboot themselves—both their policy and their operation—and I dare say for us all to take that attitude too.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
The situation we are facing is farcical, quite frankly. Before recess, the Prime Minister stood at the Dispatch Box and mocked the Leader of the Opposition for calling for a two-week circuit-break lockdown over half term, yet, because of the Prime Minister’s usual dither and delay, we now face a lockdown that will last at least a month. It is not good enough. Although every community must do their bit, the blame for this lockdown must lie squarely at the feet of the Government.
I want to raise a number of crucial points that my constituents have contacted me about. The first is the way the Government have approached this pandemic geographically. When the tier system was introduced to try to slow the spread of the virus, the north was hit the hardest. In Durham and the wider north-east, communities responded to the threat of greater restrictions by working together and following the rules, which resulted in a steady drop in cases, yet now that the infection rate is rising in the south, the Prime Minister has announced a national lockdown. It betrays the Government’s attitude to those in the north that a regionalised approach was taken only when it did not impact the south.
On top of that, when large parts of the north were placed in tier 3, we were told that furloughed workers deserved only 67% of their wage, yet now that the south is in lockdown, that has risen to 80%. Although, obviously, I support that rise, it certainly reveals a lot about this Government’s attitude to the north: out of sight, out of mind.
Secondly, given the concerns of education unions, it would be wrong if I did not touch on the issue of schools. Today, a constituent contacted me to say that her child is 16 and lives with heart failure. If she were an adult, she would be able to work from home, as someone who is extremely vulnerable. Instead, she must go to school, where coronavirus infections are common. Countless pupils and educational staff will be in similar positions. Every teacher, child and parent wants schools to remain open if possible, yet the National Education Union and the University and College Union tell us that schools and colleges are not fully safe right now. The Government must urgently make the necessary changes to fix that. Schools need to stay open, but only if they are safe. No one should have to go into a workplace that is not safe.
Finally, I feel it necessary to mention the impact of gym closures, especially for women. Gyms act as relatively safe spaces for women to exercise, and many simply cannot do so outdoors in the dark with the same confidence or security. As we all know, exercise plays a vital role in people’s mental and physical wellbeing. While people will accept the closure of gyms, sports facilities and grassroots sport in the short term, the Government must urgently detail how such environments can be covid-secure, and must support them in their efforts to operate safely and stay open.
It frustrates me to have to give this speech today. This Government have had seven months to respond to the pandemic. They have failed on testing, failed on track and trace, and failed to support workers and businesses properly. Because of the Government’s incompetence, we are virtually back to where we were in March. No one has demanded perfection, and I understand the complications, but it is not unrealistic to call for competence and to expect the Government to learn from their mistakes. I urge the Government to use this month to get a grip on the virus. It is time to stop handing out jobs and contracts to their pals, and focus instead on their actual duty—protecting public health and reviving the economy—because the public and this House are fast losing patience.
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)
It has been a rather sombre debate this evening, and the subject matter is very serious, but I hope the House does not mind if I inject a bit of positivity for the next four minutes. I will start by highlighting the enormous financial package that has supported businesses, organisations, charities, arts and culture—a package that has sustained services run by our local councils, and has helped our health providers continue to care for us. In my constituency, over £92.5 million of bounce back and business interruption loans have been taken up so far. The ability to furlough staff and take advantage of the self-employed grants has been lauded by everyone I have spoken to, and I am pleased that the Chancellor has extended furlough and announced the doubling of the self-employed income support scheme today, as we look to implement national restrictions to help support our NHS and save lives.
The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has been generous in its support for my two local councils, with funding so far of over £1.8 million for Guildford Borough Council and over £1.5 million for Waverley Borough Council. These figures sit within the generous support there has been at county level to deliver councils’ statutory services. Rough sleeping is an issue that I have been focused on locally, and the several tranches of funding to address it, including the recent £770,000 for long-term accommodation as the days get colder, are hugely welcome. The Royal Surrey County Hospital has received £500,000 to prepare for winter, and well prepared they are under the excellent direction of chief executive Louise Stead, with a new 20-bed ward specifically for a second wave of the virus and medical professionals who have learned much during the first wave that will benefit patients in this autumn wave of cases.
I could go on and on, because the support has gone on and on, but it is important to recognise the fact that we in Guildford, Cranleigh and our villages were already well prepared for the impact of lockdown earlier this year, because we had in place a thriving voluntary network. These volunteers, including Voluntary Action South West Surrey and Cranleigh’s Street Champions—put together by Liz Townsend, the chairman of Cranleigh Parish Council, with support from many who continually volunteer in Cranleigh—must be recognised. The response to my Unsung Hero campaign was heart-warming: Debbie Foster in Fairlands received over 25 nominations for mobilising volunteers, and Adrian Whitehead delivered 100 medical prescriptions a week in Fairlands from his mobility scooter.
Special recognition must be given to Nick Wyschna and his wife Charlotte, who run the Guildford Fringe, for their drive to pull together excellent online comedy shows and live performances to bring the community together in fundraising efforts for the Royal Surrey County Hospital Charity and the Wysch Foundation, which works to make arts accessible to everyone. These Facebook live events were very successful and well supported, and I see that the Guildford Fringe has already adapted quickly and moved a performance online for the end of this week. Siobhan Fox and Scott Kerr, both pilots anxiously waiting to hear what would become of their jobs, put their own worries aside to serve refreshments as volunteers at the Royal Surrey County Hospital.
During lockdown, there was fantastic and incredibly helpful cross-party engagement. We work well when we work together, and that was my experience; it is the best way to deliver quickly for residents. Hope is so important right now. There is fatigue and anxiety, and we are concerned for those we know and love, for their jobs and their mental health. We cannot ignore any of these issues and we do not. This Government and all of us in our communities are defined not by the easy times, but by the times when we have to dig into those extra pockets of reserves that we never knew we had, to keep going, and to keep fighting and not giving up. I pay tribute to the incredible energy and courage of everyone involved in tackling this pandemic, including my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, all the Health Ministers, our chief medical officer, his deputies, the chief scientific advisers and those working at all levels of our NHS for the work that they have done and continue to do for us all. It truly is a national health service, which is why it is right—right now—to introduce national restrictions to ensure that all health needs can be cared for.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Guildford (Angela Richardson); I thank her for her speech.
I, as much as anyone here, know at first hand that there is no way of understanding this virus—how it takes one and leaves another, or how it spreads in one room in 15 minutes, yet in other rooms people sit for hours with no transmission. I recognise, as others do, the incomprehensible aspect of this disease, so I also recognise that it is difficult to strategise. Looking forward, what should our next steps be? We have the benefit in this second wave of not being as unsure as we were. Our NHS has equipment and more medical knowledge. There are plasma trials, which appear to make a difference. We know which interventions are the better ones. I am pleased that we have the Nightingale hospitals.
I was also pleased to hear the Prime Minister and the NHS reiterating the need for people to attend appointments if they need screenings and tests, because my abiding concern has been and will be whether we are saving people from covid at the expense of allowing people to die from cancer—a point that other Members have mentioned. One of my constituents said to me, “Is my husband’s death meaningless because it was cancer and not covid that took him?” It is imperative that we protect the NHS by doing the right thing, and the NHS has to be open for day-to-day business; it is so important to ensure that that happens.
If hon. Members look at my head, they will know that I do not go to a barber very often. I just use a shammy; I do not even use a comb. But that is by the by. I say that in jest, but I do want to make a plea for barbers and hairdressers, who have got the R rate to 0.02. I ask myself, why on earth are they subject to rules and regulations when their R rate is the one that the whole nation wants to get to? We want to get it to 1; they have got it to 0.02. Those people could end up having had six months of reduced wages. Just how can we let them down? Those people have bought houses and have been buying gifts on the high street—it just so happens that Newtownards High Street in my constituency is the Northern Ireland high street of the year. How do we let those retailers down?
Simon Hamilton, the chief executive officer of Belfast Chamber of Trade and Commerce, has said:
“COVID-19 has created an interlinked health and economic emergency. This pandemic has cost lives and already has driven numerous businesses to closure causing a huge number of job losses which are reflected in the latest labour market statistics which show the second highest number of redundancies ever during a period when the furlough scheme was meant to protect jobs… Businesses have invested millions of pounds in making their stores, their restaurants, their pubs, their hotels and their factories safe for staff and safe for customers.”
Without the willing co-operation of those businesses, where would we be? He continued:
“It has been an unprecedented period of uncertainty and challenge. After finding the fortitude to keep going after months of lockdown, restrictions and closure earlier this year, many believed that they were starting to see light at the end of the tunnel only for that to now be extinguished.”
That is what really worries me about where we are. It is about finding a balance for health and for business.
The Minister is not here, but there is a good understudy—the Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury, the hon. Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris)—in her place taking notes. I ask the Government to reconsider the closure of churches. My email inbox has been full of requests on their behalf. Our lockdown in Northern Ireland has been successful and we have been able to give people a place to go once a week to meet in unity and pray for the future of this nation—to seek God for strength, peace, comfort, hope, wisdom, forgiveness and even joy at this difficult time.
Jonathan Ashworth
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is as pleased as I am that Leicester are winning 2-0 against Leeds.
On the hon. Gentleman’s point about places of worship, a lot of my own constituents have got in touch about our gurdwaras, temples, mosques and churches, and are deeply concerned about this. I hope that before the vote on Wednesday—we will be supporting the lockdown regulations—Ministers can come to the Dispatch Box and give us some reassurances around places of worship. It is a very important issue and I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has raised it.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. I already knew the score because my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) had told me. I said, “I am pleased we are winning 2-0, but there’s still 70 minutes to go.” I really want Leicester to win, as my wife supports Leeds United and it is really important we win tonight.
I tabled an early-day motion asking for a National Day of Prayer. It states:
“That this House notes the unprecedented position that the covid-19 pandemic has brought the nation to; further notes that in this time of economic and societal uncertainty the country should follow the lead of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and recognise the importance of prayer when Her Majesty said in her 2013 address that prayer helps us to renew ourselves; and calls on the Prime Minister to initiate a National Day of Prayer to enable those for whom this is important to seek God”.
We need wisdom, and the call for a National Day of Prayer is for those of Christian faith and others to unite together and pray for the help we so desperately need. We need support for the NHS, businesses and the vulnerable, but we also need to humble ourselves and ask God to make the path straight as we work together to come through this covid winter ahead of us. We must trust God and we must pray for the help we need. I think every one of us here should adhere to that.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
We will all salute the efforts made by so many people in facing up to challenges they could never have expected a year ago. They have performed outstanding feats and endured great personal sacrifice, and the human cost will not be known or even properly guessed at for years to come. They have been let down by this incompetent Tory Government, who put dogma above pragmatism and their cronies above the people.
The Coronavirus Act 2020, written as a flu pandemic measure, was crafted in the aftermath of Exercise Cygnus some years ago, so I imagine that the options were presented to Ministers, who then chose which ones to use. There was nothing in there about taking over private healthcare facilities though, and I wonder why Ministers chose not to do so. To be clear, we are talking about not only private hospitals, but private clinics, whose staff, with clinical training, may have been very useful in the middle of a pandemic when the NHS was stretched. I am aware of allied health professionals who were unable to work because their clinics, or the clinics that employ them, were closed. These were health professionals who wanted to help out where they could but could not even volunteer for the NHS because the conditions of the business support finance or job retention finance prevented it, or were unclear whether that was allowed. Those highly trained and experienced clinicians would be unlikely to be used in a covid ward, but they could have contributed to taking some of the strain somewhere else in the NHS, instead of sitting at home.
Likewise, the means of production of any possible vaccine and protective equipment was left out of the equation. I find it hard to believe that the drafters did not offer those options, and an examination of the measures that Ministers refused must form part of the inquiry into the Government’s handling of the pandemic. Another vital part of it must be the contracts that were handed out without tendering. There is not a single half-sensible person in this Chamber who will think that the Government should have conducted full tendering for the provision of PPE and other supplies during this time, but some due diligence should be expected.
I have been asking parliamentary questions about the contracts and been told by the Department of Health and Social Care that it had no previous relationship with a load of the companies that had been contracted to supply goods and services. Take, for example, Medpro, a company that was only incorporated on 12 May, but which took a £122 million contract for supplying PPE to the Department on 25 June. That was not a bad first six weeks in business for the company, but how did the Government make sure that it could fulfil the contract? What about Clandeboye Agencies, with a £14 million contract to supply PPE gowns awarded without competition in April and one for £93 million in May? As fine a company as it might be, it is a confectionary wholesaler. Why did Ministers think it was appropriate to offer it a contract to provide PPE for frontline staff?
Santander’s website currently carries a boast that it got more than 40 businesses into the business of supplying PPE to the NHS—businesses fast-tracked on to the system on the word of a banker. We have barely scratched the surface of the contracts, but it is already clear that there was no control over the awarding of these contracts. The opportunity was there for the Government to take control of the means of supply by writing it into the Coronavirus Act 2020, but they chose not to do so. Ministers chose instead to fling billions of pounds at anyone who would promise to hand over anything approximating protective equipment. Lives may have been put at risk—the lives of healthcare workers—and that needs to be examined properly and independently of Government.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
It is quite clear that the Prime Minister has really agonised over this decision. Ultimately, that decision falls to him and it is an enormous burden. I am glad we have a Prime Minister who is alive to the real need to balance protecting lives with protecting livelihoods and our liberties. He has tried his very best to do that. I do think the Government should look at religious services. I have already been contacted by a number of constituents and, for them, particularly during this very difficult time, the nourishment they get from attending religious service is incredibly important. So I support the comments that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made on that.
We are very fortunate in Ipswich to have a great football team in Ipswich Town football club, who are on the way to being promoted back to the championship this year. I make no apology for meeting with the managing director of Ipswich Town last month when covid rates were only 18 out of 100,000 and for supporting the club’s call to try to get a very small number of fans safely back to the ground. Clearly, that is no longer going to be possible in the short term, so I would like the Government—I met the English Football League with other colleagues on Friday—to support the kind of package of support that may be necessary, but it is absolutely important that we are all aware of the pivotal role that many football clubs play within our communities. Ipswich Town football club is woven into the DNA of the people of Ipswich. Every other door has an Ipswich Town crest. The thought of anything serious happening to our club does not even bear thinking about, and that is not to mention the fantastic work that Ipswich Town football club does in the community through its community foundation. Once those services are lost, it is hard to build them up again.
Quickly on test and trace, I sympathise with the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt) earlier with regard to compliance being only around 20%. As somebody who recently had to self-isolate—I was contacted by Test and Trace and self-isolated for 11 days—it is an incredibly tough ask for some people, not just financially, but mentally. If someone is in accommodation or a property without a garden or a balcony, it is a huge ask of that individual. If it is the case that compliance is very low, perhaps that is an area where we could be pragmatic and look at reducing the requirement to seven days. Better to get high compliance for seven days than low for 14 days.
It is difficult for some of my constituents to understand and comprehend a second national lockdown. We still have rates that are significantly below the national average, though going up. Currently we have no one in intensive care in Ipswich Hospital, although I appreciate that is likely to change. It is important we think about protecting the lives of constituents, but I am reassured by the Prime Minister’s determination and promise that this will end on 2 December. It cannot happen again. This must be the last one because I also think about the 18-year-old I spoke to a few months ago, who is working every hour God sends in a bar to provide for his three-month-old girl. He said, “I don’t want to be on benefits. I want to work and I am terrified of a second lockdown.” Yes, I think about protecting the lives of my constituents, but I also think about that young man, who I have not spoken to since. We need to think about protecting lives, livelihoods and liberties, and they are not disconnected. They are profoundly connected, so I will be continuing over the next couple of days to look at the data and reflect upon all the information that has been put in front of us.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Today, my mother celebrated her 89th birthday. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Thank you. She is well supported, like many octogenarians in Northern Ireland, in a social bubble where my sister looks after her extremely well, she has frequent visits from people who are socially distanced from her, great interaction with her grandchildren and her great-grandchildren and she enjoys the fullness of life. But her experience is very unlike that of millions of old-age pensioners across the whole of the United Kingdom. Tonight, 2.5 million pensioners are living in complete isolation and loneliness across many of our constituencies, and they have no one to turn to. Those pensioners are frightened to their wits’ end about some of the messaging that they see on their television screens. They probably believe the words of that elderly singer and songwriter from Belfast, Van Morrison, who has said that for some people:
“Optics are more important than ‘science’”.
Many of those elderly people who have a strong faith are now being told that they cannot go to their places of worship here in Great Britain. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that there should be a national day of prayer on which the community comes together and our great church buildings sound out praises and prayers to our Almighty God in a way that puts Him first in our nation for the first time in a long time.
Many people in our care homes do not know whether they will be entitled to a visit. I understand that the health service was looking at a pilot scheme to open up care homes to more visits, but many care home practitioners quite correctly tell me that it is because they have closed themselves to visits that the people living in those care homes have been saved from the ravages of coronavirus. We have to get a balance that also works for the practitioners in our care homes. In Northern Ireland, 80% of those who have succumbed to coronavirus deaths are octogenarians, so it is little wonder that those people live in fear. We have to start to address their concerns adequately and properly.
I said in an earlier intervention that we applaud our health workers. We have seen a lot of people out there clapping them, but many nurses tell me—I have to declare an interest: my daughter is a nurse—that they feel they are being slapped in the face, not clapped on the back, when we look at their pay cheque at the end of the month for the work that they have to do. Student nurses regularly ask me whether they will be paid through this period of crisis. We have to ensure that we really start to see some progress with regards to nurses’ pay.
Let us look at what is going to happen today. By the time the curtain comes down this evening, 600 people across the United Kingdom will have died of cancer, more than 500 will have died of heart disease and 20 people have taken their own life through the misery of suicide. They are practically forgotten in the panic of the coronavirus. The figures tell us something very different from what we are being told by some of the leading practitioners. Respiratory diseases killed 3.9 million people worldwide in 2017. In 2020, 1 million people have succumbed to coronavirus. We must start to address this issue properly and adequately.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
Like most other people, I was absolutely horrified when a lockdown was called at the weekend. There I was at mass on Sunday, and with no warning at all the priest called me to the altar to present me with a giant poppy that had been made by the children. He then asked me to give the congregation a message of hope, and I did my best. The country needs hope, and the world needs hope. I would describe the announcement on Saturday as absolutely shambolic. We cannot keep the nation waiting for such an important announcement, and, whatever the circumstances, that must never ever happen again.
I was here when we gave power to the devolved nations, and to see the four parts of the United Kingdom pulling in different directions without one message is shameful and childish. That should not happen again. Of course I understand that we are following the advice of the scientists, but it is the politicians who decide. I want much more clarity on the overall objective and strategy. As many others have mentioned, care homes seemed to be sacrificed the last time we were in lockdown. Their residents are on very limited time, and we must ensure that full visiting rights are given to their relatives.
I am very glad that the schools are not now locking down, and I do hope that we will do our best to protect vulnerable children. With hope, our churches most certainly should stay open. The Catholic archbishops have called for the publication of the evidence behind the ban; I urge the Government to publish it.
Many of our local businesses have been suffering during these tough times and want more help. They have already had the summer wiped out, and now they will have Christmas wiped out. MPs need a hotline so that we can get answers quickly. For instance, the Palace theatre in Southend is suffering and I want it to have more help. Those businesses that operate from home or that visit homes, such as beauty therapists, hairdressers and cleaners, have got everything sorted and will now have to suspend their work again.
So many hon. Members have mentioned sport. We have had very nice emails from the golfing community, gyms and others; I do think we should do more to keep sporting activities going.
During a Westminster Hall debate last month, I and others highlighted the fact that covid-19 has had a disproportionate impact on people with physical and learning difficulties. We need to make sure that they are properly supported during this second lockdown. As the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on maternity, I believe that it is essential that women are given the right support during and after the birth.
Retail outlets have been working tirelessly since June to reopen in a covid-secure way, and we are now asking that they close their doors once again. There has been some confusion about what is classed as non-essential retail, so I urge the Government to produce a full and comprehensive list of shops and businesses that can remain open.
Not surprisingly, we are being inundated with emails from constituents telling us that we should not vote for another lockdown. The British public have been extremely patient and forbearing, and most people have accepted the guidelines until now. There needs to be a coherent strategy for a return to normality—not the new normal, but the normality of pre-lockdown Britain. The country, and particularly the economy, cannot exist in a state of suspended animation for much longer without long-term real damage.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
The coronavirus pandemic has left millions of people up and down the country with an uncertain future, struggling to make ends meet. This health crisis has robbed us of people we love, destroyed livelihoods and shaken the foundations of our communities to their core. More than ever, the pandemic has laid bare the deep inequalities in our society and shown the huge gaps in our healthcare and social welfare system after a decade of Conservative austerity. We need to protect our public services and support our communities and our economy through this crisis.
The Government have completely mishandled this crisis. The UK now ranks as the nation in Europe worst hit by fatalities, with a death toll passing 60,000. Over the summer, after the initial wave, the Government had time to get their act together, get a grip on testing and tracing, and get a grip on the virus. Instead, we have seen incompetence and failure at every turn. Their incompetence knows no bounds. We have had PPE shortages for our NHS and social care workers; delays in testing, with more lives thereby put at risk; and chaos for pupils and students in the exams and universities fiasco in September and October. To top it all off, the Government’s own eat out to help out scheme is likely to have spurred a spike in covid cases, according to the Prime Minister himself.
The Government’s dithering and delay over this second lockdown has wasted valuable time. They were too late to bring in the first lockdown, which cost lives and livelihoods, and this delay has once again cost lives and livelihoods. They failed to listen to the Opposition about a circuit breaker, which means that this lockdown will now be even longer, with even more detrimental effects on people’s lives, more deaths, worse economic outcomes and more damage to our economy.
The warnings were there. The information was there from the scientific advisers. Ministers and the Prime Minister kept saying, “We are guided by the science.” Far from it. The evidence is very clear now.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is generous in giving way and is making such important points. Does she agree that the immediacy —the urgency—that has been lacking in this country was evidenced in countries such as Australia and New Zealand? They got on top of it really quickly and acted hard and fast, which is why Australia had zero cases over the weekend.
Rushanara Ali
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. Our Government could have learned from many other countries and got a grip on contact tracing and testing. Instead, what we have seen is chaos—false promises, over-promising and under-delivering. That has damaged public confidence. The public confidence that we all worked to build, across party, at the beginning of the crisis during the first wave, has been squandered by the failures of this Government.
There are now four times as many people catching covid than anticipated. The delay in introducing restrictions has already cost lives in constituencies such as mine, and we are already seeing a high prevalence of death rates among those from black and minority ethnic communities and those from poorer backgrounds—the patterns are very similar to what happened before. This time the Government know where the problems are, and their failure is completely unacceptable and inexcusable.
Given the scientific advisers’ own projections in the graphs that they showed the country last week, we are expecting even greater human cost and even more lives being lost because of the delay and the failures to act. That is why it is an absolute scandal that the Government have spent £12 billion on a private contractor, Serco. They call it “the NHS app”, but they did not use the public sector. They should have formed a proper alliance between the public and private sectors—nobody is saying that it should be one or the other. We should be pragmatic, but we should get value for money.
It seems that organisations and companies that have shown complete incompetence are being rewarded with contracts. It seems as if there is a contracts programme for Conservative party donors. I raised the issue of the PPE contracts with the Prime Minister, and he has still failed to answer—it has been weeks now. There have been £1 billion of contracts without proper due diligence.
The rate of death among certain communities was very high, and it continues to be in this crisis. The Government also need to act now to provide support to the 3 million who were excluded during the first crisis and continue to get very little support as we head towards to the lockdown. They are being left out. When children go hungry in our constituencies and public money is being wasted on some contracts on which contractors are failing to deliver, the Government need to act to ensure that we get value for taxpayers’ money.
Finally, local authorities and local public services desperately need help if they are to provide support to get the contract tracing done and get a grip on the virus. I call on the Government to work with them, support them and provide the funding that they need to protect us all.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I would like to talk briefly in the time I have about the need for strategy, the need to use science transparently and the balance of risk. Sadly, this lockdown is by definition a failure of policy because back in the first lockdown we were promised “never again”, but here we are.
We have draconian measures now while we wait for the cavalry in the form of a vaccine. But this is not a strategy, but the absence of one. May I now suggest that we need a strategy for living with the virus and giving people a sense of optimism grounded in a common-sense approach and a sense of proportion so that, rather than drifting in and out of lockdown and of restrictions, we give people a medium and long-term sense of what the future is likely to hold? A vaccine may not be a silver bullet. I would suggest “Keep calm and carry on” as a fairly commonsensical approach.
I am not quite sure about what the aims are. Are they to save life regardless? At the moment, we are sacrificing the lives of the young. Are the aims to save quality-adjusted life years? The Government’s own report from July said that the health impacts of the two-month lockdown were greater than those of direct covid deaths. Alternatively, are the aims to prioritise overall health outcomes, as Dr Raghib Ali suggests?
I would like very much for the Government to do more to present data in a balanced way and give significantly greater context than has otherwise been given. We need fatality rates and not just infection rates. Estimates of fatality started at 0.9% and have gone down since then. The latest evidence that we have from Stanford University, in the Bulletin of the World Health Organization, based on 61 studies from around the world, showed a fatality rate of 0.27%—about three or four times worse than an average winter flu year. So as Professor Robert Dingwall says, despite all the hysteria, this is not a modern plague.
We also need to understand the balance of risk of covid with many other risks, including the loss of education for children, which is an appalling long-term consequence; the profound damage to mental health; the effect on our ability to live socially and to be human; the loss of liberty; the loss of freedom; the collapse in employment; the surge in unemployment; the increase in poverty, and the potential deaths that we know that will cause in future; and the collapse of Government finances. I know that everyone making these decisions that will devastate the lives of others is in pretty much secure jobs. Not one of us here is facing the same stress as the freelancers, the business people, the artists, the musicians, and the pub and restaurant owners. I have many of those folks in the Isle of Wight, whose lives are now on hold and whose ability to earn a living has been shattered despite the tiny risks to many of them.
I have to say that the poster of the ballerina being told to retrain as a cyber-expert was one of the most offensive things I have seen in years from Government. Someone strives for years, they have a goal and a passion, but some bureaucrat on a fat pension is going to shut down their life. I think it is right that so many people were angry about that, and I do feel that Government are obsessing about the risks of covid but ignoring many of the other risks that we have to balance with that. Professor Sikora has said:
“The full consequences of lockdowns haven’t been properly considered by those who claim to have the answers. If a wider range of voices had been considered from the start, perhaps we wouldn’t be in the utter mess we’re in.”
I am sorry to have to quote that, but I do think it is a valuable quote to have.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
I feel a bit queasy after the speech by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely), not because of what he said but because of the microphones—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I thank the hon. Lady for mentioning it, and I apologise on behalf of the House to the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. There seemed to be a little bit of disruption and I could not work out what it was, because I could hear something wrong, but other people could not. There is something wrong in the sound system, and I simply apologise to the hon. Gentleman, and we hope that it will be fixed.
Layla Moran
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I want first to tell the story of what has happened in Oxfordshire over the past couple of weeks. I want to put on record my thanks to the Minister for spending time with me and the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) earlier this week, but we were in a strange situation where, as a county, we were raring to go into tier 2. We had been looking at the data and, particularly, listening to the director of public health, but not just to him. All the councils were on board, as were the Oxfordshire Association of Care Providers, the police, both universities and, critically, the local enterprise partnership—all pulling in the same direction, all saying, “We are deeply concerned about the way that the virus is now being transmitted in wider communities. It is now leaking into the 60-plus bracket, and we are worried about overwhelming our local NHS.” So we asked gold command to give us a tier 2 status. Two weeks ago, we were saddened that that was not allowed, and then last week we found out that only Oxford city was going to go into tier 2 and the rest of the county was not, against what was very much a cross-party view, except for those Conservative Members in this House who did not want that to happen.
I have yet to get to the bottom of exactly why that happened. The Minister said that she would go away and look at it: I appreciate that events have overtaken us since then, but at some point we will get through this phase. I have heard the Secretary of State say many times that he believes in the tier system. If he does, it has failed us. We are in the situation we are in now because it has failed us and because test, trace and isolate—particularly the “isolate” bit—is not working.
I believe that people will adhere to this lockdown. They are annoyed and upset—I am sure that many Members’ inboxes are full of people expressing their concern—but they will do it. However, I do not believe they will do it again. This is two strikes, and on a third strike the Government will have a real problem on their hands in terms of the public adhering to a lockdown again. That brings us to where I think we need to be focusing next, which is on an exit strategy. There are many of us across the House who are concerned by this, because an exit strategy is not just a need to decrease R below 1. Yes, we know that that is the start, but what is concerning is that we have done that once before and it has not worked. The tier system has not worked. We have not got on top of this.
What I want to propose in an elevator pitch today is what I, others across this House and Members from the other place have come up with as an exit strategy, which involves three stages. The first has the advantage of being exactly where the Government are now, which is that we bring R below 1. The second stage is critical and it does not involve tiers. It is a national approach that involves, first of all, getting those cases low enough so that TTI works properly, and quantifying what that is. The other part of it is new. It is making use of something that we have that other countries in Europe do not have, which is our unique geography. We start to fight this virus at our borders by testing and quarantining people who are coming in and out. The countries that are beating the virus are doing exactly that—places such as Taiwan and New Zealand. We have to change the approach—if we do not do so then we will keep doing the same thing over and again—and wait to the point of elimination when, hopefully, therapeutics and a vaccine will come to save us. Until we get to that point, I urge the Government to think through their approach again.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
I do not envy my Government colleagues who have had to make such difficult decisions over the past few months. Although the first lockdown was drastic, it was justified by our lack of knowledge of the disease, how it spreads and whom it affects. I commend the Government for making rapid, bold decisions, and we must not forget just how much was achieved in such a short space of time: expansion of testing capacity, the building of the Nightingale hospitals, the logistical achievement of delivering PPE to thousands of new locations and, of course, huge packages of financial support. Those are significant successes, and I take issue with those who fill the airwaves with a constant stream of negativity and criticism. No new challenge is met without bumps in the road and to overcome them, we must observe, reflect, change, adapt and persevere. That is what this Government have done. None the less, there is no doubt that, although the first lockdown slowed the spread of the virus, it caused huge damage to society. That is why I so deeply regret that we must face such measures again, although from the data presented by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I do see that we must act.
I want to make three requests of my colleagues in Government for whom, as I have said, I do have the greatest of respect and admiration. First, I ask that we keep schools open in all circumstances. Unlike in March, we now know that covid presents almost no danger to children, but missing out on education is dangerous. Not only have children fallen behind alarmingly, but the social and developmental costs to our children are huge.
Secondly, I urge the Government to use this second lockdown to make plans and preparations to avoid subsequent lockdowns, whether that is further expansion of the NHS, additional plans for shielding, or further testing. We must make sure that we never have to take this action again.
Lastly, I ask that we begin a national conversation about our future response to the pandemic that is based not just on data, evidence or science, important though those things are, but on morality and values. We have to face the fact that this virus may be circulating for years to come, that we may never find an effective vaccine and that testing may never control the spread. In those circumstances, how will we respond? This disease primarily affects older people, yet young people will bear the economic cost, perhaps for their whole working lives. Right now, we must protect the NHS and save lives, but, in the context of existing generational inequality, we must ask: is this morally acceptable in the long-term? More than half a million people die each and every year in the UK. The majority of people who have died this year have not died from covid, but they have spent their final year separated from friends and family, unable to do what they love, and watching their loved ones lose jobs, businesses and opportunities. In the short term, that has been necessary, but for how much longer is it morally justifiable?
Since the beginning of human history, gathering together has been essential for our wellbeing. In every religion and culture, festivals, meetings and family relationships are central to tradition, because our relationships define us and outside of relationships we cannot flourish. It is not good for man to be alone. Loneliness kills, yet right now, many of us are alone. For how long is that morally acceptable? If this lockdown and our endeavours do not reduce the spread of the virus enough to permanently lift these restrictions, we must seek a moral consensus on the way forward, not just a scientific one. As I have said, I do not envy those with such a heavy responsibility at this time and the nation owes them a huge debt of gratitude, but let us use this time to keep schools open, prepare ourselves further and find a moral consensus for the way ahead.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
This debate serves as a good place to set the scene for 48 hours’ time. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) that a large number of people will want to speak in that debate and consideration should be given to increasing its length.
In 48 hours’ time, we will be looking at measures to protect the NHS—to stop it being overburdened, to protect the workforce, to protect the most vulnerable, and to try to help get through non-covid and covid problems. In 48 hours’ time, we will be voting on the economic impact, trying to mitigate the measures we are putting in place, trying to maintain businesses and to support jobs, trying to create covid-secure measures, and discussing the impact on the finances of this country for our children and our children’s children. In 48 hours’ time, there will be a vote, and every Member will have to consider the impact of what that means.
I want to spend the few minutes I have talking about the pragmatic side before we get to the debate on Wednesday, which I hope to speak in. I think it was Lincoln who said, “Give me six hours to chop down a tree and I will spend the first four hours sharpening the axe.” That is what I want the Government to do in the next 48 hours. The one benefit we have is that we have learned from last time’s lockdown. We know what it looked like. People know what it looked like. This House knows what it looked like. Therefore, we can use these 48 hours to pull the guidance together to deal with the concerns, iron out the anomalies—for example, on garden centres—and explain the differences: that schools are now open, that we now have bubbles, and that people now understand that they should get a test. This is something we have control over as the Government—the communication of how we put that message out. We have 48 hours to get that right.
The concerns from Bosworth in my email inbox today are many and varied, from non-covid work, health work and mental health, to golf and fishing, to the ability to take away beer or go to the gym and faith meetings. The Minister and the Secretary of State were kind enough to be at my meeting on Sunday to hear these questions from many MPs. Indeed, we have heard them raised yet again tonight. The civil service is looking at how to put this all in place. I urge the Government to hear those messages, to learn from what we have seen before, and, even better, to put it all together in a document that compares what we had before with what we are having in future so that everyone, from MPs in this House to the general public, can see what has changed and what stays the same. We have 48 hours to sharpen the guidance ready for Wednesday. I hope that on Wednesday, in doing that, we can cut down covid.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
Like a lot of Members, I am delivering a speech tonight that is not quite what I would have imagined last week. I know that many people in Stoke-on-Trent South will be apprehensive about further lockdowns. People have already been through so much and it has had such an impact on mental health.
The choices we face are almost impossible to contemplate—either to put our economy, jobs and livelihoods on hold or to risk overwhelming our NHS and costing potentially thousands of lives. The tier 2 restrictions that Stoke-on-Trent was already under are now going to be tighter still. The daily case numbers in Stoke-on-Trent are in three figures, and Royal Stoke University Hospital is almost entirely full. The number of covid patients is higher now than at the first peak. We have seen locally just how fast this virus can spread, more than doubling in a week. Thankfully, these figures have started to improve, and I hope that this slowing of the rate continues, thanks to people’s efforts locally.
I thank all our health professionals who have done and continue to do so much to care for those who have fallen victim to covid. All our NHS and care staff—our key worker heroes—have our enduring gratitude. We all need to support them now by following these measures, continuing to use our health services when we need them, and making sure that we access the right services at the right time.
Those in education—teachers, lecturers and classroom assistants—also deserve huge thanks for all their work. I visited Ormiston Meridian Academy in Meir recently, and when speaking to young people there, I was struck by the fact that they urged me to do everything possible to keep schools fully open. Nothing can replace our children being in school.
We must all look to the future in hope and confidence that we can defeat this virus. We have already seen remarkable progress in treatments and the development of a vaccine. Equally, getting the testing infrastructure right is absolutely key. We have heard from a number of colleagues about the contact tracing system and how that needs to improve further. I have also had issues raised by constituents in my area about accessing the £500, because of problems with the app system releasing an ID. It is important that those problems are addressed.
I want to commend the work of the Secretary of State and the Department on testing. Having the highest testing capacity in the whole of Europe is an absolutely massive feat. The additional national testing facilities opened recently at Fenton Manor in my constituency are very welcome. This is a very promising development, and more rapid testing in particular is a game changer, if we can get it right. This can be the basis for reducing restrictions on our everyday lives.
I know many people across Stoke-on-Trent South and Stoke on Trent as a whole will be particularly concerned about the impact on their businesses, jobs and livelihoods. The proposed continuation of the furlough scheme is certainly welcome and necessary, as is the direction to work from home if people can, while being very clear that manufacturing and construction industries—there are many such industries in Stoke-on-Trent—can continue to open.
I also welcome the doubling of support for the self-employed, and the grants that will be available to those industries most affected. I would ask that consideration is given to those manufacturing industries that depend on hospitality and retail, such as ceramics. Drawing the line in the right place is not going to be easy for any Government, but I hope that the Government will continue to engage to ensure that support is focused on the sectors most impacted.
It is the everyday level that will continue to control the spread while we wait for the extraordinary developments of science to enable us to ease the restrictions. For our market traders, cafés, restaurant workers and retailers not dealing in goods covered by the list of essential items, I cannot emphasise enough the urgency of returning to the tiers as soon as it is safe to do so.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans) that we need to see the differences between the previous lockdown and this one. That needs to be on a graph with which we can all explain why this is happening.
After spending most of this weekend in briefings about the data and seeing the prevalence of this virus, I understand that the decision taken by the Prime Minister and the Government will not have been an easy one. This is a constant struggle to protect lives and livelihoods. I agree with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) about the need for our NHS to be functioning for normal business. That is a key point. The prospect of our NHS becoming overwhelmed due to this virus and reaching a point where it is no longer there for everybody who needs it will have been very worrying for many.
I have spoken to my local authorities and public health officials, and it is worrying to see the effect that this is having on our local trusts. They are doing everything they can at the moment to continue with elective surgeries, cancer screening, heart surgeries and other life-saving treatments, while also treating those with covid. The fact that these procedures are at risk without our taking action and getting the virus under control is the stark reality we face.
Hyndburn and Haslingden has faced restrictions for such a long time now, and our local economy has suffered. Businesses are struggling, people are suffering with their mental health, tensions are very high and people are missing their loved ones. I know that my community will continue to pull together, but it is important that we have both financial support and emotional support in place for people. I very much welcome the announcement for the self-employed by the Chancellor, and I know it will come as a relief to many.
I want to take this opportunity to make a few points that have been raised with me. I did manage to ask the Prime Minister about some other issues this afternoon, such as gyms and places of worship, but may I press the point that, as we move back to the regional approach, priority should be given to finding a safe approach to how people may see their loved ones in care homes? In constituencies such as mine, some have not been able to do so since March.
Will serious consideration be given to how those areas, such as my constituency, that have faced restrictions for longer than most will not just be put straight back into tier 3, and will we look at ploughing support into these areas so they do not face the prospect of very strong restrictions?
Another issue that has been raised is those having to self-isolate due to childcare who have not been contacted by Test and Trace, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) highlighted. Can the Government look at how such people can be supported, perhaps through the discretionary part of the funding?
Another point was raised in conversation with my constituent, Jamie McNally, earlier today. He is the owner of Hoyle Bottom Spirits and maker of our very own Tinker Brook gin. Local craft beer bar Tap Select is concerned that it is unable to sell takeaway beers. That was done in March, so why can it not be done now?
All the options are extremely difficult, as will be the decision on further restrictions. I know that everybody making those decisions is under extreme pressure.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
It is an absolute pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe), who made an excellent speech. I have risen before to express my support for the Government and the incredibly difficult decisions they are taking to protect the NHS and save lives. They do so balancing all the risks and effects on our country, the economy and people’s livelihoods, but with the best of intentions—that we will bounce back quicker if we take steps now to ensure that the NHS is able to function.
I will focus mainly on the economic support that the Government have been providing to businesses. Nobody could scoff at the economic support that the UK Government have provided to support businesses in Scotland—well, perhaps the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) could, but nobody in their right mind. The Conservative Government are spending an estimated £16 billion to support Scotland through this epidemic, including £7 billion extra directly for the Scottish Government to spend on top of the usual Barnett funding. Some 779,500 jobs were protected by the job retention scheme and 79,000 businesses benefited from UK Government loans worth up to £2.9 billion. The VAT cut is supporting 150,000 businesses and 2.4 million jobs in Scotland, and benefiting consumers everywhere. Eat Out to Help Out discounted more than 6 million meals in Scotland, which supported restaurateurs and other hospitality businesses.
That is all good stuff, but I want to make a special plea to the Governments here and in Edinburgh for part of the hospitality sector that feels that it has been left behind. My constituency, as hon. Members can imagine, is the most beautiful constituency in the country. It is home to the castle trail, Royal Deeside, Strathdon, the Cairngorm mountains and the Howe of the Mearns. Of course, it is also home to the global subsea industry on the edge of the energy capital of Europe in Aberdeen.
Weddings, events and conferences are big business. The wedding industry alone in my constituency makes about £15 million a year. Venues have to be maintained whether anyone is there or not. Many started with a full year this year, but all events have been written off. The companies that organise such events are really suffering. When we speak of an events company suffering or a wedding being postponed, it is not just the wedding organiser or the conference organiser—the headline company—that suffers, but a long list of suppliers and contractors who work for and with them, such as lighting specialists, sound engineers, musicians, caterers, photographers, flower arrangers and private vehicle hire to mention but a few.
I met representatives of the wedding and events industry in my constituency last week, and apparently it takes up to about 15 to 20 contractors to pull the average wedding together, which is 15 to 20 cottage industries affected when we go into lockdown. They are viable businesses. Although I appreciate the Government’s help so far, and indeed, on behalf of all my constituents and businesses that have received it, thank them for it, I ask the Governments here and in Edinburgh to remember the forgotten people of the hospitality sector as we move through winter. For them, it will be the third winter this year.
The Government are taking the correct steps to protect the NHS and save lives. As I said, it is a difficult situation, but as we sit here in November, there is no certainty for the wedding and events sector about when it will be able to return to work and when people will be able to gather in numbers for events and conferences again. I ask the Government and the Treasury, when they are designing packages of support for the hospitality and events sector, as they did so well for those involved in frontline hospitality and catering, such as restaurateurs, hoteliers and publicans, to remember this sector, which is vital for parts of the country, as we move forward. I ask them to remember and provide for it.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
It goes against every bone in the body to impose restrictions on livelihoods, constrain our freedoms, order businesses to close and tell people to stay at home and that they cannot see their loved ones. Of course, the effects can be hugely damaging for our local economies and have a detrimental impact on people’s mental health and wellbeing.
Having spent the whole of last weekend engaging with many of my constituents from across Keighley and Ilkley, I learned that many share my views. Today, the Bradford district was due to move to tier 3, but in the light of the new national restrictions to be imposed from Thursday those changes have been cancelled. There is no doubt that this has been extremely confusing for many across Keighley and Ilkley. Businesses that were told to stay open on Friday through tier 3 are now being told to close, and I have to say that I simply do not understand the logic for some of the guidance, and perhaps the Minister will be kind enough to address those in her closing remarks.
Gyms—such as High Energy and NRGym in Keighley, which I visited recently—are some of the safest places for individuals to go, yet they are now being asked to close. Gyms are not only good for exercise; they are great for mental health and wellbeing. We are also telling pubs that they have to close, but that they can provide food takeaways yet not sell beers as takeaways, while supermarkets are still permitted to do so. This will impact not only the likes of Timothy Taylor’s and Ilkley Brewery in my constituency, but our local pubs like the Craven Heifer in Addingham, whose landlord, Gavin Patterson, I spoke with this morning. It is also very frustrating for the hair and beauty sector, which I know has gone above and beyond, at cost, to implement safe measures, and many businesses from this sector, including Equilibrium based in Silsden and the Doll House beauty boutique based in Keighley, have contacted me on this.
I totally appreciate that we have to face the fact that cases of coronavirus have been growing rapidly and that scientific modelling suggests that unless further action is taken now to bring down the R rate we could see covid deaths in even greater numbers than in spring, and that horrifies me. Directly protecting lives and livelihoods is, of course, key, but the impact on our hospital capacity must be at the forefront of our minds. As of last weekend, in-patient beds in my hospital, the Airedale, are now at capacity. That is a very serious situation. The hospital has therefore taken the decision to postpone elective surgery that needs overnight stay for at least two weeks. For now, urgent and emergency cases and cancer surgery will continue at least. The blunt truth is that our hospitals becoming overwhelmed is a horrifying thought. More patients could die not just from covid but from other illnesses as well.
These are not restrictions that I want to support, but there are no other good options, so I will, very reluctantly, be supporting the Government. In lockdown in spring this year, our communities from across Keighley and Ilkley came together to help others in our hour of need, including the Keighley hub, the Silsden emergency planning group, the Hainworth Wood community centre, the Ilkley coronavirus response group and many more. I know that these national restrictions are going to be tough, and in implementing them, we must continue to support our businesses, particularly small and medium- sized businesses.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore); indeed, many of my hon. Friends have made fine speeches.
Like my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton), I had a different speech in mind today. Newcastle-under-Lyme was put into tier 2 on Saturday, but that is not going to be for very long; we are facing a much darker future from Thursday. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates), I do not envy the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister or anyone who is making these decisions; they are very serious decisions indeed, and they must weigh very heavily on people’s shoulders.
The Government have set out the case for a national lockdown, and in that, NHS capacity is key. I obviously completely agree that this should be the overriding objective of our policies and, as I said in my intervention on the Secretary of State earlier, this now needs to become the focus of our daily data, rather than cases and tests—although I am very pleased we have now got capacity for over half a million tests. We need to explain to people what is going on in our hospitals—what is happening day by day, what pressure they are coming under.
I am keen to interrogate the data and the models. In particular, I have concerns about some of the data we have been shown, including what we saw on our television screens on Saturday. The Cambridge/PHE model—the scariest line on the graph presented—implied that there would be more than 1,000 deaths a day by yesterday, which is bizarre, because there were not. The reasonable worst-case scenario, which has been leaked, apparently has an “odd plateau” in October—not my words, but those of David Spiegelhalter, who has done such a good job of communicating scientific uncertainty and statistical uncertainty. Why is there a plateau? On 21 September, SAGE suggested that there would be 3,000 hospital admissions a day by the end of October. The figure reported on 28 October was 1,442, and yet we are supposed to be above the reasonable worst-case scenario. Either somebody does not understand what “reasonable” means, or they do not understand what “worst-case” means.
In the light of all that, I am extraordinarily grateful that Sir Patrick Vallance and Professor Chris Whitty have agreed to come to the Science and Technology Committee tomorrow at very short notice. They are both incredibly fine public servants. They have been very keen to present to all the Select Committees throughout this time, and I pay tribute to them.
No Conservative wants to restrict free enterprise. No Conservative wants to curtail individual liberties, and no Conservative would ever want to put people at greater risk from other illnesses, such as cancer, heart disease or mental health concerns. It goes against all my instincts to do so, but if the case is made that that is the right thing to do, I will, with a heavy heart, have to vote for it.
I think it is unlikely that we will be in the position we hope to be in on 2 December, and I say that about not only the UK but all the countries of western Europe. Germany, France, Belgium and Italy are all entering lockdown. It seems unlikely that we will get the R and the overall rate down to such a level that it is reasonable to start taking the brakes off in what will be a colder, darker and traditionally more convivial month. I have grave concerns about that. If it is the right strategy now, it may regrettably be the right strategy then, and we have to take that very seriously, so I will listen carefully to Vallance and Whitty tomorrow.
I share the disquiet of my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) that we will have only 90 minutes to discuss the legislation on Wednesday, and it will be unamendable. There are reasonable amendments that the House might wish to make—for example, on golf. I understand the closure of clubhouses, but I find it bizarre that two people cannot walk around a golf course and take their exercise in that way. I also do not know why takeaway and delivery from pubs, and rural pubs in particular, was banned this time but not the first time. Ultimately, it is for the Government to propose and not for Parliament to micro-manage.
Finally, I pay tribute to everyone in Newcastle-under-Lyme, especially those on the frontline in the NHS, care homes and social care. We will get through this winter, however tough it is, and we will do that by looking after each other in every sense.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell), I started to write my speech last week, and given the announcements over the weekend, I thought I might need to redraft it. But having listened to this debate and to the statement from the Prime Minister, I have actually made very few changes.
As the final Back-Bench contributor to the debate, I want to talk about my local hospital. I know that the Minister for Patient Safety, Mental Health and Suicide Prevention has personal experience of Warrington Hospital—she started her career there as a trainee nurse, so she knows those wards better than any of us here. Warrington, alongside Liverpool, is at the forefront in dealing with the autumn surge. It is one of the busiest hospitals in the country with covid admissions. I want my colleagues in this House to know about the pressures that clinicians are facing today, tonight and tomorrow.
The medical staff and support staff in Warrington are straining every sinew to cope with the increase in covid-19 cases that they have seen in the last few weeks. In April, during the height of the first wave, the hospital had a peak of 121 covid patients. Today it has 149, and there are a further 23 patients awaiting test results in hospital. It is forecast to exceed 300 patients over the next three weeks. Given that hospitalisation often follows two weeks after infection, the changes being made from Thursday will probably have little impact on shifting the course of those numbers.
One of the senior clinicians at Warrington Hospital described to me earlier today the current situation. He said that it was a “winter crisis on steroids,” and we have not even got into winter yet. Critical care beds have already been escalated to 18, and there is an ability to extend further to 30, but doing that will have an impact on the hospital’s other work. It surprised me a little when he talked about the hospital’s other work. There are currently 183 other patients receiving care for urgent conditions such as cancer. The work of Warrington’s NHS remains at around 80% of normal workload.
The prevalence of the virus in Warrington is still increasing, and as the virus spreads through the community it also spreads into the healthcare workforce. Having sufficient nurses and doctors to treat not only someone suffering from covid-19, but somebody who has trauma from a car crash, or who has the frightening diagnosis of a tumour or who has just suffered a stroke is just as important. The benefit of having a national health service is that across a region where one hospital is busy, another can take up the strain and help out, but sadly, we are seeing pressures right across the region. There is little bed space in any of the hospitals in the north-west and there is a real challenge for doctors and nurses to staff those wards.
The next four weeks are an opportunity to address contact tracing across the UK before the surge we are seeing in Warrington extends further, and I welcome the support that has been given to local councils to drive efforts around local tracing. I can also understand why people working in contact tracing find it really difficult. I have been through the process of isolation. I have had the calls and I know how difficult it is to understand when you are talking to somebody in one town and you are in another.
Finally, I reiterate the point I made to the Prime Minister earlier today. The economic consequences of the lockdown will be very difficult, coming at such a crucial time ahead of Christmas when businesses make the revenue that they use to see them through the early part of next year. Protecting lives and livelihoods have to go hand in hand and I regret deeply that we are seeing another lockdown, but reluctantly, I feel that we do need this.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
We have heard some superb speeches in this debate and a great deal of heartfelt contribution from all around the House. I always say that I believe that every single one of us came to this place to be a force for good. We all have unique challenges in our constituencies, but we strive to do the best that we can. Sadly, there are some clear patterns of failure that I need to address tonight—patterns of failure by this Government: a refusal to act, an inability to empathise and, crucially, the failure to learn.
The Government failed to get on top of this virus in the spring. They failed to act in time and by failing to learn from their earlier mistakes, they have again failed to get on top of the virus ahead of winter. In fact, on Saturday, the Minister claimed that only “a crystal ball” could have predicted the need for a second lockdown. Luckily, the Government do not need a crystal ball because they have experts, who, six weeks ago, highlighted the need for a short, sharp two-week circuit breaker—so yes, it was predicted. A crystal ball was not needed. However, this Government did not have the political will to act six weeks ago and refused to work with Opposition colleagues, instead deciding to use the health of the nation as a political football.
During the last Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister stated that he did not believe a national circuit breaker was the right policy for the country. A couple of days prior to that, the Health Secretary stated that a more targeted approach would get a grip on the virus and that a national circuit breaker was
“not the policy of the Government”.—[Official Report, 19 October 2020; Vol. 682, c. 784.]
It was clear at the time that this was the wrong approach and was at odds with the scientific expert advice on offer.
The Prime Minister has now warned of deaths twice as high over winter as they were in spring—sobering indeed—yet six weeks ago, the chief scientific officer was warning of the worrying forecast of daily cases. Why, then, did the Government choose to rule out so steadfastly measures that would save lives? Can they not see the damage and miscommunication that this causes? People were laid off last week as businesses anticipated the end of the furlough scheme, only for it to be extended on Saturday night. What is the Government’s message to all those people who have just lost their jobs?
Without a functioning test, trace and isolate system in place, there can be no way out of this crisis. The Government have had seven months to get on top of testing, yet the covid app does not work for the hundreds of thousands of people in England and Wales whose phones are set to unsupported languages. For those people, the app simply shows a blank screen. That does not promote confidence among the British people that the Government can get on top of tracing, and Serco is still failing miserably at tracing contacts adequately. The Government have had seven months to correct the situation. Understandably, this epidemic is unprecedented and, understandably, there are things that could not have been foreseen, but the Government have had seven months to rectify the situation and should and could have done better.
The Government’s continued flip-flopping on scientific advice breeds uncertainty. We have heard in the Chamber tonight Members from all parties talk of community uncertainty and of businesses that do not know whether they will ever be able to survive again. People from the wedding sector, people who run small gyms and people who work on golf courses want answers. They are just good people, trying to earn a living and wanting some certainty.
Mr Steve Baker
I do not know whether the hon. Lady has noticed, but scientific experts, even in the same field of epidemiology, quite often disagree profoundly. I wonder whether Labour has noticed that and what it plans to do about it. If the hon. Lady is looking for any ideas, I have tweeted out a summary of a book on the subject.
Dr Allin-Khan
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution and I congratulate him on his ability to tweet. I have a master’s in public health and am perfectly capable of understanding that the very eminent scientists who work as advisers to the Government are doing an incredible job. They were selected to work for the Government so that the Government could take their advice, and they have advised the Government that a two-week circuit breaker would have been beneficial, both to the economy and in respect of saving lives, had it been implemented weeks ago. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has the ability to tweet out information about a book; I will continue to read my books on epidemiology with great joy. [Interruption.] If he would like to intervene again, I shall take another intervention.
Dr Allin-Khan
I have engaged with such serious subjects when undertaking all four of my science degrees.
Speculation that self-isolation could be reduced from 14 to seven days does nothing to clarify how people can keep their families safe. [Interruption.] I am enjoying hearing the chuntering; I would welcome anybody who wished to intervene on me because I am well up for it, as they say in Tooting. I do enjoy debates—in fact, I would welcome debate, because what always happens is that I make my comments from the Dispatch Box, sit down and listen to the Minister, for whom I have a great deal of respect, but then I have no ability to intervene, so bring it on.
The resilience that British people have shown over the past seven months has been remarkable. In the face of uncertainty and fear, our communities have come together to support one another time and again. Like everyone in the Chamber, I am so proud of all those who helped to deliver food and medicines to our most vulnerable at the height of the crisis, and I have been incredibly moved by all those businesses, struggling themselves, that provided free school meals locally when the Government failed to act. It touches me to witness the hope and humanity of our communities and of individuals such as Marcus Rashford, but it is shameful that that has been necessary as a result of this Government’s actions.
It breaks my heart that more children than ever will know the taste of hunger in 2020 and that they will feel the cold that comes from their parents being unable to pay the bills. The last Labour Government lifted more than 1 million children out of poverty. We need more action like that, not Conservative Members blaming chaotic parents for child hunger, alleging that free school meal vouchers go direct to crack dens and brothels, or spinning the narrative that it is the sole responsibility of local communities to ensure that no child goes hungry. Where is the compassion and humanity from the Government? I hope we do not have to continue asking ourselves that question throughout winter.
Certainly, across our communities, compassion and humanity are in no short supply among our frontline health and care staff—on that we can all agree. Those frontline staff have been placed in an impossible situation throughout the year. Will the Government commit to ensuring that those staff have adequate levels of PPE across the winter, and will they commit to frequent testing of our frontline staff, who put their lives on the line day in, day out? The impact of the neglect of our NHS staff is that almost 2 million days were lost to mental ill health during the first wave of the pandemic. I fear the effects of the second spike this winter. We can stand on our doorsteps and clap, but why can we not give them the support they truly deserve?
Will the Minister agree to meet to discuss our care for carers proposal to address the mental health needs of our 3 million health and care staff? Will the Minister agree to meet me to discuss the care for carers plan? Will the Minister agree to work cross-party together to support our frontline NHS and care workers?
Ms Dorries
Obviously, I cannot answer from a sedentary position. On the care package, the hon. Lady will need to meet another Minister, but I will take her request on. I am the Minister for mental health, not for care workers, but I will pass that on for her.
Dr Allin-Khan
It is a package of mental healthcare for our frontline NHS and care workers, which I am sorry the Minister seems to have forgotten. I have raised it a number of times. Is she agreeing to meet me to discuss the care for carers mental health package for our frontline NHS and care staff?
Ms Dorries
I will provide a detailed explanation of what we are doing for frontline workers in my own speech.
Dr Allin-Khan
I take that as a no. I give the Minister the opportunity to give me a straight yes or no answer. Will she kindly agree to meet me to work cross-party together for the betterment of the mental health of our frontline NHS and care staff—yes or no?
Ms Dorries
Madam Deputy Speaker, this is a rather unusual way of closing a debate. We have a very comprehensive package in place for key workers, which has been provided by the NHS, and I am happy to detail that when I give my closing speech.
Dr Allin-Khan
I am very familiar with the detail, which the Minister uses every single time we have a debate, but I will take that as a hard no and continue with my speech.
For the mental health of people across the country—[Interruption.] The policy is very clear. The Minister is chuntering from a sedentary position; would she like to intervene?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. [Interruption.] Yes, I appreciate what the hon. Lady is saying. I think this exchange has run its course, and I am sure that she is probably about to come to her conclusion.
Dr Allin-Khan
Thank you. As I said, I take that as a hard no.
For the mental health of people across the country, the Government have to address questions that they were slow to answer in spring. For those who rely on sport for positive mental health, will the Minister outline the options open over the coming month? For those with loved ones in care homes, will a new testing and visitation policy be implemented? Where staff are redeployed, will the Minister outline what support will be offered? For those who have lost loved ones to covid-19, what specific mental health support will be offered? Students across the range of education need support, especially those in university. What extra support will be in place for them? I look forward to the Minister’s replies to those questions in her closing remarks.
We are only in November and we face a cruel, long winter. The public want to support the Government’s measures and see the back of the virus, but people also want reassurance that our nation’s mental health will not be put at risk. The years of underfunding of mental health leave us without much faith. We called for a national wellbeing guarantee last month. The Government should have addressed that weeks ago. Now, it is crucial and I plead with the Minister to meet the sector properly and get a plan in place urgently.
It may feel impossible to hope on the edge of a precipice, as we are, but the kindness on display across the UK should bring hope to us all. We continue to extend the offer to work together through the crisis for all our communities. We just need the political will from the Government.
The Minister for Patient Safety, Mental Health and Suicide Prevention (Ms Nadine Dorries)
One of the joys of being a Minister in Government is that we won an election and that gives us the right and the ability to decide policy. If the hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) wishes to decide policy, the Labour party should try harder at the next election.
As we heard from so many hon. Members during the debate, the virus is a deadly adversary. The debate has been wide-ranging, and many points were raised. It is impossible to mention everybody who spoke, but there were several themes and I would like to group them. Obviously, because of my portfolio, I will start with mental health, which almost everybody mentioned.
We recognise that it is a difficult time for people and the immense strain that the pandemic and measures to contain it place on everyone’s lives. Recently, the president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists said that there were significant mental health consequences for people who contract covid and for the families of those who are affected or sadly lose their lives. He went on to say that mental health concerns as a result of lockdown were
“being weaponised by those with other political agendas”.
He added that there is increasing evidence that the virus directly attacks the central nervous system, which can affect mental wellbeing and mental health, let alone the post-traumatic stress that those who contract the virus and may end up on medical ventilation can experience.
The result is that there are two mental health stories to the pandemic. We know that people will suffer exacerbated mental health problems as a result of the pandemic and that people with existing mental health conditions and frontline workers are particularly susceptible. However, there is another side to the story, which is long covid: young people who contract covid and consequently suffer mental illness. In the words of Dr Adrian James, the president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists:
“We need… to wake up to the very serious mental health consequences for people who get coronavirus and for the families of those who are disabled or killed by the disease.”
We are absolutely committed to continuing our investment in expanding and transforming mental health services in England. That will amount to an additional £2.3 billion of funding a year in mental health services by 2023-24. We are doing our utmost to ensure that our mental health services are there for everyone who needs them during the pandemic—for patients and our NHS colleagues. Thanks to the ingenuity of so many, we worked hard to keep all mental health services fully functioning during the first peak, using technology when required. All mental health trusts have established 24/7 crisis phone lines where people who experience a mental health crisis can access urgent support and advice. We have invested more than £10 million in supporting national and local mental health charities to continue their vital work in supporting people across the country.
It is a priority to keep services and support working and to provide full services throughout the winter months. I would encourage anyone who needs support to reach out for it so that the NHS can help them, just as we are together doing so much to protect the NHS. I would encourage everyone’s constituents to make use of the resources that are there and have been provided: for example, Every Mind Matters for frontline workers; online psychological first aid training has had 90,000 frontline worker users to date.
It is okay not to feel okay during this difficult time, and we will support everyone in getting the help they need. I am pleased to announce that the NHS will launch a major campaign to encourage people who may be struggling with common mental health illnesses to come forward for help. Talking therapy services will continue to be made available remotely, so that people can access help safely from home. While we know anecdotally that some people’s experiences of digital mental health services have been very positive, we also know that they do not work for everyone, particularly people with more serious mental health illnesses. The NHS will work to ensure that the option of face-to-face support is provided to people with serious mental health illnesses across all ages where it is clinically safe to do so, and people with serious mental health illnesses will continue to receive help from NHS volunteer responders to access essentials such as food and medication throughout the winter.
Overall, our response to the mental health impacts of the pandemic must be driven by the best possible evidence to help us access the data on the number of suicides. Public Health England is currently piloting a national surveillance system to monitor suspected suicide and self-harm by collecting data from local systems in near realtime. This will allow us to identify patterns of risk and inform national and local responses. I can also announce that we are developing a winter plan for wellbeing and mental health, and I hope to return to the House with more information on this shortly.
A number of Members have mentioned hospitals. It was lovely to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter) talk about Warrington hospital, where I did indeed train as a nurse; I was there from 1975 until 1988, all those years ago. He spoke about the real pressures that hospitals are feeling at the moment, and while we have been having this debate the North West Ambulance Service has declared a major incident, owing to demand on ambulances tonight in the north-west of England due to covid. The pressures in Warrington hospital that my hon. Friend spoke about are being felt across the country.
We all stood and clapped for carers on a Thursday night during the first lockdown, and many of the comments tonight have talked about our frontline workers while, in the same speech, arguing against a second lockdown. What we are doing in arguing against a lockdown, or against the measures we are taking, is subjecting those frontline workers to the almost unimaginable and impossible stresses that they would have to experience, as they are in the north-west of England tonight. As someone said to me before this debate, the eerie sound of ambulances and sirens is noticeably more common across London tonight than it has been over the past week. It is our frontline workers who are dealing with those blue lights as they go into the accident and emergency departments in our hospitals across the UK. It seems impossible that we can clap for workers during one lockdown, then argue against protecting them through a second lockdown, because that is what the principle is: to protect our NHS, and to protect our hospital workers.
The pathway through a pandemic is never straightforward, and we have learned so much about this virus during these past few months, not least—as I said a few moments ago—the fact that it leaves young people with long covid and attacks the central nervous system, which in itself creates mental health problems. I reiterate that there are two sides to the mental health coin when it comes to coronavirus, and we need to protect families and those who have loved ones in hospital or who may end up in hospital and lose their lives. Bereavement brings with it its own mental health issues. All of us are required to make difficult decisions and tough sacrifices to bring this virus under control. We must persevere as we work so hard on the long-term solutions that will see us through and allow us to come together once again, so that we can look after the people and communities that we love.
Question put and agreed to,
That this House has considered covid-19.
Business without Debate
Covid-19: Support for Rugby League
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
It is good to see you in the Chair for this debate, Mr Speaker; I know how strongly you have always supported rugby league and its impact on our communities. This morning, we heard that Castleford Tigers’ next two super league matches have been called off because more of the players have tested positive for covid. I know that you and other Members of the House will join me in wishing those players, as well as the staff who have been affected, a speedy recovery. It is another reminder of the continued impact of covid on the sport, on our rugby league clubs, on local jobs and on our communities.
This is a tough time for everyone. In all the towns and cities in Yorkshire, the Humber and the north-west, where rugby league is strong, cases have been going up in local hospitals and jobs have been hit in our local economies for some time. I called this debate to talk about the impact of covid on rugby league and the way in which it is being hit; why rugby league now needs a new support plan, drawn up with the Government, to support our clubs and the sport through these difficult times; and why it matters so much for our towns and our communities.
We should never underestimate the importance of rugby league for us in Castleford. In normal times, the whole town would turn out to watch the match, but the clubs would also do so much to support the community. A good friend of mine, who has been a lifelong Castleford Tigers fan, was very ill a few years ago: he was starting chemotherapy and having a difficult time. Word got round and he had a knock on the door—and there was Jake Webster, one of our star players from that year and part of the team that had won the 2017 League Leaders’ Shield. Someone had spoken to him and he turned up to wish my friend well and give him a shirt as a gift.
That is not an unusual story. The players supporting the fans, the fans supporting the players, that close relationship across the town—that is rugby league values. Before covid, JT or Tiger Man, the Castleford Tigers mascots, could be found at almost every community event, leading the Castleford Heritage Trust on a May day parade or joining a Macmillan coffee morning. That is rugby league values.
The club, the team and the foundation have been supporting men’s health, from Movember to mental health; setting up a great women’s team, who have been really going from strength to strength; working with our local Morrisons last week to provide holiday meals for children who went along to their half-term session, inspired by Marcus Rashford; and working with local schools as the inspiration for our school rugby league teams, who have done so well each year in the national contests. The Castleford Tigers Foundation launched a jobs and training programme this summer to help people who are unemployed to find jobs.
It is a family game as well. From when they were tiny babies and toddlers, we have taken our kids to the Castleford match—something that Ed would never have done for football. We always had to make sure that we were sitting right at the back, just in front of the radio commentators, so that if we were distracted by having to watch the children and stop them going up and down the steps, we could still listen to the commentators and find out what was going on in the match.
It can be seen right across the community. Whole families turn out for Castleford Tigers and rugby league clubs like it across the country to support their communities —young and old, supporting everybody.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
Does the right hon. Lady agree that programmes such as the one at Warrington Wolves, which support children in alternative provision—children who cannot go to mainstream schools, but can get involved with rugby and rugby league—are the sorts of things in a community that really makes a difference to young children?
Yvette Cooper
I agree; this is immensely important. The players in an elite sport are fantastic role models for young people and children, and the way in which they use that power in the community to work with schools and different community groups and organisations has a huge impact on young people’s futures. That is really important. Sometimes people say, “Oh, rugby league—it’s just about your heritage.” No, it is not. This is about our future. Yes, we are proud of our rugby league history, but it also about saying, “See this? This is part of our future. This is part of the next generation. This is part of inspiring young people.”
A Manchester Met report last year found that the economic impact of English rugby league clubs and events is over £140 million and the social impact—the impact on aspirations and on community cohesion—is over £180 million. When you live in a rugby league town, you cannot put a value on it, but you can feel it—you know it. If something like that is lost, it cannot be reinvented. That is why it is so important to support our rugby league clubs.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for securing this important debate. With the rugby league world cup taking place next year—including the first ever physical disability rugby league world cup, which will be hosted in Warrington—does she agree that the financial package of support for rugby league is so important not only for proud rugby league communities like our own, but for the entire country because of the tourism revenue that will be generated as a result?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is exactly right, and I know that she is a strong supporter of the role that her local club is playing and the importance of having the world cup in Warrington. It is about the impact on the economy, but it is also about the inspirational impact on generations of young people getting involved in rugby league. That is why it is so crucial that we support the sport through and are able to support the world cup as well.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the right hon. Lady on securing this debate. Sport is important for all of us as nations across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Rugby was my game at school—not rugby league, but rugby union. None the less, I just want to say how important it is. Northern Ireland has set aside some money for sporting clubs already, but without any fans at the matches, the £16 million loan for rugby league is not enough. Does the right hon. Lady feel that there is chance for the Minister to step up to the plate and do more?
Yvette Cooper
I agree, and in the end that was the purpose of calling for this debate. We welcome the loans that the Government provided earlier in the year, the work that was done between the Government and the RFL, and the support for our clubs. That has been really important, but our rugby league clubs are under huge pressure now and they need more support. We need a new action plan going forward; the bills still have to be paid.
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)
My right hon. Friend is making a fantastic case for rugby clubs up and down the country. Castleford Tigers are fantastic. In my constituency we have the Batley Bulldogs, and we have seen the work that they are doing at the heart of our community during the pandemic. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is quite simple—we could turn the £16 million loan into a grant, and we would save the clubs overnight?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right, because the challenge is that the loans need to be repaid. The expectation has been that they need to start being repaid next year. Well, we are not through the covid crisis yet. We still do not have the supporters back in the grounds and there are still huge financial pressures on our clubs. It is simply not realistic, and not good for the sport or our communities, to insist on those loans being paid back. The point that she makes about grants is exactly one of the things that I want the Government to consider.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for securing today’s debate. York City Knights have worked so hard to climb to third in the championship and should be entering the new York community stadium, but without the finances behind them and without being able to open their ground to fans, they may never enter the stadium. Will the Minister seriously look not only at moving loans to grants, but sufficiency in those grants?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is exactly right, because nobody could have expected what was going to happen with covid, but we cannot let it do huge long-term damage to such crucial community sports and the work they do in the communities.
The bills still have to be paid this year. The crowds are not there, but millions of pounds in ticket revenues have been lost—about £2 million a week, including Super League and RFL. All the clubs have made huge savings. They have drawn down rainy day funds and money that they had put by. Staff and players have taken pay cuts. Contractors have gone. Incredibly reluctantly, jobs have been cut. They have drawn on furlough and other support and whatever they can.
In the summer, the clubs got the matches up and running, even though the supporters could not be there, and that has brought great joy to fans being able to watch the matches again, but also considerable costs, because the clubs could not use furlough for the staff who were back even though they were not getting the income from the tickets to pay for them. They pay out thousands of pounds every single week on getting players and other staff tested for covid. When a club gets a positive test—Castleford has just had a run on them—it then has to do another round of tests as well. Castleford Tigers has been spending over £20,000 extra a month, just to get those covid tests done to try to keep the game as safe as possible. The same applies across all our clubs.
The fans have been incredible. So many season ticket holders who were offered refunds said the club should keep the money this year. In an area like ours, where people feel under considerable financial pressure, that is a really big deal and shows their commitment to supporting the club. Hundreds of thousands of pounds has been lost by every club—from bars, events, corporate hospitality and things such as bonfire nights and beer festivals.
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for securing this important debate. It is wonderful to hear the contributions, and I notice the gender on the Opposition Benches, which is significant.
Mr Speaker
On a point of order, these are all rugby league club MPs. Come on, Marie Rimmer.
Ms Rimmer
It is wonderful to hear the debate, but these are very sad times. For clubs such as St Helens, it is different. Rugby league is a part of the business. The club is a major employer in my constituency, and it is the largest hospitality hub for the local community, whether that is weddings, funerals or parties—you name it, it goes on at the Saints stadium. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government’s hospitality support scheme needs to recognise that businesses can be across different sectors? We have a hospitality business that is quite separate, but is part of the rugby club. Does my right hon. Friend agree with that?
Mr Speaker
Just to say, I think you had a funeral Friday night when St Helens played Wigan with the defeat they had.
Yvette Cooper
Mr Speaker, I think you and I first talked about the Castleford-Warrington matches 20 years ago. My hon. Friend is exactly right. I know that both my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) and my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) have been strongly supporting St Helens, which is under particular pressure as well. There is a challenge where the clubs are open for the sport but closed to supporters, and that means closed to hospitality as well. They are closed to all the people who would have come and used the bars or bought food or used the clubs for events, yet they are not covered by some of the hospitality industry support. They could not get the 15% VAT relief. They could not get the closed job support scheme funding, even though the doors to supporters were closed. I think St Helens has powerfully made the case, as has my hon. Friend, as to why more action is needed to support these crucial local employers who play such an important role in the local economy.
Retail and merchandise sales have also been hit this year. Sponsorship next year becomes a challenge after the year that we have had, and so too does the sheer uncertainty of nobody knowing when the supporters can get safely back into the grounds or when ticket sales can safely restart. That makes it difficult to sell season tickets, which would have provided crucial revenue for our clubs in the run-up to Christmas. So again, the clubs are seeing the bills stacking up and the revenue not coming in. There is huge uncertainty. These clubs are at the heart of our communities, and they play such an important role. We need to continue to support them into the future.
I welcome the Minister meeting me over the last few weeks to talk not just about Castleford Tigers but about rugby league clubs more widely. I know that he has shown a really strong interest in this. I know, too, that some of these are issues that he needs to keep pressing the Treasury on, and we need to keep pressing the Treasury on them as well, but we also have to be blunt about this. The loans that the Government have provided were fine for the first 12 weeks. Many clubs had made savings and done a huge amount of work, and they have been resilient and got themselves through the difficult times, but this is not going to be enough to ensure that they can stay strong through into next year, through from 125th anniversary year into world cup year. We need our clubs to stay strong for our local communities, where they play such a vital role.
I ask the Government to look at drawing up a new winter plan and a new plan for next year—a joint plan between the Government and rugby league. It should be a plan that recognises the pressures from the Sky clawback, from covid testing, from the lack of hospitality income and from having done so much work this year. The Government need to provide a guarantee that none of our important rugby league clubs will go under because of covid. We need a plan for getting supporters safely back in the spring. We need a plan that recognises the unusual situation that the clubs are in, without hospitality income but not being covered by hospitality support, and a plan that looks at different ways to support them through the winter by looking at grants and not just loans.
The plan could include providing VAT relief on season tickets; underwriting an insurance arrangement that could support season ticket refunds, should they be needed if things are difficult next year; including working staff in the job support scheme; funding the covid tests that clubs need to keep going; providing a national insurance holiday; and looking at the Sky clawback. It could include all kinds of different things. I am just suggesting different measures that the Government could consider, but they must work with rugby league to put in place a financial support plan to ensure that our clubs can keep going and be strong for the future.
The plan must recognise the role that the clubs play in our communities in pulling people together, as well as the impact on health, wellbeing and families. We must also recognise that they give us something to look forward to, at a time when, to be honest, everybody needs something to look forward to—be it Christmas, a daughter’s wedding or a mum’s 60th. Those are the things that people want to look forward to at the moment, but they are finding it hard to do so. As one friend said, “For me, it’s being able to look forward to the Cas match at the end of the week.” We need to have those things that people look forward to, that bring people together and that become the heart of the community. When you walk through Castleford town centre, you find all the flowerbeds painted in black and amber, as a tribute to the town.
This year is the 125th anniversary of the founding of the Northern Rugby Football Union, which became the rugby league, but instead of a celebration, there have been tough times. The Minister will know from earlier debates how much anger and frustration there has been across the north about what happened with the tier 2 and tier 3 job support, and about the fact that the furlough scheme was not extended until the whole country including the south was covered. I know that that is not his responsibility, but he will know that it is the backdrop to the real concern that is felt across the north. He will also know, therefore, how important it is for the Government to show that they understand how important rugby league is across the north, particularly across Yorkshire and the Humber and across the north-west, and how important it is to our northern towns that we keep rugby league strong. Rugby league has been there for us and for our communities, and we want to be there for rugby league and to ensure that it has a strong future. I urge the Government to work with us, with the rugby league clubs and with the RFL to ensure that there is a strong plan for the future.
Mr Speaker
In welcoming the Sports Minister, let me say that we have had a very passionate debate and I am sure that he will want to take on board the comments, because there is no greater sport than rugby league. We have the world cup next year, and I am sure the Minister will want to respond accordingly.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think I heard that quite clearly!
I thank the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) for tabling the topic for this debate, and I thank all those who have participated in it. I certainly noted the gender balance this evening, and it speaks volumes about rugby. I know how deeply she feels about the welfare of this sport and the communities it serves, as we have discussed this matter on many occasions, as indeed have you and I, Mr Speaker. Rugby league clubs such as Castleford Tigers and Warrington Wolves, and others, are at the heart of their local communities and it is vital that they are protected. The Tigers are rightly a source of great pride to the town and bring the whole Castleford community together. May I also take the opportunity to join the right hon. Lady in sending my best wishes for a speedy recovery to the players and others recovering from coronavirus in her community?
I know that Castleford without its rugby team would be unimaginable and that rugby league clubs are vital to their towns right across the country, as the right hon. Lady articulated so eloquently. That is why in May rugby league received a £16 million support package from the Government to safeguard the immediate future of the sport and the communities it serves—that was long before any other support package for any other sport, in recognition of that important contribution. These loans were administered by the Rugby Football League, and we have been working with it and Sport England to ensure that support is provided to those who need it, including the Castleford Tigers. The Government have also supported rugby league through more than £11 million of Sport England funding over the 2017 to 2021 funding period, as well as by investing in hosting the rugby league world cup in 2021, which I know will be a fantastic event—we are all looking forward to it.
The Government recognise the impact that covid-19 is having across the economy and in particular on the sporting sector. Clearly, the Prime Minister’s announcement on Saturday of the new national restrictions, although necessary to prevent the continued spread of the virus, will have further impacts on sport. However, as he announced, elite sport will be able to continue, behind closed doors, over the next four weeks of increased restrictions, and that is further testament to the Government’s support for elite sport. It will not only enable vital broadcast revenue to flow into sports, but ensure that sport continues to bring joy to millions of fans. The month-long extension to the current furlough scheme will benefit clubs that have had to delay the resumption of matches, while ensuring that their talented players and staff are assisted through these challenging times. In addition to the bespoke support for rugby league, Sport England’s community emergency fund has provided £210 million directly to support community sport clubs and exercise centres through this pandemic.
More widely, the Government have, of course, provided an unprecedented support package for businesses, through tax reliefs, cash grants, employee wage support and many other measures, which many sport clubs have benefited from. However, I recognise and acknowledge that, as the right hon. Lady and others have said, sports clubs, and rugby clubs in particular, are about more than just sport. They often rely on many other sources of revenue, and they have been able to take advantage of some but not necessarily all Government support measures.
As the right hon. Lady will be aware, one key area of focus now is supporting organisations in the sporting sector affected by the decision not to allow spectators in from 1 October as originally planned. The Prime Minister announced on 22 September that sporting events would not be able to take place with socially distanced crowds from 1 October as planned. Although that was obviously disappointing, it was necessary in order to stop the spread of covid-19. The Department has been working with colleagues in the Treasury and with the sports sector to assess the scale of support required and the timescales within which it is needed. That has included further work with the RFL to understand the challenges for rugby league as we head into the forthcoming winter. We are working with the Treasury on those proposals now, and we hope to be able to announce the outcome of these discussions shortly.
Andy Carter
I pay tribute to the fantastic speech made by the right hon. Member for Castleford Tigers this evening. Like her, I look at the welcome support that the Government have given to rugby league clubs. However, one thing that would be really helpful would be some indication of the criteria under which clubs would be able to welcome back spectators into their grounds. That would help them to plan and think about the future, rather than just considering what they cannot do at the moment.
Nigel Huddleston
Of course, we all want to get fans back into stadia as soon as possible, but only when it is safe to do so. I will mention more about that later in my speech and will be happy to have a follow-up conversation with my hon. Friend.
I know that the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford has previously suggested tax breaks and other measures, particularly business rates holidays. I am happy to say that clubs already benefit from a business rate holiday through to March 2021, which should help them through the winter. We are in conversations with the Treasury and others about other measures that she has suggested.
Rugby—both league and the other one—has many, many fans right across the country and many stakeholders, including in this place. I was pleased to learn from the right hon. Lady that my Department and the team there, who work so hard, have been engaging with many organisations and bodies, including the all-party parliamentary group on rugby league and many other Members in this place. As I said, there are many stakeholders. The RFL in particular has been a valued partner of the Government in the application of the guidance and its development, which has enabled the return of elite sporting competition. I am also grateful to the RFL for the successful delivery of the restarted super league behind closed doors, securing broadcast revenue that will benefit the whole game at this challenging time.
As I said before, we know that the decision not to reopen stadia to spectators on 1 October was immensely disappointing, particularly following successful pilots through August and September. I am grateful to the clubs that have piloted the return of spectators so far. Work continues at pace to find solutions that will allow crowds safely back into stadia as soon as possible. The Government will continue to work closely with the Sports Grounds Safety Authority and a whole range of sports to understand the latest thinking that might allow spectators to return. That includes the creation of a new sports technology innovation group of sporting bodies and health experts to analyse new technologies that will support that. Work continues at pace to find solutions that will allow crowds safely back, but spectators will return to stadia only when it is safe to do so. We will keep the situation under continual review.
As the right hon. Lady said, rugby has a rich heritage in its heartlands and a proud history stretching back over 100 years. But as has been mentioned, there is also an exciting future. We know that the importance of the professional game has come into even more focus given that next year’s rugby league world cup is being hosted on these shores, and the Government are firmly committed to delivering a successful world cup tournament in 2021. Next year’s world cup will bring additional significant exposure on free-to-air TV; it will also be the first time that the men’s, women’s and wheelchair tournaments take place at the same time, as the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) mentioned. It will be a great opportunity to showcase the game and encourage even more people to get involved in this wonderful sport. It will demonstrate to the world, once again, this country’s skill in hosting world class tournaments and events and showcase that Britain is open for business and a bit of fun.
We can but hope that the world cup will be a global celebration of humanity at a time when we trust that the worst of the current crisis will be behind us. Once again, I thank the right hon. Lady for securing this debate tonight, to highlight the importance of rugby league and the vital role that it plays in our communities. I hear, as I am sure does the Treasury, all the requests and points made in this evening’s debate. The support secured already for rugby league was a reflection of the enormous social and economic contribution that rugby league clubs make to their communities; the very real threat to the whole sport earlier this year and indeed currently; and the special circumstances of hosting the 2021 rugby league world cup.
As I have said before, the events of recent months have shown that the impact of sports clubs reaches beyond sport itself; they have proved themselves to be the bedrocks of their communities during this pandemic. We will do what we can to ensure that they continue to be so long into the future.
Question put and agreed to.
10.29 pm
House adjourned.
Draft Agriculture (Payments) (Amendment, etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
Draft Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products (Producer Organisations and Wine) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 5 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
I remind Members about the social distancing regulations. Spaces available to Members are clearly marked; unmarked spaces must not be occupied. The usual convention of a Government side and an Opposition side is waived on this occasion, so Members may sit anywhere. Members are welcome to sit in the Public Gallery, but if they wish to speak in the debate, they will need to come forward to the main part of the room. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if you sent any speaking notes via email to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
I will now call the Minister to move the first motion and to speak to both statutory instruments. At the end of the debate, I will put the Question on the first motion and ask the Minister to move the remaining motion formally.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Agriculture (Payments) (Amendment, etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products (Producer Organisations and Wine) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
Victoria Prentis
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone.
The two statutory instruments, which were laid before the House on 5 October, are closely related and apply to retained EU law relating to the common agricultural policy. Hon. Members may well be aware that the common agricultural policy has three strands: direct payments, rural development and marketing measures. Both instruments amend EU marketing regulations relating to the fruit and vegetables and the processed fruit and vegetables sectors and to the producer organisation aid scheme. The payments regulations also amend a number of other areas of the common agricultural policy.
As hon. Members are aware, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has the largest SI programme in Government. In recognition of that, it has identified instruments whose delivery has been deemed essential to prevent significant disruption at the end of the transition period and has rolled several of them up together, which is why there are items dealt with collectively in the instruments before us that in normal times would perhaps be dealt with individually.
The draft instruments make technical amendments that will enable regulation to continue to operate effectively. They do not introduce new policy; they preserve the regime for supporting rural development and marketing measures beneficiaries. The instruments do not enable that in relation to direct payments, for reasons that I shall set out shortly. Although one of the instruments is reserved, we have worked closely with the devolved Administrations in producing both instruments, and where necessary the DAs have given their consent.
The payments SI contains provisions for different aspects of CAP rules. First, following the ratification of the withdrawal agreement, it updates a number of DEFRA EU exit SIs made at the end of last year. To avoid duplication, ambiguity or contradiction in the future, it is necessary to remove the direct payment provisions in our 2019 SIs and to clarify that those SIs relate only to marketing measures and rural development. No policy changes are made through these amendments; they just minimise any ambiguity in the rules that might occur if all regulation continued.
Secondly, the instrument makes amendments to reflect other aspects of the withdrawal agreement that relate to the Northern Ireland protocol and article 138 of the agreement. The protocol-related provisions will clarify where Northern Ireland will apply EU rules, while creating no new trading barriers between Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
Thirdly, the instrument makes provision to ensure that public intervention and private storage aid can continue functioning in much the same way. At present, this is an administrative process under which the Commission makes technical decisions affecting tendering for intervention schemes and, in a short space of time, publishes its decisions using implementing Acts. The purpose of the changes that we hope to make is to allow the appropriate authorities to act in a similar and timely way.
Fourthly, the instrument makes amendments relating to producer organisations in the fruit and vegetables sector. It also makes amendments to EU regulation 2017/1185 to ensure that DEFRA and the DAs can continue to obtain certain production and price data from economic operators.
Finally, the instrument takes the opportunity to update other aspects of retained EU law to reflect amendments made by the EU in 2019 and 2020 after our earlier SIs were made at the end of last year. These amendments are mostly technical and are intended to avoid ambiguity in the regulations. We are also taking the opportunity to correct some small errors in the earlier EU exit SIs, such as references to the Commission that should have been amended to read “the appropriate authority”. Again, no policy changes are made by these amendments.
The draft Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products (Producer Organisations and Wine) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 amend provisions of retained EU legislation relating to the CMO in the reserved areas of regulation of anti-competitive practices and agreements, international relations, import and export controls, and intellectual property. These amendments are to ensure that, at the end of the transition period, functions currently carried out by the European Commission or by member states in those reserved areas can be carried out by the Secretary of State.
The instrument amends six retained EU regulations and one domestic SI in the areas of producer co-operation; producer organisations in the fruit and vegetables sector; and wine, with respect to protected designations of origin, protected geographical indications and traditional terms. It also revokes implementing Acts adopted by the Commission that set out its decisions concerning the protection of particular designations of origin, GIs and traditional terms. Those implementing Acts are not needed after exit because the effect of those decisions—what appears in the protected designations of origin or protected GIs register—is all that is required to ensure continuity. Removing the implementing Acts simply tidies up our statute book.
I turn first to the provisions concerning producer organisations. Once recognised as a producer organisation, producers in the fruit and vegetable sector can apply for match funding under the fruit and vegetable aid scheme, which allows producer organisations to take members from across the EU. At the end of the transition period, the aid scheme will become a domestic scheme in respect of new programmes. It will still be possible for members of a producer organisation to be based outside the UK, but for operational programmes started after the end of the transition period, aid will no longer be paid in respect of land that is not located in the UK.
The instrument amends the retained EU law and ensures that functions relating to the recognition of producer organisations in the fruit and vegetables sector can continue to be exercised by the Secretary of State. By virtue of article 138 of the withdrawal agreement, EU law will continue to apply to producer organisations’ ongoing programmes after 31 December until they come to an end, which could be at any time between December 2021 and December 2024.
Retained EU regulations 880/2012 and 2016/232 relate to producer co-operation. They build on the rules for recognition of producer organisations and contractual negotiations in the CMO, which are covered in an EU exit SI already considered and approved by this House in March 2019. The amendments made by the draft instrument omit provisions on transnational producer organisations and update a reference to another regulation, just to tidy things up once again.
I turn now to the provisions that relate to wine. Changes are needed to ensure that arrangements for the protection of wine designations of origin, GIs and traditional terms operate effectively and that GB is able to process applications in respect of domestic protected designations of origin, GIs and traditional terms, and those from third countries, which of course includes the EU. We also need to ensure that the UK is compliant with World Trade Organisation rules.
The amendments in the instrument will ensure that the arrangements for wine continue to function after we leave the EU. They will give the Secretary of State the power to approve a protected designation, a protected GI or a traditional term, and powers to register one of the above if the UK has agreed to protect it as part of an international trade agreement. Finally, they will allow the Secretary of State to deal with UK applications that have been submitted to the EU, but on which a decision is still pending at the end of the transition period, as if they had been submitted under the new GB scheme—in respect of wine, we have a protected designation of origin application for Sussex that falls into that category. The amendments made by the instrument will enable the Secretary of State to make administrative decisions without the need to make legislation after the end of this year.
The draft statutory instruments provide important and necessary continuity and clarity for stakeholders and beneficiaries. They will help to ensure that farmers, scheme participants and land managers have a clear legal framework with minimal ambiguity, and they will help our domestic wine industry to protect its growing international reputation. I urge hon. Members to agree to the amendments proposed in the regulations. I commend both instruments to the Committee.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I cannot tell you with what joy I heard that DEFRA has the largest programme of SIs in Government. I am sure that everyone is looking forward to the blizzard of SIs that is likely to descend on us.
I have to say that I found the Minister’s explanations helpful; I suspect that, like me, she spent much of the recess reading the detailed trail that leads to these statutory instruments. The question for Members is how we can be absolutely sure about what they do and whether it is actually the case that nothing much is changing. Obviously, we trust the Government entirely, but there may be more to this than meets the eye. It strikes me that it is like a palimpsest: there are now layers and layers, and as we peel them back we find some quite interesting things—sometimes some odd contradictions, and sometimes things that are not immediately explicable. As on previous occasions, I suspect that some of my questions are not instantly answerable, and I would be happy for the Minister to write to me about some of them. However, there will be people to whom these things matter very directly, and clarity is important.
As a relatively new Member of Parliament, although five years seems like a lifetime here, I have to say that this is an odd process: we have a lot of very detailed legal explanations, but every now and then quite important things go through the process—or not—that have an effect on the real world. I have mentioned this in passing to the Minister before, but back in the summer, when there were competition issues affecting the food chain, there were SIs that were never discussed in this place. I raise that only because, sadly, we may well face the same situation again. I gently encourage the Government to discuss some of those matters, because at the time we were told that the lack of discussion had led to an impact, or a lack of impact, in the real world.
The payments SI is a kind of omnibus piece of legislation, with many bits and pieces in it. The farming sector needs clarity on a range of issues at the moment; it is a long time since formal advice was issued to the sector on what it faces in the new year, which is now some 58 days away. Could the Minister clarify when we will get advice on some of those big things, such as the sustainable farming initiative or bridging payments through to next year?
Paragraph 2.3 of the explanatory memorandum refers to some 16 previous statutory instruments, some of which were discussed at length in Committee sittings like this one. It is quite intriguing to go back in time and re-read the previous debates. It is a bit like a detective novel, really—I find myself wondering who the villain was, whether there was a villain, who did it and whether it was ever resolved.
The first five SIs were discussed on 25 March 2019, when we were just a few days away from a potential no-deal crash-out from the European Union. Those measures were being put in place quickly at that time to try to deal with such an eventuality. The then Minister explained in particular the impact on the pillar 1 and pillar 2 CAP payments, which are hugely significant to many people.
We then moved on. In fact, this was when the current Minister and I started to discuss these things. Back in January this year, we had the Direct Payments to Farmers (Legislative Continuity) Act 2020 and a whole range of SIs that followed on from that. Therefore, we are now, in effect, on our third wave of SIs, and some of them of course refer back to the previous one and the previous one.
I hope that everyone is still with us, because this is not particularly simple or straightforward. Of course, it is tempting to make the obvious point that it is not quite as simple as some people suggested this time last year—but perhaps that is unfair. But there is a joke in here somewhere, because if we get to paragraph 9.1 of the explanatory memorandum—I do have sympathy for the civil servants—it tells us that DEFRA
“does not intend to consolidate the relevant legislation at this time.”
Well, good luck to whoever has to consolidate the relevant legislation; I think that that would be quite a task.
Let us now go back to March of last year—paragraph 7.6 in the explanatory notes refers to this. I think that we do need to look at some of the details, and of course if we turn to the instrument itself, we see that it has 48 pages of detailed amendments. Many of them are indeed just minor changes—for example, to ensure that the “relevant authority” is no longer the Commission and so on—but not all of them are. I have to confess that even having read them at some length, I am still not sure what some of them mean, and there are a few that I would really like the Minister to explain to us.
In part 3, there are mentions of the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board and the rural development funds. I am not entirely sure what regulations 11 to 13 actually do, and that is important, because, certainly in relation to pillar 2, there are real concerns outside the House. I was talking to the Welsh Government at the end of last week, and they certainly had many concerns. The Minister will know—I have teased her before on this—that Wales modulates it to the full extent and does a lot of good things with the pillar 2 funds.
In the previous discussion about SI 2019/764 on 21 March 2019, the then Minister brought this to life a bit, because he said:
“The draft Rural Development (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 amend the EU regulation that provides the general rules and structures that govern support for rural development, provide payments to be made to agreement holders and lay down rules on programming, networking, management, monitoring and evaluation. That includes the countryside stewardship and environmental stewardship schemes, which improve the environment; the countryside productivity fund, which supports productivity improvements in farm and forestry businesses; and the growth programme, which supports rural business development, food processing, tourism and broadband.”—[Official Report, Twelfth Delegated Legislation Committee, 21 March 2019; c. 4.]
When it is put like that, it suddenly does not sound quite so dry, because we suddenly see that there are an awful lot of things going on out there that are directly affected by that.
At the same time, my predecessor, David Drew, said:
“I am glad that the Minister mentioned that this is about £430 million for existing programmes. My concern is what will happen at the end of 2020”—
he was very prescient. He continued:
“There is no clarity at all from the Government on their rural policy, because it does not really have one, despite needing a rural strategy. What will the Government do then?”—[Official Report, Twelfth Delegated Legislation Committee, 21 March 2019; c. 5.]
I think that that question is as valid today as it was then, because the issues about the shared prosperity fund and the discussions about the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill do not lead us to a clear position some 58 days from the key point. Of course, many rural organisations, including the Rural Services Network, have been pressing for some time for a proper rural strategy to deal with all this, but that is missing at the moment.
At paragraphs 7.9 and 7.10 in the accompanying notes, there is talk of public intervention and storage. I listened closely to the Minister’s comments on this. I appreciate that this Government have never been as keen on these interventions as some of our European neighbours, but I want to be clear on what is actually done in that case—what being
“carried out administratively…rather than by regulations”
actually means. Certainly in the past, these things have been quite controversial. Often, there has been a kind of political influence on decisions as to whether to open up these schemes. I appreciate that in general—this was in the Agriculture Bill—the Government do not see this as a way forward for the future. But it could hardly be said that we are not at a time of potential market volatility —let us put it like that—and this would be exactly the kind of time when one might imagine that it would be useful to have access to some of these kinds of scheme. I am not sure that it can just be done administratively. It might require political judgment and decisions, so I would be interested to have some clarity on that.
The producer organisations model is one that has always been pursued to a much greater extent in other European countries than in the UK, but we have some. I just wanted to make a general comment about the explanatory notes. They are dry stuff, but to understand at all how important this issue might be, we need to know how many organisations there are, and what they are, but despite digging around, it was difficult to find some of that information.
Moving on from producer organisations to transnational producer groups, the questions I found I was asking myself were, who are they, what do they do and how big are they? I came to the conclusion that we may have only one such producer organisation in the UK, which might or might not be Dairy Crest.
Daniel Zeichner
The Minister is shaking her head, so I may be wrong about that. Perhaps she will tell me what the other milk producer organisations are. A consultation is going on at the moment, on a quite delicate set of issues to do with mandatory contracts, or not, and some of the points I have raised could be relevant to that. I found it puzzling—this is where it gets very detailed—that article 149(2)(c) of regulation 1308/2013 has been introduced and seems to set a limit of one third of the raw milk production to be taken into account in establishing one of the organisations in question. I do not understand why that is, or whether it is significant, but I would be interested to know the reason.
I dug out a DEFRA report that tells us that there were 32 fruit and vegetable producer organisations in 2017. I do not know how many there are now. What also struck me, in passing, was that measures in the Agriculture Bill seemed to take us into a new environment. I wondered whether we would be back here in a few weeks’ time having a similar discussion about SIs that might follow from that Bill.
We are told that those fruit and vegetable producer organisations must have at least five members. I am not clear whether that is a change from the past or whether it is bigger or smaller. The minimum value those organisations have to sustain has now become quite a simple calculation, whereas it was very complicated before. Again, I am not sure why there has been a change, and what the impact might be on any current organisations in this country. Perhaps the Minister could explain that.
The subject of wine made my team’s eyes light up, but I had to tell them that it was not quite as exciting as they thought, although geographical indications are certainly important for our producers. It struck me on the basis of last year’s discussion that there seem to have been changes with respect to the right to appeal if an application is turned down, and I am not sure what has changed to result in that. There seem to have been some subtle changes to amendments to article 115 in relation to the appeals and publication process and the introduction of an appeal to the first-tier tribunal. Again, I am not entirely clear why that has happened, and what has changed.
Finally, there used to be a part 3, which dealt with EU regulation 543/2011. It seems to have disappeared completely this year, but it was there last year. There may be perfectly clear explanations for all that, but it would be useful to know, and I am grateful for the opportunity to quiz the Minister on those points.
Victoria Prentis
I am absolutely sure that the regulations are necessary. I am also absolutely sure that they are not bringing about a great deal of change in policy terms, and that the hon. Member for Cambridge, keen as he is on detective stories, will not find any victims this afternoon. Law is multi-layered, and that is one of the pleasures of engaging with it.
The hon. Gentleman wants me to be drawn into the new policies for the farming sector. He will not have long to wait. The Secretary of State plans to make a major announcement later this month, and of course we hope that the Agriculture Bill will receive Royal Assent shortly, once it has passed its remaining stages.
The hon. Gentleman asked a large number of technical questions, for some of which I have the answers to hand; for others, if he wishes to press them further, it might be helpful for officials in DEFRA to give him a teach-in on producer organisations—I enjoyed such a teach-in earlier this year. Of course, he would be most welcome to avail himself of that if he wished to.
On the hon. Gentleman’s technical questions, the private storage process is a technical one. EU practice at the moment is for the Commission to invite tenders, to consider them and to publish its decision. Decisions are taken according to guidance, which is made available to the industry in advance. At the moment, there is no domestic equivalent to that process, so the draft statutory instrument is to ensure that at the end of the transition period we are able to set up a similar system, which would allow intervention to continue to operate smoothly, minimising disruption to stakeholders. Unfortunately, because of the pandemic, that might be necessary sooner than we had hoped. We will continue to monitor the situation. Once a decision is taken, all of that is published on gov.uk and may be scrutinised by anyone who needs to do so.
On the dairy question, there is one dairy producer organisation, Dairy Crest, as the hon. Gentleman said. There are 34 other producer organisations in the UK, which are all in the fruit or veg sector. About four of them, I believe, are transnational in some way, though not necessarily much of them, proportionately. And no, there is no change in the minimum membership.
That probably deals with most of the hon. Gentleman’s questions—apart from on wine. How could I forget that? The new guidance on wine is set out clearly on the gov.uk website, and I politely refer him there. The guidance has changed in the past few weeks, but it is well and clearly set out.
Daniel Zeichner
I am an avid reader of DEFRA publications every day, and I noticed the wine guidance coming out—at the end of last week, I think. Was that prefiguring the decision today?
Victoria Prentis
No, not at all. That merely set out the policy intention for the future, which is to assist people who import. If we make the regulations this afternoon, there will be an update to the gov.uk website. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will find that there in due course but, if not, I will be happy to share it with him.
The two draft SIs make necessary and appropriate amendments to retained EU legislation to ensure that there is a smooth transition from the CAP to our new domestic regime and that the functions carried out by the Commission or member states in reserved areas may be carried out in future by our own Secretary of State. The amendments make changes to ensure that the policy regimes set out continue to operate with the minimum of disruption and ambiguity for stakeholders after we have left the EU, and to allow the UK Government to operate and/or to make any necessary technical changes in each policy regime. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products (Producer Organisations and Wine) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products (Producer Organisations and Wine) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
Draft Nutrition (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 5 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I have to remind Members about social distancing. Thank you all for sitting in appropriate spaces, and I ask that all unmarked spaces please remain unoccupied. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if anybody who has speaking notes could email them to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. I call the Minister to move the motion.
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Nutrition (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes, I think for the first time, and to appear once again opposite the shadow Minister. I fear we are becoming something of a double act in these Delegated Legislation Committees.
The statutory instrument that we are considering concerns nutrition-related labelling, composition and standards, and follows on from SIs 2019/650 and 2019/651. Its purpose is twofold. First, it reflects the protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland by amending the Nutrition (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 and revoking the Nutrition (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which for brevity I will refer to as the 2019 regulations and the 2019 Northern Ireland regulations. Secondly, it remedies deficiencies in retained European Union nutrition legislation—that is, legislation that has come into force since March 2019 and therefore qualifies as retained legislation that must be incorporated.
As the instrument is technical in nature, I am sure that members of the Committee will welcome a brief summary of the regulations and the changes that we are making. The 2019 regulations were made in preparation for our exit from the European Union and will come into force at the end of the transition period. They will ensure that the regulatory framework for nutrition-related labelling, composition and standards remains functional throughout England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland following the end of that transition period. They achieve that by making technical amendments to EU nutritional legislation, such as changing EU-specific references that will be redundant on exit day and transferring functions and powers currently held by the European Commission to the appropriate authorities in each of the UK’s constituent nations.
The primary purpose of today’s instrument is to give effect to the Northern Ireland protocol. Since the 2019 regulations were made in the context of planning for no deal, the withdrawal agreement has been agreed. Therefore, a revised protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland has been agreed. In practice, that protocol requires that EU nutrition legislation is continued in its application in Northern Ireland while the equivalent EU legislation is retained or acquired in domestic legislation, as amended by the 2019 regulations in the nations of Great Britain.
The instrument therefore removes Northern Ireland from the scope of the 2019 regulations, omitting references to Northern Ireland and changing UK-specific references instead to read “Great Britain”, and prevents functions from being transferred from the European Commission to the Department of Health in Northern Ireland, as would have been the case in a no-deal scenario. The instrument also revokes the 2019 Northern Ireland regulations, which amended domestic nutrition legislation in Northern Ireland in preparation for the end of the transition period. Those amendments and revocations ensure that EU nutrition legislation continues to apply in accordance with article 5 of the Northern Ireland protocol in Northern Ireland, and that our obligations under that protocol are met.
The secondary purpose of the instrument is to remedy deficiencies in retained EU nutrition legislation, specifically concerning measures on infant formula and claims that can be made on pre-packaged food that have come into force since the 2019 regulations were made. The amendments are technical in nature—for example, removing references to the EU and its institutions that will no longer be appropriate following the end of the transition period.
The devolved Administrations have been fully involved in the drafting of the instrument at every stage, and I am grateful for their continued collaborative approach. I particularly thank Robin Swann in Northern Ireland and his officials for their efforts to ensure that this policy area will continue to operate in the right way and to the same standards as it does now following the end of the transition period. Indeed, the devolved Administrations have provisionally agreed a common framework for this area that aims to maintain existing standards and promote common approaches to nutrition policy in the future.
I am also pleased to say that we have worked openly and collaboratively with stakeholders more widely. A public consultation on the statutory instrument was held in July, during which a draft was made publicly available. We remain grateful to the broad range of stakeholders who responded, with the majority supportive of the approach to give effect to the protocol in the legislation, of the amendments to retained EU legislation, and of our assessment of the impacts.
Some respondents requested more detail on the processes with which industry will have to comply. The Government’s response to the consultation was published on 24 September, and my Department has updated the relevant EU exit guidance. Updated guidance is being tested with key stakeholders to ensure that it is fit for purpose, and it will be published on gov.uk later this month. I am confident that those documents will address any residual concerns that stakeholders may have.
As the instrument proposes no significant changes to the regulatory regime, we estimate that there will be no significant impact on industry or the public sector. In practice, although the protocol means that the legal basis for EU nutrition legislation applying will continue to be directly applicable in Northern Ireland, and the same legislation will not apply to the nations of Great Britain following the end of the transition period, the instrument, as I have emphasised, simply makes technical amendments to ensure that the regulatory framework remains functional through England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and implements no policy changes. Nutrition-related labelling, composition and standards will therefore remain the same, in effect, throughout the UK.
Trade from Northern Ireland to the rest of the UK should continue to take place as it does now. There should be no additional process or paperwork, and there will be no restrictions on Northern Ireland goods arriving in the rest of the UK—that is, there will be unfettered access, as provided for by the protocol. Therefore, at the end of the transition period businesses in any part of the UK may continue to place their goods in any part of the UK internal market without new restrictions.
I reassure members of the Committee that the overarching aim of the SI is to provide continuity for business, to ensure that following the end of the transition period exceptional standards of safety and quality for nutrition regulation will continue across the UK, and to reflect the obligations under the Northern Ireland protocol. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Nokes. When I saw this SI come through, just before recess, my heart leapt a little to be considering secondary legislation not related to covid. Then I realised that it was related to Brexit and my happiness disappeared just as quickly as it had arrived.
When my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), addressed the original regulations that we are amending, she began with a caveat on the danger of a no-deal scenario, and the danger that the Government were running out of time. It is incredible, and quite startling, that 18 months later we have no greater clarity. In many ways, the world seems an entirely different place. This Parliament certainly seems an entirely different place than it was 18 months ago; however, the issue is still there. This time last year, the Government were making very clear and un-caveated promises, which many hon. Members were elected on, about an oven-ready deal. They ought to, and must, deliver on that.
I am grateful to the Minister for his letter in recent days seeking our support on this issue, and I can confirm that we do not intend to divide the Committee. As he said, he and I are on this travelling tour. I believe we have secondary legislation to consider on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday this week—a trilogy befitting Ali and Frazier, I would say. I do not think that the final one is in Manila, but I believe it is in the Chamber. It will be box office, but hopefully not £15 to watch.
As the Minister set out, it is important to make these regulations, and to change the references to the UK that there were under EU law to reference Great Britain instead. The Department of Health in Northern Ireland will not have the same functions transferred to it as the rest of the UK. The amendments will ensure that EU law continues to apply in Northern Ireland and the EU-retained law in England, Scotland and Wales will therefore be effective. I must say, again, that that breaks a spectacular number of Government commitments that we have heard in the Chamber on the treatment of Northern Ireland. I know that public interest has moved on, that we are upstairs, and that no one is watching, but frankly if any Government Members are really satisfied with that scenario and think that it is reputable and honourable way of doing things, frankly I disagree. That is no commentary at all on the Minister. He is an excellent Minister, who I hold in high regard, but this is extraordinary and really disappointing. Nevertheless, for us not to support these regulations today would render the regulations as a whole ineffective and would not be in the interests of the nation, so I will just pick up a couple of issues that I hope he can cover.
As per the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, as we know, Northern Ireland is obliged to align with specific EU rules. Looking at the bigger picture, time is running out for the Government to implement the remaining elements of the protocol, which comes into force in less than 60 days. Proper implementation is vital for the protection of the Good Friday agreement, so could the Minister update us on progress with the rest?
We know that labelling, specifically, is a critical concern for food and drink manufacturers in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. As has been outlined, we will have different trading rules in Great Britain and Northern Ireland on 1 January, and there is a real risk that labelling used in Britain will no longer be legally recognised in Northern Ireland or on the continent. I seek assurance on the record from the Minister that that will not be the case, because that would be a significant concern.
I recognise what the Minister has said about stakeholders, but trading bodies have warned throughout the process that unless they get guidance in time they will not be able to prepare. As well as meeting their expectations on frictionless trade, will we also be able to meet their expectations on timeliness and being able to act and prepare?
I do not want to rehash the arguments over the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, because that is the settled will of the House, but the point must still be made about the negotiation tactics, the threats to breach laws, the breaking of promises made in general elections and the tone that that will set in any future regulatory conversations we have at the Joint Committee if business is to get that certainty. Again, we must be responsible in the way we negotiate with our partners, because we are going to have to work with them in January, February and for centuries to come. We might be leaving the EU, but we are certainly not leaving the continent of Europe. Could the Minister give us an assurance that the protocol will be implemented urgently, so that the businesses that are asking us will have that reassurance?
In the previous airing of the original regulations, my predecessor in this role, my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West, raised her concerns over the impact on businesses, as some respondents to the consultations on the regulations had raised them and thought there was an underestimation of the burden of submitting health claims. The Minister has said today that there will be no burden, so I would like to just ensure that I have heard that right: no extra forms, no online forms, no virtual forms and everything basically the same on 1 January as it was on 31 December. That would be an important and welcome commitment.
I conclude by asking for an update on the preparedness of the UK Nutrition and Health Claims Committee and the relationship it will have with the European Food Safety Authority, whatever the outcome of ongoing negotiations. That is in our interests. There is one other thing; perhaps it is not an issue for today, but it is important and we have never quite been able to tease it out in the getting on for three-and-a-half years that I have been in this place. Throughout that time we have always wanted to know what is behind the curtain on divergence of regulations, so I urge the Minister to take this moment to tell us. We will have the chance to have different labels from Northern Ireland: why might we wish to do that and, if so, what will that be used for?
I repeat what I began with: this is all a lot easier when no deal is removed from the table, because it takes away the damaging uncertainty, focuses efforts and dials down the rhetoric. I hope we can see that and I hope the Minister can address some of the concerns I have raised.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the shadow Minister, as always, for his tone, which is always reasonable and measured in these Committees. He will know that this is a technical amendment reflecting the fact that we signed a withdrawal agreement, and the Northern Ireland protocol was part of that. It reflects our commitment to deliver on that.
The shadow Minister spoke about the bigger picture. Negotiations are ongoing, and I would not wish to prejudge them. He is right to highlight the importance of the approach that has been taken. That applies to both sides, of course, and it is important that everyone negotiates openly and willingly and seeks to find a way forward. That is exactly what the Government are doing.
He talked about where we are on implementing other aspects of the Northern Ireland protocol pertinent to this Department, and about my responsibilities. As he rightly highlighted, it is important that we continue to work on implementing them, and I suspect he will have the pleasure in the coming months of more Committee meetings on delegated legislation such as this to reflect the other aspects of the Northern Ireland protocol that will need to be put into secondary legislation. He will see further developments on labelling, to which he referred.
He mentioned guidance and giving clarity to business. The updated guidance should be published later this month. There is already guidance, but it will be revised to reflect what industry said. We have increasingly put out updated guidance more broadly about the impact of the impending end of the transition period on different aspects of the Department’s work, and policy responsibilities that relate to Northern Ireland, the continuity of supply and a whole range of other things. We engage directly with the industry and individuals through a series of webinars, calls and a range of engagement activities. He is absolutely right that it is important to get the guidance up as soon as we can, which is what we are doing.
He asked about divergence. He is a colleague from the east midlands, and he knows that I am extremely fond of him, but I have been here too long to be tempted by him on that particular issue.
He asked about additional process, paperwork and burdens on industry. To reassure him, I repeat what I said in my opening remarks: there should be no additional process or paperwork flowing from this SI, so in our assessment there will not be a burden from it.
He also mentioned food labelling more broadly and the wider context. We are proud of our world-leading food health and animal welfare standards, not least those relating to nutrition. We will not lower our standards or put the UK’s biosecurity at risk as we negotiate new trade deals and as the transition period ends. We remain committed to promoting robust food standards, including nutritional standards, nationally and internationally to protect consumer interests.
I hope I have covered everything that the hon. Gentleman asked. If I have missed anything, I will, as always, drop him a note to cover it.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Corrections
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Treasury
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Neil Coyle
I just want a clarification on the waiver process. Do the Government intend to make it the case that a local authority has to seek permission from a Minister in the Department to honour a legally decided case of discrimination and make the payment that a court has ordered? Is that the process that local authorities and other public bodies will have to follow?
Steve Barclay
That is a very valid question. In a whistleblower case, for example, there is no requirement on the local authority to submit a business case for approval. There are mandatory causes for exemption. However, where a discretionary exemption is sought, such as on a restructuring, it is necessary to submit a business case.
[Official Report, 21 September 2020, Third Delegated Legislation Committee , c. 7.]
Letter of correction from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay):
An error has been identified in my response to the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle).
The correct response should have been:
Steve Barclay
That is a very valid question. A whistleblower case, for example, does not require submission of a business case to HMT for approval. There are mandatory causes for exemption. However, where a discretionary exemption is sought, it is necessary to submit a business case to both the department and HMT.
Women and Equalities
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Anne McLaughlin
It is estimated that there is more than £2 billion out there every year that is the legal right of older people on those islands. Pension credit does not make anybody wealthy, but it can make the difference between the loneliness and misery that poverty brings and the joy of simply being able to engage in life again. Will the Minister responsible for fighting for those older people agree to take this on as an equalities issue and put resources into ensuring that people have the knowledge and support—including support in using the online service she mentioned—to access what is, after all, a legal entitlement?
Mims Davies
In supporting our older people, pension credit is an absolute priority for this Government, as I mentioned earlier. In fact, about 1 million pensioners—close to that number—who are pension credit customers will receive a winter windfall of £140 off their fuel bills, thanks to the Government working with energy firms to cut costs. This Government are determined to do all we can to support pensioners, and the DWP cross-match these pension credit customers with the data held by pension suppliers. I am sure that we will continue to support pensioners as widely as we can through this pandemic and ongoing.
[Official Report, 21 October 2020, Vol. 682, c. 1045.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies):
An error has been identified in my response to the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin).
The correct response should have been:
Mims Davies
In supporting our older people, pension credit is an absolute priority for this Government, as I mentioned earlier. In fact, about 1 million pensioners—close to that number—who are pension credit customers will receive a winter windfall of £140 off their fuel bills, thanks to the Government working with energy firms to cut costs. This Government are determined to do all we can to support pensioners, and the DWP cross-match these pension credit customers with the data held by energy suppliers. I am sure that we will continue to support pensioners as widely as we can through this pandemic and ongoing.
Petitions
Nestlé’s relationship with Fairtrade
Closure of gyms in Bradford due to covid-19
NHS parking charges
Removing classification of prescription only medicine from injectable vitamin B12
Restructuring of Warwickshire County Council
Railway station in Gamesley
Support for the travel industry
Westminster Hall
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Fireworks
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
David Mundell (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the new call list system and to ensure that social distancing can be respected. Members should sanitise their microphones using the cleaning materials provided before they use them and respect the one-way system around the room. Members should speak only from the horseshoe, and may speak only if they are on the call list. This applies even if debates are under-subscribed. Members cannot join the debate if they are not on the call list. Members are not expected to remain for the wind-ups, and there is less of an expectation that they will stay for the two speeches after they have spoken. This is to help to manage attendance in the room. Members may wish to stay beyond their speech, but should be aware that in doing so, they may be preventing Members in the Public Gallery from moving to a seat on the horseshoe.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 276425, relating to the sale of fireworks.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell, and an honour to lead for the Petitions Committee on this debate.
Once again, we are having this debate in the run-up to 5 November, when we mark the foiling of the gunpowder plot in 1605. As we speak, we are only metres away from where Guy Fawkes tried to blow up the Palace of Westminster and kill King James I. First, I thank Elizabeth Harden, who set up this petition, and the people who have signed it and other petitions like it over many years. Many colleagues have requested a chance to speak in this important debate, but due to the restrictions on numbers in Westminster Hall and other proceedings, they are unable to make their constituents’ voices heard. I stand here to represent many of their views.
This is an emotive subject, and I have been contacted by hundreds of people about it. No one can deny that a well organised firework display is something that a lot of people look forward to as the nights draw in, but the distress and danger that fireworks can cause to people with disabilities or health conditions, and to small children, wild animals and pets, must be considered throughout this debate. Marj Williams, my constituent and friend from the village where I live, Pontarddulais, has emailed me to express her frustrations about Guy Fawkes night and to suggest that, if we cannot stop the sale of fireworks altogether, they be sold for licensed events only, rather than to the general public, and that such events be restricted to one night only, not four or five consecutive nights.
I am sure all MPs have received emails from constituents outlining the terrible effect of unplanned fireworks being set off, often as early as October. I am afraid that this year, as we are living through the second wave of coronavirus, the consequences of the sale of fireworks and the increase in home displays will be the worst ever. We have rightly seen organised displays cancelled, but not a ban on the sale of fireworks to the general public. Some responsible outlets and supermarkets have made the decision not to sell fireworks for themselves, but the fact that the sale of fireworks has continued means that there has been a rise in firework-related antisocial behaviour, and there will be, I am afraid, more accidents.
The figures on injuries caused by fireworks are stark. There were nearly 2,000 visits to A&E linked to fireworks in 2018-19. In 2018, 4,436 individuals attended A&E because of an injury caused by a firework. NHS England states that in the past five years there have been almost 1,000 hospital admissions related to the discharge of a firework. Interestingly, in 2019, some 35,000 people sought advice from the nhs.uk website on how to treat burns and scalds; the figure peaked at more than 2,800 visits on 4 November.
What can we expect this year, when organised displays will not be happening? It is bound to lead to an increase in demand on emergency services at a time when we should be protecting our NHS. It is just irresponsible. How can we morally justify the sale of fireworks in a pandemic? I am not alone in my concerns about the impact of an increase in home displays on or around 5 November on the emergency services and the NHS.
Of course, nobody plans to have an accident, but when individuals, however experienced with fireworks, take any risk with them, there is a direct effect on services that are already under a huge burden and strain. Under normal circumstances, at this time of year, especially on 5 November, accident and emergency departments are under extreme pressure. The facts are the facts: fireworks are potentially very dangerous. If we want to be seen to be acting responsibly, the Government should ban the sale of fireworks, especially this year.
These safety concerns extend to wildlife and our natural spaces. Without safeguards and professional organisation, the risk of damage to land, livestock and wildlife from errant fireworks will be hugely increased. In my constituency, a couple of years ago, I saw a horse lose its life from the stress caused by fireworks continually going off. That is just unacceptable.
There are solutions to this ongoing issue. The petitions inquiry gave three recommendations to the Government. The first is that we create a permit scheme, run by local authorities, which would limit the number of firework displays in an area. The second is that we create a national awareness scheme about the responsible use of fireworks and their impact on veterans and those with post-traumatic stress disorder.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Up and down the country, our constituencies are starting to sound like war zones. My constituent, Richard Smith, a veteran who has given so much to this country, suffers particularly acutely at this time of year. He is an advocate for organised, licensed events, as well as tougher penalties, such as fixed-penalty notices. I would like to hear the Minister’s response to that suggestion. I thank my hon. Friend for securing such an important debate.
Tonia Antoniazzi
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments about his constituent, because this issue is of great concern. The noise fireworks give off when they are used, not only in displays, frightens people. It is really quite unacceptable. That is why the call for fixed-penalty notices is important.
Thirdly, we need to rethink how fireworks are packaged, so that we limit their appeal and availability to children, and to others who behave badly and do not respect them. There is also a silent fireworks campaign, started by councillors in Pembrey and Burry Port, a town near my Gower constituency. The campaign suggests that if the sale of fireworks to the general public is to continue, those fireworks should be silent, so as to reduce antisocial disturbance to residents, pets and ex-armed forces personnel, of whom we have spoken.
Is it really beyond the wit of man to implement these recommendations, and to protect the most vulnerable in our communities and our pets and animals, who have no voice in this important matter? One need only look at social media to see the impact on animals at home whenever fireworks are set off, whatever the occasion, throughout the year. It is our responsibility, as Members of Parliament, and the responsibility of the Government to ensure that people and pets do not suffer. The Government’s response to the Petitions Committee inquiry was wholly inadequate. I hope that the Minister will take on board the strength of feeling about this issue in his response.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I am a member of the Petitions Committee, and this is an excellent opportunity for us to share the petitioners’ concerns in Parliament. I thank the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for her opening remarks.
I also thank the 338 Carshalton and Wallington residents who signed the petition, the many more who sent me emails about it, and those who took part in my snap Facebook poll overnight on this issue, which was prompted, funnily enough, by my arriving home quite late to hear fireworks being set off. I will say a bit more about that later. Just before rising to speak, I checked the online poll, in which I asked my constituents what they think about the petition, and no fewer than 680 said that they would like a total ban on the sale of fireworks or at least some restriction, whereas 210 said that they do not think change is necessary, and they would not be happy to see any restrictions on the sale of fireworks, so there was quite a healthy majority for the first option.
I totally agree with the hon. Lady’s opening remarks. When I was growing up, there was many a wonderful firework display on Guy Fawkes night in my Carshalton and Wallington constituency. For example, local scout groups put on displays—I was a member of the 6th Carshalton scout group—and the Round Table Carshalton fireworks night takes place every year.
Elliot Colburn
The Minister is nodding; he used to live next to the park where that display takes place, so he knows it very well. The Round Table does a fantastic job and puts on a great event.
However, I have heard from many constituents tales of what can happen when fireworks go off. I have also heard the concerns of various organisations, particularly animal charities. Animals are one of the primary reasons why people have concerns about the general sale of fireworks. Speaking from personal experience, my older golden retriever, Willow, is quite frightened of fireworks and cannot settle down when she hears them going off. It is upsetting to see her in that state.
There have also been concerns about antisocial behaviour. I mentioned that I heard fireworks going off last night, and this morning it came to my attention that it is rumoured—I have not had confirmation from the police yet—that a group of young people were letting off fireworks in the pedestrianised Wallington Square, which caused significant damage, as well as distress to the residents living near the high street. That behaviour is not only a nuisance but highly dangerous, as the hon. Member for Gower highlighted clearly.
A number of solutions to this ongoing issue have been suggested, both in the petition and by residents who have contacted me, and I want to touch on a few of them. The first, and perhaps the most extreme, is a total ban on the sale of fireworks in the United Kingdom, which would essentially bring an end to firework displays in the UK. I think that is a bit too heavy handed, and I am sure we can find a more balanced approach. There is a range of other suggestions, especially to do with licencing, including the idea that we sell fireworks only to those holding formal events, that we regulate noise, and that we limit the dates on which fireworks can be set off. The Government will have considered those suggestions in their call for evidence in 2018, and the petition calls for some of those measures to be taken.
Colleagues will want to explore those options in more detail, so to allow them to speak, I will draw my remarks to a close. The Government are considering evidence that they started to collect in 2018, and are looking at the Scottish Government’s consultation and the Petitions Committee’s inquiry. I look forward to seeing what they have to say in response to those two pieces of work. Ultimately, I hope that they can find a balanced approach that allows us to continue to enjoy these events, particularly on Guy Fawkes night, and ensures that we address the concerns that our constituents have raised.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
It is nice to see you in the Chair, and to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell, seeing as you are my constituency neighbour.
I thank the Petitions Committee and Elizabeth Harden for the petition, the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), and of course the 845 people in my constituency of East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow who took the time to sign it. It is an extremely important petition; I stand to be corrected, but I think it is the one that the highest number of my constituents has signed.
It is extremely important that we consider the impact on our NHS of inadvertent injuries to children during Guy Fawkes night celebrations, and the impact on assistance dogs and those with disabilities. I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for disability. I also have to declare an interest as the mother of Rossi, my little French bulldog, who becomes extremely unsettled—almost terrified—every year at this time, when he hears the loud bangs. He takes to hiding under my bed. Rossi is the mascot on the Twitter page of the all-party parliamentary group on dog advisory welfare, which I chair. I thank everyone who has been in touch with me in relation to those roles, as well as constituents who have lodged their concerns with me ahead of today’s debate.
It is clear that easy access to fireworks and poor enforcement of legislation is having a detrimental impact on both domestic and wild animals, and particularly pet dogs. I have received briefings from the Dogs Trust, Cats Protection, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, Blue Cross, the Kennel Club and the British Veterinary Association, to name but a few organisations that are concerned about the impact of fireworks and feel that it is important that we have this debate.
The Dogs Trust and the Blue Cross call for further restrictions on the sale of fireworks. They would limit them to licensed, organised public events only, at certain times of the year. They say that quieter fireworks are not an absolute solution to the problem, as close proximity and prolonged exposure can have a negative impact on the welfare of animals. However, lower-decibel fireworks should be used to reduce the number of animals affected.
Cats Protection, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, and the British Veterinary Association call for a review of fireworks legislation and its impact on animal welfare, with a view to introducing further restrictions on the use of fireworks. In a 2018 Dogs Trust survey of 2,000 members of the public, 89% of respondents agreed that pets are distressed by fireworks; 79% said that they tried to keep their pets inside to limit that distress; and over 50% believed that fireworks should be restricted to official displays.
A Blue Cross survey found that 70% of UK pets were affected by fireworks. Dogs topped the list at 64%; they were followed by cats at 42% and horses at 17%. Owners reported their pets trembling with fear and being physically sick, while 45% said the unexpected bangs and noises made their pets hide away for hours, just like my Rossi. Some 21% said that their pets were scared to go outdoors for days afterwards; that shows the long-term impact of firework displays.
I note an article about Brody, a little dog who lost his ear after malicious teenagers set off fireworks next to his head. A grandmother had to chase them away. He was eventually found hiding down a manhole with maggots in his wound. Thankfully, he was rescued and taken to safety. The impact of fireworks cannot be underestimated.
Peter Egan, a patron of the all-party parliamentary group on dog advisory welfare, sent me his views ahead of today’s debate:
“Fireworks are terrible for animals. Many dogs and cats are simply terrified, not least because of their acute hearing and sense of smell, which is so much more sensitive than ours.”
Wildlife suffering is rarely discussed, but he recalls the terrible case of the Bideford starling roost; startled birds were reported to have been injured and killed after flying into buildings and the river, and were even trampled to death. He said there is also a significant risk of terrible physical injuries to people; he himself was hit by a firework when he was just nine, and still has the scar. Peter says that fireworks are simply a waste of money and that he would prefer it if people donated their firework money to the NHS, particularly this year.
Ellen Watson, a House of Commons Clerk, has spoken on social media about how she was left vulnerable when her guide dog Skipp was terrified by fireworks. Ellen’s Twitter plea was simple and clear, and her words encapsulate the feelings of people across the UK:
“Not only do fireworks cause extreme distress for dogs & humans, they pose risk to disabled ppls safety. This has to stop. Fireworks NEED to be regulated.”
She added:
“Dogs are often life changing or life saving for people (especially assistance dogs).”
I will touch briefly on the impact on those who have post-traumatic stress disorder, particularly our veterans—I declare an interest as my husband is a veteran. We really cannot underestimate that issue, either, and, particularly at this time of year, when remembrance events are upon us, we must consider the impact on our veteran community. Kerry Snuggs, a former police officer, has post-traumatic stress disorder and, like veterans, she has spoken about the impact of fireworks night:
“Fireworks night is a trigger for many. Those who have served in armed forces and emergency services will have seen so many traumatic incidents that at any point the brain may just say enough is enough. Please consider those suffering with PTSD this fireworks day”.
To conclude, I thank my constituents once again. As I have said, this is an extremely important and acute issue for them, and they have been in touch with me about it. They feel strongly that the licensing and limiting of public firework sales and use can help people enjoy the spectacle of firework shows, while facilitating compassionate action for families who are affected by firework stress, carers of people with disabilities, veterans with PTSD and the millions of us who own dogs, cats and other companionship animals. Please, let us look seriously at this issue and at the recommendations of the Petitions Committee, and think about how to take them forward. We are here to represent the public, whose views we should consider when legislating on the matter. I say to the public: please, do not be a firework fiend this year. Think about our NHS, the animals that are affected, and those with disabilities and PTSD.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the Petitions Committee and the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for securing the debate, as well as the 777 constituents of mine who signed the petition.
One of those constituents, Mr Cohen, has raised the issue with me several times. I am incredibly sympathetic to his concerns, and echo his calls for greater protections and regulation. Although many of us enjoy organised firework displays on bonfire night and at the new year, that has unfortunately led to fireworks being set off, for one cause or another, throughout the year.
Just last Friday, as I was sat in my office in the early hours of the evening, fireworks were going off the middle of Radcliffe, with no real celebrations going on—it was just antisocial behaviour, which we clearly need to tackle. While sat in this debate, I have received another complaint about fireworks being set off in Prestwich at half-past 5 in the morning. That highlights the real concerns that many residents have. Fireworks are set off at all hours and in all locations.
Fireworks cause real problems and fear for pet owners, veterans, those who suffer from dementia, and parents—many of us included—of young children. My daughter Lavinia was spooked by fireworks as I was putting her to bed recently, on one of the few nights when I am not in this place and get to spend with her. She was so spooked that rather than her going through her usual bedtime routine, I had to nurse her to sleep for more than an hour, while she clung to me, cuddling, because she could not get to sleep as she was so worried about the loud noises.
For pet owners, that problem is compounded, because they cannot explain to their animals what is going on. The unpredictable nature of fireworks makes it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for animals to acclimatise to them. We absolutely should do more to prevent the use of fireworks outside organised displays for events such as Diwali, Chinese new year, bonfire night and new year. Enforcement is clearly not possible. By the time the police get to a location where fireworks are being set off, the perpetrators have absconded
There are, however, ways to tackle illegal firework use, which the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has recommended. We can reduce the time that retailers can sell fireworks to specific dates to fit around the previously mentioned events. We can look at reducing the noise level of fireworks to 90 decibels, as has been recommended, to assist in mitigating the distress to vulnerable groups and animals. The licensing of all public firework displays by their local authority would go a long way to tackling the issue. I would go further and push for all fireworks to be available only for use in licensed public displays, and I would suggest a ban on all pop-up shops selling fireworks.
This is not a bid to reduce the public’s enjoyment, but to protect the health and wellbeing of the nation’s pets and those most likely to suffer from the inappropriate and illegal use of fireworks. The laws that have been in place for many years are clearly insufficient to address these concerns and need to be updated to protect the most vulnerable, while still allowing licensed public events for the nation to enjoy. The Government must do more to tackle these concerns and the fear experienced by many.
Today’s debate clearly shows that although we might argue in the Chamber and Westminster Hall, there is a wide level of cross-party support to try to tackle these issues. Again, I commend the hon. Member for Gower for securing this debate and I am in complete agreement with what she said. I hope the Minister is listening and will take our concerns on board to make sure that we can enjoy such events in a compassionate way, as the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) has said.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for so ably introducing this debate, and I am sorry that I missed her introduction. It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I rise to speak on behalf of the 636 people in my constituency of Pontypridd who signed the petition calling for a ban on the sale of fireworks to the general public. This is not the first time the issue has been discussed in this place. Numerous petitions have argued for the greater regulation of fireworks, and yet the Government fail to act and to take the issue seriously.
A few weeks ago, I asked the Leader of the House for a debate to discuss the need for the greater regulation of fireworks. I raised concerns about the impact of fireworks on people with mental illness and on animals and the environment. In a typically dismissive fashion, he said:
“No, I am sorry, but I won’t. I think the regulations are about right and fireworks are fun.”—[Official Report, 15 October 2020; Vol. 682, c. 540.]
I want to use this opportunity to urge the Government once again to take the issue seriously. Don’t get me wrong—I love fireworks and I always have. I even had an organised display at my wedding on new year’s eve. I love bonfire night, too. There is something special about being wrapped up warm in hats, scarves and gloves, with the smell in the air, a hotdog in one hand and a toffee apple in the other, watching the magic of fire and colours light up the night sky to the chorus of oohs and aahs. But like everything special, fireworks should be kept for the once a year celebrations of bonfire night and new year’s eve, and not used as a weapon to terrorise communities throughout the months of October, November and December.
Every year this debate is held and every year hundreds of thousands of people sign a petition such as the one we are debating today, but this year is different for a host of reasons. The coronavirus pandemic means that, sadly, people will not be able to join together to watch organised firework displays as usual. There have been some reports that that is leading to an increase in the number of private firework displays. The Kennel Club has reported that up to 40% of people between the ages of 16 and 34 are planning a private backyard display. We know that many animals, both domestic pets and wild animals, find fireworks terrifying, with some owners reporting that their pets have to be sedated when fireworks are going off. Why on earth should pet owners effectively have to drug their animals to calm them or reduce anxiety?
The noise from fireworks has a significant effect not only on animals, but on people, too. For elderly people or those with mental health problems such as PTSD, fireworks are genuinely distressing. They can trigger flashbacks and leave elderly people terrified to even leave their homes, and private backyard displays can also, tragically, be dangerous. I know only too well the extent of it. When I was younger we had fireworks in my back garden and my father was badly burnt by a rogue sparkler. I am glad to say that we managed to deal with it at home; it was not very serious. All he lost was a T-shirt, but he still has the scar to tell his story. However, I know that for others the tale is not as easy.
Every year, we see horrible reports of people suffering life-changing injuries and burns, and even reports of deaths, when private firework displays go badly wrong. Fireworks are often associated with antisocial behaviour. There have been a number of incidents in south Wales recently where residents have reported young people throwing fireworks at animals and even directly at people. One woman reported that a firework was thrown at her car while she and her children were inside. I cannot imagine how terrifying that must have been, and the Government have a responsibility to do more to protect people from such horrible experiences.
Finally, I want to take this opportunity to talk about the fantastic work that my own local authority of Rhondda Cynon Taf has been doing to draw attention to the issue. Unlike the Government, it takes this issue seriously and is conducting a review on the use of council land for firework displays.
There needs to be a public safety campaign on the use of fireworks. If the Government are not prepared to move towards allowing only organised displays, there are many other things that they could do to help keep people safe. If necessary, they could raise the age at which people can buy fireworks, they could restrict sales to certain times of the year, and they could empower councils and the police to take more action to tackle antisocial behaviour using fireworks. The Government urgently need to recognise the broad range of health and safety concerns that have been raised in this debate, and they must take action now before it is too late. Diolch, Mr Mundell.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Mundell, and to join colleagues for this annual debate on the harms that fireworks cause in many of our communities. I suppose that it is with a sense of some frustration that I stand here today, because we have been having such debates for some years now and the Government’s response is to continue to ignore the serious concerns that all of us are raising on a cross-party basis.
There are 414 signatures on the petition from constituents in Glasgow Central; the number of signatures has been reasonably consistent over many years. I continue to have concerns about fireworks raised with me again and again. The hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) said she started receiving complaints about fireworks in October. I think I can probably beat her, because I started receiving complaints in July, from residents in Pollokshields who live in Maxwell Square. They said that they
“typically hear a firework every day, always in broad daylight, usually mid-afternoon. At times, I have seen them exploding on the ground in the middle of Maxwell Square when the park is full of children or set off in the middle of the road.”
Obviously, it is hugely concerning that fireworks are being used in such a way when children are nearby.
Another person who also lives in Pollokshields emailed me in August to say that they had also found fireworks in the park nearby and had picked up the empty casings left behind. They said that the empty casings had very aggressive imagery; they were not for garden fireworks displays, but had pictures of people looking intimidating and wearing masks, as if they were about to use the fireworks in an aggressive way. In Pollokshields in 2018, that was what local residents found. Groups of people on the street were using fireworks against the police in an aggressive way—firing them and using them as weapons. That led me and First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, whose Scottish constituency this had happened in, to set up a taskforce in the area with local police, community groups, the fire brigade and trading standards officers from the council. We have worked incredibly hard over the intervening two years to bring together a community response in Pollokshields to try and stop this kind of thing from happening again.
I must pay tribute to the police—to Chief Inspector Ross Allan, Sergeant Cenny Smith and Inspector John Menzies—who have done a huge amount of work to make sure that people in Pollokshields are kept safe from fireworks. They have educated schoolchildren, they have sited a mobile police office in Pollokshields, they have organised additional foot patrols, and they are doing everything they can to try to bring together this community response. But they should not have to do all that, because we should have the powers in Scotland to change the law to make sure that the impact of fireworks on communities is not felt in the way that it is.
For other residents of other parts of my constituency, fireworks are also a concern. Some are residents of the Templetons building, next to Glasgow Green. As you will know, Mr Mundell, Glasgow Green has a significant fireworks display every year—not this year, unfortunately, which is causing local residents a bit of extra concern. They fear that people will come to Glasgow Green and use fireworks there anyway, regardless of the social distancing requirements. Lisa Murray, who chairs the Verde residents association, has already seen this happening outside her building. What makes the situation worse is that this building is also affected by the cladding scandal, so she is incredibly worried that young people using fireworks irresponsibly in her neighbourhood will lead to the whole building going up in flames. They have had bin fires near their building because of fireworks being launched from bins, and residents are rightly scared.
A resident in the Calton wrote to me saying:
“I can no longer tolerate panic attacks every day and having to call mental health team due to break downs”—
because of the fireworks—
“teenagers in my area set fire to a mattress and started throwing fireworks into the fire they started…I am literally begging you please do something…each year things just get worse and worse.”
What does the Minister intend to do to keep that constituent safe from the irresponsible use of fireworks? A resident of Govanhill says:
“As you know, the Southside of Glasgow has suffered years of misery because of malicious use of fireworks. We started to hear them at the end of September this year, and now, on 15th October, my dog is terrified to leave home after dark. This will go on in my area until after New Year…I understand that a ban on sales to the general public can have unintended consequences, but as a chemistry teacher, I cannot understand why we allow high powered explosives to be placed in their hands, causing misery and injury.”
As my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) mentioned, this can have impacts on people with disabilities as well. The secretary of Shawlands and Strathbungo community council has written to say that she is aware of a firework being set off right next to a partially sighted person with a guide dog.
It is clear that people are not using fireworks responsibly and that more needs to be done. The Scottish Government held a consultation on this matter and got 16,000 responses, with almost all—some 94%—saying they would welcome increased controls on the sale of fireworks, while 87%, more than three quarters, said they would welcome a ban on the sale of fireworks The figures are clear. Where this falls down is that there has been no substantial response from the UK Government to the Scottish Government’s request for action. Back in 2018, I was told that a desktop review was being conducted by the Office for Product Safety and Standards, but that seems to have brought absolutely no results whatsoever. Just before I came over here, I received the response from the Minister that the Government do not have plans to bring forward additional legislative proposals on fireworks because a comprehensive regulatory framework is already in place, but we have heard from Members from all around the House, and from Members who are not here because of the social distancing restrictions, that this is completely inadequate. We hear year after year that the regulatory framework is not working.
Instead of fobbing off all our constituents, fobbing off the Scottish Government and fobbing off people who have genuine concerns about the impact on themselves, their pets and the wider community, will the Government devolve the relevant powers over fireworks to the Scottish Government, who have the evidence, the will and the understanding of this issue and want to proceed with it, so that my constituents can get a night’s sleep?
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for her comprehensive setting out of the problems and challenges we face with this issue. I am delighted to take part in this debate, but in doing so I have a sense of déjà vu all over again. I have spoken several times on the issue of fireworks on behalf of my constituents since 2015. My view is, has always been and will continue to be that the sale of fireworks should be restricted to those with a licence to deliver organised community displays. That view is widely held across Parliament and the UK, and during the restrictions that we are all enduring because of covid-19, it is more important than ever.
As is always the case in these debates, no one has argued, and no one would seek to argue, that, when used correctly, fireworks are not an enjoyable spectacle. In normal times, some 10 million people across the UK each year see fireworks as a feature in big events in November, for weddings and in all sorts of other celebrations throughout the year. Anyone fortunate enough to have attended such an event will no doubt say that it was indeed a marvellous spectacle. However, we also need to take account of the alarm, distress, danger and anxiety that fireworks far too often cause for too many people and animals, and the disruption they cause to communities when purchased and used irresponsibly by individuals. We have heard much about that from Members from different parties.
We have also heard a lot about the accidents and injuries caused by fireworks, which are very sobering. We are all aware of the increased pressure that accidents associated with fireworks bring to bear on our public services in normal times; of course, we are not in normal times this year. Covid-19 has meant that it has been necessary for community firework displays to be cancelled across the United Kingdom, but that creates a problem. There are now genuine fears that personal use of fireworks will rise significantly this year, which is likely to lead to more accidents and will therefore lead to more pressure on our NHS staff at the worst possible time, during a global health pandemic—crystallising further, if it were required, that selling fireworks to the general public is increasingly hard to justify. We know the increased pressure that accidents cause in normal times, and this is a perfect opportunity for the Minister to do something now.
Every year, from October to January, we hear, as we have heard again today, from constituents who are disrupted and plagued by the irresponsible use of fireworks at all hours of the day and night. Under cover of darkness, too many people set out deliberately to cause mischief, thinking that it is quite funny—that it is a bit of a wheeze—to set off fireworks near housing, where children or whole families are shaken from their slumbers, cats and dogs are scared half to death, and elderly people are driven into a state of fear and alarm. The effect on horses is well documented, with fireworks literally scaring them to death. We have also heard about the effect on veterans who might be suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder following active service. This is a catalogue of unacceptable consequences of the free sale of fireworks.
Since 2017, we have been told that the creation of the Office for Product Safety and Standards would address many of the concerns about fireworks that we hear every year. I am keen to hear of the progress that has been made on that issue, unless of course, and I hope I am wrong, the Minister is going to stand up today and tell us that nothing has been done since 2017. His predecessor told us that something would be done by the Office for Product Safety and Standards. Surely the Minister will not tell us that there has been no progress.
It is both ludicrous and frustrating that we do not have the power to do anything meaningful about the sale of fireworks in Scotland. This lack of control effectively leaves the Scottish Parliament footering at the edges of a problem, with no real power to properly address it despite the fact that, as we have heard, a recent consultation by the Scottish Government showed that 87% of people in Scotland would welcome a ban on the sale of fireworks to the public. I urge the Minister to carry out a similar consultation in England; I think he would find it quite informative.
Of course, the Scottish Parliament can restrict when fireworks can be set off, but we all know that irresponsible people who want to set off fireworks do not care about what time it is when they choose to set them off. They do not care whether it is legal to set off a firework at a certain time, and they do not care if it puts other people in a state of alarm or fear, or if it endangers their safety.
Fireworks cannot currently be sold to anyone under 18, but, as I have said several years in a row, so what? We know that children can get hold of them. We also know that people using fireworks irresponsibly are often perfectly entitled under the law, as it stands, to buy them. The irresponsible use of fireworks is not confined to those who get hold of them illegally, which is why more needs to be done to protect the elderly, people with pets, and a range of people in our communities.
Every single Member of Parliament will have had constituents telling them about the onslaught of fireworks, the profound effects that has had on their constituents’ quality of life, and the effect on their pets, which undergo trembling fits and become withdrawn and very frightened. Of course, this cannot be prepared for, because the outbursts of fireworks come from nowhere when someone has fireworks and thinks they will have a wee bit of fun. Some people think it is a great idea to set off fireworks up tenement entrances, or in shared entry ways to flats, in the middle of the night.
The sale of fireworks is tightly restricted in the Republic of Ireland. In Northern Ireland, fireworks have long been subjected to some of the strictest laws in the world. Perhaps the Minister will tell us why the rest of the UK is denied similar or greater protection. Even the United States, which has liberal gun laws, believes that restrictions on fireworks need to be strict.
The current situation in Scotland is nothing short of bizarre. The use of fireworks is a devolved matter, but the sale of fireworks is reserved. It does not take a genius to work out that unless the sale of fireworks—who can get their hands on them—can be tackled, there is no meaningful influence over who uses them, which makes it extremely difficult to police them. Our local environmental health and antisocial behaviour teams work hard to tackle the misuse of fireworks in our communities, but that is dealing with the consequences of the wide availability of fireworks rather than tackling the fear, alarm and distress, fire risks and safety hazards that they cause, which we have heard so much about. We need to tackle the real issue of the sale to individuals—the problem at source—and be mindful of the fact that fireworks are far more powerful and prevalent today than they were in the past.
Organised and licensed displays allow—in normal times—the many people who wish to enjoy fireworks to do so safely. Importantly, they allow local residents to plan ahead and make arrangements to protect their pets and get on with their lives. The Dogs Trust says that when public displays are organised, 93% of pet owners alter their plans during the display time to minimise their pet’s trauma, which protects their pet’s welfare.
On helping pet owners to prepare for the use of fireworks in their neighbourhood, we cannot do so—it is not possible—when fireworks are going off randomly with no warning. Therefore, the solution, as we have heard across the Chamber, is patently obvious to anybody who chooses to look. We need greater restrictions on the sale of fireworks, instead of selling them to all and sundry over 18 years old. Organised public firework displays are a safer option for all our communities, and would become the accepted and welcome norm.
I hope the Minister appreciates that it is time to ban the free sale of fireworks, except for public licensed displays. Such a ban would mean we could still enjoy fireworks in our communities, with new year displays and at celebrations such as weddings, but they would be out of the hands of those who, by accident or design, put the fear of God into our communities, shaking our children and whole families awake in their beds, alarming older people and causing suffering—perhaps even injury—to animals.
We need to get the balance right. No one is asking for fireworks to be banned altogether, but I urge the Minister to consider a consultation similar to the one carried out in Scotland. Let us hear what the public think. They need to be part of the conversation, to inform how we proceed to improve the situation across the UK. Let us see a meaningful response to their concerns. I hope he will indicate his willingness to carry out such a consultation so that real progress can be made. If it cannot, give us the power in Scotland at least to protect our own communities.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) on bringing forward the debate, which I think hon. Members across the Chamber will agree has been thorough and thoughtful, with the issues before us put squarely on the table, as they should be. Indeed, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply to some of those points and suggestions, which I sincerely hope will be much more constructive than the response given to my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) when she recently raised the issue with the Leader of the House.
E-petitions, including the one that has brought about this debate, have attracted nearly three quarters of a million signatures in just three years. As the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) pointed out, we have had three Westminster Hall debates on fireworks in recent years—it is more or less an annual debate—and today marks our fourth. That demonstrates not only the strength of public feeling on fireworks, but the extent to which there is a feeling that things are not really moving forward and that greater activity on the issue is needed. I very much thank the instigators of the petition and everyone who took the time to sign it, including, since we are talking about numbers, the 400 in my constituency.
Clearly, the recent announcement that we will have a national lockdown from Wednesday this week will have an impact on people’s plans to celebrate bonfire night on 5 November. We have heard about that in the Chamber this afternoon and I will touch on it later. However, this debate is about far more than just this year; it is about what we do to improve the situation with fireworks well into the future.
I think we can all agree—indeed, we have agreed it around the Chamber this afternoon—that firework displays run by local groups and charities not only can provide a safe, predictable and organised space for firework displays, but can bring about a sense of place, promote community cohesion and raise funds to be invested in good local causes. That is quintessentially the way to frame firework displays for the future.
The fireworks evidence base published last Friday afternoon by the Office for Product Safety and Standards tells us that, while approximately 10 million people now buy and use fireworks each year, 14 million of us attended a public display led by members of the British Pyrotechnists Association in 2019 alone. That shows that there is a big appetite for those public displays, with their safe and organised ways of letting off fireworks, and also for the standards of control that the British Pyrotechnists Association brings to those kinds of displays.
However, it is absolutely right for MPs to consider how we can better protect people, animals and the planet, not from the realities of firework use under those circumstances, but from the particular circumstances of firework misuse. We are lucky to have some of the world’s most respected animal rights advocates operating here in the UK, including the RSPCA, the Kennel Club and Dogs Trust, for example. Those organisations are not calling for an outright ban on fireworks in the UK, but they do want to mitigate, where possible, the significant animal welfare concerns that have been raised this afternoon. There is broad consensus among those groups that the Government could and should be doing much more to protect animals.
Some of those organisations are calling for a ban on sales to private individuals in order to limit firework displays only to public events. We have had a big debate on that this afternoon, but it is well understood that loud, high-pitched and intermittent noise can adversely affect large proportions of animals, whose hearing is often much more sensitive than that of humans. We have heard of the effects that fireworks, set off in an inconsiderate and unpredictable way, can have on horses, cats, dogs and many kinds of animals.
There does not seem to be quite so much definitive evidence out there to call on regarding the effect that fireworks have on wildlife in general, but it is something that MPs on both sides of the House have also raised with the Government, and it is important that we get more information on the effect of fireworks on wildlife in the country. I urge the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to do some work on that and to see what results come forward.
We have also heard a lot about firework safety. We know that there were almost 2,000 A&E visits linked to fireworks in 2018-19, and more than 35,000 people had to seek advice on how to treat burns and scalds from the NHS website. Some of those injuries are serious and life-changing. Let us be absolutely clear that fireworks, in the hands of people who are not trained to use them safely, can be very dangerous indeed.
Although the evidence available at this point is limited, it suggests that the majority of those firework-related injuries in the UK occur at private displays in homes or on the streets, rather than at organised displays. As colleagues have said, given the lockdown, it appears that organised displays will be replaced with greater use of fireworks in the home, because of the cancellation of organised events and social distancing. Blue Cross recently found that 25% of people in the UK are considering firework displays at home this year. I hope the Minister will update us on what measures he is taking to prepare local authorities and our fire services for these circumstances, as there will inevitably be a greater call on health services and public bodies to response to that switch from public to private displays.
I want to raise a point that has not been discussed much this afternoon. Fireworks packaging and the paraphernalia that comes with them can fall to the ground and litter our green spaces. They are not biodegradable and can cause considerable environmental damage in the process. Gun powder is still used in modern fireworks. It throws sulphur particulates, metal oxides and some organic matter into the atmosphere, some of which falls to the ground. The bright colours and the effects that fireworks dazzle us with are the result of complex chemical concoctions, which can emit carbon dioxide, other gasses and residues.
A study by Environmental Protection UK has suggested that there are notable increases in air pollution from particulates and dioxins on and around 5 November. There is widespread disagreement, however, about the extent to which deposits and pollutants caused by fireworks actually affect soil and water sources. We need to be clearer about that. With smaller displays happening at home this year, the effect on air pollution in many of our towns and cities will be quite substantial.
At the moment, we are governed by the Fireworks Act 2003, which Labour brought in. The Act gave powers to impose licences on retailers selling fireworks outside predetermined dates—bonfire night, new year, Chinese new year and Diwali. It also brought in noise restrictions, banned the sale of F2 and F3 category fireworks to people under the age of 18, and ensured that F4 category fireworks—the most explosive—could only be possessed by fireworks professionals. It introduced an 11 pm curfew for most of the year. A breach of that curfew can, in theory, lead to an immediate £90 fixed penalty notice, considerable further fines and potential imprisonment for serial offenders.
As legislators, we know that these laws are largely meaningless without enforcement. The Minister needs to be clear that a decade of cuts to local authorities, for example to their trading standards and environmental health teams, has left them woefully under-resourced to tackle rogue traders or those flouting the rules under the existing legislation. If the Government are serious about protecting the public, animals and the environment from the negative aspects of fireworks, we need to see investment that allows for a proper enforcement of existing legislation. Like many others, I sometimes sit in my bedroom at 1.30 am listening to the sound of fireworks going off across my city, as they do in many other parts of the UK.
A survey run by YouGov for Dogs Trust found that over half the British public think that fireworks should now be limited to public display only, and over three quarters believe that fireworks should be used only at certain times of the year. It is clear that the case for the Government to consider these proposals is building. I would like to hear the Minister address those suggestions directly.
Many advocacy groups feel that so-called silent or quiet fireworks, although not a panacea, could reduce some distress across the board. We heard this afternoon from the hon. Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford) about decreasing decibel levels for firework displays. I think that it is time for the Government to consider the current decibel level cap and see what can be done to bring it down.
For centuries, fireworks have brought joy and wonder to us mere mortals. Throwing luminous bursts of colour, light, sound and energy into the night sky, fireworks are wondrous to behold. But existing legislation is simply not being enforced. The public need to see the Government moving from merely understanding their concerns about animal welfare and all the other issues to actually taking more action. I look forward to hearing from the Minister this afternoon what that action will be.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), not only for introducing the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee but for her considered speech; to the hon. Members across the Chamber who took part in the debate; and obviously to the 305,000 people who took the time to sign the petition.
We heard some distressing stories about the treatment of animals, about antisocial behaviour and about injuries to people. We also heard about the positive side of fireworks—yes, the fun and the benefits. The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) said that she had a fireworks display on her wedding day. They can be enjoyable for many people and many cultures. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford) about Diwali and the Chinese new year. We often talk about 5 November, which is coming up in a few days’ time, but there are many other cultures that enjoy fireworks.
I have been a member of the Petitions Committee. I served on it for five years before the last general election, and I was serving on it when we looked at the issue of fireworks, took evidence and came up with our report. Fireworks are an issue that comes up year on year. I just caution the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) when he talks about 750,000 signatures, because it was 305,000 this year, 305,000 last year, I think, and 307,000 the year before, so the number is relatively consistent. Whether they are all individual signatures or some people have duplicated their signature, it is none the less a lot of people. And we need to ensure that we take into account their concerns, whether that is for their animals, for people’s safety or just because of disturbance and antisocial behaviour.
The petition this year, as in previous years, calls for a ban on the sale of fireworks to the public. It highlights the impacts that fireworks can have on animals and wildlife and on the environment, and the injuries to people. They have been debated thoroughly today and in previous debates. As we heard from a number of contributors, we have to consider these matters this year against the backdrop of covid and the additional considerations that that raises—I will come back to that. The hon. Member for Gower did raise it particularly, and I will address it shortly.
I empathise with the concerns that have been raised. We do understand as a Government the strong feelings that some people have about fireworks. We understand that with every petition and debate, those who lobby against fireworks will be questioning why the Government have not banned fireworks or restricted their use since the last debate, so I want to set out here the work that the Government have done since the last Westminster Hall debate in November 2018, and I want to explain why we do not consider a ban on fireworks to be an appropriate course of action.
Simply banning something does not mean that the issue will disappear. In fact, a ban can often have the opposite effect and create unintended consequences, so let me start with the legislation that we have in place. As we have heard, we have legislation in place to regulate the manufacture, supply, storage and possession of fireworks, and their use and misuse, to help to ensure public safety. That includes powers to prosecute those who use them in a dangerous or antisocial manner. The Fireworks Act 2003, the Fireworks Regulations 2004 and the Pyrotechnic Articles (Safety) Regulations 2015 provide a regulatory framework that supports the enjoyment of fireworks while providing tools to manage the risks.
Local authority trading standards teams are working with retailers to ensure that the fireworks sold are safe, and they have powers to enforce against those who place non-compliant fireworks on the market, including those imported illegally or via the internet.
Alison Thewliss
The Minister is making a good point about trading standards. During the debate, it has been announced that the trading standards team in Glasgow has seized 500 fireworks in the city, despite the fact that there are 73 premises in the city of Glasgow where fireworks can be bought legally. Does the Minister accept that that means that things are not working?
Paul Scully
It is important that we work with the devolved Administrations to ensure the safety of people across the UK. I will come in a second to the training and resource that we are putting into enforcement. The police also have powers to tackle the improper possession and use of fireworks and antisocial behaviour caused by the misuse of fireworks wherever it arises.
The Office for Product Safety and Standards is responsible for protecting the public. It is the national regulator for product safety and is responsible for leading and co-ordinating the product safety system. It was created to deliver effective and trusted regulation for consumer products while ensuring that the legislative framework that it works with is effective and proportionate. It aims to ensure that consumers are kept safe and have confidence in the safety of the products they buy. To deliver that, businesses need to understand and meet their legal and regulatory obligations. To that end, the OPSS has worked with the Chartered Trading Standards Institute to develop and deliver a series of fireworks training events to frontline trading standards and fire safety officers. More than 200 officers in 105 local authorities have completed that training, which ensures that they have the skills and knowledge necessary to advise firework sellers of their responsibilities and to take enforcement action if necessary.
Let me turn to the evidence base and set out in more detail what work has been done. The Government have committed to ensure that all our policy making is based on evidence. I am pleased that the evidence base prepared by the OPSS was published last week. It contains data and information that has been sourced by drawing on existing data, literature and research, and by engaging with a range of groups and organisations, which have been invited to submit any data they have that is not already publicly accessible. Data was sought about the key issues raised in petitions, correspondence and debates, including noise, injuries and accidents, antisocial behaviour, environmental information and the impact on animals and people. A range of stakeholders have been engaged with to ensure that the evidence base reflects as wide a variety of evidence and perspectives as possible. They include Departments, local authorities, including trading standards teams, the fireworks industry, charities and originations that represent individuals, advocates for animal safety, the ex-armed forces and the retail sector.
A key concern is noise and disturbance, and we wanted to consider the issues most often raised: the suggestions that the maximum of 120 dB for fireworks that can be sold to a consumer is too high; that some fireworks sold to consumers are louder, and are continuing to get louder, than the maximum 120 dB level set out in legislation; and that the Government should promote silent or low-noise fireworks.
The evidence on the impact of fireworks on animal health indicates that different species of animals have different sensitivities and responses to noise. Separately, the OPSS has commissioned a programme of fireworks testing to determine the average decibel level for common types of retail fireworks sold for public use. It will evaluate whether fireworks placed for sale to consumers in the UK market meet the noise provisions in the Pyrotechnic Articles (Safety) Regulations 2015. The hon. Member for Gower and other Members talked about silent fireworks, but it is not clear whether a silent firework actually exists. Fireworks clearly require some explosive content to be set off. However, as part of the evidence-based work, we have commissioned a test of fireworks to determine the range of decibel levels, and that will help to identify a lower acceptable decibel level. It will also look at the potential impact of such a classification. We will publish the report based on that work in due course.
The Petitions Committee inquiry was not party political. This is not a case of the Government not acting; the Petitions Committee is cross-party and has a Labour Chair: the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell). The Committee concluded that at that time it could not support a ban on fireworks. Instead, it recommended other actions. The Government’s policy aligns with the Committee’s conclusion that it is not appropriate to ban the public from buying and using fireworks, as it would not be a proportionate measure.
We agree with the inquiry’s conclusion that a ban on fireworks, either for private or public use, could have unintended consequences. We acknowledge the experience of the National Police Chiefs Council, which believes that banning fireworks would push the market underground and make it more difficult to regulate and monitor. In addition, a restriction on fireworks sold to the public by retail outlets could lead to more individuals buying products inappropriately through online social media sources and from outside the UK. Individuals sourcing fireworks from illegitimate or unsafe suppliers may unwittingly buy products that are unsafe, as they may not meet the UK’s safety requirements.
We take the view that the concerns raised can be best addressed through education and raising awareness about good practice, being considerate to neighbours and the impact on people and animals of irresponsible use, alongside ensuring that the public know what action they can take and what the law provides for. Raising awareness around the safe and considerate use of fireworks is a common theme that has come out of our stakeholder engagement. For that reason, OPSS has developed an awareness campaign, which launched on 20 October, for this year’s fireworks season.
The campaign partnered with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, the Child Accident Prevention Trust, the RSPCA and the Chartered Trading Standards Institute. We have also worked with a wide range of other stakeholders, including retail bodies such as the Association of Convenience Stores and the British Retail Consortium, to share the messaging across different audiences.
We accept that, with the cancellation of public displays, more people may be having displays in their own back gardens, so the focus of the campaign is to educate people on how to buy, use, store and dispose of fireworks safely; to ensure that retailers understand their responsibilities when selling fireworks; and to promote considerate use so that people and animals can be better protected from any negative effects of fireworks.
We have been working with colleagues in the Scottish Government and the Welsh Assembly to share information, and will continue to do so. We have also ensured that we are aligning our awareness campaign on the safe use of fireworks with local restrictions on social gatherings. I emphasise that people must follow the coronavirus restrictions in their local area at all times, including if they intend to use fireworks.
We rightly heard a lot about animals. When I was on the Petitions Committee, we took evidence from fireworks associations and retailers. The people affected include those with horses, dogs and other animals, and indeed young children, as we have heard. It is important that we continue to engage with animal welfare organisations to ensure that we understand the impact on animals and to promote the responsible use of fireworks.
I pay tribute to all Members who have contributed. It was a pleasure to hear my hon. Friends the Members for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) and for Bury South (Christian Wakeford), both of whom showed off how hard they are working: one through speaking of his use of social media and his instant snap poll, the other through speaking of how he was working in his office on a Friday evening—good man. I know that at this time we are all working really hard for our constituents.
We also heard from the hon. Members for Pontypridd, for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) and for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead). The hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) gave a horrendous example. I am glad that her dog was not the one was that was so horribly treated in that incident. I know that she is a great mother to her dog, and she will be looking after the dog on Thursday.
This issue comes up time and again and is of concern to people. We believe that, with the extra evidence that the OPSS is gathering and the extra awareness campaigns, which we are launching earlier, with more detail and to a larger extent each year, we can start to tackle this in a balanced and proportionate way. Again, I thank everybody who has taken part in this debate and pay tribute to the work of the Petitions Committee.
David Mundell (in the Chair)
I call the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), who has up to 14 minutes to respond.
Tonia Antoniazzi
That is extremely kind, Mr Mundell. I shall endeavour to keep everybody busy for the next 14 minutes. I thank the Minister for his response. I share the view of the chemistry teacher who is concerned about such explosives being in the hands of the inexperienced, as brought up by the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss). I was a teacher for 20 years, so I was struck by that example. However many campaigns there are, the message is just not getting through—and that is how the petitioners feel.
As the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) pointed out, we have a sense of déjà vu. While I respect that there has been a campaign since 20 October, is that really early enough? It is not, and it is not satisfactory. I can tell hon. Members that I have not seen anything this year. As a mother of a 16-year-old son who has always disliked fireworks because of the noise, I appreciate that it is not a pleasant experience for everyone. I also take this opportunity to thank the 131 members of my constituency who signed the petition.
We have made so many sacrifices since March this year. I pay tribute to everybody in the NHS and the emergency services, particularly the fire brigade, because the next week and the coming days will not be easy for them. We are agreed across Westminster Hall that we have to think about the impact of home displays, because it can be absolutely horrific and potentially very dangerous. I agree with the hon. Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford) on banning all pop-up shops.
I am not being a killjoy. The Leader of the House mentioned to my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) that fireworks are fun. I grew up overlooking Stradey Park, the famous Llanelli Scarlets rugby stadium, where every 5 November we sat with our hot dogs and watched and enjoyed the fireworks. However, things have changed. As has been mentioned, people are using fireworks as weapons. We have to do more, and I hope that we will keep on pressing the Government and working with the police and the emergency services to improve the situation. I have always had a dog in the house, and my mother currently has two dogs from the Dogs Trust, and it is frightening for them, because they do not understand. We have to work with everybody.
I appreciate that the Minister spent time on the Petitions Committee and so knows his way around these debates. However, we need to—and must—do more, for the sake and safety of everybody, particularly with the light that coronavirus shines on us.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 276425, relating to the sale of fireworks.
School Attendance: Covid-19
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 300399, relating to school attendance during the covid-19 outbreak.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I thank Matthew Wardle, who began the petition and has gathered over 100,000 signatures—136 from my constituency alone in Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke. I am thankful to have spoken to him today over the phone, and I hope to represent his views, and those of the people who have signed the petition, in a fair manner.
I thought I would start by briefly stating the law, as it stands, in relation to fines being used by schools and local authorities. Under section 7 of the Education Act 1996, parents have a duty to ensure that their children
“of compulsory school age…receive efficient full-time education…by regular attendance at school”.
Schools and local authorities can use a range of parental responsibility measures to provide support when a child’s attendance at school becomes a problem.
Section 23 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 made provision for parents to be fined for their child’s unauthorised absence from school. In September 2013, the amount of time a parent has to pay a fine was reduced. Parents must pay £60 within 21 days, rising to £120 if paid within 22 to 29 days of the notice being issued. If the fine is not paid, the parent can be prosecuted. However, it is important to make it clear that schools and local authorities can implement various legal powers, as well as penalty notices or prosecutions, if a child is missing school without a good reason. They include parenting orders, education supervision orders and school attendance orders.
As parents, we all want our children in school. It is the best place for them to learn and to socialise with their peers. Schools are vital to a child’s wellbeing, safeguarding and education, yet these are not normal times, so we cannot have schools operating in normal ways. However, we are in unprecedented times and must therefore act in an unprecedented way. Matthew argues that the long-term effects of covid-19 on children are still relatively unknown. The fact that there was huge pressure from parents back in April to keep their children at home, and that the Government sent the overwhelming majority of students home, illustrates the risk associated with sending them to school. Despite schools working tirelessly to be as covid-secure as possible, that element of risk has not yet gone; in fact, it is heightened by the need for a second national lockdown over November.
Matthew states that parents are responding to their protective instincts, which are driven by fear, and that it is not fair to punish people who are acting in the best interest to safeguard their children and families. When the situation in August showed a reasonably stable R rate, it was understandable that the Government thought school attendance rules should be restored in September. To Matthew and those who signed the petition, however, that was thrown into doubt after the Prime Minister talked of the rising risk of the NHS being overrun and cases spreading rapidly across the country. Matthew asks:
“How is the situation today any different, if not worse, to that back in April this year?”
Matthew also asks:
“Can we not go back to virtual learning, where teachers can upload pre-recorded lessons? Schools can send learning packs out to homes, as they did with their own children. Or even fine parents who do not ensure that children complete a certain percentage of work provided.”
If none of those options is viable, Matthew simply asks that parents can make a choice. Allow those parents who wish to conduct home learning the opportunity to do so, without the need to de-register their child. In the first eight weeks of returning to school this September, Matthew’s children had to spend four of those weeks in isolation at the school’s request. That caused anxiety and stress in households, as well as difficulties with parents—before Saturday’s announcement—going back to offices and suddenly trying to arrange childcare where the tier system allowed.
Amy McClellan, from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton), wrote to me in support of Matthew. Amy argues that:
“With airborne transmission as the main way that covid-19 has been spreading, what is being done to improve poor ventilation in many schools, as is being tackled in Germany?”
Lastly, I spoke to James Bowen from the National Association of Head Teachers ahead of the debate. The NAHT sees school fines as being a blunt tool in abnormal times, which creates unnecessary conflict between the school and parents at a time when it is important that we work together in order to beat coronavirus. As noted, a school takes such action as a last resort, but parents who have children with underlying health conditions will rightly be anxious. Instead, he believes we should be helping schools to reassure parents of the safety measures taken, and to enable headteachers to act on a case-by-case when it comes to students not attending school.
Will the Minister give clear answers to Matthew and to the hundreds of thousands of individuals who signed the petition, so they know that their voices have been heard and their concerns clearly considered?
Before I sit down to let others speak, I will put on the record my personal position on the issue. I have informed Matthew that I disagree with the call to suspend fines for low attendance once again. I have contacted several primary and secondary schools across Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke, to hear the perspectives of headteachers, senior leaders and school attendance officers. I also bring to the debate my eight years of experience as a teacher in state secondary schools, a large proportion of which I worked as a head of year with the responsibility of overseeing attendance.
The key point about why schools and local authorities must retain the ability to fine non-attendance is summed up well by colleagues at the Excel Academy. Covid-related absence is discounted from a child’s attendance record, so it would never be the reason for a fine or court action. Parents of students about whom schools have concerns based on attendance data from previous years need to be aware of the consequences of not working with the school to keep their child’s attendance above a 90% minimum.
As I stated at the start of my speech, there are many steps of support before parents are fined. Without the ability to fine parents, schools would have no strategies left, having put all the support in place, and so they might not see improvement in a pupil’s attendance. The suspension of the fine would make it even harder for schools to engage with hard-to-reach families. One of my local schools reported that, in some extreme cases, parents were booking holidays to other countries—knowing that they would have to quarantine as a result—because holidays were cheap and the law places an expectation on schools to provide home education while students quarantine and self-isolate.
We need to remember that the decision to fine parents is a decision for schools and local authorities. The Department for Education’s reopening guidance advised schools to take a supportive approach rather than being too hasty in issuing fines. The Department has also asked schools and local authorities to communicate clear and consistent expectations on school attendance. Pupils and families who may be reluctant to attend should be identified and plans developed to re-engage with them. Schools can also use the additional catch-up funding and the pupil premium funding to put measures in place for families who require additional support to secure a pupil’s regular attendance.
In the August statement from the chief medical officers on the re-opening of schools and childcare, the signatories restated the importance of attendance for children and young people. The percentage of symptomatic cases requiring hospitalisation is estimated to be 0.1% for children aged nought to nine, and 0.3% among those aged 10 to 19. The statement also suggested, based on data from the Office for National Statistics, that teaching is a lower-risk profession, and that international data supports that claim. The House of Commons Library briefing also supports it, stating that although almost half a million pupils did not attend school for covid-19-related reasons as of 22 October 2020, only 0.1% had confirmed cases of coronavirus, while 0.4% had suspected cases. Some 459,000 self-isolated after potential contact with a covid case.
We cannot pretend that any school will ever be risk-free, but we must look at the data and accept that the damage to a child’s life chances and physical and mental health, as well as safeguarding concerns, mean that the risk of schools being open to all pupils outweighs the risk of a covid outbreak. These are not easy or comfortable choices, but to lift young people in Stoke-on-Trent, Kidsgrove and Talke out of the bottom 20% of national statistics on social mobility and on level 3 and 4 qualification take-up, and to reduce the number of people who are in work without any formal qualifications—the figure there is 8% higher than the national average—students need to be in the classroom with the expert in the room, their teacher, to ensure that they can access one of the greatest equalisers we have in this country: school.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
May I make it clear from the start that I believe in the importance of children attending school? No other form of education improves on that, and as long as we can safely keep schools open, doing so should be a priority. At the heart of the debate, however, must be the consideration of precisely what education a child can receive when at home. Let us consider the reality: when schools closed during the first lockdown, about 30% of private school pupils attended four or more online lessons per day, while just 6.3% of state school pupils did the same.
The backdrop here is crucial. Before lockdown, children on free school meals were leaving school on average 18 months behind their classmates, and the gap was getting worse. During lockdown, a quarter of children on free school meals did less than one hour’s schoolwork a day. Staggering data from the Children’s Commissioner indicates that over 58% of primary and just under half of secondary school pupils were provided with no online lessons at all. Those children will have returned to school even further behind.
Right hon. and hon. Members may have read The Times today and found out that work by the Institute for Government suggested that year seven pupils were 22 months behind where they should be, which is truly frightening. That is not the fault of their schools and teachers, who are working unbelievably hard under the most extraordinary circumstances. The barriers to remote education were exposed by the digital divide across our country.
The reality is that 11% of the population are without home internet access and an estimated 9% of children do not have access to a laptop, desktop or tablet. Ofcom estimates that number to be up to 1.78 million children in the UK. The Government promoted their investment in the online Oak Academy, but no number of online lessons could benefit children who were unable to log on from home. For those with family members on pay-as-you-go contracts, it cost a staggering £37 a day to access that academy.
Of course, none of this information is new to the Minister. Just before recess, he responded to my Adjournment debate on the same issue. The debate was timely, as it was just 36 hours before schools became legally responsible for providing online education for pupils self-isolating due to coronavirus. In the debate, the Minister celebrated the number of laptops and devices being distributed by the Government, which were warm words for the watching schools. Imagine my disbelief when, just three days after our debate, the Government announced huge cuts to the remote education support that schools had been promised. Some will now receive just 20% of the laptops they were expecting. The Minister must have known that the change was about to occur, so why did he not tell the House? Why did the Department wait until Parliament had risen before slipping it through?
A furious teacher contacted me after the announcement, and said:
“How ironic that days after highlighting how schools have become so reluctantly used to last-minute guidance, that schools received this announcement at past 6pm on the Friday we broke up for half-term. It would have been almost laughable if it hadn’t become the grim reality. We feel totally let down and left behind. It seems to me that the Department for Education have given up. They were not ready and made the ‘Plan Z’ decision to release what they had at the time—a weak and poor offer to support the future generations of our country.”
Unfortunately, the Minister has not yet responded to my letter sent after our debate, so I ask him, which is it: did he not know that the changes would be occurring. or did he deliberately not inform the House?
That is not just a point of principle. More school bubbles are self-isolating, more teachers are absent and more pressure is being put on the Government to close schools once again. Although I do not support that position, the Government must step in now to ensure that every child has the data and devices that they need if they are forced to learn from home.
Importantly, a device is only as effective as the internet connection with which it is used. No matter how expensive, smart or modern the device distributed, it is educationally useless if it comes without the data or dongle needed to log in from home. Being connected is one thing, but more than 880,000 children live in households with only a mobile internet connection. Mum’s mobile does not strike me as an acceptable solution to logging in and learning from home. I ask the Minister, whom I consider to be a principled person who genuinely wants the best for our young people, please not to ignore the reality. We know that the children who are furthest behind are least likely to have the tools at home they need to remain connected. The impact for children on the wrong side of the digital divide could be lifelong.
With increasing numbers of pupils self-isolating, there is no longer a theoretical debate but a practical problem for schools right now. None of us would have any pleasure in pointing to the debate as a warning that the Minister did not heed. I close by reiterating, compared with the billions of pounds pledged by the Government, what is a cheap, tangible and quick solution to the solution I outlined: give every child who is entitled to a free school meal access to the internet and an adequate device at home. Levelling up can no longer be warm words alone, because, no matter our political view, we can surely all agree that no child’s education should be dependent on their internet connection.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David, for the third time in recent weeks—I served under your chairmanship twice the week before last. I want to make a few comments from my position as a member of both the Petitions Committee and the Education Committee, which has looked at this issue closely since the start of the pandemic.
I was quite depressed every week, seeing the immense damage done by school closures on all pupils but particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds and those with special educational needs. I remember when the Petitions Committee first discussed the petition, and in many senses it is a shame that it was not debated far sooner. What it called for related to March, when we did not know much about the virus and its impact on young people, whereas now we know far more. I do not know whether everyone who signed the petition would have done so knowing what we know now, but, while I sympathise with the concerns of many of the people who did sign it, I do disagree with its principal call to take the power out of the hands of schools to issue fines, if necessary, should parents withhold their children from school. It is ultimately the role of schools, experts and the Department for Education to determine whether it is safe for children to go to school and not that simply of parents. There would be unintended consequences.
Virtually every parent whose kids are in school cares passionately about their kids and their education. The Government made the important decision at the start of the pandemic to keep schools open for children from vulnerable backgrounds, but the small proportion of them who actually went in was worrying. I remember a session with the Children’s Commissioner, who had a real concern. The brutal truth and sad reality are that some children are deemed as vulnerable because of the households they live in. The benefit of them going to school every day is that other adults can check the welfare of that child and, if there are any issues or concerns, have a conversation with them and intervene. It was a great worry for many of us that, for a prolonged period, many of those vulnerable children were not going into school. On that occasion, putting the decision on whether they should go to school entirely in the hands of a parent left me with concerns. That would be in some respects an unintended consequence of taking the power away from the school and the Government during that period of lockdown. We could have gone further and required that all vulnerable children went into school.
I also had concerns about the online learning offer. Before the debate, I talked to a headteacher of a school in my constituency in a deprived part of town with probably the highest proportion of students for whom English is an additional language. Their online data indicates that only 22% of children from disadvantaged backgrounds with a principal language other than English received good-quality online learning during the period when schools were closed. A lot of children at the school come from the Roma community, and for them it was only 10%. Again, we must look at why that was.
Going forward, we must keep schools open. Like many of my colleagues, I have received a lot of emails recently from the National Education Union about its desire for schools to be closed now, but I disagree. While I sympathise with parents and teachers who have concerns about safety, and the Government need to heed and address those, I think it is absolutely critical that, come what may, our schools are kept open.
We know far more now about the virus and its impact on young people, but we also know far more about the impact of closing schools on children, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds. I am pleased that, from what I have read over the past couple of days, the principal Opposition are also of the view that schools must stay open. It is incumbent on the Government and Opposition to work together in whatever way they can to ensure that that is the case.
In conclusion, although I am sympathetic to some of the concerns raised in the petition and I completely understand why, at the time it was launched, so many people signed it, in the cold light of day today I think that we must resist it and ensure that our schools have the power to issue fines. No head would issue one lightly, and they must do so sensitively where parents have serious concerns about covid-19 and its potential impact, but ultimately the school needs to have that power, because we have seen the devastating impact of school closures. We must keep schools open. I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis), as I have discussed with him before on the Education Committee on which we both serve.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David.
I begin by thanking the Petitions Committee for facilitating this debate, the organisers of the petition for presenting it to Parliament and, of course, the more than 100,000 people who have taken the time to engage with the petition, sign it and stimulate the discussion we are having today—including 500 or so people in my own constituency. These debates are a good way of providing a direct connection between salient issues that people are discussing in our constituencies and live debate here in Parliament.
I also take this opportunity, having only recently been appointed as the shadow Schools Minister, to say an enormous thank you to the entire schools community—the headteachers, governors, teachers and support staff who have been doing an outstanding job in very difficult circumstances. I do not think any of us as constituency MPs could fail to be moved by some of the testimony we are hearing from schools about the extent to which they have moved heaven and earth to try to keep pupils learning—including during the first lockdown, where we could have been forgiven, from some of the coverage, for thinking that schools were closed and that learning had stopped.
In fact, it was quite the opposite. Many staff had to work doubly hard to ensure that their pupils could continue to gain access to learning in unusual circumstances, through remote learning and with all the challenges that we know exist. I will refer to those challenges, but they have already been outstandingly put, not just this afternoon, but in an Adjournment debate before the recess by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh).
Obviously, a big part of this debate centres on fines, and I will come on to address that, but first and foremost I want to be absolutely clear about where we as the Labour party sit on the question of whether schools should remain open during the pandemic. I think that is really the thrust of the petitioners’ case. We know from some of the opinion polling out today that there is divided opinion in our country, but Labour is clear that it is in the best interests of children and young people up and down the country for schools to remain open and for young people to continue to gain access to learning in school, with a teacher, as much as they possibly can.
There is a strong reason for that. The reason why we invest in teachers and why successive Governments—forgive me for referring to the actions of the previous Labour Government—invested so much in education is that we know that of all the policy levers we can pull in Parliament and in government, education is the closest thing we have to a silver bullet in terms of shaping young people’s life chances and giving them every opportunity in life that they deserve. We know that every single day of school missed for pupils from every background has a significant impact on their achievement, their understanding, and, crucially, on their life chances. For young people from the most disadvantaged backgrounds, that is especially true. We have to do everything we can to make sure that throughout the pandemic, as the Children’s Commissioner has strongly argued, schools are among the last to close and the first to reopen. I appeal to parents who are minded to withdraw their children from school because of worries, concerns and anxieties about whether school is safe and the best place to be to think really carefully about their children’s long-term future and life chances. With the best will in the world, and paying enormous tribute to the work that parents and carers have been doing at home to try to support their children’s learning, that is no substitute for a qualified teacher, a trained professional, teaching children in the classroom environment. We should be really clear about that.
We should also be concerned about the impact that the first lockdown and ongoing absences are having on children’s life chances, especially on those from the most disadvantaged backgrounds. In the analysis by the Education Endowment Foundation, published in June, its median estimate was that the attainment gap could widen by 36%, but plausible estimates indicated it could widen by between 11% and 75% as a result of school closures caused by the coronavirus pandemic. In May, Vicki Stewart, deputy director of the pupil premium and school food division in the Department for Education, pointed to similar figures. Research published by the Royal Society in June suggested that school time lost because of the pandemic could harm the economy for the next 65 years, and unless catch-up lessons are effective, researchers predict a 3% loss in future annual earnings for pupils caught up in the pandemic.
I refer to those figures not because I have a utilitarian view that education matters only because of the long-term interests of the economy or people’s earnings potential, but to underline the point that a significant period of time missed—pupils have already missed significant time in school this year—has an impact not only on this academic year or the next round of examinations or the examinations beyond that; it has a long-term, lasting and detrimental impact on people’s life chances and opportunities, so we cannot be complacent about that.
Analysis of Government data by FFT Education Datalab found that pupils missing the most schooling are in the poorest areas of the country. That is compounded by the fact that online remote schooling has worked less well for poorer families. That should not be a surprise to anyone. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden outlined powerfully before the recess, there is deeply unequal access to online learning at home. It should come as no surprise to people that those from the poorest backgrounds do not necessarily have access to the suitable devices that they need, but they lack even the broadband internet access that many people take for granted. The pay-as-you-go charging rates and the stark figures of how much it costs to access Oak National Academy or BBC Bitesize is staggering. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden that the Government should ensure that no pupil forced to isolate at home does so without access to the IT and internet access that they need. I call on internet service providers to play their part too, because there is more that they could do. It is within their gift, for example, to make sure that certain websites, such as Oak National Academy or BBC Bitesize, which are there for legitimate online learning purposes, are made free to access and should not count towards people’s data limits. That would be a really good way for the big internet service providers and telecoms companies to step up to the plate.
Tom Hunt
If there are future closures or if children have to self-isolate, should Ofsted have a role when it inspects schools to look at the job that the school has done to make sure that it facilitates first-class online learning if a significant number of kids in that school have to self-isolate?
Wes Streeting
I am grateful for that intervention. There is a role for Ofsted to play in looking at remote learning in the home, not least to disseminate best practice among schools. Let us just be clear for a moment—we are asking schools across the country to do something that they have not previously been asked to do. Even the very best teachers will have to adapt quite significantly to teaching remotely. It requires a completely different skillset, and we do an enormous disservice to people whose professional careers are spent in distance learning by pretending that teaching in a classroom full of pupils, where it is possible to look right into the whites of their eyes and ensure they have access to the right books and the kit that they need for their learning, is not a very different challenge from teaching someone via an internet connection with video streaming.
Siobhain McDonagh
We know that only 6.3% of pupils have access to four or more online lessons a day during lockdown and that there is a huge range of provision within that. I particularly commend to the Minister the work of the Ursuline High School in Merton—the Catholic girls school that was the Ursuline Convent School—where pupils were given six lessons a day online. Every girl was given her own tablet and there were safety systems in place, because safety is important in this situation, so that the school knew whether each girl had signed on at 9 am; a girl’s parents were phoned if they had not signed on. If a girl accessed a website that the school would rather they had not accessed, their parents were also contacted. There is a vast range of approaches out there, but most schools are really trying to play catch-up.
Wes Streeting
I strongly endorse the point made by my hon. Friend; she is absolutely right.
Returning to the research available to us, I am a concerned about the large gap that is emerging in the number of learning hours between those from the most affluent backgrounds and those from the poorest backgrounds, because the contrast is stark; the gap between them is more than an hour a day for both primary and secondary pupils. When we look at the breakdown of data on those from the poorest backgrounds and those from the wealthiest backgrounds, we see that pupils are learning significantly less if they are from a poorer background rather than a more affluent background. That raises really serious long-term challenges when it comes to closing the attainment gap.
Jonathan Gullis
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way; we now have a full house of people making interventions. I wrote a piece for the Red Box newsletter in The Times to raise some of the concerns that exist. For example, 27% of those in low-income households do not use the internet, which is a really startling figure. I am very proud to be a member of the Blue Collar Conservativism group that has joined Labour colleagues to ask for a digital catch-up scheme. I would like to hear the shadow Minister’s thoughts on that, and I urge the Minister himself to take that idea and consider it, to see how we can introduce such a scheme, because when I listen to St Bart’s Multi-Academy Trust, which has 19 schools across north Staffordshire and south-east Cheshire, I am told that it was promised 465 laptops but only given 55. This issue is a great concern for many disadvantaged pupils in trust schools.
Wes Streeting
That is absolutely right. We heard from the Chair of the Education Committee, the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), that back in June around 700,000 disadvantaged children were not doing homework and did not have proper access to computers or the internet. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden said, the number could be higher.
That brings me to my fundamental concerns about where the Government have been on education throughout this pandemic. On too many occasions, education has been an afterthought for the Government in their response to the pandemic. There was more thought and guidance provided about opening pubs than about opening schools. Some of the support that has been provided to schools in terms of the funding they need to keep a safe environment—such as personal protective equipment, sanitisers, hand-washing facilities, deep cleans and frequent cleans, and cover for absent staff who have been forced to self-isolate—falls short of what schools need.
This is my point of reassurance to the public, including people who are thinking about whether to send their children to schools—headteachers are doing everything they can to keep their schools safe. I do not know a single headteacher who would open their school if they did not believe it was safe. However, they are looking at the end of the financial year with real worry and anxiety, because they will spend what it takes to keep their schools safe for their pupils and staff, but at the moment they do not have the certainty that, as the financial year-end approaches, the Government will step up and do whatever it takes to ensure that those costs are covered. The Government need to act in that respect.
I am deeply concerned about what we saw before half term, when allocations of laptops were cut at the 11th hour. The Government need to step up and recognise—this is a general point about the pandemic response—that there are some things that central Government can do well, but providing responsive emergency resources to local communities, whether food parcels, laptops or internet connections, is much better done locally. They should give local authorities, academy trusts and schools the freedom and resources to buy the kit they need for their pupils. They know their pupils best, but they need money to ensure that those kids have the kit and the internet access that they need. I urge the Minister to reflect on the shortcomings of the provision so far.
As a general point, as was set out earlier in the debate, fines are a blunt instrument for compelling people to turn up to schools. The general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, Geoff Barton, said:
“We don’t think that it is the right approach to fine parents for the non-attendance of children as soon as schools fully reopen in September, and the Government should not expect schools to take this action.”
We have had similar representations from the National Education Union and the National Association of Head Teachers. As much as the Government say, “Let’s have a conversation first. This is about discretion,” we have seen too many cases in which that does not apply, and schools do not necessarily believe that they have the flexibility that the Government say they do.
One of my constituents, a teenage girl who was shot in the lungs when she was a young child, was compelled by her school to go back, despite the risk of coronavirus and a letter from her GP, because the school threatened her with a fine. A mother of a terminally ill three-year-old was forced to deregister her older daughter from her school to avoid being charged weekly non-attendance fines. A woman with type 1 diabetes, asthma and an underactive thyroid, which means she is classed her as clinically vulnerable under NHS guidelines, has been threatened with a three-month prison sentence and a £2,500 fine because she refused to send her children back to school amid coronavirus.
Some of this stuff is bizarre. It is really inappropriate to put families in that position. As a general point of principle, I do not think school fines work, and in the current circumstances the Government have to be clearer in their guidance about what happens if there are vulnerable family members at home with underlying health conditions who are concerned that a child coming back from school might present a risk, or if vulnerable people live with a member of school staff who presents a risk. That is something about which lots of staff in school and school leaders are anxious.
Tom Hunt
Those are powerful stories, and I have huge sympathy for those involved, but going back to school is the best thing for some vulnerable kids because it enables more oversight. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there could be other stories in which not giving the school that discretion and the ability to fine could be to the detriment of those vulnerable kids?
Wes Streeting
Ultimately, in the worst case, parents have the right to withdraw their children from education altogether. I think, by the way, that that is not the right course of action. All the evidence says that children will be safer, happier and better educated if they are in school. That is why we are clear that the Government must do whatever it takes to keep schools open—we do not hear the phrase “whatever it takes” often these days—but people have legitimate concerns. Parents sending their children to school and staff going to work in school need to know that the headteacher and the governing body are being given the resources they need to ensure the school is clean, safe and welcoming, to put in place the right measures, from protective equipment to hand-washing facilities and sanitisers, and to ensure that they do not have to cut corners on cleaning—in catering facilities, for example, multiple cleaning rounds are needed throughout the day. Parents need to know that if, for whatever reason, staff are forced to isolate and cannot be at school, schools can bring in the cover support that they need to make sure that their children are still well supported and well educated. Parents need to know that if their children
I am concerned that the schemes and funding initiatives that the Government have already announced—they are obviously not up and running yet; they are out to tender—are not targeted as well as they should be on pupils from the most disadvantaged backgrounds. I urge the Government to get back to that focus. I am really looking forward to the many exchanges that I will no doubt have with the Minister in the coming weeks, months and years.
One fundamental problem with the Government’s approach to education policy in the past 10 years, and with where we are today, is that progress on closing the attainment gap at crucial points in pupils’ education journey—whether it be at their entry to primary school at five, when they leave primary school at 11, or when they are sitting their GCSEs at 16—has not only stalled but is beginning to slip into reverse gear. If we are not careful, we will allow the pandemic to rewrite the story of educational disadvantage in this country in a way that none of us wants, with the gap between those from the wealthiest and poorest backgrounds widening, and with children who have special educational needs and require additional support being left further behind. We cannot let that happen, because even with the best lifelong learning system in the world, children only get one chance at a primary and secondary education. Those formative years are absolutely crucial, which is why we believe that schools must be supported to be safe and open, and that we need a national strategy to make sure that no pupil is left behind.
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Sir David; I have not kept count like my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt), but I am sure there have been many occasions. I welcome the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) to his position. I look forward to debating with him. If today is an example of the exchanges that we will have in the future, I look forward to them very much indeed. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) on the excellent and fair way that he introduced the debate.
To pick up on one or two points made by the hon. Member for Ilford North on the attainment gap, the raison d’être of education policy since 2010 has been to close that gap. That has been the reason for all our reforms in reading, in maths, in the curriculum of GCSEs and A-levels, in the academies programme, and in the school improvement programme—everything we have been doing since 2010 has been about closing that gap, and making sure that those from the least advantaged backgrounds in our country have the same quality of education as their more advantaged peers. Since 2011, we have managed to close the attainment gap in primary schools by 13% and by 9% in secondary schools. We worry about the effect of the pandemic on that success, which is why we have managed to secure £1 billion of catch-up funding, £350 million of which is specifically targeted at the most disadvantaged pupils through the national tutoring programme.
This debate is particularly timely in the light of the Prime Minister’s announcement this weekend of new national restrictions. We are clear that the Government will continue to prioritise the long-term future of young people. We will not ask schools to close. It is vital that as many children as possible attend school, for their education, for their wellbeing and for their wider development—a view shared by my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent North, and for Ipswich, and by the hon. Members for Ilford North, and for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh).
High levels of pupil attendance in school over this period are critical to ensuring that this generation of children reaches its potential, and to preventing a widening of the attainment gap. I pay tribute to the outstanding efforts of teachers, staff and parents across the country, which have meant that pupils continue to receive the education and opportunities that they deserve in the face of this pandemic. I also extend my thanks specifically to the attendance workers in schools and local authorities for their continued hard work in supporting so many pupils to attend.
At the beginning of the outbreak, we made the difficult decision to limit the number of pupils attending school, and we empowered schools and local professionals to prioritise the attendance of vulnerable children and the children of critical workers. Although rates of coronavirus are rising, it is vital that children attend school to minimise as far as possible the long-term impact of the pandemic on their education. We are clear that school attendance is mandatory, and all the usual rules apply, including regarding parents’ duty to secure their child’s regular attendance at school, and the ability of schools and local authorities to issue sanctions and secure attendance.
The Department will shortly issue summary guidance to schools setting out the implications of the new national restrictions. There is a clear correlation, as the hon. Member for Ilford North said, between time absent from school and attainment. Pupils with higher overall absence tend to do less well in their GCSEs. Figures show that as of 22 October, 99.3% of schools were open, excluding schools on half term or inset days, and up to 7 million children and young people were in school; that represents 86% of pupils across the country. We continue to regularly collect and monitor school attendance data, which is published weekly as part of the Department’s commitment to transparency and to supporting local action.
To support high levels of attendance, we have specifically asked schools to continue to communicate clear and consistent expectations about school attendance to pupils and their families. We have asked schools to identify pupils who are reluctant to attend or who are at risk of disengagement, and to develop plans to re-engage them, using the catch-up funding that they will receive.
We have asked schools to work closely with other professionals, including social workers and specialist services, to support pupils’ attendance. There are examples of excellent work to support high levels of attendance across the country, including in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North. The Stoke-on-Trent opportunity area is funding a project to tackle the underlying causes of unauthorised absence by creating a behaviour and attendance leaders network to establish consistent approaches and shared best practice across all the schools in the city. cannot attend school because they are required to self-isolate, they will be able to learn at home, and that catch-up support will be provided.
Underpinning all this important work by schools are the usual school attendance rules and legal duties. These rules and duties will continue to apply during the forthcoming new national restrictions. Parents have a duty under section 7 of the Education Act 1996 to ensure that if their child is of compulsory school age, they receive an efficient full-time education, either by attendance at school or otherwise.
Schools and local authorities can use a range of measures if a child’s attendance becomes a problem. The law gives schools and local authorities power to offer parenting contracts and obtain parenting orders to improve school attendance. Where a parent has failed to secure their child’s regular attendance, prosecution of a parent is available to local authorities as a last resort, under section 444 of the Education Act 1996.
Of course, now more than ever, we trust schools and local authorities to consider the circumstances of each pupil and family when considering what the appropriate action is to tackle absence and support the child’s attendance, and whether to use those powers. We trust them to do this sensitively, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich. We also encourage parents to work with their child’s school and the local authority, to discuss the reasons behind their child’s absence, and to agree together an action plan, so that the right support can be put in place to help the child return to regular and consistent education.
Where children are not able to attend school because they are following public or clinical health advice related to coronavirus, parents will not be penalised. We will shortly publish updated guidance setting out current attendance expectations for children who are clinically extremely vulnerable. We also recognise that some pupils or families may still be anxious about sending their child to school, especially in the light of the rise in infections. Schools have been discussing those concerns with these families in order to provide reassurance.
To increase support further in the long term, we remain committed to tackling mental health problems and implementing our joint Green Paper, which helps to introduce new mental health support teams, linked to schools and colleges. Those teams will help schools deal with mental health issues, which are as prevalent as, if not more prevalent than, they have been in recent years.
The safety of all children in schools is especially important at present. We have set out a clear framework so that school leaders can put in place protective measures for pupils and their staff. Protective controls include ensuring that people who have symptoms do not attend school, that robust hand and respiratory hygiene measures are followed, that cleaning arrangements are enhanced, that contact is minimised between individuals, and that schools actively engage with NHS Test and Trace.
All four UK chief medical officers have been clear that the risk to children of becoming severely ill from coronavirus is low. Therefore, for the vast majority of children, the benefits of being back in the classroom far outweigh the risks. Nevertheless, access to testing is available for any child, young person or member of staff displaying symptoms, as well as any symptomatic members of their household. Supplies of test kits have also been provided to all schools for those who develop symptoms on site and face significant personal barriers to accessing a test.
The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden raised the important issue of remote education, as she did in the Adjournment debate just before the recess. I share her genuine passion for ensuring that all children have access to remote education. We are clear that for some pupils who are unable to attend school in person, remote education may need to be an essential component of their education, alongside classroom teaching. In those circumstances, the Government want to ensure that there is no doubt about the roles and responsibilities within the system for providing remote education.
The Secretary of State therefore made a temporary continuity direction on 1 October to clarify that schools have a duty to provide remote education for state-funded school-aged children who are unable to attend school due to coronavirus, in line with our guidance and the law. To support schools and colleges in meeting those expectations, the Department announced a further remote education support package, which includes access to the right technology to deliver remote education, peer-to-peer training on how to use it effectively, and practical tools, guidance and webinars. Alongside that, the Department has made £4.84 million available for Oak National Academy, both for the summer term of the last academic year and for the 2020-21 academic year, so that it can provide video lessons on a broad range of subjects for reception up to year 11.
The hon. Lady also talked about devices. The Government are doing everything that they can to support schools in delivering remote education. Having invested more than £195 million in supporting remote education, the Department delivered more than 220,000 laptops and tablets for disadvantaged children who would not otherwise have access to a digital device, and we are adding to the support by making 340,000 additional laptops and tablets available to support children who might face disruption to their education this term. Since September—the beginning of term—more than 100,000 of those laptops have already been delivered to schools.
In the context of increasing global demand, we are bringing schools’ device allocations more closely in line with the average size of a pupil group that is self-isolating. We recognise that levels of self-isolation may be higher in different areas of the country, and that face-to-face education is being prioritised in all eventualities.
Jonathan Gullis
I heard what the Minister said about allocation being based on need for isolation. I represent Stoke-on-Trent and surrounding parts of north Staffordshire. I am sure I know what the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) was getting at. If we look at deprivation levels, the need will be higher in Stoke-on-Trent than in Kidsgrove, which I also represent and which may be—these are semantics, as I do not have the figures to hand—a statistically more affluent place. I would like us to look more at deprivation, not simply cohort sizes.
Nick Gibb
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. We recognise that there will be different levels of self-isolation as well as different areas of need in different parts of the country. The more targeted design will mean that as many schools and disadvantaged children as possible benefit from receiving a device in the event of face-to-face education being disrupted.
Siobhain McDonagh
If I remember the figures correctly, only 10% of households with an income of less than £10,000 have internet access at home, while over 90% of households with an income above £40,000 do, so deprivation is the key.
Nick Gibb
The hon. Member makes a good point, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North. That is why a targeted approach is important. The hon. Lady asked why that was not mentioned during the previous debate, but at that time no decision had been made about changes to the allocation of laptops and tablets.
In conclusion, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North for starting today’s debate. Securing a high level of attendance for all children remains a priority for the Government. We have put in place a range of measures to support good school attendance, even in these challenging circumstances. It is right that schools and local authorities should have all the necessary tools to secure excellent attendance, which includes measures to support families, and sanctions where necessary.
Where children are not able to attend school because they are following clinical or public health advice related to coronavirus, we have been clear that absence will not be penalised. Given the profoundly positive impact that being in school can have on a child’s attainment and life chances, high levels of attendance in school have never been more important.
Jonathan Gullis
I thank the Minister and the shadow Minister for their responses to the petitioners, and all Members, including the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt), for taking part in this important debate.
It was nice that the debate looked at the wider role of schools. I add my thanks to those given by the Minister and the shadow Minister to the incredible teachers, support staff and local authority school staff for their above-and-beyond work. With regard to covid, they are the unsung heroes of the education profession. The lazy, stereotypical response from a minority in our community has been that teachers were on some sort of six-month holiday. That could not be further from the truth. My partner, a head of religious education, spent eight and a half hours ranking children for the GCSE and A-level algorithm, although I am sure the Minister will be happy for me to pass on from that topic as quickly as possible.
The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden is right that the digital divide is a huge issue, and I passionately believe that it has to be tackled. I would love to work with her more closely outside the House to see how we can tackle it. She said that we need to look at deprivation when it comes to the supply of technology. I have written to the Chancellor about classing broadband as an essential household item and so bringing VAT on it down to 5%, which is the figure that applies for gas, water and electricity. I appreciate that that would cost the Exchequer £2 billion, but it would be an important measure.
Siobhain McDonagh
Getting involved in this issue has made me aware that poorer people access the internet differently, just as they access electricity, gas and other essentials differently. The main internet companies are great, but most people in poor situations use pay-as-you-go, and companies that we do not necessarily use. Unless we address how people access those services, we will not understand or tackle the issue.
Jonathan Gullis
I completely agree with the hon. Lady. I have worked with a local IT company on this issue, but that is not necessarily the solution to the long-term problem. Stoke-on-Trent is lucky to be a gigabit city; it has 104 km of full-fibre network. As we install that into homes, the challenge is to ensure that it is affordable and accessible in areas I represent that are, to be frank, in the bottom 20% for social mobility. They are some of the most deprived communities in the country, where people earn on average £100 per week less than a full-time worker in other parts of the country.
We absolutely have to understand how technology is being accessed. I completely agree with the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden that mum’s mobile should not be the best tool in the house. Sadly, I have worked with many students for whom that was the only way in which work could be done. I look forward to working with Members from across the House on looking at the digital divide.
A highlight is the Oak Academy; it is an absolute triumph. I thank the Minister for his incredibly hard work to get that set up. He has engaged with a wide range of professionals who have done incredible work. I do not think that any Member of this House thinks that is not a triumph. Kids who cannot be in the classroom can access this really important tool, which I hope we can keep well beyond the current health crisis. It would be a really positive tool to have all year round for all students of all future generations.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich. We on the Education Committee did indeed hear from the Children’s Commissioner, who is an absolute tour de force. I have a huge amount of time for her. Although we might have disagreed on other issues recently, I support fully her view that school should be the last place to close and the first to reopen. I am really grateful to the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) for stating the Opposition’s view that schools must stay open.
I ask the leaders of the National Education Union—although I ranted and shouted at them in the Select Committee sitting, I will not do so now—to end their call for schools to close, because that is a divisive campaign. It will not bring schools and families together; nor will it get us politicians, who are making incredibly challenging and difficult decisions, closer to the public. I ask the union leaders to cease that campaign, and to work with the Government and the hon. Member for Ilford North to find ways for schools to get the most support.
I too want to put on record the point made by the hon. Member for Ilford North about the funding for additional cleaning and personal protective equipment. There will be increased anxiety, especially now that we are entering deeper restrictions. Staff will want additional support, and we have to look at that. I am not asking for extortionate amounts of money, and schools are not asking for the sort of PPE that is needed in hospitals or care homes. Any additional support would be very welcome in the dark and bleak winter ahead.
I also place on record my thanks to the Minister for the £1 billion in catch-up funding. Again, that is welcome. As I am a bit of a sceptic, I have some reservations about the £350 million for the national tutoring programme, because I want to ensure that ends up helping the kids who need it most. I have seen lots of money given to lots of big organisations, yet people I speak to in Stoke-on-Trent have never met those organisations on the streets. This is absolutely the right way to share out the money, and absolutely the right thing to do, but please let us ensure that we deliver in the areas where there is the greatest need.
Schools have done a remarkable job. The fact that 99.3% of schools are open is an incredible achievement; I think we all recognise that. I am very grateful to the Minister for promoting the Stoke opportunity area, which is in its second year. It will be going for a third year, and I am sure the Minister will look favourably on that as we continue to see improvements in Stoke-on-Trent.
I go back to the premise of the petition: the fine. I would like to think that Matthew has heard the conciliatory tone of Members of all parties, and that he has heard the reasons why we believe schools should be open. I hope he has also heard that we fully understand the anxieties of parents. We want to work with them to ensure that they feel that schools are the safest place. As we know, school is the best place for a child to learn, and it gives them the best opportunity for life ahead. I hope that Matthew feels that, although we might not be fully signed up to his aim of suspending the fine, we will work very closely with schools to ensure that they are as safe and secure as possible, and to ensure that future generations get the very best opportunity that school offers. As I said earlier, that is the greatest equaliser in our society.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 300399, relating to school attendance during the covid-19 outbreak.
Written Statements
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Defence Update
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
In 1993, the Ministry of Defence (MOD) entered into a Government-owned contractor-operated (GoCo) arrangement with Hunting-BRAE whereby Hunting-BRAE operated the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) on behalf of the Government. In 1999, following a competitive tender, a new 25-year contract was awarded to AWE Management Ltd (AWE ML).
On 1 July 2019, the MOD triggered the successor arrangements clause with AWE ML to enable it to consider alternative viable management options ahead of the current contract expiration. Although the existing arrangements have brought stability to the organisation the MOD has concluded that AWE will revert to a direct Government ownership model.
Under the revised arrangements, AWE plc will become an arms-length body wholly owned by the MOD. It will continue to be managed by a world-leading team and a new board will be appointed by the MOD. The new business model will see AWE plc continue to draw on private sector specialist support to strengthen capability as well as playing a key role in managing capital projects and contracts. This approach is recognised as best practice in other major complex programmes.
The MOD, AWE ML and AWE plc will jointly manage the termination of the contract and the transition to the new arrangements, which are anticipated to be completed by the end of June 2021. This will be completed in close co-operation with workforce representatives, regulators, the supply chain and the local community.
The continued safe and secure operation of AWE sites will remain the overriding focus during the transition and under the revised management structure.
[HCWS544]
Director of Service Prosecutions
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
Under section 364 of the Armed Forces Act 2006, the Director of Service Prosecutions is appointed by Her Majesty the Queen. The term of the current incumbent, Andrew Cayley QC, comes to an end on 2 November 2020.
I can inform the House that Her Majesty has appointed Jonathan Rees QC to succeed Mr Cayley as the next independent Director of Service Prosecutions. Mr Rees has practised from chambers at 2 Hare Court since 2015, prosecuting and defending serious criminal allegations of murder, terrorism, sexual abuse and corruption.
I should also like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Mr Cayley who has served as director for the last seven years and worked hard with other service justice system stakeholders to improve the processes by which cases are built and brought to trial, while maintaining the necessary independence of prosecutorial decision-making. His efforts have ensured that the authority has retained its position as an independent and respected prosecuting body which has underpinned the operational effectiveness of the armed forces.
As he hands over his responsibilities to Mr Rees, I would like to express my personal gratitude for the important contribution he has made.
[HCWS546]
Coronavirus Update
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
The Prime Minister has announced tougher national restrictions in England from Thursday. These restrictions will apply nationally for four weeks up to Wednesday 2 December. At the end of the period, we will look to return to a local and regional approach, based on the latest data.
The regulations will be debated in Parliament on Wednesday.
Subject to approval, from Thursday 5 November, everyone must stay at home, and may leave only for a limited set of reasons. These include:
For education;
For work, if you cannot work from home;
For exercise and recreation in an outdoor public place, with your household, support bubble or on your own with one person from another household (children under school age, as well as those dependent on round-the-clock care, such as those with severe disabilities, who are with their parents will not count towards the limit on two people meeting outside);
For all medical reasons, appointments and to escape injury or harm;
To shop for food and essentials;
To visit members of your support bubble;
And to provide care for vulnerable people, or as a volunteer.
In support of the regulations being laid in Parliament, we will be expanding our existing guidance to ensure the rules are clear for individuals and businesses. Single-adult households will still be able to form an exclusive support bubble with one other household, and children can move between homes if their parents are separated.
Non-essential shops, leisure and entertainment venues will be closed. Click and collect services can continue and essential shops, including supermarkets, will remain open.
People should work from home wherever possible. Workplaces should stay open where people cannot work from home—for example, in the construction or manufacturing sectors.
Shielding as practised in the spring will not currently be reintroduced. Those who are clinically extremely vulnerable should not only minimise their contacts with others, but also not go to work if they are unable to work from home.
The clinically vulnerable and those over the age of 60, should be especially careful to follow the rules and minimise contacts with others.
Overnight stays away from primary residences will not be allowed, except for specific exceptions including for work. This means people cannot travel internationally or within the UK, unless for work, education or other legally permitted exemptions.
Inbound international travel will continue to be governed by the travel corridor approach, and those currently on a domestic holiday will be allowed to finish their holidays, but are still subject to the requirements in England not to go out without a reasonable excuse.
Public services, such as job centres, courts, and civil registration offices will remain open.
Elite sport will be allowed to continue behind closed doors as currently.
The coronavirus job retention scheme, known as the furlough scheme, will remain open until December, with employees receiving 80% of their current salary for hours not worked, up to a maximum of £2,500. The cost for employers of retaining workers will be reduced compared to the current scheme, which ends today.
To reflect the recent changes to the furlough scheme, the UK-wide self-employment income support scheme (SEISS) will be made more generous—with self-employed individuals receiving 80% of their average trading profits for November.
As the Prime Minister and Education Secretary have said, keeping young people in education is a national priority so early years settings, schools, colleges and universities will all remain open. Parents and carers should make sure their children keep attending school. However, universities and adult learning providers should consider increasing online provision where possible.
Parents will still be able to access registered childcare and other childcare activities where reasonably necessary to enable parents to work or access education and training. Parents are also able to form a childcare bubble with one other household for the purposes of informal childcare, for children who are 13 or under.
Ministers are also clear that it is vital to keep the provision for non-covid healthcare needs going. Unless clinicians tell patients otherwise, they should continue to use the NHS, get scans and other tests, turn up for all appointments and collect medicines and treatments.
We are also planning a programme of mass testing which will help us get on top of this virus. We now have the immediate prospect of using many millions of cheap, reliable and rapid turnaround tests.
As a result of partnerships with NHS and university labs, new cutting-edge testing innovations and a recruitment drive boosting the UK’s coronavirus diagnostic industry, NHS test and trace has rapidly expanded testing capability ahead of winter. The target of 500,000 testing capacity per day was reached on Saturday 31 October.
Introducing these restrictions is a difficult decision. But the public have the power to deal with this pandemic, working together with the Government and following the rules and guidance.
Update on recent changes to the local alert level
In order to reduce the transmission of covid-19, the following areas moved into local covid alert level high on 31 October: Carlisle, East Riding of Yorkshire, Kingston-Upon-Hull, North East Lincolnshire, North Lincolnshire, Dudley, Staffordshire, Telford and Wrekin, Amber Valley, Bolsover, Derbyshire Dales, Derby City, South Derbyshire, the whole of High Peak, Charnwood, Luton, and Oxford City.
This means that for these areas, the following measures apply:
People must not meet with anybody outside their household or support bubble in any indoor setting, whether at home or in a public place;
People must not meet in a group of more than six outside, including in a garden or other space;
People should aim to reduce the number of journeys they make where possible. If they need to travel, they should walk or cycle where possible, or plan ahead and avoid busy times and routes on public transport.
These restrictions remain in place until 5 November, when they will then be superseded by the new national restrictions.
[HCWS549]
Grenfell Update
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)
The Grenfell Tower fire in 2017 was a national tragedy. 72 people died in the greatest loss of life in a residential fire since the second world war; many more mourn the loss of their families, friends, community and homes.
The Grenfell Tower inquiry published its phase 1 report on 30 October 2019. The report’s findings addressed the events of that night—the fire, how it started and spread, and the emergency response to it. Today I am updating the House on the progress and choices that the Government have made in implementing and acting on these recommendations. We owe it to the bereaved, the survivors, the community, and indeed all people living in blocks of flats around the country to demonstrate that we are making progress and their homes are being made safer.
The Government are delivering a comprehensive programme of reform on building and fire safety to ensure real and long-lasting change. In the past year we have acted on the recommendations of Sir Martin and the inquiry, in addition to our ongoing work in response to recommendations made by Dame Judith Hackitt in the independent review. We are addressing historic defects and delivering new legislation. This will bring about thorough regulatory reform; and ensure that people feel empowered and listened to and, more importantly, that they are safe and feel safe in their homes.
We recognised the importance of urgent action to remove unsafe aluminium composite material (ACM) cladding from high-rise residential buildings, and to date 77% of identified high-rise residential and publicly owned buildings have already been or are in the process of being fully remediated. We expect this figure to rise significantly by 31 December as the remaining residential buildings have a plan in place or have expressed their intention to remediate. As well as providing support, we will hold the owners of these buildings to account and keep residents safe in their homes.
We have worked with the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and local health and education partners to help the community in its recovery: rehousing residents of the tower and of Grenfell Walk; providing funding to support refurbishment of the Lancaster West estate; and addressing local concerns about the impact of the fire on health and the local environment.
We want the views of Grenfell communities to be heard across Government, which is why the Prime Minister appointed the right hon. Nick Hurd, former Minister for Grenfell Victims, as his independent adviser to represent the views of Grenfell communities at the heart of Government. We know that the bereaved and the survivors of the Grenfell Tower fire await the forthcoming social housing White Paper, and we anticipate publishing this in the coming month.
My officials are working with the Grenfell community and the people affected by the fire, including on the delivery of a fitting and lasting memorial to the 72 people who very sadly lost their lives. As well as continuing to provide regular updates to the community about the site and regarding the legislative programme, we will also ensure we provide further regular updates on progress against the inquiry’s recommendations.
Recommendations from the Grenfell Tower inquiry phase 1 report
The report made 46 detailed recommendations to improve fire safety, directed at a range of organisations including: the London Fire Brigade (LFB) and fire and rescue services more broadly, other emergency services, building owners, and Government. The Government are already taking forward a number of these recommendations, including: fundamental legislative change; working with fire and rescue services to support them in making the necessary improvements; starting specific projects on evacuation; working with local leaders and national bodies to ensure that action is being taken across the country supported by new funding; and identifying and remediating buildings with historic risks from unsafe cladding.
Building a safer future
Since December 2019, the Home Office has led on developing and introducing the Fire Safety Bill. That Bill will clarify the scope of the fire safety order (FSO) in multi-occupied residential buildings. In particular, it will place beyond doubt that in multi-occupied residential blocks the FSO applies to the structure, external wall systems and flat entrance doors, ensuring that fire and rescue authorities can confidently take enforcement action where building owners or managers are not compliant.
The Fire Safety Bill paves the way for secondary legislation which we propose to make after the commencement of the Fire Safety Bill next year. The fire safety consultation held this year set out Government proposals to strengthen fire safety in regulated buildings in England to ensure that people are safe from fire regardless of where they live, stay or work. These proposals are a practical and effective approach to address the risks the inquiry identified in phase 1. They will provide residents with greater assurance and deliver fire safety improvements in their buildings and hold responsible persons, including building owners and managers, to account. At the same time, the Government will be introducing the Building Safety Bill in 2021, paving the way for a strengthened building safety regime for buildings, with an even stronger regime for high-rise buildings.
Looking to the future, at the heart of the new building safety regime are two new regulators. The first, the building safety regulator, will implement the more stringent regulatory regime for high-risk residential buildings. It will also oversee the safety and performance of other buildings and support work to improve the competence of professionals across the industry. The regulator will be delivered by the Health and Safety Executive and began to operate in shadow form earlier this year.
We are also committed to further strengthening the regulation of construction products. Our draft Building Safety Bill includes provisions for a more robust regulatory framework that covers a wider range of products. It will strengthen the powers available to regulators; enforce the rules and lay the groundwork to establish of a national regulator which will spearhead the new approach.
The shadow building safety regulator, within the HSE, is already advising the Government on the new regime. Over the coming months, it will develop guidance to ensure that all regulators involved understand how this will operate, and what they need to do to prepare for it.
Together, the measures in the draft Building Safety Bill, Fire Safety Bill, and fire safety order consultation will improve safety standards for residents in all blocks of flats. Stricter regulations for high-rise buildings will make sure those living in them can feel safe and be safe in their homes—as is their right. Indeed, everything my officials do across the building safety programme in the Ministry for Housing Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) and the fire and resilience directorate in the Home Office is driven by a shared determination to prevent the recurrence of a tragedy like Grenfell.
Fire and rescue services
The phase 1 report made it very clear that fire and rescue services should make significant improvements to their training; policies and practices; and their equipment and technology. We are seeking real changes demonstrated through an investment in the right types of training, leadership and equipment.
That is why the Home Secretary wrote to LFB, requiring regular reporting on its progress on implementing the recommendations. Although there is still more to do, we are encouraged that LFB continues to focus on implementing all the recommendations directed to them as well as those targeting services more broadly. The LFB has revised its policies, and through a programme of training is embedding changes in the approach to high-rise firefighting. The integration of different and new technologies such as the trialling of drones to improve situational awareness and support incident commanders, is encouraging. The use of smoke hoods and smoke curtains to assist with evacuations, trialled in large-scale operational exercises, appears to be a positive step. The Home Office continues to receive regular reports which have shown steady and concerted progress, even against a backdrop of the pandemic.
The Home Secretary has also commissioned Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services (HMICFRS) to review the governance and progress of LFB’s action plan to implement the recommendations from the Grenfell Tower inquiry phase 1 report. We anticipate the outcome of this initial review in January 2021.
The National Fire Chiefs Council (NFCC) is reflecting the inquiry’s recommendations in its ongoing review of national operational guidance and the development of national standards through the Fire Standards Board, which this Government established. The Minister of State for Building Safety and Communities last month hosted a roundtable for all fire chiefs and chairs, to ensure that local services were equally committed to making rapid and meaningful progress in order to protect communities.
To ensure that the lessons from Grenfell are learned and change is implemented at pace we have made available £10 million in additional funding in 2020-21 to drive change nationally and in local services. A further £20 million has been provided to support fire protection activity across England.
As with London, HMICFRS will provide independent assurance on the effectiveness of services in responding to the recommendations as part of its second cycle of inspection, which the Home Secretary has agreed will commence in the new year.
Fire protection
The independent review into building regulations and fire safety found the system “broken”. This broken system is being further revealed through the work of the Grenfell Tower inquiry. The phase 1 report found that a number of key fire protection measures failed to work as they should have at Grenfell. The inquiry identified failings in the way in which LFB fulfilled its obligations under section 7(2)(d) of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004. This requirement is in place to ensure that it had the information needed for extinguishing fire and protecting life at the tower.
Post Grenfell, we have seen other examples, which have further highlighted the importance of strengthening the overall protection capability and capacity of fire and rescue services. The work of HMICFRS, the independent review and the Grenfell Tower inquiry evidence the need for more to be done to ensure that people are safe and secure in their homes and that FRSs need additional support to deliver an improved protection function to help achieve this goal. It is important that people can feel safe in their homes and that is why we have committed to ensuring that all high-rise residential buildings are inspected or reviewed by the end of 2021.
Our first priority for the £20 million protection funding has been to ensure that fire and rescue services are able to review or inspect every high-rise residential building in England by the end of 2021. This is a major programme of work, overseen by the Fire Protection Board, which will set the foundation for the building safety regulator. The funding has also created a new leadership function in NFCC; and provides funding for fire and rescue services to have the capability and capacity to respond to risks in other potentially higher-risk buildings, including residential buildings under 18 metres, care homes and hospitals.
Both MHCLG and the Home Office have worked with services and the NFCC, through the Fire Protection Board, to ensure appropriate interim measures remain in place to protect residents in buildings with dangerous cladding, such as ACM. The revised NFCC simultaneous evacuation guidance, published on 1 October 2020, provides clearer advice which supports the fire and rescue services and responsible persons to fully evacuate as soon as a fire is detected. The guidance advises responsible persons to explore cost benefit options with leaseholders and residents. It also encourages the installation of common fire alarms systems which means reducing the dependency on waking watch wherever possible. The guidance also reiterates that interim measures should only ever be short term and are not a substitute for remediation.
In addition, the research to support the development of national guidelines for carrying out partial or total evacuations of high-rise residential buildings and building design requirements is progressing. Independent experts will support the research that will underpin this work, and review the means of escape provisions in blocks of flats, including use of the “stay put” strategy and evacuation.
Emergency services
The joint emergency services interoperability principles (JESIP) joint doctrine provides responders, at the scene and elsewhere, with a common way of working when responding to multi-agency incidents. Sir Martin recommended a number of amendments to the JESIP joint doctrine, including around communicating the declaration of a major incident.
The emergency services lead chief officers have committed to addressing, in full, these recommendations in the review of the JESIP joint doctrine currently under way. This work is forecast to be completed in spring 2021.
Early actions and remediating historic risks
Following the fire, the Government removed unsafe cladding products from the market and began dealing with historic defects. We banned combustible materials for use on new high-rise residential buildings and continue to work closely with local authorities, industry and regulators to identify existing buildings with dangerous cladding. Since then, we have continued to engage robustly with building owners, regulators and industry, to ensure the most dangerous forms of cladding are removed and replaced as soon as possible.
Building owners are responsible for building safety. But the Government recognise that funding is often a key barrier to remediation. That is why we are providing £1.6 billion to speed up the removal of unsafe cladding.
Despite covid restrictions, we made it clear that these circumstances could not be allowed to impede progress on ACM remediation. Working closely with industry, we made good progress despite the many challenges we faced. We have set out a clear expectation that all building owners, across all sectors, must start ACM remediation works on site by the end of 2020.
There is still some way to go, but it is important to recognise that homes are being made safer. To date, 351 buildings (77% of all identified high-rise residential and publicly owned buildings, including hotels and student accommodation) have already been or are in the process of being fully remediated. Some 148 social sector residential buildings—95% of that sector—have done the same. All remaining residential buildings now have a plan in place or have reported an intent to remediate.
Both I and the Minister of State for Building Safety and Communities have personally met local leaders and the fire service to support them in taking action where progress is slow.
Progress is reported through monthly data releases, and we have made clear that we will not rule out further measures in our mission to hold the owners of these buildings to account and keep residents safe in their homes.
Conclusion
In the year since the phase 1 report was published, the Government have delivered demonstrable progress on all fronts and remained resolute in their commitment to deliver the recommendations. In relation to London we have used our powers to ensure that real change is happening. Through the funding we have provided the NFCC we have bolstered the national leadership that will help all services to make strategic and meaningful change—both in culture and leadership and in practical operational delivery. We have worked with industry, building owners and regulators to ensure the most dangerous forms of cladding are removed and replaced as soon as possible. This work is not complete—we will continue to improve our services and the safety of buildings to ensure that the conditions that led to the tragedy at Grenfell Tower will no longer exist. The proposed legislative reforms will ensure there is absolute clarity on the regulatory framework, providing strong and comprehensive building safety so that residents can know their safety is assured.
[HCWS548]
UK-US Future Trading Partnership: Negotiations
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)
The fifth UK-US Free Trade Agreement (FTA) negotiating round took place from 19 to 30 October 2020.
This was the most intensive round of negotiations held so far, with 38 sessions covering 19 different chapter areas.
Almost all chapter areas are now in the advanced stages of talks. A significant proportion of legal text has been agreed across multiple chapters.
The round included focused discussions on market access for goods, including negotiations around product specific rules of origin, which determines whether or not a product can benefit from preferential tariffs under the FTA.
We also held detailed textual discussions on a digital chapter and agreed much of the legal framework for a future agreement.
Following the significant progress made in talks to date, both sides are confident that we are on track for a comprehensive agreement which would provide a significant and mutual benefit to our economies. We believe we are in a good position to move forward after the US election.
We have agreed a programme for continued talks at official level for the weeks following the US election.
Below is a summary list of those workstreams discussed in the round:
Competition
Core text
Cross cutting services
Customs and trade facilitation
Digital
Environment
Financial services
Good Regulatory Practice (GRP)
Investment
Intellectual property
Market access for goods
Rules of origin and origin procedures
Sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS)
Sectoral annexes
Services sectors—Professional business, transport and delivery services
State owned enterprises
State to state dispute settlement
Telecoms
Trade remedies
[HCWS545]
Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol: Consent Mechanism Regulations
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Brandon Lewis)
I am today laying before both Houses of Parliament a draft of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland (Democratic Consent Process) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which will, if approved, reflect in domestic law the consent mechanism set out in the Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol and the UK Government’s unilateral declaration of 17 October 2019.
The consent mechanism ensures that articles 5 to 10 of the protocol will cease to apply if Northern Ireland’s political representatives conclude they are no longer desirable. The first consent process will take place in late 2024, and will be repeated every four or eight years depending on whether consent (if given) is given on a simple majority or a cross-community basis. Embedding that recognition of consent in the protocol was intrinsic to its acceptance by this Government.
The regulations implement both a default consent procedure, which will apply if a First Minister and Deputy First Minister are in office at the time notification of the start of the process is given, and an alternative consent procedure, which will apply if a First Minister and Deputy First Minister are not in office at the time notification of the start of the process is given. The alternative procedure enables any MLA to bring forward the consent motion in the absence of a First Minister and Deputy First Minister.
The protocol was specifically designed to protect the Belfast (Good Friday) agreement and the gains of the peace process. The principle of consent is central to it, ensuring that democratically elected local politicians make decisions for the people of Northern Ireland.
[HCWS547]
Transport for London: Funding and Financing
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
The Government and the Mayor of London have agreed a second extraordinary funding and financing package for Transport for London for the period to 31 March 2021. It replaces the agreement signed in May. It will ensure the continued operation of public transport services in London and is proof of our commitment to supporting the capital and the transport network on which it depends.
As with the national rail network, the Government will make up the revenue which TfL has lost due to the covid-19 pandemic over the period. The new package comprises a central funding scenario of £1 billion—made up of £905 million grant funding and £95 million borrowing—with flexibility for changing the grant payment in response to changing passenger demand. Actual payments are likely to be greater than £1 billion because of the move to national covid-19 restrictions.
TfL continues to need substantial support due to the significant fall in revenue caused by covid-19. However, choices made in the preceding four years have made TfL less resilient to the impacts of the pandemic and this is why it is of vital importance that the Mayor brings forward plans to re-establish a trajectory to financial sustainability as soon as possible.
As well as the conditions in the package agreed in May, the new agreement therefore sets out further measures to put TfL on a sustainable financial footing as soon as possible. Over the next six months, the Mayor will impose fare rises of RPI plus 1% on all modes from January 2021; maintain the central London congestion charge at the hours and level to which it was increased in June; maintain the withdrawal of 60-65 Pass and 66+ Freedom Pass concessions in the morning peak; and make a further £160 million in year savings, additional to those already planned, with the exception of active travel, which will remain as in the first half of the year. TfL will co-operate with a Government-led review of driverless trains. The two Government special representatives will continue to attend TfL Board and panel meetings. A new Government-led working-level oversight group will be created. By 11 January 2021, TfL will produce a single, comprehensive management plan with options as to how a trajectory to financial sustainability by 2023 can be achieved.
Any grant from Government to support London must be fair for UK taxpayers. If the Mayor wishes Londoners to continue to benefit from travel concessions and or other benefits above those typically available elsewhere in England, he and TfL have recognised that the costs of these additional benefits will not be met by the Government and that they will meet these costs themselves, without recourse to additional borrowing, savings, service changes or deferrals. TfL and the Mayor have proposed that this could be done by an increased council tax precept from April 2021. They will submit their proposals by 11 January 2021, alongside the fiscal sustainability plan. The Government will take all steps necessary at the appropriate times to enable this proposal.
Extending the congestion charging zone to inner London has been ruled out by both the Government and the Mayor. National travel concessions including free travel to school for those who qualify under the 1996 Education Act will continue to be funded by the Government. The Freedom Pass for pensioners and the disabled will continue as now. It is not funded by TfL or the Mayor.
The full agreement can be found on the gov.uk website at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/ transport-for-london-settlement-letter.
[HCWS543]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
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 must ask Members in the Room to wear a face covering except when seated at their desk, to speak sitting down, and to wipe their desk, chair and any other touch points before and after use. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded, or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes.
The microphone system for physical participants has changed. Your microphones will no longer be turned on at all times, in order to reduce the noise for remote participants. When it is your turn to speak, please press the button on the microphone stand. Once you have done that, wait for the green flashing light to turn red before you begin speaking. The process for unmuting and muting for remote participants, however, remains the same.
Blood Safety and Quality (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bethell
That the Grand Committee do consider the Blood Safety and Quality (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, these regulations are critical in giving effect to the Ireland/Northern Ireland protocol for the safety and quality of blood, organs, tissues and cells, including reproductive cells.
I will give a brief moment of context. In January, the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 was agreed by this House. It brings into domestic law the withdrawal agreement between the UK and the EU. Included in the withdrawal agreement is the protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland, commonly referred to as the Northern Ireland protocol.
On 20 May 2020, we set out our approach to implementing the Northern Ireland protocol as part of meeting our obligations under the withdrawal agreement. We are committed to meeting these obligations, all the while recognising the unique status of Northern Ireland within the UK and the importance of upholding the Belfast, or Good Friday, agreement.
These SIs covering donated blood, organs, tissues and cells support the vital role that these materials play in life-changing treatments for UK patients—whether it is blood transfusions to treat major blood loss, heart transplants to treat heart failure, stem cells to treat blood cancer, or eggs and sperm to treat infertility, patients rely on these treatments every day. Last year in the UK, there were 3,760 deceased organ transplants, approximately 1,100 people benefited from UK-donated stem cells and approximately 13% of IVF cycles used donor eggs or sperm. Many people would not be alive today if it were not for the generosity of donors.
The UK’s current high safety and quality standards for blood, organs, tissues and cells are derived from EU law. The application of these standards makes Britain one of the most progressive regulatory environments in the world.
Last year, in preparation for the UK leaving the EU, the Government made four statutory instruments to fix shortcomings in the current law caused by EU exit. These were made on a UK-wide basis and come into effect on 1 January 2021. These 2019 statutory instruments maintain the current safety and quality standards across the UK.
So let me explain for a moment what these regulations do. The Northern Ireland protocol requires Northern Ireland to remain aligned with the EU blood, organs and tissues and cells directives for as long as the protocol is in force, including any future changes to the directives. These four instruments will come into force on 1 January 2021 and will ensure that Northern Ireland continues to be aligned with the directives after the end of the transition period. There are five ways in which they do this.
First, the regulations ensure that the safety and quality standards will remain the same across the UK from 1 January 2021. These standards are currently aligned with EU directives. Secondly, the UK regulators for blood, organs, tissues, and cells will continue to act as the competent authorities for Northern Ireland in respect of the EU. This means that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, the Human Tissue Authority and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority will continue to meet the same EU obligations for Northern Ireland as they do now.
Thirdly, these instruments amend the definition of “third country” for imports into Northern Ireland to ensure that we meet the terms of the Northern Ireland protocol, but also meet our commitment to unfettered access. This means that from 1 January 2021, when establishments in Northern Ireland receive blood, organs, tissues and cells from Great Britain, they will need to treat them the same as those received from outside the EU. In accordance with our commitment to unfettered access for goods moving from Northern Ireland to Great Britain, there will be no changes to the requirements when sending blood, organs, tissues and cells from Northern Ireland to Great Britain. The movement of blood, organs, tissues and cells around the UK is critical for patient treatment, and we are committed to ensuring that this movement can continue from 1 January 2021.
Fourthly, these instruments will require tissue establishments in Northern Ireland to continue using the single European code for traceability purposes, as they do now. Fifthly, the 2019 statutory instruments introduced some limited regulation-making powers into UK law for each of the UK nations. The EU withdrawal agreement Act 2018 contains the powers needed to make changes in relation to the safety and quality of blood, organs, tissues and cells for Northern Ireland to ensure future alignment with any changes to the directives. Therefore, the powers in the 2019 statutory instruments are no longer needed for Northern Ireland, and consequently these regulations limit those regulation-making powers to Great Britain.
Let me be clear: the fact that Northern Ireland will remain subject to EU law in this area does not mean that the UK as a whole will be prevented from making changes to the safety and quality regime in this area. The EU directives in this area set minimum standards of safety and quality. They allow member states to go further if they wish. If the UK as a whole wished to move forward and change the safety and quality standards, this could be done. They are a floor, not a ceiling.
A lot of preparatory work has already taken place. The regulators for the relevant sectors are working with licensed establishments across the UK to help ensure they are ready for any changes that will arise from 1 January 2021. They are supporting establishments to put any necessary import licences and agreements in place, preventing any disruption in the supply of blood, organs, tissues and cells. These changes affect only a very small number of establishments in Northern Ireland: one blood establishment, one transplant centre, two licensed tissue establishments and four fertility clinics. There will be some minor administrative costs for establishments in Great Britain moving blood, organs, tissues and cells to Northern Ireland.
Regarding the DAs, legislative competence for the donation, processing and use in treatment of human reproductive cells remains reserved to Westminster. Competence in respect of all other human tissues and cells, blood and organs is devolved, and the relevant instruments are being made on a UK-wide basis with the consent of the devolved Administrations. Work is under way to put in place a common frame- work between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations, to support co-ordinated decision-making on the safety and quality of blood, organs, tissues and cells after the end of the transition period.
To conclude, these regulations are vital to the Government’s preparations for the end of the transition period. It is essential that they are made to allow the UK to fulfil its obligations under the Northern Ireland protocol. The UK already has high standards for the safety and quality of blood, organs, tissues and cells. These instruments ensure the UK will continue to work to these high standards after the transition period; that blood, organs, tissues and cells will continue to be able to be moved around the UK; and that we have a platform to build the regulatory regime even further. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing and explaining so carefully the statutory instruments. Clearly, as he said, they are very important. The key statement he made, which is repeated in paragraph 7.7 of the Explanatory Memorandum, is:
“Neither the 2019 SIs, nor the 2020 SIs make changes to the safety and quality standards, which will remain the same across the UK from 1 January 2021.”
However, for Northern Ireland, these standards are expressed by reference to EU legislation, whereas for Great Britain they are not; although, at the moment, the substance is the same in both cases. So I ask the Minister: what are the implications of any future change made in EU directives or in UK law? Since we may not stay aligned with the EU, there must be some inevitability, at that stage, of that arising. Will that not then lead to a confusing situation in future where UK regulators are responsible for overseeing different laws in separate parts of the UK? If that is the case, and given that this is a hugely sensitive area, will this inhibit the movement of tissues and organs between Ireland and Great Britain? The Minister mentioned such movement, but will he clarify how much movement there is at the moment?
I would also like to ask the Minister about the six-month transition period from exit day to allow establishments time to put the necessary arrangements into place for importing and exporting tissues and cells with the EU? Is he confident that that is sufficient time for those establishments?
I refer to our recent debate on the Human Tissue Act during the passage of the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill. As the Minister knows from our debate, it is our view at least that the Human Tissue Act does not require appropriate consent for imported human tissue, and, in addition, imported human tissue for use in medical research does not require traceability. Of course, this is very relevant in the case of China and the shocking use of organs of prisoners and minority groups for commercial exportation. I readily acknowledge that we are currently in discussion with the Minister’s department about a suitable amendment to deal with this, but will any such amendment agreed in the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill apply also to Northern Ireland?
I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Alton, will speak in some detail on this, but, as I have the opportunity, I would like also to talk about human tissue. As the Minister will know, we have been concerned about the view of the WHO on the practices in China, as it is based upon a self-assessment by China itself. This has been the subject of correspondence between the Government and the World Health Organization. The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, has now turned down a freedom of information request from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and I want to express my disappointment. This is so important that the Government really ought to publish the correspondence. Having said that, I am very grateful for the opportunity to debate these regulations.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I too thank the Minister for presenting the statutory instruments. I will speak in particular to the blood safety and quality regulations. These are clearly very important and, as we get closer to the date by which a deal was meant to have been arrived at and there is not one, they become even more important, particularly given the shelf life of blood.
I will follow on from what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said. Standards in Northern Ireland are linked to the EU and will continue to be linked to the EU under the agreement. For Great Britain, divergence can take place. I note that the Minister said it was a floor and not a ceiling, but sometimes the floor can fall in, even with small changes—for example, on the storage of blood. So how will the Government ensure that divergence does not mean that standards will change before they come before Parliament and are passed into law, which could mean that the supply of blood becomes slower than is operationally required?
I note that 6.5% of plasma is imported from the EU to the UK. Can the Minister confirm what arrangements have been made to ensure that that plasma will continue to be available to those in GB—and speedily? If we go to a no-deal arrangement, what arrangements are there and what discussions have been had with the EU with regard to our position on getting this supply of plasma? Will it change if we are a third country? I seek exactly the same assurances on the supply of blood for patients with rare diseases who require imported blood and blood components. What arrangements have been made to ensure that the supply and standards remain the same over a period of time?
If the EU brings in new technical updates, what processes for Great Britain will be in place and how will they be linked to future EU standards? What proactive work will take place, or will we have to reactively change if the EU changes its standards and is seen to diverge?
It is clear that the arrangements on this seem certain—but only if the GB Government decide not to diverge at any point. I want assurances in particular on that, but also with regard to supply. In the House of Commons debate at the time of the 2019 regulations, the Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Health and Social Care stated very clearly that the fast-tracking of shipments at ports and alternative routes were being prepared. Have those now been prepared and, if they have, what arrangements are in place for the fast-tracking of shipments at ports and alternative routes for the supply of blood into the UK, Northern Ireland and GB?
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am likewise very grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his very clear explanation of the purpose of these regulations. I wish to speak only to the first set, relating to blood safety and quality.
As the Minister quite rightly explained, the purpose of the regulations is to enable the protocol to be applied and therefore for the regulations in Northern Ireland to continue to be those prescribed by EU law, rather than those under UK law. So the issues, as noble Lords have already said, including the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, are very much around what will happen if there is some degree of divergence in the future.
My point is that I do not regard this as an unlikely prospect: I fear that it is a quite likely—and perhaps even an imminent—prospect. I say this because it is just over a year since the European Commission published its working document, Evaluation of the Union Legislation on Blood, Tissues and Cells. My expectation is that, probably this month, an inception impact assessment will be published by the European Commission, and its working plan says that it expects to publish a legislative proposal in the third quarter of next year—so this is not a speculative prospect.
It may not occur because the United Kingdom chooses to have different regulations. Notwithstanding my noble friend’s optimistic scenario, it is not simply a question of whether the United Kingdom chooses to have higher standards of regulation. Divergence does not necessarily mean that one jurisdiction has high standards and one has low standards; they have different standards.
Let me give some examples of where this might arise. The first relates to advanced therapy medicinal products; here, I am talking about gene therapies and somatic cell therapies. It is clear from the European Commission’s work on what it terms “strategic value chains” that one of the nine areas it has identified is personalised medicines. We know from discussions in the European Parliament in relation to these matters, and from the way in which the Commission has responded to them, that it does not simply regard this as strategic but also regards Europe’s own legislation on the governance of gene therapies as potentially differing from where it is now—and it may well be different from the way in which we choose to govern gene therapies in this country. So we may diverge in that respect.
Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, referred to plasma and plasma products. The European Union is dealing with substantial excess, and rising, demand for plasma and plasma products. There is a serious deficiency in supply in the European Union, much of which is presently met from the United States. It may well be that the European Union adopts measures the purpose of which is to increase supply within it. That may have implications for the supply of plasma products heading out of the EU to non-EU member states. Of course, for these purposes, the United Kingdom will become a non-EU member state, so we may have divergence in that respect.
This is not confined to the European Union. On 30 October, the US Food and Drug Administration published a list of 230 sensitive products in this area, five of which relate to plasma and plasma products. There are rising demands for products in this area and international constraints on supply. I will not repeat him but the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked a perfectly reasonable question about the ability of the HTA to be a competent authority for two different jurisdictions, and whether my noble friend the Minister is happy that the HTA can exercise both roles.
Finally, if I may be forgiven for this question, how are we at this moment discussing these regulations in this Committee to give effect to the protocol, while discussing a Bill this afternoon in the Chamber Clauses 43 and 44 of which seem on the face of it to give the Government the power—indeed, give Ministers the responsibility—potentially to disapply the protocol in relation to regulations in this area? This is an absurd proposition. Perhaps my noble friend would be kind enough to explain how we arrived at this place.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, in thanking the Minister for introducing these statutory instruments, I am conscious of two things. First, they are procedurally necessary because of the decision to leave the European Union, but inter alia, honour a commitment not to use such transitional arrangements to dilute our commitment to uphold the highest possible standards in relation to the use of organs, tissues, blood and cells. I think that the Government have honoured that commitment. Secondly, I am conscious that it is only a few days since we had a full-blown debate on an amendment to the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill, which is currently in Committee, relating to human organs. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, referred to this earlier. Like him, I would like further clarity on the one notable change in the regulations—also touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, a moment ago. It relates to Northern Ireland, where European Union law will continue to apply while not doing so in the rest of the United Kingdom.
The opportunity for confusion and inconsistency is therefore written into the very DNA of the statutory instruments. It reminds us of what is one of the most troubling and unresolved aspects of the withdrawal agreement. I would be interested to know who within the Northern Ireland Executive has been the point man or woman in discussing the implications of the SI; who has been consulted within the Northern Ireland Assembly and what response has been received; and whether these arrangements have been signed off by the Commission in Brussels and the relevant health authorities in Dublin.
When he comes to reply, I would also be grateful to the Minister if he would return to the questions that I put to him last week concerning the trade and exhibition of body parts. Given that the Human Tissue Act does not require traceability, how is that to be resolved in the context of these statutory instruments or in the legislation being taken through the House? Will that principle now be treated differently in Northern Ireland and Great Britain?
Yesterday I sent the Minister an 87-page report, with 270 footnotes, The Economics of Organ Harvesting in China, published by the Institute to Research the Crimes of Communism. It describes forced organ harvesting as
“one of the most inhumane crimes in the entire history of humanity”.
In harrowing detail, it describes what it calls “the business offer” and details an international spider’s web of companies—including some from the United Kingdom—which have aided and abetted what it describes as primitive barbaric practices. I am grateful to the Minister, whom I had a chance to speak to just before we came into this Committee, for already having had a glance at the report. I hope that he will commit to looking at the report further and say how he intends to take forward an investigation into the companies referred to in it. Will he agree to refer it to the World Health Organization for its consideration?
In that context, and further to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, I might add that only today the information rights unit at the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office has written to me in response to the freedom of information request to which I referred during our debate last week, asking for the correspondence between it and the WHO to be made public. In its response, the unit says:
“Some of the information has been withheld using section 27(1)(b) on International Relations. Section 27 is a qualified exemption and is subject to a public interest test. The application of section 27(1)(b) requires us to consider the public interest test arguments in favour of releasing and withholding information.”
The letter also says:
“The disclosure of information could potentially damage the bilateral relationship between the UK and the World Health Organization. This would reduce the UK Government’s ability to protect and promote UK interests through its relations with the WHO, which would not be in the public interest.”
I would obviously contest that strongly, not least because of the vast amounts of public money that pour from the United Kingdom into the WHO. This sits very uncomfortably with our belief in transparency and open government. Elsewhere, the letter says:
“The disclosure of information detailing our relationship with China could potentially damage the bilateral relationship between the UK and China.”
Why should information pertaining to the forced harvesting of organs and their use in organ tourism be damaging to our relations with China?
Let me conclude. I would be grateful if the Minister could say how in further legislation, whether brought through SIs or within the current Bill, we can demonstrate our determination to stamp out organ tourism that relies on the killing of non-consenting victims, and which then trades in their remains in ways which the United Kingdom should demonstrate to the rest of the world that it will not tolerate.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]
I thank my noble friend Lord Bethell for setting out these regulations so clearly. I strongly support all four sets of regulations; as he has said, they are vital to honour the withdrawal agreement. Indeed, that withdrawal agreement is at the base of the regulations we are considering. They essentially ensure that for the purposes of the quality and safety of organs intended for transplant, human tissue, blood and blood products, gametes, embryos and reproductive cells, Northern Ireland is still treated as if it were part of the EU and still a member state. Great Britain—England, Wales and Scotland—is to be treated as a non-member state. Current EU law will therefore remain in place in Northern Ireland, and Great Britain is a third-party state as far as Northern Ireland is concerned.
Initially, this will perhaps not create any day-to-day problems because there will be no initial divergence. However, paragraph 7.13 of the Explanatory Memorandum to these regulations sets out clearly that Northern Ireland establishments will consider Great Britain the same as a non-EU member state, and that Northern Ireland will ensure that there are “equivalent standards” for blood and blood products—those words are used—and for organ issues. Again, it provides for equivalent safety and quality standards. That perhaps is the answer: the standards could be divergent, but they must be equivalent, so there cannot be too much divergence from the norm. That is reassuring.
I do not have an issue with the purpose of these recognitions—I have no problem with that at all; it is a matter of practical common sense. I was briefly a Minister in Northern Ireland, and I saw that the invisible border meant that in practice, ambulances from one side of the border that were near the border would help out when needed on the other side. That was very sensible—it was pragmatic, practical common sense and it happened on a daily basis. However, the withdrawal agreement provided for the situation that we are dealing with here. Like my noble friend Lord Lansley, I ask: why, then, it is then a problem in relation to the United Kingdom internal market legislation? It does not make sense. What we are doing here is sensible and was foreseen—indeed, it was foreseen elsewhere. So why is it a problem with, as it were, the “mothership” legislation? I do not know whether the Minister will feel able to answer that, but it is a real issue for me.
As I say, I have no problem with this legislation at all, which seems very sensible for these purposes. It is a matter of geographic reality rather than anything else. I suspect that the problem is the same in relation to energy regulations that may well be coming forward. For these purposes, once again, if there is a problem with supplying energy on one side of the border because of a failure of supply, the first place one looks is the other side of the border: that is geographic reality and common sense. These matters are being dealt with pragmatically and sensibly, so why are we proposing to breach international law in relation to a broader front? It does not make sense. So I will be very grateful if the Minister feels able to deal with that issue, and I hope that he will. However, the regulations themselves are sensible and I certainly support them.
Baroness Walmsley (LD) [V]
My Lords, I intend to focus my remarks on the human tissue and organ transplant regulations and, in particular, on the issues of timeliness and trust.
I have a particular interest in both of these issues. Back in 1995, I gave my consent in Brussels for organs from my deceased husband to be removed for transplantation. I was happy to do so and received considerable comfort from the fact that, even after his death, he could do some good for other human beings somewhere in Europe. I mention this because, at the time, we and Belgium were both members of the European Union, and the administration and procedure were expedited smoothly and professionally. Since the 2016 referendum, I have been anxious that no barriers should be put in the way of the continued smooth running of this process.
As we have heard, in 2019 a set of regulations was approved to ensure that EU standards would continue during the implementation period, and today we have regulations that take account of the unusual position of Northern Ireland following our exit from the EU. The regulations ensure that, as long as Northern Ireland takes certain steps which have little or no cost, the same standards will apply and no barriers will be put in the way. I am reassured about that—in theory.
However, there are many practical considerations when you are dealing with human tissues that must be delivered in a timely way. The numbers we are dealing with are significant. Between April 2019 and March 2020, 32 organs from deceased donors moved from GB to Northern Ireland, and 126 organs moved in the other direction. As the Minister said, there are two tissue establishments in Northern Ireland, and they will continue to be able to receive tissues and cells from GB, but they will treat GB as a non-EU member state for this purpose.
I understand that Northern Ireland must continue to meet the requirements of EU directives for as long as the protocol is in force. But, as other noble Lords have said, changes to these instruments may be needed if there are changes to the directives. Can the Minister confirm that the Northern Ireland Administration intend to make these changes if they happen, and, if that is the case, what is the British Government’s intention?
My interest in the human tissue regulation is both personal and general. I have a family member who is currently awaiting a bone marrow transplant and, fortunately, matches have been found in other countries, possibly Northern Ireland. Time is of the essence, so my concern is whether organs and tissues from abroad will reach UK patients in a timely way after the end of the transition phase. If the ports are blocked, the Government have suggested that tissue and medicines—and indeed pharmaceuticals—will be flown in. But look what has happened to the aerospace industry during the pandemic. Will there be enough resource? Will the military be used if there are blockages?
I am also concerned about UK bioscience research. There are about 5,000 imports of tissues and cells from the EU alone in a typical year, so it is essential for UK life sciences that there are no barriers to this work. Can the Minister reassure me?
These SIs are to bring EU regulation into UK law, whether or not we get a deal. It is looking as if we will not. When the 2019 SIs were debated in Grand Committee on 9 January 2019, in Hansard col. 201 the Minister said that such materials would be “prioritised”. However, the problem is that everything will need to be prioritised.
In that debate my noble friend Lady Barker raised the issue of inspection of premises, pointing out that the UK and the EU will each inspect their own premises. But what happens if there is a serious incident on one side or the other? Will this not destroy the trust that is needed for this system to work? It is also essential that the public trust the regulations since, in many cases, such as transplantation, their permission is needed. How will the Minister reassure any member of the public listening to this debate that they can have the confidence to give that consent once we are independently responsible for our own standards? As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, confusion and inconsistency can destroy trust.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations. Indeed, I remember taking part in that debate in January 2019—I am looking at the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and clearly she does, too. Although much time has passed, little has changed. We are still facing a situation in which we live under the threat of leaving with no deal and therefore being a third country in terms of EU regulation. These matters are of immense importance. We are, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said, talking about tissues and materials and so on which are in high demand and of which there is not a great surfeit.
It is important now to realise that we are talking in these regulations simply about the circumstances under which we would import such materials from the EU into Northern Ireland and into Great Britain. I will say one thing for Brexit: it has educated the British public in what the United Kingdom is and what Great Britain is and what the differences are between the two. Some of us who were brought up in Scotland have long known the difference.
I understand what the Minister says about these regulations being important in order to enable the current regime, or congruence of regimes, to continue. However, we are still talking about these regulations applying only for a transitional period of six months. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is absolutely right that we will face the prospect very shortly of having part of the United Kingdom under a regulatory environment into the terms of which the UK Government have had no input. I happen to think that that is an inevitable part of Brexit, and I am not surprised that that was never put on the side of a bus. None the less, it has important consequences for people in Northern Ireland and for the rest of us in the United Kingdom.
Can the Minister say who will have the responsibility for keeping under review the regulatory burden and costs of operating two different systems within the United Kingdom, and who will be responsible for the long-term monitoring of issues such as the availability of organs and tissues within Great Britain on a long-term basis? My noble friend Lady Walmsley is right: there is a degree of danger here to the supply of these necessary items.
When we debated these regulations in 2019, I did not get a satisfactory answer on inspection of premises and what would be the responsibility of both the British authorities and others to notify serious incidents within 24 hours. Perhaps in his response the Minister might take that up.
I also think that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is absolutely right that Clauses 42 and 43 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill have no place on our statute book. They certainly have no place in relation to the importation of these materials from the EU.
So politically we are no further on, but perhaps the Minister might be able to enlighten us with a bit more detail than was the case back in January 2019.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and others in this Room, I have been involved in the legislation that is the subject of these regulations for, in my case, 20-odd years. I thank the Minister for his explanation of these regulations. If he looks back in the record to last year and the statutory instruments that we were discussing in Grand Committee—I think we might even be amending some of them today—he will see that his noble friend Lady Manzoor was given a particularly hard time by the Committee, because of course we were at the time putting on the statute book regulations just in case we crashed out of the European Union in March last year, and many of us resented the amount of legislative time that we wasted preparing for something which did not then happen.
It is of course important to acknowledge that these regulations are of vital and often life-saving importance, and concern literally matters of life and death.
The UK legislation for the safety and quality of blood, organs, tissue and cells, including reproductive cells, is of course based on European law. The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 ensures that EU-derived domestic legislation will continue to have effect after the end of the transition period. In 2019, regulations were introduced to ensure that UK legislation in this area could function effectively after the transition period. However, Northern Ireland will remain subject to relevant EU laws as a result of the Ireland/Northern Ireland protocol. So today we are looking at four statutory instruments that would amend the 2019 regulations and enable Northern Ireland to continue to meet European law.
Like other noble Lords, I have two questions that flow from that. First, what effect will the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill have in this regard? Is it a complete waste of our time discussing these things? Secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and my noble friend Lord Hunt asked, what happens when there is divergence in the regulatory framework between the European Union and Great Britain?
As noble Lords have said, there is one blood establishment in Northern Ireland, and it will of course be able to continue receiving blood and blood components from Great Britain establishments. However, Northern Ireland establishments will treat Great Britain as a non-European Union member state—a third country—for this purpose. What does that mean? In practical language, will this delay or impede the use of blood products?
The provisions for importing blood or blood components from a non-EU member state are set out. The Northern Ireland blood establishment already has the required import authorisations in place, and GB blood establishments currently prepare blood and blood components to meet EU and UK standards, so Northern Ireland blood establishments can continue to receive blood or blood components from Great Britain. There are 10 hospital blood banks in Northern Ireland, which will not, I think, need to take any action as a result of this SI.
On organs for transplant, the NHS Blood and Transplant service will continue to be responsible for organ donation and retrieval in the UK. Between April 2019 and March 2020, as other noble Lords have said, 32 organs from deceased donors moved from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, and 126 organs moved from Northern Ireland to Great Britain. Organs will be able to continue moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. However, Northern Ireland-based establishments again will be treating Great Britain as a non-EU member state for these purposes. We are told that these are the same provisions that currently apply to organs moving within the UK, and so the changes made by the 2020 SI will make no difference. However, what of the future? What happens when and if the European Union changes the regulations in this area? How will this be impacted? For tissues and organs, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, time is absolutely of the essence in these matters.
The HFEA says on its website:
“As the regulator of the fertility sector we continue to support clinics during the transition period. We have been communicating regularly with clinics through our Clinic Focus publication and have developed an EU exit webpage for clinics. We believe that fertility clinics are minimising the possibility of disruption of patient treatment.”
Well, I wonder whether that is the case, actually, for fertility treatment between Ireland, Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
The Human Tissue Authority website says that
“establishments that are licensed under the Human Tissue (Quality and Safety for Human Application) Regulations 2007 (as amended) may require changes to their licence. This applies to establishments in the Human Application sector from 1 January 2021.”
So the HTA is saying that human tissue establishments will need to vary their licence in order to continue their activities post transition. This includes establishments that intend to import or export tissues and cells as the starting material for the manufacture of an advanced therapy medicinal product. That is extremely important. In what way will this take place? Will there be delays? How will it happen?
I will look briefly at sperm banks, and I asked this question last year. The UK currently imports sperm primarily from sperm banks in the USA and Denmark. How will that traffic in particular be affected by these new regulations and instruments? In the regime that we currently have, we will be a third country and no longer a member of the EEA. So I would like to have explained how that will affect the import of sperm from the sperm banks that we use in Denmark.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I start by saying a profound thank you for a lively, insightful and patient debate, because I recognise that these issues have been visited before—and the debate only improves in the retelling. I shall try to trot through a number of points in quick order, because the debate has been wide-ranging and taken on a number of issues.
I want to start on the most important one, divergence, which was raised by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, my noble friend Lord Lansley and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. On the question of divergence and one regulator overseeing different territories, I reassure noble Lords that we are moving towards developing a common UK framework for blood, organs, tissues and cells with the devolved Administrations precisely in order to avoid this problem. This is the mechanism whereby the four nations can work together to ensure that they are all aligned and that companies and individuals in each nation can feel confident that they are in one common legislative framework. Policy issues will continue to be considered on a four-country basis going forward. I reassure noble Lords that officials and Ministers in Northern Ireland will continue to be involved in policy development, as they have been to date.
After 31 January, blood, organs and tissues will keep moving from the UK to Northern Ireland and from Northern Ireland to the UK, and they will keep moving from the UK to the EU and from the EU to the UK.
There may be at an appropriate point in the future an opportunity for the department to review whether the UK’s exit from the EU offers us opportunities to reappraise current regulations to ensure that we continue to protect the nation’s health. When that moment arrives, we will consult, analyse and assess. The regulations put in place the opportunity to do that—but that is for a moment in the future and it is not envisaged in the near future. To reassure the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who asked about the devolved Administrations, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have provided their consent to these statutory instruments and they continue to be closely involved in the development of policy.
The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, asked about the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill. I reassure him that the Bill as drafted would already allow us to strengthen the requirements governing the use of human tissues in the development of medicines, were it deemed necessary and appropriate to do so. For instance, powers under Clauses 1 and 2 would enable us to introduce new requirements to the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 for medicines manufactured using human tissues.
The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and others asked about the movement of blood and blood components. This is a hugely important issue. Currently, the UK is largely self-sufficient in the supply of blood and blood components. It occasionally exports rare blood cells—fewer than 10 units per year—to the EU and to non-EU countries. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, observed, blood components are frequently shared across the four nations, as needed to meet demand, and the regulations will ensure that that flow is not interrupted. The movement of blood, organs, tissues and cells around the UK is absolutely critical for patient treatment. That will continue as it is now. There will be some minor administrative changes for tissue establishments in Northern Ireland to receive tissues and cells from Great Britain, but there will be no change to the requirements for Northern Ireland establishments to send blood, organs and tissues to GB.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and my noble friend Lord Bourne asked about the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill. As they will know, the Bill has passed Second Reading. Amendments have been tabled to enable safety emergency exclusion functions as intended that can be applied, if required, to Northern Ireland qualifying goods. However, I absolutely reassure noble Lords that we are totally committed to upholding our long-standing track record of high standards on health and food, including in respect of the materials which are the subject of these statutory instruments. We have kept healthcare and social care services out of the scope of the services framework rules, ensuring that there is no disruption to the regulation of health and care services.
My noble friend Lord Lansley was right to point out that it is fast-changing world for blood plasma. This could not be more relevant than it is right now. Covid has shown the international constraints on supply and the potential for huge demand. I reassure him that this is uppermost in our minds and that we will put in place all the regulations necessary to ensure that British access to blood plasma from overseas remains as secure as it is today.
To the noble Lord, Lord Alton, I say personal thanks for the report which he sent me. It includes charges which we take very seriously. We are of course against organ tourism. I noted the powerful points that he made in Committee on the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill last month and look forward to further discussion on Report. I reassure him that my noble friend Lord Ahmad has written to the World Health Organization encouraging it to give careful consideration to the findings of the report of the International Coalition to End Transplant Abuse in China. The Government welcome any work that is rigorous and balanced, and that raises awareness of the human rights situation in China. We continue to monitor this issue closely and to consider carefully all the evidence presented to us.
I note the personal testimony of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. My family has been the beneficiary of organ transplantation, so I completely endorse her concerns. Traffic between Great Britain and Northern Ireland will remain, as it will between GB and the EU. I am glad to confirm that Northern Ireland will align with the EU, but we will find a way to work with Northern Ireland within the UK common framework to ensure that this trade continues. I am reminded that between April 2019 and March 2020, the UK exported 13 organs to the EU and imported 13 organs from it. While these numbers may seem low, they are extremely important to those concerned and it is a priority to ensure that those movements continue. With those thoughts, I commend the regulations.
Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bethell
That the Grand Committee do consider the Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
Human Tissue (Quality and Safety for Human Application) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bethell
That the Grand Committee do consider the Human Tissue (Quality and Safety for Human Application) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
Quality and Safety of Organs Intended for Transplantation (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bethell
That the Grand Committee do consider the Quality and Safety of Organs Intended for Transplantation (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
The Grand Committee stands adjourned until 3.45 pm. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now resume. Some Members are here in person, respecting social distancing, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I must ask Members in the Room to wear a face covering except when seated at their desk, to speak sitting down, and to wipe down their desk, chair and any other touch points before and after use. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded, or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes. The time limit for debate on the following statutory instrument is one hour.
Tobacco Products and Nicotine Inhaling Products (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
Baroness Penn
That the Grand Committee do consider the Tobacco Products and Nicotine Inhaling Products (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, thanks to the cross-party achievements on tobacco control legislation over the past two decades, smoking rates are at their lowest levels on record in the UK and extensive public health gains have been made. However, we cannot be complacent. Smoking still causes over 78,000 deaths each year and is one of the leading causes of preventable illness and premature death in England alone. That is why we have set out an ambition for England to be smoke-free by 2030. We are developing our plans here and will share them as soon as we can.
As noble Lords are aware, the United Kingdom is a global leader in tobacco control and the instrument we are debating today will ensure that we continue our strong commitment to robust levels of tobacco control legislation after the end of the transition period. Through these regulations, we are making the necessary arrangements to implement the terms of the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol in law for tobacco control. This will ensure that tobacco control functions effectively from 1 January.
The 2020 regulations will amend the existing 2019 regulations, which were made in preparation for our exit from the European Union. The amendments made by this instrument to the 2019 regulations will mean further amendments to the way in which the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016 apply in Great Britain and Northern Ireland after the end of the transition period.
The 2020 regulations introduce four main changes. First, it is essential that tobacco and e-cigarette producers provide notification of their products. This ensures that companies comply with legislation on product standards and competent authorities are aware of all the products on the market. In accordance with the Northern Ireland protocol, the European Union’s tobacco products directive will apply to Northern Ireland after the end of the transition period. Therefore, this instrument requires that suppliers of tobacco and e-cigarette products wishing to place a product on the market in Northern Ireland will continue notifying via the EU common entry gate system. As legislated for in the 2019 regulations, those wishing to sell in Great Britain will be required to notify through a domestic system. The domestic system is already developed and will be hosted by Public Health England for tobacco products, and by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency for e-cigarette products. The format and information required for notifying on both systems will be very similar, to place as little burden on industry as possible.
Secondly, to limit the financial burden on industry, this instrument makes amendments to the Tobacco Products and Herbal Products for Smoking (Fees) Regulations 2017 and the Electronic Cigarettes Etc. (Fees) Regulations 2016. The amendments will reflect that, if a producer notifies via both the Northern Ireland and Great Britain systems, they are required to pay only one fee. If a producer wishes to notify in relation to placing products on just one of the markets, the same one fee will be payable. We will, however, keep the fee structure under review.
Thirdly, the instrument amends requirements for picture warnings, which are central to tobacco control. Due to the Northern Ireland protocol, the European Union’s library of picture warnings will continue to feature on tobacco products sold in Northern Ireland. However, our Government do not hold the copyright for the European Union’s pictures for use in a Great Britain market. We therefore require the industry to switch to the picture warnings as set out in Schedule A1 to the 2019 regulations, kindly licensed by the Australian Government free of cost. I would like to highlight to noble Lords that the tobacco industry is already accustomed to supplying different markets with varying packaging requirements across Europe and worldwide.
Lastly, the regulations will amend the sell-through period for existing stock that features the EU picture library on the Great British market, in accordance with the withdrawal agreement. This will allow stock first supplied before the end of the transition period to continue to circulate until it reaches its end user.
This instrument will allow goods to move freely between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, subject to the tobacco picture warning requirements.
Although this instrument will have some impact on industry, we have tried to minimise this as much as possible by communicating with stakeholders in August and making them aware of the legislative changes. We also circulated guidance in October regarding the specific requirements for picture warnings. Public Health England and the MHRA will be publishing detailed guidance on notification requirements for both notification systems later this autumn.
Officials at the Department of Health and Social Care have engaged with the devolved Administrations throughout the development of this instrument, and I am grateful for that positive collaboration.
This instrument is a necessary measure in order to ensure that the withdrawal agreement and Northern Ireland protocol are reflected in law for tobacco control. It is crucial that the robust level of tobacco control currently operating in the UK remains after the end of the transition period, ensuring that we continue to protect the nation’s health. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing these regulations. I want to ask her two or three questions.
First, on notification, as the Minister said, the regulations provide that producers will be required to pay only one fee if they notify a new product on either or both of the notification systems. However, products which are required to carry picture warnings will not have mutual access to the two markets because of the different legal requirements that apply within each area. Can the Minister confirm that this approach will minimise the amount of additional work involved in the notification process if there were to be a no-deal Brexit, that products notified to the UK prior to the UK leaving the EU will not require renotification, that data will be accepted in the same XML format as currently submitted to the EU common entry gate, and that the UK will continue to recognise submitter IDs issued by the European Commission, including those issued after the UK exits the EU?
In the longer term, the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016 require the Secretary of State to review the regulations and publish a report before 20 May 2021. The review needs to examine the objectives intended to be achieved by the regulatory provision made by the regulations, and assess how far they can be met and whether they remain appropriate. Can the Minister set out a timeline for that?
E-cigarettes continue to be the most popular aid to quitting for adult smokers. A recent international review by the Cochrane group found that evidence had grown that e-cigarettes are effective in helping smokers to quit and that they may be more effective than traditional medications such as nicotine patches and gum. However, recent research from ASH points to a slowing of use among adult smokers, which may be linked to deteriorating understanding that vaping is safer than smoking. This raises the concern that more smokers could be successfully switching if they correctly understood that it was safer than continuing to smoke. At the same time, data shared with me by ASH shows that over 80% of 11 to 18 year-olds have never tried an e-cigarette, with less than 2% vaping at least weekly. However, ASH has also raised concerns that the way e-cigarettes are marketed may be shaping young people’s choice of products, and hence influencing their behaviour. Given the importance of balancing the needs of smokers against any impact on young people, it seems important that a review of these regulations is undertaken. If the Minister could set out a timeline, I would be grateful.
On picture warnings, I understand from ASH that it considers that, for the purposes of providing an alternative to the current picture warnings in the event we leave the EU without a deal, switching to one set of pictures from Australia is a sensible but short-term quick fix for an emergency. Does the Minister agree that best practice, as is the case in both Australia and the UK at present, is to rotate and regularly review and update health warnings? It is essential in the longer term that the Government review the warnings, which I gather are currently being evaluated by the Australian Government, to find ways to increase the number to allow for rotation, as is currently the case.
On cropping, the Government have stated in the consultation that they will provide further guidance in relation to cropping and sizing the images to ensure that they can be easily adapted by industry and will conform to existing legislative requirements on images and pack size. This is obviously essential, as it ensures a smooth transition to the new picture library. Can the Minister say when the guidance will come?
Finally, the Minister opened with a very welcome statement about government intent towards a smoke-free nation by 2030. However, this is a challenging target, and it is time for a revitalised tobacco strategy which includes the new measures envisaged in the public health Green Paper. Those are essential if we are to achieve the smoke-free 2030 ambition. In her opening remarks the Minister mentioned the work that is being done, but can she tell me when we expect to see publication of a new tobacco control plan?
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Smoking and Health. As an officer of that group, I was pleased to welcome the ambition set out in the Government’s prevention Green Paper last year, which sets out the aim for England to be smoke free by 2030.
The APPG has since endorsed the Roadmap to a Smokefree 2030, produced by Action on Smoking and Health and which was also endorsed by over 70 leading health organisations, including the Royal College of Physicians, the British Heart Foundation and Cancer Research UK. It sets out the actions needed to fulfil the Government’s ambition. The recommendations in the road map include measures that build on the regulations we are discussing today, including policies such as raising the age of sale for tobacco products and introducing what are called dissuasive cigarettes. The post-implementation review of the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations, which this instrument amends, provides an opportunity to take forward these policies.
Currently, 280 children take up smoking every day in England. This means that since the Government announced their ambition to be smoke-free by 2030, over 130,000 children have started smoking, risking a lifetime of addiction and premature death. Nearly 80% of smokers aged 16 to 24 say that they took up smoking before the age of 18. Raising the age of sale from 16 to 18 was associated with reductions in youth smoking, with a similar impact across different socioeconomic groups. Raising the age of sale further from 18 to 21 is a popular measure, with 62% of British adults reporting that they would support that move.
Similar evidence shows that dissuasive cigarettes, which have health warnings printed on the cigarette itself, could be effective. There is evidence that, to some extent, smokers become immune to the existing warnings on packets, and so new techniques are needed to gain their attention. Dissuasive cigarettes are under consideration in Canada, Australia and Scotland, and would provide a simple and effective means of reinforcing health messages such as “Smoking causes cancer”.
These actions are needed now more than ever. The coronavirus pandemic has exposed the impact of health inequalities on our society, with people in the most deprived communities twice as likely to die as a result of it. It is not a coincidence that these are also the communities worst affected by smoking. In Liverpool, where I grew up, 23% of people in routine and manual jobs still smoke. My mother was a nurse, but her life was undoubtedly shortened by smoking. It is clear that the poorest communities bear the brunt of smoking-related diseases, such as heart and lung disease, diabetes and hypertension, which worsen the impacts of coronavirus.
The Government’s manifesto last December committed to levelling up, to delivering five extra healthy life years by 2035 while narrowing inequalities. Reducing smoking is key to delivering those ambitions. However, we are still awaiting the Government’s response to the prevention Green Paper consultation and the promised further proposals to move us towards a smoke-free 2030 in England. Action is needed now, or our poorest communities will continue to be left behind and bear the brunt of smoking-related disease.
We are still awaiting the Government’s response to the prevention Green Paper consultation. I hope the Minister may also tell us what has happened to the Government’s response to the consultation on the Nicotine Inhaling Products (Age of Sale and Proxy Purchasing) Regulations 2015, covering England and Wales. That consultation closed in September last year and is referred to in these regulations. A response to that consultation was due last September but, almost a year on, there has been no word from the Government about when it will be published. We are waiting for the Government’s response to two consultations and for the launch of another, which needs to report before the end of the financial year. All three consultations are related to the regulations being amended by the statutory instrument before us, so can the Minister confirm when the Government will deliver on all three?
Lord Berkeley (Lab) [V]
My Lords, first, I apologise for arriving during the Minister’s introduction: I had some connection problems.
I welcome the regulations. They are necessary with Brexit imminent, but the complexity is well illustrated in the Explanatory Memorandum, which takes some reading. One thing that caught my eye was in paragraph 7.1.8, relating to Northern Ireland. Special regulations covering many issues relating to smoking and tobacco get tied up in the relationship between Northern Ireland and the rest of the EU. Has any thought been given to the reintroduction of smuggling across the border between the Republic and Northern Ireland? Cigarettes are wonderful things to smuggle—they very easy to hide. A lot of that will be going on unless some effort is made to discuss these and other regulations with the relevant people in the Republic, and with the European Union. I will be glad to hear what the Minister has to say on that.
My other question arose this morning when I got an email from the IBVTA, which represents vape stores. In response to the announcement on Saturday of the closing of all but essential shops, it terms a vape store as an essential shop. According to this organisation, and as we all know, more than 70,000 people across the UK die of smoking-related illnesses every year. It also says—which is relevant and which confirms the view of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath—that more than 3 million vapers are ex-smokers or current smokers. If for the next month, vapers will not be allowed able to buy their vapes, I suggest that there is a really good chance that they will revert to buying cigarettes, assuming they can buy them. Perhaps the Minister can explain why or if this is happening and, if not, write to me, because that is a retrograde step if we are to get to the target of being smoke free by 2030.
In the same way, if we are to have that target and make some changes, we ought to set an example ourselves and completely ban any tobacco smoke within the Palace of Westminster. That may be above the Minister’s pay grade—it is certainly above mine—but we should not forget about it. I look forward to her comments.
Baroness Northover (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the regulations. The decline in smoking that we have seen in the United Kingdom is indeed a major public health achievement and has, as she said, commanded strong cross-party support. My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, working with others, including the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, was central in bringing about the ban on smoking in public places, and that was transformative.
I was very pleased that when I was in the Department of Health in the coalition Government, we were able to build on that progress, and I pay tribute here to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, who was then Secretary of State. The draft instrument before us today must protect those achievements as we leave the EU, and I ask the Minister to ensure that it does with respect to warnings on tobacco packaging. I hope that we will continue to work with the EU: yet again, we maximised our influence by being in the EU.
I turn to the pictorial warnings. Evidence shows that one of the benefits of standardised tobacco packaging is that it makes the graphic health warnings on packs stand out. Research has consistently shown that pictorial warnings are more effective than text-only warnings at motivating smokers to quit. It is therefore welcome that the Government will be able to use the Australian Government’s library of graphic pictorial health warnings as an interim solution to ensure that tobacco packaging continues to warn smokers, following the end of the transition period. However, I emphasise the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt: that it is best practice to change these health warnings around to ensure that they maintain their impact. The reduced number of warnings in the Australian picture library compared to the EU’s is therefore a concern, and that is why this can be only an interim solution. Will the Government conduct a review of the picture warnings to ensure that we can increase their number, allowing for the rotation of warnings, as is currently the case? It is also worth noting that Northern Ireland will continue to have access to the EU picture library, meaning that packs sold in Northern Ireland will continue to have a wider range of picture warnings.
As the Minister says, we cannot be complacent. Smoking prevalence remains the leading cause of preventable premature death, killing almost 100,000 people a year in the United Kingdom. It is striking that there has been a decline during the pandemic. People know that smoking kills and fear for their health, but while more than half of smokers report wanting to quit, many take 30 or more attempts to do so. More must be done to help smokers to quit if we are to achieve the Government’s ambition of a smoke-free England by 2030. Like my noble friend Lord Rennard, I very much welcome the Government’s intention that England is smoke free by 2030.
While health warnings on the outside of packs motivate smokers to quit, the Government could and should go further, introducing pack inserts, which provide evidence-based advice on how to quit successfully. In Canada, for example, pack inserts highlight the benefits of quitting and provide tips on how to do so. Research into their impact has shown that while reading on-pack health warnings significantly decreased over time, reading inserts significantly increased, with more frequent reading of inserts associated with quitting. Introducing pack inserts in the United Kingdom would require a simple amendment to the standardised packaging regulations.
The Government’s prevention Green Paper mentioned pack inserts but highlighted that they would wait until Brexit was completed to bring this forward. Now, as we approach the end of the transition period, and the review of the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations is due, could the Minister say what is being done to take forward this proposal as another step towards achieving a smoke-free 2030?
I also ask the Minister about her department’s engagement with the local government department over countering smoking. I expect she knows that the Government agreed that at least part of areas outside pubs and restaurants should be smoke-free. Is she aware that the Secretary of State for local government, Robert Jenrick, wrote to Manchester local government in effect warning against this, saying that jobs might be lost, even though there is no evidence of this? Can she tell me whether this letter of his received prior approval from the Department of Health and Social Care?
I look forward to the noble Baroness’s reply and, if she cannot answer the last point, to a letter from her clarifying the matter—not a letter saying that the regulations were jointly approved but a letter telling us whether the local government letter sent in August was jointly approved. I look forward to her response.
Baroness Jolly (LD) [V]
[Inaudible]—necessitated this draft instrument. It also necessitates additional plans from the agencies responsible for the enforcement of the legislation under discussion, notably Public Health England, an agency that itself is facing an uncertain future.
Public Health England is currently the designated UK competent authority for the notification of novel tobacco products. The Government’s decision to close Public Health England mid-pandemic, and at a time when we are working through the complexity of leaving the EU, is astonishing. The lack of current detail on where key responsibilities discharged by PHE will go is extremely concerning. These regulations require the producers of products coming to the UK market to notify Public Health England against a mandated set of criteria, including information such as ingredients and emissions, as well as an obligation to share their existing research on the products. This is important information about novel tobacco products entering the UK market, yet it is unclear where these responsibilities will sit once Public Health England closes.
The lack of clarity around the responsibilities discharged by Public Health England with respect to the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016 raises the risk of poor compliance by business and enforcement gaps in the Government’s response. I therefore ask the Minister to urgently provide clarity on where these functions will sit and provide assurances that public health experts will continue to have oversight of this process and that the population impacts of these products can be properly considered and effective advice provided to Ministers.
However, the current system is far from perfect and the change brought about by leaving the EU and reforming our public health system creates an opportunity to make improvements. In 2018, Philip Morris International reported that it had spent $4.5 billion since 2008 developing smokeless tobacco products. It currently costs producers £200 to submit a notification of a novel tobacco product. The low fees inevitably mean that the system is underresourced. Fees should be set that allow for products to be independently tested and assessed. Will the Minister consider making such changes to improve the effectiveness of the system?
But what of the role of Public Health England, which currently provides advice on tobacco and nicotine? Its role in these matters extends beyond the issue of novel tobacco products: it also played a key role in generating the evidence needed to effectively review these regulations.
In the House on 14 September 2016, the noble Lord, Lord Prior, said:
“The Government will continue to monitor and develop this evidence base, adapting policy accordingly, to ensure that policy on e-cigarettes best supports the protection and improvement of public health.”—[Official Report, 14/9/16; col. 1537.]
What steps have been taken? This work has been undertaken by Public Health England in the interim years through a series of world-class reports that were commissioned from experts. We have been provided with a solid foundation of evidence on which to review the impact of regulations, as well as policy advice for front-line staff on how to respond to this fast-moving area of public health. Again, I ask the Minister: where will these vital functions go in the future? Will there be evidence reviews into the impacts of e-cigarettes?
My key point on the impact of leaving the EU on these regulatory changes relates to flavoured tobacco. All characterising flavours for tobacco, bar menthol, were banned across the EU from May 2017, when menthol products were given a further three years to comply. Ahead of the ban for menthol coming into force in May, Imperial Tobacco launched a new green filter product range. Retailers were encouraged to stock this range, which allowed them to retain menthol customers. Accusations have been made that these products still have a characterising flavour of menthol. Japan Tobacco has similarly been accused of developing products that break the rule banning characterising flavours.
However, determining whether or not a flavour is characterising requires expert analysis. This is currently the responsibility of an independent advisory panel, set up by the EU to assist member states and the Commission in determining whether or not a tobacco product has a characterising flavour. Following our exit from the EU, it will be for Public Health England, as the competent authority, to take on this function. However, with Public Health England due to be abolished in spring 2021, which body will take over this function? I would be grateful if the Minister could provide further details on this.
Before we conclude this debate, it is worth taking a look at the effect of the legislation on Northern Ireland, which has been used to working with the Republic. Tobacco products came freely across the border, as did many other products. I sit on the environment Select Committee and we have spent many sessions looking at how the Republic and Northern Ireland will work next year. Much has been said about warning photographs in this debate, so I will not pursue that particular area. However, looking 10 or 20 years hence, I wonder what will be made of this decision, and others like it in all areas of trade in Northern Ireland. I also worry whether, in the end, Northern Ireland will acknowledge that the situation it finds itself in is untenable and decidej to leave the union. As a unionist, I would be hugely sad about that, but I really would understand. Time will tell.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
We have had a very good discussion. I thank the Minister for her introduction of the regulations and all Members who spoke, who have shown yet again the expertise, interest and commitment that there is in the House on this subject, and why tobacco regulation has always been close to the hearts of many noble Lords.
I think all the questions on picture warnings have been covered by noble Lords, so I do not intend to repeat those. I am, however, going to draw the Committee’s attention to what I think is a significant loophole in the legislation being amended by this statutory instrument—one which needs urgent consideration.
In effect, while it is illegal for e-cigarettes to be sold to children under 18, according to advice from trading standards, it is not illegal for them to be given out as free samples to anyone of any age. This is because e-cigarettes are not covered by Section 9 of the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act, “Prohibition of free distributions”, as they are not a tobacco product. Meanwhile, the age of sale regulations contained in Regulation 3 of the Nicotine Inhaling Products (Age of Sale and Proxy Purchasing) Regulations 2015 inhibit their sale only to those under 18. While the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016 prohibit packaging or vouchers offering free or discounted products, they do not prohibit the handing out of free e-cigarettes in Regulation 38(4).
A recent article in the Observer highlighted that a supplier working on behalf of British American Tobacco had been caught handing out BAT’s popular e-cigarette brand Vype to a 17 year-old without carrying out any kind of age check. This clearly contravenes the spirit of the existing regulations, which set the age of sale at 18 to protect children from using e-cigarettes. While evidence shows that e-cigarettes are likely to be significantly less harmful than tobacco cigarettes and can be effective in supporting adult smokers to quit smoking, it is of course absolutely vital that children are prevented from taking up vaping because, while it is a lot less harmful than smoking, it is not risk free.
Allowing the tobacco industry to market its products to children not only undermines the Government’s ambition for a smoke-free 2030 but threatens the availability of e-cigarettes for use by adults who want to quit smoking. E-cigarettes clearly have a role to play in reducing the burden of death and disease from smoking, which falls on the poorest in society and still kills almost 100,000 people a year in the United Kingdom. The Government must commit to revising the regulations to remove this serious loophole in the law. I am sure that the Minister would agree that the UK does not want to go the way of the United States, where in 2019 12% of high-school students reported using e-cigarettes on a daily basis, compared with only 1.6% of 11 to 18 year-olds using them regularly in Great Britain.
BAT would no doubt argue that this was a one-off and that it is serious about preventing underage access to vaping products. However, I have to say that it is another example of big tobacco saying one thing and doing another. The tobacco industry, and BAT in particular, has a track record of trying to get around legislation designed to protect children across the world from tobacco company marketing. In 2019, BAT was investigated by the Advertising Standards Authority for promoting its Vype e-cigarettes to young people on social media. There, the company used Instagram hashtags completely unrelated to Vype or its product features to link Vype to significant cultural and popular current events. That meant that anyone, including children and young people, searching for things such as the 2019 Oscars, the best actor, the BAFTAs or London Fashion Week, would have seen promotions for Vype e-cigarettes.
One BAT Instagram post included the hashtag #LilyAllen, which includes nearly 83,000 Instagram posts and could be seen by anyone searching for #LilyAllen on the platform. This was described by the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids as a concerted, consistent, systematic approach to BAT’s online promotion of its Vype nicotine e-cigarettes, outside the guidance and the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016. The ASA subsequently ruled that BAT’s celebrity-driven ads
“clearly went beyond the provision of factual information and was promotional in nature”.
It has been proved beyond doubt that the tobacco industry, over many years, cannot be trusted to self-regulate and will inevitably exploit any loophole in the regulations, so can the Minister commit that the Government will revise the regulations to prevent tobacco companies marketing their addictive products to children and young people? I would appreciate the opportunity to meet her to discuss this in further detail, including what more can be done to protect children from big tobacco.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their participation today. This has been a really good debate on a really important issue. It is crucial that this legislation is in place to ensure that the UK meets its obligations under the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol. The changes will allow a continuation of the UK’s robust tobacco control legislation after the end of the transition period, ensuring that we remain committed to protecting the nation’s health and helping people to stop smoking. I would like to highlight that this instrument is being made under the withdrawal Act, meaning that it is limited to achieving its primary purpose and does not aim to make any significant changes to tobacco control legislation. Nevertheless, I reiterate that the Government remain committed to a smoke-free generation by 2030, and I would like to answer as many of the questions asked by noble Lords as possible in that spirit.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, asked about picture warnings. We consulted international experts and it seems that creating our own picture library would require one to two years for us to produce new and original content that is evidence based. Subject to future proposals after the transition period, we may wish to reconsider this option in the future. For now, I reassure noble Lords that we will work with the Australian Government to look at the rotation of pictures, in line with best practice. I also reassure the noble Lord that guidance on cropping has been circulated to industry and was uploaded on 1 October.
I am afraid that I am going to have to disappoint the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, in that the department will set out its plans regarding where Public Health England’s functions to provide the tobacco notification system will sit at a later date. She also raised the question of novel tobacco products; the DHSC currently holds responsibility for policy and legislation in that area. However, I reassure the noble Baroness that the changes coming to Public Health England in future, and the new body that will be established, in no way diminish our commitment to tobacco control and to delivering a smoke-free England.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, that I was surprised when I saw the detail of regulation in this area. We are aware of the issue that she raised about free samples, and it is our understanding that this was an isolated incident. The current regulatory framework for e-cigarettes aims to reduce the risk of harm to children and other young people—but I would happily meet her to discuss the regulation of this in further detail. We do not think that it is a widespread problem, but the DHSC will review the regulatory framework in future to see whether there is a public health concern that needs addressing.
The noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Rennard, asked about the post-implementation review of the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations. I can confirm that this will take place by 20 May 2021. The response to the consultation on nicotine products will be published soon. I am afraid that I do not have more specific timings for the other reviews that we have undertaken or the Government’s response to them.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, raised the risk of smuggling. There will be no difference from 1 January in tobacco duties. They cover the whole of the UK, so we do not see an increased risk of smuggling after the end of the transition period. The noble Lord is correct to say that vape stores will be closed during the coming lockdown as non-essential retail stores. However, products will be available in supermarkets and other shops that are classed as essential retail and stock these products. I agree with him that the banning of smoking in the Palace of Westminster is way above my pay grade.
The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, asked me about pack inserts and about a letter that went from the Secretary of State for MHCLG on smoke-free areas outside cafés and restaurants making use of table licensing. I remember that issue coming up in debate and discussion on the Business and Planning Bill. Perhaps I could write to her on those issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked some specific questions on notification. My understanding is that if a product was notified before the end of the transition period, it will not need to be notified again afterwards. I will write to him on a couple of the more detailed points that he raised.
To conclude, I reiterate that the Government remain committed to a smoke-free generation by 2030. We are exploring policy options to work towards this ambition, and we will announce more of these in due course at a later date.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
My Lords, that completes the business before the Grand Committee this afternoon. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
House of Lords
Arrangement of Business
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber, respecting social distancing, while others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally.
Death of a Member: Lord Shutt of Greetland
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of the noble Lord, Lord Shutt of Greetland, on Friday 30 October. On behalf of the House, I extend our very sincere condolences to the noble Lord’s family and friends.
Arrangement of Business
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, 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.
Jammu and Kashmir: Human Rights
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hussain
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the human rights situation in Jammu and Kashmir.
Lord Hussain (LD)
In begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I declare an interest as someone who was born in Kashmir and who has family and friends living on both sides of the line of control.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, the Government recognise that there are human rights concerns in Indian-administered Kashmir. We encourage all states to ensure that domestic laws are in line with international standards. Any allegation must be investigated thoroughly, promptly and transparently. We also welcome reports that some restrictions are being relaxed and detainees released. We call on the Government of India to lift all other restrictions as soon as possible. We continue to raise our concerns with the Indian Government directly.
Lord Hussain (LD)
I thank the Minister for that Answer. Have the British Government taken note of the four letters written recently to the Indian Government by UN rapporteurs on torture, arbitrary detentions, extradition and custodial killings in Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir? Furthermore, do we know what the Indian Government’s response was? If there was no response, what course of action do our Government, as a P5 member of the UN Security Council and a defender of human rights, suggest that the Security Council takes?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, we are aware of these letters and reports that the Government of India have not yet responded. As I said, we recognise human rights concerns and encourage all states to ensure that their domestic laws are in line with international standards. Any allegation of human rights violations or abuse is deeply concerning and must be investigated thoroughly. Where we have such concerns, as I said, we raise them directly with the Government of India.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, Amnesty International raised particular concerns over the crackdown on civil society and journalists in Kashmir and Jammu. Can the Minister detail what steps the Government have taken to protect press freedom? Have they engaged with the International Federation of Journalists, which has consistently fought for reporting rights in Jammu and Kashmir, as well as globally?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I will write to the noble Lord on his final point about formal engagement. As he knows, media freedom and the protection of journalists is a priority for Her Majesty’s Government; we are leading on a coalition with Canada. On the specific issue of Amnesty International and its situation in India, I assure the noble Lord that I have raised that directly with the Government of India.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, the former Chief Minister of Indian-administered Kashmir, Mrs Mufti, was detained in August last year when the Indian Government stripped the region of its partial autonomy. She was put under house arrest under a law that allows detention without charge for up to two years. She has only just been freed. Have the Government raised this and other arbitrary detentions in the region with the Government of India?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I assure the noble Baroness that we have; we raised that specific case.
Baroness Warsi (Con) [V]
My Lords, in Indian-administered Kashmir, Kashmiris enter their 16th month of lockdown, with curfews, a ban on communication access, closing of media outlets and widespread arrest of politicians and human rights activists. Will the Government press for a free and independent plebiscite for Kashmiris, as mandated by the United Nations? Does the Minister recognise the urgency of Kashmiris having their voice heard at a time when the BJP Indian Government are deliberately changing the population reality on the ground, in contravention of UN resolutions?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, as I have said, we welcome the lifting in recent weeks and months of some restrictions in Indian-administered Kashmir, including the restrictions on the internet; 2G and, in certain parts of Indian-administered Kashmir, 4G have been restored. However, we remain concerned, as my noble friend has said, at the ongoing detentions. While we welcome the recent release of the former Chief Minister, other detentions continue, and we continue to raise them. It is the long-standing position of Her Majesty’s Government on any dispute between India and Pakistan that it is for both countries to sit down and resolve their disputes and differences.
Lord Loomba (CB) [V]
My Lords, the population of the Kashmir Valley is 95% Muslim. To allege that Muslims suffer human rights abuses cannot be true. It appears to be propaganda against India by troublemakers and terrorists. Even after the revocation of Article 370, cases of terrorism are sadly still being reported in the union territory of Jammu and Kashmir today. The terrorists are the worst violators of human rights. Does the Minister agree that we cannot accept continued religious hatred against a particular community in Jammu and Kashmir, or acts of terrorism, regardless of their motivation and where they take place?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, as I have already said, we raise concerns about human rights in Indian-administered Kashmir regularly and constructively with the Indian Government. I agree with the noble Lord—I am sure I speak for all noble Lords on this—that we condemn, without any hesitation, all forms of terrorism. Any targeting of a community because of its religious rights or beliefs is totally against the norms of any functioning democracy.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
Is the Minister aware that hundreds of applications for habeas corpus have been lodged in the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir over a 15-month period, arising out of the arbitrary detention without trial of thousands of people —including, as we have heard, political and community leaders—under the public safety Act? The court rules specify a 14-day time limit from lodging an application to the hearing. They have not even been listed, let alone dealt with. This is especially urgent since the shocking wave of arrests on 28 October. Will Her Majesty’s Government join the Jammu and Kashmir High Court Bar Association in its strenuous protests to the Indian authorities against these breaches of the United Nations human rights convention?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the United Kingdom Government are clear. We have a constructive and strong relationship with India which allows us to raise candidly and privately issues of human rights abuses, wherever they may occur, or human rights concerns we may have. As I have said, any allegation of human rights abuses must be investigated thoroughly, promptly and transparently. We make that point to the Indian authorities.
Baroness Tonge (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, will the Minister explain why we immediately supported sanctions against Russia when it annexed the Crimea, even though 97% of the people of Crimea regarded themselves as Russian and had supported Russia in its annexation, yet no action has been taken since India’s revocation of Jammu and Kashmir’s special status? It has imposed total lockdown on the majority Muslim population and thousands, as we have heard, have been taken prisoner and many tortured. Can the Minister please explain why we behaved differently?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
The issue was raised by the noble Baroness herself; one is a revocation of a constitutional item and the other is an annexation of a territory. They are two very different legal positions. We continue to raise the situation in Indian-administered Kashmir with the Indian authorities.
Lord Ranger (Con)
The Minister will agree that India is the largest working democracy in the world. The rights of her 1.3 billion citizens are protected in the constitution regardless of race, religion or gender—I repeat, gender. India also has the world’s most diverse population, living side by side in perfect harmony for centuries. The rights of all are protected through the constitution, including those of over 200 million Muslims. The same is reflected in Jammu and Kashmir; the province benefits from all rights under the Indian constitution.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, we of course support Indian democracy. My noble friend is right to raise the constitution of India, which protects the rights and freedoms of all communities.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB) [V]
My Lords, Britain’s partitioning of India on the fallacy of irreconcilable religious differences promoted active hostility between Pakistan and India, particularly in Jammu and Kashmir. Independent reports confirm a significant increase in human rights abuse since the Indian army takeover of the disputed region. Does the Minister agree that Britain has a moral responsibility to work for a greater measure of secular autonomy for the Hindu, Muslim and Sikh populations of one of the most beautiful places in the world?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I agree that Kashmir is one of the most beautiful places in the world. We continue to raise issues of concern with the Indian authorities, and indeed the Pakistani authorities, on ensuring rights and freedom for all.
Baroness Thornhill (LD) [V]
It is quite clear from the Minister’s words that both sides are not sitting down and resolving their issues, and nor is our Government’s raising of issues with the Indian Government working. There has been a demonstrable escalation in atrocities since the lockdown and split last year. It is clear that UN resolutions are being ignored with impunity. What do the Government believe has to happen before the international community responds, or is the UN to be ignored and regarded as a crocodile with rubber teeth?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the Government are seeing progress. As I have already indicated, we are seeing some positive movements on easing the lockdown and the release of detainees in Indian-administered Kashmir, and continue to do so. We have a continuing, strong, progressive and constructive dialogue with the Indian Government which allows us to have very candid and frank exchanges on issues of concern. We raise these regularly and will continue to do so.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Home Secretary: Allegations of Bullying
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Tyler
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they expect to publish the report of their investigation into allegations of bullying of officials by the Home Secretary.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, the Government take complaints relating to the Ministerial Code seriously. The Prime Minister asked the Cabinet Office to establish the facts in line with the code. To protect the interests of all involved, the Government do not comment on the specifics of this kind of ongoing process. The Prime Minister will make any decision on the matter public once the process has concluded.
Lord Tyler (LD) [V]
My Lords, justice delayed is justice denied. Surely for civil servants in the Home Office, past and present, this long delay of eight months is intolerable. In accord with natural justice, can the Minister now confirm that no one with a personal or political interest will have had any involvement whatever in the independent investigation into the behaviour of the Home Secretary, the report or the timing of its publication, and that that will clearly rule out any involvement by the Prime Minister?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I can certainly confirm that the process is independent, but I can only repeat that, to protect the interests of all involved, the Government do not comment on the specifics of this kind of ongoing process. I repeat that the Prime Minister will make any decision on the matter public once the process has concluded.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, the last inquiry into the conduct of a Cabinet Minister in 2017 took one month. This has taken eight months so far, although at the beginning, Michael Gove said:
“It is vital that this investigation is concluded as quickly as possible.”
Does my noble friend agree that it is fair to neither the complainers nor the Home Secretary for this matter to last so long? Can he also confirm that the separate case being brought against the Home Office by Sir Philip Rutnam for constructive dismissal is not responsible for this delay as that case is not to be heard until September of next year?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I am sorry to disappoint my noble friend so far as the timing is concerned. However, it is not possible to comment on an ongoing process. What I can say in relation to the other matter he has raised is that he will know that they are separate legal proceedings and that, unfortunately, I cannot comment on ongoing legal proceedings either.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, given the difference in their respective roles, it is not at all unusual for tensions to arise from time to time between Ministers and officials. Indeed, this is healthy if kept within reasonable bounds. Can the Minister assure the House that, whatever the outcome of the current case, the Government will foster between Ministers and officials a culture of robust debate carried out with courtesy and respect on both sides? Does he agree that such a culture is not advanced by the airing of differences in the media?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I agree with much of what the noble and gallant Lord has said, in particular that all civil servants must feel free to give independent and open advice, and that Ministers should respect all those who give such advice.
Baroness Quin (Lab) [V]
My Lords, is it not the case that the Prime Minister has undermined this process by declaring his full confidence in the Home Secretary from the outset? Is it also not the case that the Prime Minister has form, as we saw with the Russia report, with delaying politically inconvenient reports? How can this process be independent if the Prime Minister is the final arbiter?
Lord True (Con)
The process is independent. The Prime Minister asked the Cabinet Office to establish the facts, in line with the Ministerial Code, and the Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests, Sir Alex Allan, has a role through providing further independent advice to the Prime Minister. So far as the process is concerned, I regret that I must repeat that I cannot comment on that while it is continuing.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD) [V]
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Young, in response to a previous answer from the Minister, said that the code is an honour code, implying that it is up to the Minister concerned to take responsibility and to resign in the case of a serious breach. Last month, the Cabinet Secretary said to a Commons committee that the Prime Minister is the ultimate arbiter. That seems deeply inappropriate in the current conditions. Does the Minister not think that there is merit in the First Division Association proposal that an independent arbiter, with status outside government, should be the final arbiter in these cases?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I stated just now that there is an Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests, and that is Sir Alex Allan, who has a role. I have also studied the Cabinet Secretary’s evidence to PACAC on 22 October. He said what I have said, which is that, in the interests of all those involved in the process,
“We are not giving a running commentary on the process.”
That is a quotation from the Cabinet Secretary and I agree with him.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
The Minister keeps saying that this is an ongoing process. The review was completed eight months ago. I do not know whether the Prime Minister is a very slow reader or whether, as Laura Kuenssberg has said, this has simply been parked. If it is the latter, can we take it out of the underground garage, please?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I have nothing further to add to the replies I gave earlier about the ongoing process.
Lord Flight (Con) [V]
What sort of behaviour is sufficiently aggressive to be described by the Government as bullying?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the Government take bullying very seriously. In 2018, the Civil Service undertook a review of the arrangements for tackling harassment and misconduct within the service. The Ministerial Code is clear that
“harassing, bullying or other inappropriate or discriminating behaviour is not consistent with the Ministerial Code and will not be tolerated.”
That is the position of the Government.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, no wonder trust in the Government is plummeting. In 2019, the Prime Minister updated the Ministerial Code and in the foreword he wrote:
“There must be no bullying and no harassment. The precious principles of public life enshrined in this document—integrity, objectivity, accountability, transparency, honesty and leadership in the public interest—must be honoured at all times.”
There are no qualifications; there should be transparency at all times. Those are his own words. Can the Minister explain in this case how those precious principles can be honoured in the absence of the publication of this report?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I refer again to what the Cabinet Secretary said about the process. On bullying, I underline again what I said earlier. The Civil Service helps those who wish to make complaints. In 2019, we ran a cross-departmental “speak up” campaign to encourage individuals to come forward and report poor behaviours. A further campaign is proposed for this year.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, is not the irresistible inference both from the delay and from the answers that the Minister has given that the Government have something to hide? What is it?
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, one of the main deterrents to reporting workplace bullying is the fear of retribution by the perpetrator. One way of facilitating the reporting of such incidents is through an independent hotline outwith the normal line management structure of the organisation. Having just attended the excellent parliamentary webinar course on Valuing Everyone, in which an independent hotline is paramount, can the Minister say whether the great departments of state provide such independent whistleblowing hotlines?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord has made an important point. As I have indicated to the House, full assistance is provided to those who make complaints. There is also a facility to make complaints without the disclosure of names. I agree with what the noble Lord has about the Valuing Everyone training, and I confirm to the House that all Cabinet Ministers, including the Prime Minister, have either taken Parliament’s important Valuing Everyone training or have made arrangements to do so.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed and we have dealt with all the supplementary questions.
Terrestrial and Freshwater Protected Sites
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Teverson
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to A Green Future: Our 25 Year Plan to Improve the Environment, published on 11 January 2018, what plans they have to bring forward the 2042 target date for the restoration of 75 per cent of terrestrial and freshwater protected sites to a favourable condition.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, in declaring my interest as chair of the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Local Nature Partnership, I ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con) [V]
My Lords, the Environment Bill requires us to set at least one target in each of the four priority areas, including biodiversity. We will bring these targets forward by 31 October 2022. Our recent policy paper, Environment Bill—Environmental Targets, outlines our initial thinking on objectives for targets, which we will develop over the coming months, including on the condition of protected sites. Before committing to specific targets, we will gather further evidence, including by carrying out a public consultation.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer, and I recognise his great work on environmental concerns. But does he not agree with me that it is almost inexplicable that the appetite in an environment plan is so little as to have only three-quarters of sites of scientific interest ready and up to standard within 22 years? Is that not utterly lamentable, given the current biodiversity crisis, not just globally but in this country?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
The noble Lord asks whether we will bring the target forward. The Environment Bill framework requires us to set targets by October 2022 for a minimum of 15 years, so a target set in 2022 would run until at least 2037. One of the targets we propose is on the condition of protected sites. Any targets, when agreed, would be set out in law through an SI by October. A goal of 75% is ambitious. Some cases, such as peat bog restoration, can take many years of hard conservation work before sites even come close to reaching a favourable condition.
Baroness Blackstone (Ind Lab)
My Lords, the Government recently said that nature-based solutions will be central to the negotiations at COP 26. What progress can the Minister report? What emphasis will there be on a global response in which other nations also restore soils and grasslands to act as carbon sinks?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
Our nature strategy, which transcends the climate COP and has direct implications on the biodiversity COP being hosted in Kunming shortly before, is three things. The first is that we want more finance for nature. We are taking a lead in this country, having doubled our international climate finance to £11.6 billion. We have committed to spending a big proportion of that new money on nature-based solutions. We want other countries to do similarly and to mobilise private finance. A second area is targets. The Aichi targets are impressive, but they are ignored by pretty much every country. We want to include a means to hold individual countries to account on those targets. Thirdly, we want to tackle the drivers of environmental destruction, such as dodgy land-use subsidies that incentivise environmental destruction and by cleaning up our supply chains. The UK is showing real leadership in both those areas.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, could the Minister confirm whether the Government have co-ordinated their efforts with the devolved Administrations on the strong protection of our land and freshwater environment?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
Many issues relating to biodiversity and nature are devolved. However, my department, Defra, is in routine negotiations and discussions with the DAs. In certain areas, we work particularly closely together. For instance, we have a target to plant 30,000 hectares of land a year by 2025. A great deal of that burden will be taken up by our friends in Scotland, so we are liaising closely on that and all issues relating to biodiversity and nature.
Baroness Redfern (Con) [V]
My Lords, the environmental performance report of 2 October shows that more action and investment is needed by several water companies, which are failing to protect. The Environment Agency has requested that all water companies develop, publish and implement specific plans to reduce the incidence of pollution by the end of this year. Will the Government request that additional monitoring or modelling is put in place if they find any data gaps?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
Where water companies do not meet our expectations, we will toughen our regulation and push them to improve their performance. This will include the Environment Agency conducting in-depth audits and reviews of water company management systems and new technologies, such as continuous flow monitoring and event duration monitoring. The results of the Environment Agency’s audits and review will help it and us to target enforcement action appropriately.
Baroness Parminter (LD) [V]
My Lords, water pollution is a key cause of the decline in conditions of protected sites. All English rivers are currently failing to meet quality tests for pollution. Given that 40% of water pollution comes from agricultural run-offs, what specifically are the Government doing to get farmers to use fewer chemical inputs?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
The principal tool we will use in the coming years is the transfer from the common agricultural policy subsidy system to the environmental land management system. Whereas farmers and landowners have, for decades, been incentivised to convert their land to make it farmable—in many respects grubbing out ecosystems and undermining nature—the new system will make those payments completely conditional on good environmental stewardship. It is probably the biggest bonus that nature and our environment more broadly will have experienced in the last century. Although that is not the only funding mechanism or tool at our disposal, it is undoubtedly the most powerful.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is all very well talking about new targets, but we cannot meet our existing targets? Surely enforcement of our existing targets is the thing that matters. As has already been mentioned, the water companies and some bad farmers are not meeting standards and are not being fined. Clearly, the Environment Agency is not up to the standard required to issue fines. Does he further agree that fines on big companies, such as water companies, are a waste of time, as the ultimate payer is us—the user? The directors should get fined.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
I certainly agree that the department, the Government and the Environment Agency should be using every tool at their disposal to ensure that the water companies behave responsibly and with environmental care. My colleague in Defra, Rebecca Pow, has established a new working group with the water companies to better understand, in the quickest possible timeframe, what more government can do and what the water companies should do to improve the quality of our water. I just make the point that bringing sites, whether water or land, into favourable conditions is a big challenge and takes time. Many sites were in poor condition when they were designated as protected sites. Some, such as peat bogs, can take decades to be restored to a favourable condition. The same is true for our river systems, which have had years of interference.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord for returning once again to the question of polluted Welsh water running into English rivers. The farming rules for water in England have no counterpart in Wales. In his Written Answer to my Question on 27 October, the noble Lord said that his department had not been in touch with Wales and he cited devolution as the reason. I put it to him, respectfully, that we should cut through bureaucracy in the cause of common sense.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
The noble Lord makes an extremely good point. I am afraid I am not in a position to update him on the letter I provided most recently. However, I will take his message back to the department with a view to making progress and, as he said, cutting through the red tape and bureaucracy.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, what hope do we have of being able to deliver what is an unacceptably distant and unambitious target, when we do not yet have a comprehensive baseline of natural capital assets against which we can measure progress? When can we expect to see those baselines, so that we know that progress is happening?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
A number of pieces of work will help us to better understand the economics of biodiversity. One, as the noble Baroness knows, is the Dasgupta review, which we commissioned some time ago and is due to be produced very soon. She is right that we also need a more comprehensive audit or inventory of our natural capital in order to understand best how to introduce policies tailored to improving biodiversity. That work is ongoing. It is an enormous undertaking, and my department has been in discussions with the Treasury about working together to ensure that we are able and resourced to fill the gaps.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD) [V]
My Lords, by any measure, biodiversity in this country is now falling, at least in part because protected nature areas tend to be in small pockets that lack the necessary food webs and resilience for proper biodiversity. Can the Minister assure us that the zoning proposals in the planning White Paper will not make this situation worse?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
I can give that assurance. Our planning reforms are intended to speed up decisions that can and should be sped up. We are determined to maintain and improve on the high standards we have set for our environment. We recognise that our biodiversity has been in sharp decline for decades; this transcends any one Government. We have put the levers and funding in place to begin the painful but necessary process of reversing those trends.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Tax Avoidance: Base Erosion and Profit Shifting
Lord Harries of Pentregarth
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking in their discussions relating to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Base Erosion and Profit Shifting 2.0 Project to prioritise a fairer settlement for those less economically developed countries who lose income as a result of tax avoidance by multinational corporations.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the UK remains committed to the OECD’s base erosion and profit shifting 2.0 project. We robustly support the discussions being taken forward in the OECD’s inclusive framework group. That includes more than 100 jurisdictions and ensures that less economically developed countries have an equal say in developing international solutions. The UK continues to champion international initiatives that build capacity in developing countries.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB) [V]
I thank the Minister for her answer. As she will know, low-income countries lose more of their income than do middle-income ones—some 9% as opposed to 3%—as a result of profit shifting by multinational companies. In the light of this, will Her Majesty’s Government prioritise the needs of low-income countries with a view to finding a process that will help them better than those presently on offer? I note that the Tax Justice Network is equipped and ready to take on this task if commissioned to do so.
Baroness Penn (Con)
The UK is committed to BEPS 2.0 being an inclusive process. Capacity building and technical assistance remain key priorities for the UK as they empower developing countries to draw on more of their own resources as key enablers of the sustainable development goals. This includes a £47 million package from the UK to support developing countries’ tax and public finance systems, including the OECD’s work on international tax standards to tackle evasion and avoidance.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester [V]
My Lords, I underline what the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, has brought into focus. The loss of corporate tax—about 3% from high-income economies compared with 9% for low-income ones—further exacerbates the impact of coronavirus on trade and tourism. For example, sub-Saharan Africa currently faces its first recession in 25 years, with up to 14 million people driven into extreme poverty. Can the Minister assure the House that Her Majesty’s Government will urgently offer the OECD technical support in the form of revenue analysis along with support for legislative and policy measures so that countries that wish to implement unilateral tax reforms will have the wherewithal and advice to do so in the best way?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I can make that commitment. By their very nature, these proposals will benefit low-income countries by expanding their tax rights and reducing the incentive to shift profits away from such jurisdictions. As I outlined in my previous answer, the Government are also committed to putting resources behind capacity building to ensure that low-income countries can also benefit from these measures.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I welcome this extremely important Question. We have discussed pillar 1 before in this Chamber. My noble friend is aware of my views that the digital services tax is not working. The pillar 2 blueprint was published a few weeks ago. Although it is complex, it has four concrete proposals to ensure that international companies pay the minimum level of tax. One of these, the subject to tax rule, looks the most effective, as it encourages withholding tax. Can the Minister assure the House that the Government will support this?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I assure my noble friend that pillar 1 remains the UK’s number one focus, partly so that we can achieve a multilateral agreement to replace the digital services tax, which was intended to be only temporary. We also recognise that a global solution will need to include outputs on pillar 2. We are working to ensure that these proposals, including the one referred to by my noble friend, are balanced and appropriately targeted, and have the support of all those involved in the negotiations.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests: I am an unpaid senior adviser to the Tax Justice Network. The OECD has released aggregate country-by-country data from 26 countries including the US, China, Japan, France and India. This suggests that there is considerable international consensus around transparency. The UK has blocked the OECD from releasing its aggregate data. It would be helpful to know why. Furthermore, the analysis of the OECD’s data shows that Bermuda, a British Overseas Territory, is responsible for $10.9 billion of tax avoidance and evasion. This is particularly hitting low-income countries. Why do the UK Government continue to indulge these fiddle factories?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I am not aware of the particular issue that the noble Lord raises, but I will look into it and write to him. The UK is committed to progress on this initiative, which we started back in 2013 when we hosted the G20.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, the UN Conference on Trade and Development estimates that developing countries lose up to $200 billion every year in fiscal revenues due to a lack of in-country tax take. Why does CDC, the UK’s FDI, regularly use tax havens, which results in less money for health and education, the undermining of good governance and the consolidation of conditions in which corruption can flourish?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I do not recognise the picture that the noble Baroness painted. The UK stands behind the international action being undertaken through the OECD and the progress being made in tackling tax avoidance and evasion. Since 2010 the UK has invested more than £2 billion extra in HMRC to tackle evasion. This has brought dividends in narrowing the tax gap, which is at a near record low.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con) [V]
My Lords, I suggest that there is a lack of consensus, especially relating to the new proposed OECD framework. In view of that, what progress has been made on action 14—the peer review process, which ends in 2021—to improve dispute resolution between jurisdictions?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My noble friend is right. These negotiations are complicated, and they involve more than 100 jurisdictions. Although it is difficult, I welcome the progress that we manage to make. My noble friend is also right about action 14: the peer review process is under way. More than 45 jurisdictions have been reviewed so far and around 990 recommendations issued as a result of that process.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, is right: there is no consensus. When we in this country condemn companies that do not pay tax—we even have the digital tax—everyone is supportive, but developing countries are a different kettle of fish. We must win the argument for ensuring that the “taxing country” principle applies to developing countries. Will the Government make sure that supportive measures are taken not only within the OECD but within the United Nations to ensure that developing countries get their fair share of tax?
Baroness Penn (Con)
The noble Lord is right that this is not only an issue for developed countries but is essential for developing countries and their tax take. The UK believes that the OECD should be the primary standard-setting body for international tax standards, but we are absolutely committed to ensuring that the voices of developing countries continue to be central to those discussions. This is why we have been keen to build on the progress the OECD has made in integrating the interests of developing countries. The inclusive framework has over 100 non-OECD member states and 66 from less economically developed countries, to ensure that those voices are front and centre of these discussions.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, can the Minister comment on the progress of any of the 15 actions that are aiming to tackle tax avoidance and improve international tax rule coherence, and to ensure that profits are taxed where economic activity and value creation occur? Are the Government focusing on any specific areas, and has the pandemic had an impact on global co-operation in this area?
Baroness Penn (Con)
I am pleased to tell my noble friend that progress is still being made on these actions, despite the global pandemic. On 12 October, the OECD published its Reports on the Pillar One and Pillar Two Blueprints, regarding the new work going forward. The UK is working with the OECD to support multilateral implementation, having supported and implemented all the key components itself. The OECD published a progress report this year on actions taken.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Nagorno-Karabakh: Genocide Emergency Alert
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Cox
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the genocide emergency alert issued by Genocide Watch about the situation in the Nagorno-Karabakh region, what assessment they have made of their obligations as a signatory to the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Sugg) (Con) [V]
My Lords, as a party to convention on the crime of genocide, the UK is fully committed to the prevention and punishment of genocide as appropriate under the convention. We remain deeply concerned about the impact on civilians of the conflict in the Nagorno-Karabakh region and continue to call for urgent de-escalation and a return to negotiations.
Baroness Cox (CB) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister. For weeks, Turkey and Azerbaijan were preparing to commit genocide, and Azerbaijan continues to target civilian settlements, including a maternity hospital, with heavy weapons, cluster bombs and drones. According to Genocide Watch’s 10 stages of the genocidal process, Azerbaijan has already reached stage 9, extermination, and stage 10, denial. Will Her Majesty’s Government fulfil their duty to protect and make urgent representations to the UN Security Council to impose an embargo on the sales of arms to Azerbaijan and demand that Azerbaijan immediately stops all offensive attacks?
Baroness Sugg (Con) [V]
My Lords, we remain deeply concerned about the conflict, regret the lack of progress towards a peaceful settlement and, of course, condemn any targeting of civilians. There is an OSCE arms embargo in place related to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and we believe that that is sufficient to ensure that the international community is not inadvertently party to attacks on civilians from either side. We will continue to make urgent representations to stop all offensive attacks, both directly to the parties and through the OSCE and the UN Security Council.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this is one of the frozen conflicts at the edge of Europe. The difficulty is that it could grow out of control as a number of other powers, such as Russia, Turkey, Iran and the rest, are interested in the south Caucasus. Will the Government show a little more activity in this respect and use their influence to ensure that the troublesome individuals and players in the field are reined in somewhat?
Baroness Sugg (Con) [V]
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that this is a deeply complex and historic conflict and that it presents a risk to regional stability. We are absolutely trying to avoid any instability within the region. The UK is taking an active role. We are not co-chairs of the Minsk Group, but we fully support it, and we are working with our international partners bilaterally and multilaterally. We have regular contact with the Foreign Ministers of both countries and continue to urge the de-escalation of this conflict. We know that there will not be a military solution, and we need to see both parties return to the negotiating table. The UK will continue to press for that.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that we have to look at this in the round, bearing in mind that there is a long history of distrust and a search for revenge in both parties? As the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, said, Genocide Watch gives Armenia a rating of eight and 10, so it is not without some blame or concern. Could the Minsk Group be kicked into life? Could the Government make sure that the US, this week or next week, takes this problem seriously and make sure that there is some activity there? At the least we need observation on the ground of what is going on, because knowing that if you commit crimes you pay a price might be a way of reining people in.
Baroness Sugg (Con) [V]
I thank the noble Lord for his question. I agree that we must see both sides come to the table and that both sides need to compromise. We fully support the Minsk Group, which has been working hard to make progress. We have seen meetings in Moscow, Paris and Washington but, sadly, despite these efforts there has not been a sustained ceasefire. However, significant efforts will continue and we will continue to support the co-chairs in their work to bring about a sustainable peace.
Lord Pickles (Con) [V]
My Lords, the present Turkish Government are very sensitive to allegations of an Armenian genocide 100 years ago. Does this not underline the need for Turkey, a valued member of NATO, to be unambiguous in its dealings with the current conflict, not only by ensuring that arms are not supplied to those involved in the murder of women and children but by showing in the clearest possible way that it is urging the parties to seek peace? What discussions has my noble friend had with the Turkish Government?
Baroness Sugg (Con) [V]
My Lords, we agree with my noble friend that Turkey needs to be part of the solution. The Prime Minister discussed the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh with President Erdoğan on 28 September. We have had ongoing conversations with Turkey. Most recently our Foreign Secretary spoke to Turkey’s Foreign Minister. Turkey is a key NATO ally and sits on the front line of some of the most difficult and serious challenges we face. We encourage all external actors not to escalate the situation and to become involved in bringing about a peaceful solution.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, the noble Baroness has reminded us that we are signatories to the 1948 convention on the crime of genocide that places a duty on all its signatories to prevent, protect and punish. My noble friend Lady Cox reminded us that a maternity hospital has been bombed in Nagorno-Karabakh by Azeri forces. That is a war crime. What action are we taking to ensure that those responsible for war crimes are held to account? Important though it is to bring people back around the table, it must surely be a central objective of Her Majesty’s Government that those who are responsible for war crimes and genocide are appropriately held to account.
Baroness Sugg (Con) [V]
My Lords, the UK is fully committed to the principle that there must be no impunity for the most serious international crimes. We continue to voice our support for this principle and continue to support the work of International Criminal Court and the international tribunals to tackle impunity for these crimes. All allegations of war crimes or other atrocities must be investigated, prosecuted and, if appropriate, punished. We completely condemn any attack on civilians.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans [V]
Will the Minister comment on whether Her Majesty’s Government believe that the criteria used to recognise Kosovo and the principle of internal self-determination which protects minority rights equally applies to the Armenians and Nagorno-Karabakh and on whether recognition might, as in Kosovo, prevent the possible ethnic cleansing of Armenians, which has historically characterised territorial border conflicts in that part of the Caucasus?
Baroness Sugg (Con) [V]
My Lords, we support the Minsk principles which ensure that there is an interim status for Nagorno-Karabakh and provide guarantees for security and self-governance. However, ultimately, future determination of the final legal status of Nagorno-Karabakh will need to be done through a legally binding expression of will.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, despite my initial concerns about the role of the US in the Minsk process, I am pleased about what has been attempted in recent weeks—certainly the brokering of the ceasefires which, as the noble Baroness mentioned, have sadly so far failed. The international community has a responsibility to promote and facilitate peace. As the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, said, we cannot ignore the role which outside actors are playing. Will the Minister tell us a bit more about what we are doing within NATO diplomatically to ensure that our concerns about Turkey’s actions are properly and adequately conveyed?
Baroness Sugg (Con) [V]
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that we have a responsibility to promote and facilitate peace. That is what we are trying to do in this conflict. I also agree that the US is playing an important role. I mentioned the talks that are happening in Washington and the strong statements from the both the heads of state and the co-chairs of the Minsk Group.
NATO does not have a direct role in the conflict, but the Secretary-General has expressed concern over the escalation of hostilities. NATO is calling for all sides to cease fighting immediately and to find a way towards a peaceful resolution. We strongly support that stance.
Lord Taylor of Goss Moor (LD) [V]
The Minister has just said that NATO does not have a role in the conflict. That is certainly true, as things stand, but clearly the position in the Caucasus could easily escalate, particularly given Turkey’s involvement. Can the Minister be a little more forthcoming about the activity that the Government are undertaking, in particular working to try to change Turkey’s position and to get it involved in seeking peace?
Baroness Sugg (Con) [V]
My Lords, I mentioned that we are having regular conversations with Turkey at all levels to assist it in playing a constructive role in bringing about an end to this conflict. Of course, we are aware of its strong partnerships and military relations in the region but it is important that it plays a role in bringing both sides to the table and encouraging negotiation.
Baroness Eaton (Con) [V]
My Lords, the escalation of conflict is exacerbated by Azerbaijan’s constant use of hostile propaganda. This is not conducive to effective peace negotiations. Will the Minister support Genocide Watch’s call for world leaders to condemn such hate speech and promote an end to hostilities and the implementation of a new ceasefire?
Baroness Sugg (Con) [V]
My Lords, we fully support a new ceasefire—that is indeed what we are calling for. As I said, we regret that the ceasefire conversations have not brought about a sustained ceasefire, but we continue to encourage both parties to start a ceasefire.
On hate speech, the UK works to combat intolerance and hate globally and to promote tolerance and respect. I join my noble friend in her condemnation of hate speech.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB) [V]
My Lords, the noble Baroness mentioned civilians. Is the Minister aware of reports of the use of phosphorus by Azerbaijan in attacking woodlands in Karabakh? This is extremely dangerous for civilians as not only is it toxic but it would also ignite the very woodlands to which they have been forced to flee by Azerbaijani shelling of towns. Can the noble Baroness ascertain whether these reports are true? If they are, what actions might the Government take?
Baroness Sugg (Con) [V]
My Lords, we have seen a number of reports highlighting some terrible incidents affecting civilians. We will continue to monitor that carefully. Over the weekend, we announced new UK aid support, which is directly targeted to help thousands of people who have been affected by the conflict. That support includes urgent medical supplies, food and safer shelters. It is a £1 million aid package in response to an appeal through the International Committee of the Red Cross.
Baroness Goudie (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s assistance for aid. Almost a month ago Canada halted arms sales to Azerbaijan’s backer and ally, Turkey, in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Will the UK do likewise?
Baroness Sugg (Con) [V]
My Lords, we continue to monitor developments in the region closely and consider all export applications thoroughly against a strict risk assessment framework. We keep all licences under careful review. The UK complies with the OSCE arms embargo relating to the Nagorno-Karabakh region. This is considered as part of our export licensing process.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con) [V]
My Lords, reliable reports suggest that Azerbaijan, supported by Turkey, continues to deploy illegal weapons against civilian settlements in breach of international humanitarian law and Geneva conventions. Will Her Majesty’s Government produce an urgent plan of protection, economic support and development for Nagorno-Karabakh?
Baroness Sugg (Con) [V]
My Lords, we will continue to do our utmost to end violations of international human rights law and, where appropriate, international humanitarian law. We are working to prevent the escalation of conflict and to help alleviate the suffering of those who are affected. I mentioned the new aid package to which the UK has contributed. We do not believe that there is a military solution. We think the best thing for the people of the region is for both parties to put aside any preconceived judgments and come to the negotiating table to bring about a peaceful settlement.
Baroness D'Souza (CB) [V]
My Lords, the UK’s obligations are clear and binding—to prevent and suppress actions of genocide. Will Her Majesty’s Government refer the matter to the appropriate judicial authority in the UK or request a competent body of the UN to mandate the International Criminal Court to initiate investigations?
Baroness Sugg (Con) [V]
My Lords, we will continue to support the work of the International Criminal Court and international tribunals to tackle any war crimes that have been committed. We are looking carefully at Genocide Watch’s report and will continue to work with all our international partners to ensure that anybody who commits war crimes or other atrocities is properly investigated and prosecuted and, if appropriate, punished.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have now been asked.
United Kingdom Internal Market Bill
Monday 2nd November 2020
(3 years, 5 months 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: HL Bill 135-IV Revised fourth marshalled list for Committee - (2 Nov 2020)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, hybrid proceedings will now resume. Some Members are here in the Chamber respecting social distancing, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House.
I will call Members to speak in the order listed in the annexe to today’s list. Members are not permitted to intervene spontaneously. The Chair calls each speaker. Interventions during speeches or “before the noble Lord sits down” are not permitted.
During the debate on each group I invite Members, including Members in the Chamber, to email the clerk if they wish to speak after the Minister. I will call Members to speak in order of request and will call the Minister to reply each time. The groupings are binding and it will not be possible to degroup an amendment for separate debate. A Member intending to press an amendment already debated to a Division should have given notice in the debate. Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. When putting the question, I will collect voices in the Chamber only. If a Member taking part remotely intends to trigger a Division, they should make this clear when speaking on the group. We will now begin.
Clause 25: Other exceptions from section 22
Amendment 107
Lord Callanan
“(d) in relation to any part of the United Kingdom, the profession of patent attorney or trade mark attorney.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would add patent attorney and trade mark attorney to the list of legal professions the regulation of which is excluded from Clause 22.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 107 and 108 in my name aim to clarify the scope and application of the professional qualification clauses of the Bill. Amendment 107 adds patent attorneys and trademark attorneys to the list of legal professions excluded from the application of the automatic recognition principle in Clause 22. As well as work related to trademarks and patents, trademark and patent attorneys may carry out broader regulated legal activities which require an understanding of the underpinning legal system in the part of the UK in which they practise. Accordingly, we are bringing them into line with the other legal professions to ensure that they are not caught by the automatic recognition provisions of the Bill. These exclusions ensure that access to these professions is not affected in any way by the recognition provisions of the Bill. Part 3 will not affect how these professions are regulated, nor will it change what activities trademark and patent attorneys are able to perform.
Amendment 107A has been tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, in response to this government amendment and seeks to probe the effects of the amendment in respect of authorised reserved legal activities under the Legal Services Act 2007. In respect of this amendment, I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, that nothing in the recognition provisions of the Bill, or in the government amendment, changes how reserved legal activities are authorised under the Legal Services Act 2007, and her amendment is therefore unnecessary.
Amendment 108 is a technical amendment to provide clarity on the type of qualifications and experience requirements to which Clause 22 applies. It ensures that where qualification requirements are attached to specific activities, those requirements are disapplied by automatic recognition only if they apply to activities that are essential to the practice of the profession in question—in other words, if they amount to a barrier to access to the profession as a whole. This will ensure that Clause 22 does not apply to qualifications or experience requirements for activities which are not essential to the practice of the profession, such as optional service activities which professionals may choose to offer.
I recommend that government Amendments 107 and 108 be accepted, as they provide clarity on the scope and application of automatic recognition principles. I regret, however, that I am unable to support Amendment 107A, for the reasons I gave earlier. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able not to press her amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am a retired patent attorney, which is what made me curious about Amendment 107. I guess that is an interest of some kind, though no longer pecuniary.
In this group I have tabled Amendment 107A, which is intended to clarify what has become a confused situation. It can accurately cover all the legal professions named in Clause 25, although the confusion relates only to patent and trademark attorneys. Essentially, it says—as I think the Minister agreed—that there is no change to the status quo under the Legal Services Act 2007, which was the Government’s intention all along.
The background to this is that patent and trademark attorneys may be in the unique situation of being regulated and qualified on a UK-wide basis, while, through their sectoral professional qualifications, also engaging in four specific English and Welsh reserved legal activities, no matter where in the four nations of the UK they qualified, reside or practise. They do this as patent attorneys or trademark attorneys, not as lawyers.
The purpose of that unusual provision is, broadly, to enable conduct of litigation for all in the specialist England and Wales Patents Court, and for associated matters such as deeds and oaths to be dealt with. That unique construct does not fit within the definition of Clauses 22 and 23 for the professions when they are identified as patent attorneys or trademark attorneys because you cannot work it out so that there is a relevant part and the other part. Noble Lords are welcome to try—it takes quite a few pieces of paper. The point is that it is the same for all patent and trademark attorneys, wherever they are.
However, somewhere the niggling thought arose that perhaps it was confusing, or that the mutual recognition would apply notwithstanding that Clause 22 did not apply and would somehow extend the enjoyed England and Wales reserved activities to Scotland or Northern Ireland courts, deeds or oaths. Amendment 107 has, therefore, been proposed. It has the effect of defining patent and trademark attorneys as a legal profession in Clause 25, thereby putting them into Clauses 23 and 22 and simultaneously taking them out again. This hokey-cokey amendment was meant to stop confusion. It has, however, also created its own confusion, perhaps best illustrated in an explanation from the Ministry of Justice that said:
“If trademark and patent attorneys were not excluded from the UKIM bill, then one of your practitioners authorised to conduct litigation in Northern Ireland, for example, could potentially argue that under the automatic recognition principle IPReg must also allow them to conduct litigation in England and Wales without meeting the normal IPReg authorisation requirements for doing so”.
However, that does not fit the present circumstances that I have just explained. The patent or trademark attorney in Northern Ireland is qualified to conduct litigation in England and Wales but, actually, not to conduct litigation in Northern Ireland—and that is not the only wrong explanation that has been offered. Indeed, a few moments ago, the Minister referred to attorneys being qualified in respect of the part of the UK in which they practise. There is no such provision for patent and trademark attorneys. They just have that extra bit of add-on, no matter where they practise, which relates to being able to access the England and Wales Patents Court. That is quite fundamental, because that is where you would see appeals from the comptroller and so on.
I believe that a true analysis of the facts ends up as I have said, that these particular professions were not in the original construct, but some people might have been confused. Now they are defined as in and out again but, unfortunately, this leads to other confusions, suggesting divisions in the profession that do not exist but which have just been replicated in the words of the Minister. If the Minister and an MoJ official can get it wrong, who else might? A wrongful accusation, no matter that it can be refuted, is still damaging. My amendment clarifies that the status quo is maintained. It neither adds nor subtracts anything, other than giving clarity—something to point to on the same page as the confusing hokey-cokey.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, in probing the effect of these two government amendments. As a well-known supporter of a well-functioning IP profession, right across the United Kingdom, I have to say that I am still confused. It seems to me that, in the UK single market, the rights of these various attorneys should be fully reciprocal. Can my noble friend confirm that that is the intention? Will he further kindly reflect on whether it is the effect and, if they are not reciprocal, whether that is justified? Indeed, is there any read-across to the problems that we have encountered on the lack of reciprocal rights for EU and UK attorneys? We have discussed this elsewhere. I know that the department has had a rethink, but are we quite there?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the next speaker on the list, the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, has withdrawn. I call the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Finsbury.
Lord Smith of Finsbury (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, first, I declare an interest as the chairman of the Intellectual Property Regulation Board—IPReg—which regulates all patent and trademark attorneys. It is fair to say that, when the Government’s amendment first appeared, there was considerable alarm among the profession as to what exactly the impact would be of including patent and trademark attorneys in the list in Clause 25. There had, sadly, been no prior consultation with the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys, the Chartered Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys or, indeed, IPReg.
Since the publication of the amendment, the Government have assured us that there is no intention to change the status quo. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us clear confirmation this afternoon, on the record, that this is indeed the case. There are two things to say. First, intellectual property, its protection and the facilitation of its creation are crucial for our nation’s economy. IP will be fundamental to our economic recovery in the years ahead and we should do nothing to damage it. Secondly, patent and trademark attorneys are not just any other lawyers. Many start off with a scientific background and skill set. Their legal training is bespoke and rigorous, and they are, rightly, regulated separately from the general mass of solicitors.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD) [V]
My Lords, I declare a possible interest as a solicitor qualified in England and Wales and I share all previous speakers’ support for IP professionals, who ensure that we have the necessary intellectual property protection in the UK. I strongly support my noble friend Lady Bowles’s Amendment 107A and share her confusion, not to say bafflement, at Amendment 107. She has drawn attention to the obscurity of the drafting. Why are patent and trademark attorneys included and then excluded?
My noble friend has been, if anything, very kind to the drafters of the government amendment. Not only is it obscure but, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Smith, there seems to have been no proper consultation with the professional bodies and regulators such as CIPA, CITMA and IPReg before it was tabled. This is all compounded by the use by both officials and the Minister of the term “automatic recognition” in communication with my noble friend, when we should be talking about qualifications.
Why has automatic recognition, from which exemption is needed, been introduced? As an interloper on this Bill, perhaps I can ask the most fundamentally naive question: why do we need not just Clauses 22, 23 and 25 but Part 3 in the first place? Are these the emperor’s new clothes? Even the Explanatory Note is rather obscure in its rationale, saying:
“There is currently no overarching system or consistent approach for the recognition of professional qualifications between the nations making up the UK internal market. Therefore, if professional divergence increases across the UK, professionals could have greater limitations on their ability to practise across the UK than exists currently.”
What professional divergence is threatened or envisaged? There is the continuing need for professionals covered in this part to be suitably qualified, but why do we need a new piece of legislation simply to preserve the status quo? I am sure the Minister has the answer at his fingertips.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, it is a little disappointing that, in a Bill that is vital for the future of our country, there seems to have been some misunderstanding; somehow or other the key role of patent and trademark attorneys has been misunderstood. They are vital to the future of our country because, as it happens, we are quite good at producing ingenious new products, processes and systems of manufacture that are patentable. Equally, we are good at marketing products that require trademarks. Here is an area where we really are at the forefront of Europe’s activity—and, many would say, the world’s—so this is crucial, and we need to be clear that it is going to operate properly without any hiccups.
In my judgment, we need to defend some of our trademarks in particular. When we are marketing on our own outside the EU, I believe that we will get challenges. I have worked overseas and seen it happen there, and I do not see why it might well not happen here in the UK. As we move forward on that challenges dimension, I recall that, as I think one or two of my colleagues know, I worked in south Asia for two years. When I was in India, there was a system of mutual recognition for trademarks in certain categories of products. I wonder whether that is an element of the new deal we have done with Japan.
On my final point, I declare an interest in that I have a son, a lawyer, working in the Cayman Islands—in other words, the Overseas Territories. Given the confusion that we have had today, I am not entirely clear whether in the Overseas Territories a qualified patent lawyer or trademark attorney, who is a UK citizen qualified in the law and in whatever elements are needed for such attorneys, is able to operate although they are not actually in a part of the UK.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
My Lords, intellectual property lawyers, patent agents and attorneys are incredibly important for the future. I thoroughly endorse the remarks made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Bowles and Lady Neville-Rolfe, and my noble friend Lord Smith of Finsbury.
Honestly, confidence in this Bill was weak to start with. That mess-up just then on patent attorneys was appalling, and it made me look at the rest of Part 3. Could the Minister first of all identify what the problem is that Part 3 is dealing with? We had a clue between 11.30 pm and 11.45 pm on Wednesday evening when the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, who sadly is not in her place, said the following:
“The purpose of the professional qualification provisions in the internal market Bill is to ensure that professionals can, in most cases, access their profession in all parts of the UK, by ensuring that there is an overarching system for recognition.”—[Official Report, 28/10/20; col. 375.]
Clause 22 says that where you are qualified in one place, you can be qualified in another, while Clause 25 says that Clause 22(2) does not apply to existing provisions. Let us be clear what is happening here: the Government are saying that we are not making any change to the existing position in relation to professional qualifications, and as far as I am aware—and this is nothing to do with the EU—there is absolutely no problem about the current position. The effect of Clause 25(3) is that these provisions do not apply to any change in the future. Am I right about that? They are making no change for the past but they are bringing in these provisions in relation to the future. Why is that, when there is no problem about the past or the future? The Government are causing problems everywhere with this. I ask them to explain to the House and the wider public why on earth they are doing it. They have messed up the one area that we have looked at so far. Why should anyone have any confidence in this Bill?
On a separate point, I refer the Minister to what the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop—on the government side—said on day one in relation to this matter:
“The timetable for the Bill appears to be predicated on the end of the transition period on 31 December this year, but what is the real risk of regulatory divergence between then and the completion of the common frameworks process in 2021? The House is aware that the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 already confers on Ministers so-called Section 12 powers to freeze devolved competence in relation to EU retained law.”—[Official Report, 26/10/20; col. 88.]
So, if there is any problem about this, it can be dealt with by the Government’s Section 12 powers. That applies not just to this but to wider issues.
Why are the Government bringing forward such an obviously unthought-out Bill that is doing damage to what—and I say this with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Naseby—even the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, thinks is a mess-up, and he is a supporter of the Government’s Bill? Why on earth are they messing everything up like this? Could they please give an answer to what the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, said on day one? Is he right? If so, the urgency goes.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate on this important subject. I shall start by replying directly to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who spoke about Part 3 and why we felt the need to bring these proposals forward. The Bill is intended to ensure that divergence in professional regulation between the four nations of the UK does not increase barriers for professionals living and working in different parts of the UK. As our economy continues to develop and new sectors emerge, it is possible that new regulated professions will be created and there may be changes to existing qualification requirements that could make it more difficult to access the profession in another part of the UK. These new professions may well be crucial to the UK’s economic future. As in other areas, we do not want barriers to trade across the UK in these sectors. Internal market provisions will apply where part of the UK regulates a new profession, access to which is limited to those holding certain professional qualifications or experience. The provisions will also apply to existing professions where there are changes to the requirements for the qualifications or experience needed in order to access the profession concerned. Currently, while the recognition of professional qualifications between the four nations can and does occur, there is no overarching framework that ensures that it does. The Bill creates such an overarching framework to guarantee that recognition of qualifications between the four nations will be possible and barriers will be minimised.
I am happy to give the noble Lord, Lord Smith, and my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe the specific assurance they asked for: nothing in the recognition provisions of the Bill, including the exclusion, affects the current situation. IPReg will continue to be able to decide whether and how trademark and patent attorneys should be allowed to carry out the regulated legal activities that it is designated to regulate in all the different parts of the UK.
The government amendment aims to bring patent and trademark attorneys in line with other legal professions and to place them outside the scope of the recognition provisions of Clause 22 of the Bill. Legal professionals have been excluded from the scope of the provisions on the recognition of professional qualifications in acknowledgment of the different legal systems that exist in the UK. This will ensure that the regulation of and access to these professions, including trademark and patent attorneys, are not affected in any way by the mutual recognition provisions of the Bill and will be completely unaffected. That is why we need Amendments 107 and 108.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
I have received requests to speak after the Minister from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, referred to the idea of new professions being invented. If this happened, there would be a professional body that would need government recognition in some form. Could he give us an example, perhaps, of a new profession emerging without a professional body in relation to which there is a substantial risk? If there is no such example or evidence, it is incredibly unconvincing. The second and separate example he gave was an existing profession giving rise to a particular requirement that would create a barrier to entry in one part of the United Kingdom for another. Could he give an example of when that has happened in the past?
Lord Callanan (Con)
By the very nature of it being a new profession or qualification, it is quite hard for me to give examples of what might happen in the future. There are all sorts of new technologies; even in the noble and learned Lord’s legal profession, there may be new technologies, ideas and proposals that will come forward. There is the whole world of artificial intelligence or gene editing—there is a massive range of new and potential professional areas, bodies and qualifications that may come forward. That is the point: we want the current situation in many of these professions to be unaffected, but, in the case of new professions, it is entirely possible that the individual nations of the UK might seek to regulate them differently, and we want no new barriers to trade to emerge.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
I have also received a request from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, but I first call the noble Lord, Lord Fox.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, with all due respect to the Minister, I am sure he understands how unsatisfactory that answer was. My noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford talked about the gobbledegook of future-proofing, and this is gobbledegook. First, could the Minister tell your Lordships’ House what past examples lead the Government today to this conclusion? Secondly, why is there a problem with bringing any future issues to the Government and your Lordships’ House bespoke in the event that the Minister proves correct and something turns up? To seek to produce a Bill that covers all of the unknown unknowns that are going to happen in the history of time seems overambitious.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I think we are just going to have to differ on this one. We do not want to be returning to the House to create unnecessary difficulties and disagreements in the future; we want to ensure that, before any of these difficulties arise, we have put in place, as in the rest of the Bill, a framework that covers the whole of the United Kingdom to regulate how we will manage and control these issues in the future. That is all we are seeking to do. I understand the points that noble Lords are making. There are differently regulated professions in some parts of the UK already; we accept that and that the status quo is there, but we think that, in future, these things are best regulated on a UK-wide basis, and we want no new barriers to trade to emerge.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, this has nothing to do with powers repatriated from the European Union; it has everything to do with our internal United Kingdom approach. When was the last time that a professional body regulated by law was established where the Government considered there to be major barriers across the United Kingdom?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord will be well aware that there is European directive on this subject, and mutual recognition of professional qualifications, so, even in the EU law space, it is accepted that the nations of the EU have different ways of recognising different professional qualifications. I commend Amendments 107 and 108 to the House.
Lord Callanan
“(1A) Provision that limits the ability referred to in subsection (1)(a) to individuals with certain qualifications or experience falls within section 22(1) only if the activities affected by the provision are, in a significant number of cases, essential to the practice of the profession in question.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide that provision imposing qualification requirements on particular professional activities falls within Clause 22 only if the activities are, in a significant number of cases, essential to the practice of the profession in question.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 110. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Clause 28: Functions of the CMA under Part 4: general provisions
Amendment 110
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“Office for the Internal Market
“(1) An Office for the Internal Market (“OIM”), which will report to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, is established.(2) The functions of the OIM are as follows—(a) monitoring the health of the internal market, and(b) advising and reporting on proposals and regulations, and their actual and potential impact on the internal market.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to probe why the OIM is established within the CMA and instead attaches it to BEIS.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 110 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Noakes. My noble friend the Minister has been kind enough to write to me following the debate on where the new office for the internal market should sit. However, I remain to be convinced that the Competition and Markets Authority is its appropriate home. For this reason, I have tabled an amendment attaching it to BEIS. To make that effective, I am also supporting the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, in opposing Clauses 28 and 29.
I will put it simply and bluntly: no case has been made for locating the new office in the CMA, except, I suppose, that it is already an independent agency and the department has some involvement in the appointment of its well-paid top brass. However, the CMA is generally highly sceptical of business, especially the bigger businesses that operate across the UK, which need to flourish if the economy is to recover. That is my past personal experience with various different hats on.
We need an office—call it what you will—that can do two things: it needs to be able to monitor objectively and to advise sensibly on difficult and developing internal border issues. These are highly politically charged, as we can see from experience during Covid. Therefore, we need an office that reports directly to BEIS and, arguably, we need a Minister for the Single Market, in the same way that we had a commissioner in Brussels when we were an EU member. Actually, I prefer the notion of a single market to that of an internal market. Most of us, including the devolved Administrations, had a great deal of time for the single market when we operated within it. Indeed, I devoted some of my career to advancing it because of its benefits to consumers, manufacturers, services, other businesses and, of course, GDP.
I am sure the Minister would agree that not everything done in Brussels is wrong, and I believe we need an in-house and a political dimension. Therefore, for me, the right model for this office is the Intellectual Property Office, which has a chair and a board from outside but also a strong CEO reporting to a BEIS Minister and advising on both policy and enforcement as well as negotiating internationally and across the UK. If BEIS, for some reason, cannot do all of those things in an in-house office, the monitoring role could go to the ONS, which is well regarded in statistical matters. However, above all, the office must be subject to ministerial direction. Recent experience with Ofqual, PHE and even the CMA itself does not persuade me that the approach in this Bill is right. It is not too late to make a change.
I note that Amendment 155 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has been added to this group. I have a great deal of respect for the noble Baroness and worked with her successfully on consumer legislation in the past. However, I am not convinced that a consumer duty makes sense here, certainly not without balancing provisions on business and the economy. Business stands to lose so much from this new legislation already and from the inappropriate appointment of the CMA as the office of the internal market, and this is at a time when business is more and more adversely affected by the never-ending Covid nightmare. I think we should reflect further, but, for now, I beg to move.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
My Lords, I have given notice of my intention to oppose Clauses 29, 30 and 41 standing part. This is part of a full set of not stand part notices that signals concerns, in principle and to specifics, throughout Part 4 and Schedule 3. I will also probe what has been left unsaid about what the CMA or the OIM will do in total regarding the internal market. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, for supporting my opposition to the clauses standing part. We have some common concerns, but we are not entirely in the same place. I will be interested to hear her response to some of the points I will make as the debate develops.
There are three parts to my concern. First, as I said at Second Reading, it seems odd to use the powerful investigatory might of the CMA—or a lookalike OIM—whose information-gathering powers, with accompanying enforcement and penalties for non-compliance, bear down on individuals and companies, but where the main purpose, from weighing up the clauses’ wording, is to advise administrations about their own and one another’s regulation, and not anything the companies themselves have caused. This is extraordinary.
Secondly, there are aspects in the Bill that relate to business activity. However, this is not articulated, except that businesses are presumably among those who could make a proposal to the CMA for it to undertake a review under Clause 31. I am left asking: what else is happening that has not been said? Thirdly, there is the matter of making the CMA or the OIM properly representative of the four nations.
Overall, this seems an authoritarian, unexplained and unfinished state of affairs. The use of the CMA is a hangover from when Mrs May envisaged a corresponding body to the European Commission for all competition and state aid matters. State aid considerations have now dropped away to WTO-type considerations of distortive and harmful subsidies that will not be looked at by anyone; the Trade Remedies Authority might have to respond on incoming international complaints, but the domestic side is bare. That still leaves the market access principles to be enforced somewhere.
The Government’s response to the internal market consultation says that the expansion of the CMA’s remit will not position it as an enforcer. In a letter to my noble friend Lord Purvis after last Monday’s debate, the Minister confirmed that the OIM will provide expertise in scenarios where the economic impacts of particular regulations lead to disagreement between one or more administration, and that the non-binding assessments will ensure a technical underpinning to otherwise political discussions. Under the heading:
“On the Office for the Internal Market, disputes and governance”,
the letter to my noble friend Lord Purvis says:
“The Bill does not introduce new enforcement bodies, but instead relies on enforcement of regulatory compliance provisions in existing goods regulation to ensure that enforcement of regulatory compliance takes account of the opportunities offered by the market access principles of mutual recognition and non-discrimination”.
Does that mean that the CMA or the OIM will take account of the opportunities offered by market access principles? Does the CMA enforce the regulatory compliance provisions in existing goods regulation?
The impact assessment also mentions businesses and stakeholders. Page 29 says that stakeholders can “raise complaints” on internal market matters. This could arise by way of Clause 31 and seeking a review. However, the word “complaints” smacks of adjudication. It would be helpful if the Minister could explain whether that will be the case. Is it related to the mentioned regulatory compliance? How will that work?
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I have added my name to my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe’s amendment. Like her, I am concerned that the CMA has been chosen as the home for the office for the internal market with very little substantive discussion and certainly no proper consultation. The White Paper the Government consulted on in the summer did not even mention the CMA, and the best the Government could report in their September policy response was that
“a few respondents suggested that the UK Internal Market functions would be a natural fit with the CMA”.
When I say that I do not believe the CMA is the right home for the internal market functions, I hope that will not be taken as a criticism of the CMA. It has done good work over the years, building on that of its predecessor bodies, and its work is respected here and abroad. However, it is not a body that has won universal acclaim. The time it takes on some of its market studies and the lack of impact of some of its findings are often cited against it.
I have three main grounds for seeking a different solution, of which my noble friend’s amendment is one constructive suggestion. First, the CMA’s existing functions are adjacent to the issues that will arise in the UK’s internal market, but they are by no means coterminous. The CMA is fundamentally about competition impacts, whether through mergers and acquisitions or market behaviour. It is also about the protection of consumers. The UK’s internal market is about trade and the avoidance of unnecessary barriers to trade. These are quite different things. The danger is that the CMA could move from being a focused competition and consumer organisation to one that is more diffuse and less targeted. Many organisations have lost their way when they have sought to expand their footprint and have ended up as a jack of all trades but master of none. We cannot afford to take that risk.
While it is planned for there to be a separate panel for the office for the internal market within the CMA, it is inevitable that the functions of the office, and the resources to deliver them, will be intermingled with the CMA’s other functions. It is also clear from the Bill that it is the CMA, and not the office for the internal market itself, which will carry responsibility for the various functions set out in the Bill. We run a very serious risk of the office for the internal market disappearing into the CMA’s back room.
My second reason is that the CMA really has too much on its plate at the moment to contemplate adding such an important new area of responsibility as oversight of the UK’s internal market. There are aspects of its current workings that are not beyond criticism, as I have already mentioned. Importantly, it is about to take on a number of additional activities as we finally exit the EU at the end of the year. If anyone doubts the extent of these additional responsibilities, there are 50 pages of draft guidance on these new activities which the CMA is currently consulting on. These competition functions have already led to a very significant increase in the CMA’s resources and I believe that it was expected that overall staff numbers would increase by 40% as a result. Against that background, it would be crazy to add on significant additional responsibilities. There is only so much change that any organisation can safely accommodate in a given period.
A final reason for wanting to see the office for the internal market set up outside the CMA is to ensure that it has a real presence in our internal market as a respected source of impartial data, analysis and advice. These seem to be the things that the Government want, as set out in this Bill, but setting it up as a mere panel of a much larger, differently focused quango cannot be the right way to achieve that.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD) [V]
My Lords, my purpose in speaking today is to support Amendment 111, which I have signed, and the detailed comments made by my noble friend Lady Bowles. Amendment 111 aims to clarify that the role of the CMA and the office for the internal market is not the resolution of disputes. We already have common frameworks; we do not need a topdown resolver of disputes.
Last week, the Minister said clearly that the office for the internal market is to provide “monitoring, advice and reports”. He said that it will
“have no direct role in dispute resolution”—[Official Report, 26/0/20; col. 70.]
which will be discussed by the Joint Ministerial Committee. There is no reference to a dispute resolution in the Bill. I hope that, for clarity, the Government will accept Amendment 111, which states clearly that the CMA and, thus the new office for the internal market,
“must not engage in dispute resolution”.
The important role of dispute resolution can realistically be achieved only by discussions and compromises between the nation states of the UK. The amendment seeks to make clear what the OIM can and cannot do. In responding to this debate, will the Minister clarify these powers, or lack of them? Clarification, along with dealing with complaints and inconsistencies, is what is needed. That is what your Lordships’ House is set up for and does so well. The various explanatory documents only confuse even further and imply some resolution powers for the CMA and OIM.
Amendment 111, which puts the CMA and its plethora of civil servants back in the box, is necessary if the Bill is to be approved. The Bill is a mistake; the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, summed it up when he said that it was “unthought-out”. I support the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Naseby.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, when I first read through the Bill, I had some reservations about the CMA, not least because of the number of its investigations that have not exactly gone smoothly, as my noble friend Lady Noakes referred to. As all noble Lords are aware, it arose from its antecedent, the old Monopolies and Mergers Commission. I voiced some of those reservations at Second Reading. I then had another look at the OIM and could not for the life of me understand why it did not have its own status. How could it be right for it to be almost subservient to the CMA? I could immediately see a clash of interests. As has just been said, its role is to monitor, advise and report. That may well clash with the basic element of the CMA. While this amendment may not be exactly right, there is a strong case for it.
I will give an example. I have recently been approached by some outside people because they know that I take an interest in the credit lending market, principally credit unions. It is a difficult market because there is the FCA, which does a good job on the whole, but there is also the ombudsman. People who are in difficulty with credit are prone to appeal to the ombudsman for better treatment, as it goes beyond the normal provisions under which the FCA works. That created a real problem for the genuine lenders—not the fly-by-night operators—because of a clash of interests.
I would not expect my noble friend on the Front Bench to respond in any detail today, but the OIM has to have its own status. It should not be in a position where it is embarrassed by the CMA going against what the OIM thinks is appropriate in any situation.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, referred to a letter to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, following an earlier discussion. I have not received a copy of that. Could all the letters sent following these debates be circulated to all Members of the Committee?
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
I think all speakers in these debates ought to get them. Unless, of course, it is a very private letter to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis—in which case we will leave that between the two of them—all noble Lords should see all the letters that arise from these debates.
When I started thinking about this group, I thought that there were two divergent views, but they are not as divergent as I thought. It looked as if some amendments wanted the OIM, which is an observatory rather than an office, to be almost part of BEIS, with little independence. Our view is to the contrary. Amendment 113 in my name, which is obviously probing, signals that the CMA should not be advising the department but using its powers to intervene as necessary. That did not mean that it should not send messages to the Secretary of State, as the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie, did when, as its chair, he sought more powers for the CMA to intervene. He wanted a proper consumer duty adding to it. The amendment does not say that it should not advise the department but makes the point that it should not be subservient to it.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I thank everyone who has participated in this group. I will seek to take forward the suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, that letters be copied around—I have another batch on my desk to approve once we have finished this debate, many of which, I am sure, are to my Liberal Democrat colleagues. I will ensure that they are circulated to all the protagonists. They are not particularly secret; they just help to clarify and explain the Government’s role and answer the many questions that we have been asked. I hope that is helpful.
I will start with Amendment 110, which seeks to replace Clause 28 with a new clause on the establishment of the Office for the Internal Market. As noble Lords will know, this Bill will create an Office for the Internal Market within the Competition and Markets Authority to carry out a set of independent advisory, monitoring and reporting functions to support the effective operation of the UK internal market. The proposed new clause seeks to create a new and separate public body that reports to the BEIS Secretary of State. The effect would be not to establish the Office for the Internal Market within the Competition and Markets Authority.
Let me say in response to my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lord Naseby and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, that the Government did consider a wide range of delivery options for the advisory, monitoring and reporting functions of the UK internal market, as set out in the Bill. We concluded that the Competition and Markets Authority is best suited to house the OIM to perform these functions. The CMA is an independent non-ministerial department that currently operates at arm’s length from the Government. It is sponsored by BEIS and Her Majesty’s Treasury and—to answer the question posed by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe—Ministers will be responsible to Parliament in reporting on the work of the CMA and the Office for the Internal Market, even though they operate at arm’s length.
The Competition and Markets Authority has built up a wealth of expertise and experience that makes it a natural fit to take on these additional functions. It has a global reputation for promoting competition for the benefit of consumers and for ensuring that markets work well for consumers, businesses and the wider economy. It will also build on the CMA’s existing technical and economic expertise, which will now support further development of the UK internal market.
I should also explain that it is government policy that new arm’s-length public bodies should be only set up as a last resort and when consideration of all other delivery options has been exhausted. Other delivery options that should be considered include utilising existing bodies in order to deliver any new functions. New public bodies should be created only if there is a clear need for the state to provide the function or service through a public body and if there is no viable alternative—effectively establishing new public bodies as a very last resort. For the reasons that I have set out, we are not able to agree with this amendment. I hope that my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe will feel able to withdraw it.
Regarding Clause 28 stand part, this clause defines regulatory provisions on which the CMA, through the OIM, will monitor and provide reports and advice. The purpose is to set out the areas where the OIM will perform functions under the Bill, in order to ensure certainty and transparency for Administrations, businesses and the general public in connection with the effective operation of the UK internal market. Regulatory provisions are within scope if they set requirements for the purposes of the mutual recognition and non-discrimination principles of the Bill for the sale of goods and the equivalent for services. Moreover, regulatory provisions are within scope if they apply to one or more nations but not the whole of the United Kingdom. Clause 28 as it stands forms an integral part of the provisions for the OIM to carry out its independent, advisory and reporting duties in respect of the UK internal market. For these reasons, therefore, I am unable to accept the proposal that Clause 28 should not stand part of the Bill.
On Clause 29 stand part, removing Clause 29 would remove the Competition and Markets Authority’s objective when exercising its functions as the Office for the Internal Market. This clause designates the CMA, in its capacity as the OIM, as having a specific role in the operation of the UK internal market. It is additionally important to note that this clause establishes the statutory objectives of the CMA in its capacity as the OIM. This clause will ensure that the CMA in its OIM role is able to operate effectively as the monitoring body for the internal market, and will ensure there is no confusion between the pre-existing powers of the CMA and those newly conferred upon it as the OIM. Distinct objectives will prevent any operationally problematic blurring of functions. Clause 29 as it stands forms an integral part of the provisions for the OIM, and therefore we are unable to leave it out of the Bill.
Moving on to Clause 41 stand part, removing this clause would leave out vital definitional provisions. This clause provides key definitions for the purposes of this part of the Bill. This includes a definition of the Competition and Markets Authority itself and sets out how widely the operation of the internal market in the United Kingdom should be understood. This clause also defines “Relevant competence” in Part 4 as meaning both reserved and devolved competence so that executive and legislative competence in each territory is included. Clause 41 as it stands forms an integral part of the provisions for the CMA in its capacity as the Office for the Internal Market: it ensures legal clarity and certainty on technical terms used throughout this part. For all those reasons, therefore, I am unable to accept the removal of this clause.
Amendment 111 would require the CMA to not engage in any form of dispute resolution while fulfilling its responsibilities as outlined in Part 4. This addresses the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer. In cases of disagreement between one or more Administrations, the OIM, within the CMA, could be called upon to provide a non-binding report to support intergovernmental discussion. An assessment of economic impacts will ensure a technical underpinning to an otherwise political discussion.
Ultimately, the OIM only supports the resolution of disputes among the Administrations politically, and it does not adjudicate. The Government believe that building upon existing intergovernmental arrangements is the best approach to resolving any potential disputes, and this includes mechanisms such as common frameworks and intergovernmental relations, according to a clear and agreed process. The OIM will have its role in disputes between individuals and businesses, but businesses can request that the OIM consider disputes as part of its regular reporting. It is under no obligation to do so, nor will it have the authority to adjudicate on the specific issues.
Amendment 113 would prevent the necessary flow of information from the Competition and Markets Authority to the Secretary of State as the policy’s sponsor. The clause in question allows the CMA to alert the Government when it thinks adjustments may be needed to the way it fulfils its statutory functions, or it wishes to raise issues of particular concern. This is in line with precedent for similar public bodies and mirrors provisions in the existing legislation underpinning the CMA. Removing this provision would hamper the necessary communication between the Government and the CMA across all the other provisions in Part 4. For that reason, we are unable to accept the amendment.
Amendment 155 would make it an explicit statutory duty of the CMA, under its existing duties within the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013, to protect and promote the interests of consumers in respect of the internal market. The clause in question establishes the statutory objective of the Competition and Markets Authority in its capacity as the OIM. It will ensure that the office is able to operate effectively as the monitoring body for the internal market and that there is no confusion between the pre-existing powers of the CMA and those newly conferred upon it. Distinct objectives will prevent any operationally problematic blurring of functions. The OIM will operate for the benefit of all those with an interest in a smoothly functioning internal market, be they regulators, businesses, professionals, the four legislatures or consumers. Explicitly narrowing its focus to consumers would, in our view, be to the detriment of all the other stakeholders I have listed. Therefore, I am unable to accept the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
I have received a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Fox.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s response. In her speech, the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, asked some very specific questions, particularly in the stand part bit of her speech. I listened hard but I could not hear any answers to them, so perhaps the Minister could review her speech and write a letter, promptly, making sure that I and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, get a copy.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I see the request has the enthusiastic endorsement of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. Therefore, as his biggest fan in the House, I am obliged to follow the idea put forward. I will of course write to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, on that.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, this has been a good debate on an important group of amendments. We are not all agreed, but most of us are doubtful about the decision to allocate the office for the internal market to the CMA in the way the Bill proposes. I favour an office with ministerial leadership—there is a parallel with the EU’s single market commissioner, which has worked well in many ways.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, made an expert and very strong case from a different perspective. She rightly pointed to the huge powers and penalties involved in giving this role to the CMA, and explained useful background as to why it ended up in the CMA, linked to an earlier time when state aid rules were going to be part of the portfolio. She also highlighted a concern about how the arrangements will work for the devolved Administrations, which the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, developed in more detail and which was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 114. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Clause 30: Office for the Internal Market panel and task groups
Amendment 114
“(3) Before authorising a task group under subsection (1), the CMA must consult the Joint Ministerial Committee on European Negotiations.”
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con) [V]
My Lords, the United Kingdom Parliament has a legislative competence to regulate the United Kingdom internal market, but the devolved Administrations have a fundamental interest also. In my view, it is wise to give them a voice in the way it is exercised. This group of amendments is entirely concerned with that. I am assuming that the structures in the Bill are kept as they are, as—as with the last set of amendments—fundamental changes would affect the effect of the amendments I am proposing.
Amendment 114, which I am moving, relates to the task force set up to examine an aspect of the internal market. I am saying that the devolved Administrations should be consulted on that through the Joint Ministerial Committee. Amendment 141 relates to the submission of CMA reports. It is important that this report from the authority looking into it should go to the Joint Ministerial Committee, which has responsibility for the common frameworks. That can include the Ministers from all the devolved Administrations, as well as the UK Minister, and it is extremely important that the report should go to that committee. Admittedly it goes to Parliament, and the members of course are Members of the Parliaments, but the committee as a whole should have the responsibility of having the report given to it.
The third amendment is Amendment 171. The joint committee is a committee which I think—or I understand —functions well; I hope my noble friend the Minister will comment on that when he replies. But, however well it functions, there is the possibility of disagreement. It is absolutely important that when a Minister of the UK Government uses powers to make statutory instruments and applies to Parliament for them, that should be a matter of thorough consultation with the Joint Ministerial Committee. It should come at a time when the formulation is not complete—in other words, at a time when a committee of this sort would be able to discuss the shape of the statutory instrument that would be laid before Parliament. This is a very good way of involving the devolved Administrations in the nitty-gritty, as it were, of the work that will flow from the Bill when it becomes law.
No matter how good a committee is, there is always a possibility of disagreement; I have tried to deal with that. A number of suggestions were made earlier in these debates about how disagreement should be resolved. In my view, the best way of doing it is by putting it to the United Kingdom Parliament, where all the devolved nations are represented constitutionally. If that is to be done, it is essential that it should be by full debate in both Houses of Parliament before a decision is taken. This is preferable to any kind of majority rule, or anything of that sort. It is important that Parliament, including those Members from the devolved Administration countries, has a responsibility in this matter. I think this is the way it should be resolved, and that is my suggestion.
I thoroughly believe that this proposal is fundamental to the smooth working of the internal market Bill in the future. There is always the possibility of misunderstanding unless there is a full discussion of the proposal quite early on. That is part of what I have in mind. I beg to move Amendment 114.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, and to agree with the thrust of his comments. This is the last, relatively small, group on the general concept of the consultation, before we move specifically on to what we would expect to see of the OIM’s relationship with the devolved Administrations. It is important, I think, because of Amendment 171 in the name of the noble and learned Lord. The Government’s ability to make considerable changes, through regulation, to any part of this legislation—which could have far-reaching implications for the devolved Administrations—without any requirement for consulting is worrying.
We can look at what is currently under way with regard to consultation. I reflected on the Minister’s previous response to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, and my noble friend on the regulation of professional services and consultation. I ask the question because the consultation on The Recognition of Professional Qualifications and Regulation of Professions: Call for Evidence, which closed on 23 October—so a very recent closure—was a call for evidence to ask for views on whether there should be a UK-wide system of regulation for professional services. On page 15, under “Future considerations” in the section on the internal market, it says:
“determine whether or not there would be merit in having a UK-wide, cross-sectoral strategy for the regulation of professions (potentially underpinned by regulatory principles).”
But in this Bill we are debating it, because the Government did not wait until the closure of that consultation process before bringing legislation forward and say that this is now absolutely necessary, whereas the consultation by the business department, which closed on 23 October, simply requested people’s views.
I would be grateful if the Government would publish the responses to that consultation and update the House on the consultations on the White Paper which had been requested. I understand that the Government indicated that they would publish those consultations by 9 October, so an update on the status of that would be helpful. The Government’s ability to make regulations without consulting the devolved Administrations, under the last schedule of the Bill, does require consultation. I very much support the thrust of the noble and learned Lord’s amendments.
Turning to Amendments 114 and 141, I note that the Government’s proposal, relating to the CMA and the OIM, in this Bill is that before an appointment to the CMA board, as a chair of an OIM panel, or as a member of a panel, there must be a consultation with the devolved Administrations—so far, so good. But there is no requirement for the CMA then to consult on the establishment of a task group or a panel, so I wonder what the Government’s thinking is on that. The Government will consult the devolved Administrations on an appointment to a panel, but then there is no requirement for that panel to consult before it starts its work.
On the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, recognised in the previous group, some of the work of the OIM in these areas will touch on very sensitive issues, with regard to the devolved powers or the decisions. Given that under this legislation there will be the ability to disapply devolved legislation—legislation in the competence of any of the home nations—there being no requirement to consult before that work commences is highly problematic. The legislation goes further to say that the CMA, after a request, “may” provide a report on proposals by one of the Governments for legislation within the UK; but, of course, if it may, it may not. If it does not consult after a request has been made by one of the nations—one of the Governments—in the UK, there is no ability to know the reasons for the CMA’s decision. The necessity now for the CMA to consult is important, given that a request can be made to report on a specific proposed regulatory provision, without the requirement to consult the body proposing to make that regulatory provision, which is quite extraordinary in my view.
We do not even know, at the very least, what process the CMA would follow in the establishment of a task group to investigate a proposed regulatory provision; nor will that devolved Administration necessarily know the basis on which the task group will investigate. These are basic principles that the noble Lord is correct to highlight.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, has withdrawn so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys.
Baroness Humphreys (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackey of Clashfern, for tabling the amendments in this group.
In what is becoming an extremely welcome defence of the devolved Administrations and their devolution settlements in debates on this Bill, these amendments point the way to involving a forum that already exists when discussing and agreeing to regulations under the Bill: the Joint Ministerial Committee on EU Negotiations. The amendments would require the Competition and Markets Authority to consult the JMC on EU negotiations; they would also ensure that regulations are brought before the committee and discussed by it before being laid before Parliament.
The amendments are entirely sensible. The JMC on EU Negotiations appears to be the ideal vehicle for such oversight and deliberations. The amendments also open up the opportunity to discuss the way in which the JMC operates, to examine whether it is fit for purpose and to envisage its future role. Of course, the Joint Ministerial Committee on European Negotiations is a sub-committee of the Joint Ministerial Committee—a committee made up of Ministers from all four national Governments. On looking at the memorandum of understanding that underpins the JMC’s operations, it seems an ideal candidate for this oversight role. It is worth examining its wording. According to the memorandum, the JMC should provide
“central co-ordination of the overall relationship”
between the UK and the devolved nations and, among other things,
“consider devolved matters if it is beneficial to discuss their respective treatment in the different parts of the United Kingdom”
and
“consider disputes between the administrations.”
It seems an ideal candidate indeed, as I am sure we all would agree. This is exactly the sort of forum that we need, not just to have oversight of regulations brought forward by the CMA but to consider all issues arising from the relationship between the four nations. But the reality is slightly different. The JMC has the potential to be a forum to guide devolution issues and resolve them, but the committee itself seems to operate on an almost ad hoc basis.
My noble friend has already pointed out the difficulties with the Joint Ministerial Committee (Plenary), which is supposed to meet at least once every year. Like him, I look forward to hearing when the Prime Minister will be willing to chair another of its meetings. The Joint Ministerial Committee on EU Negotiations, to which these amendments refer, was initially expected to meet monthly. It did so until February 2017 but then ceased to operate for eight months, and its meetings have been held on an irregular basis since then. It met five times in 2019 and, I believe, has met three times so far in 2020. I would be delighted if the Minister could prove me wrong and tell me that it has met more often.
Despite the obvious drawbacks in the way that the JMC and its sub-committees operate, I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord for tabling these amendments, because they point a way forward. The JMC and its sub-committees, actual and potential, could have a vital role to play in resolving issues that arise in and around the operation of the UK internal market, but first we need to resolve the long-standing issues surrounding its constitution. The frequency of meetings and the question of who controls the agenda, for example, all have to be placed on a statutory footing. The JMC and its sub-committees, operating efficiently, regularly and fairly, have the potential to allay the fears of the devolved Administrations and allow for the consensual and co-operative government they seek. I support these amendments.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, when I read the Bill and the amendments to it that have been tabled, I asked myself, “Why?” Of course, my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay is a very experienced attorney and parliamentarian, but the whole purpose of the CMA is to be independent of government. It is not there to be dictated to because one of the devolved Administrations does not like the look of what the task group is going to be doing. That would be absolutely wrong. The whole basis of the CMA and OIM is that they are independent of government. They publish their results, monitor properly and advise, but the amendment would seem to put in another tier of management, like Europe in reverse. That is very wrong, and it would find no favour with me at all.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendment 114, moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay. It is right that we take the opportunity to look at the role and relationship of the Competition and Markets Authority and its relation to the Joint Ministerial Committee.
The single market is important to all of us. Perhaps I may give a practical example of smooth working, which is so essential. In the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, smooth working will ensure that our products are able to be sold in one part of the country and in any other. Nothing would distort that more than if access to the markets were limited. All my family are sheep farmers. They sell their products, produced in Wales—ram lambs, lambs and ewes—in markets in Carlisle and Exeter on a modest scale. It is important for them to ensure that they have easy access to all markets. That is the kind of practical example that we look at in the functioning of our future relationships.
The Duke of Montrose (Con) [V]
My Lords, I support my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern on this group of amendments, particularly Amendment 114. Having the correct dispute resolution mechanism is extremely important. If the Government can find a better one than what has been suggested, I would be interested in the Minister giving us a clue as to what it might be.
The Government have found that the Scottish Administration object to the Bill, particularly the internal market element. My noble and learned friend has drawn on many years of legal and parliamentary experience in trying to find a way for the devolved Administrations to have a forum for formal comment on the arrangements for reinforcing the single market and any SIs.
The Joint Ministerial Council on EU Negotiations has already received wide acceptance in its role of setting up the conditions for negotiating market frameworks. I declare my family interest, which is in a livestock farm in Scotland and in the Scottish agricultural industry. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, pointed out, the industry as a whole in Wales and Northern Ireland is desperate to see a properly functioning single market across the UK, let alone within the EU. It finds the framework concept so far very reassuring, but it appears that the Scottish Government are looking for more.
I have a reason to declare an interest of another kind in this whole process, in that the dukedom that I represent in your Lordships’ House derives from the role that my six-times-great-grandfather played in promoting the negotiations for the Act of Union. This of course was a desire to get a single UK market at that time, as there were so many areas where Scotland had previously had no way of gaining benefit. The settlement that they agreed left Scotland with much lesser constitutional powers than currently exist; none the less, they were determined that certain characteristics of Scottish life should remain, and they do so to this day. Therefore, I have always watched these developments with care.
Several of your Lordships were here when we debated the Scotland Bill, sometimes quite late into the night. At that time, it seemed incredible that all the items necessary for the administration of the UK could be defined in a schedule, with Scotland having jurisdiction over everything else. We were assured that this was not a worry, because Westminster always retained the final say. Noble Lords—my noble friend the Minister is probably conscious of it too—may remember, during the progress of the Scotland Bill in 1998, a slightly bad-tempered evening in Committee, which was asked to begin sitting at 6 pm and spent some time on the future relationship between Westminster and the new Administration. I was never quite sure if this was a formally prepared answer, but when trying to bring the argument to a head, Lord Sewel uttered the familiar words:
“Clause 27 makes it clear that the devolution of legislative competence to the Scottish parliament does not affect the ability of Westminster to legislate for Scotland even in relation to devolved matters … However, as happened in Northern Ireland earlier in the century, we would expect a convention to be established that Westminster would not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters in Scotland without the consent of the Scottish parliament. If problems do arise the solution is for the Scottish executive and the United Kingdom Government to resolve the matter through political dialogue. That is what differences between mature parliaments and Executives will be concerned with.”—[Official Report, 21/7/98; col. 791.]
This is where we find ourselves today. Any formal reiteration of this power always recognises the full content of this text, but the element that receives much more exposure—to the point where people begin to think that it is the only part of the legislation—is the need for legislative consent Motions whenever uncertainty arises. The encouragement to progress to political dialogue is most certainly relevant to where we are at the present time. In the present circumstances, it would not be ideal for the Government simply to implement UK legislation. Perhaps the Minister can tell the House what stage discussions with the Scottish Government have reached? It seems to me that these amendments are suggesting a form in which the Government’s proposals can be formally conveyed, with a chance that the final positions of both sides can be opened for scrutiny.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful for the quality of this relatively short debate on a really important issue. In his speech, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, emphasised the need to avoid a threat to the devolution settlement. When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, stirs, and tables amendments, it is important for us all to listen. Clearly, he is very concerned about the route that this Bill is taking, as is the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, who articulated strong reasons for a consultative and consensus approach to regulating the internal market of the United Kingdom. I am also grateful to him for bringing up again the Act of Union, because this is a live treaty; it still exists and reflects on the issue which we are discussing. We should always remember that.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, talked about the need for the devolved authorities, or the Joint Ministerial Committee, to be involved in the nitty-gritty of the market. My noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed set out the dangers and the discontinuities within the current state of the Bill that make that process impossible. Therefore, it is important for the Minister to explain how this will work, because there are so many missing pieces in a jigsaw puzzle which, frankly, still does not have a picture, and which make it very difficult for us to understand what the Government are seeking to achieve and why.
My noble friend Lord Purvis asked many questions and he raised the issue of triggering disputes. The issue of when a dispute is triggered is central, as is the one which has surfaced in many different debates: the mechanism for resolving disputes. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, suggested one way; perhaps the Minister can comment on that.
My noble friend Lady Humphreys and other noble Lords have pointed out that the JMC, and its variety of committees, seem to have stalled, not because of any lack of faith from the devolved authorities but because of the Prime Minister not convening a meeting of the Joint Ministerial Committee (Plenary). Can the Minister explain the delay and say when the next meeting will occur? My noble friend Lord Purvis also raised the important question of structure. Where does this all fit in with the JMC’s current operations?
It is the Government who have sought to drag the CMA out of its current area of reserved issues and focus it on devolved issues. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, that it is not this amendment, but the Government, that have decided to do that. They are pulling the Office for the Internal Market into an as yet undefined dispute role. It is very clear, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, set out, that if advice and reports are being submitted, then the JMC must be party to the same information that the UK Government are getting. It is also clear that we have no real idea of the Government’s intention for the operation of this Bill.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
These are important amendments that reveal yet another problem in the Bill. First, they deal with the role of the CMA, which under this Bill is intended to monitor and give advice on the working of the internal market. As I understand the way that Section 30 envisages that the CMA will operate, it will authorise an Office for the Internal Market task group to set up groups to look at particular issues. The amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, seeks to ensure that, before such a task force is set up, there is confidence that the appointment of the task force, the terms of the task force and what it is doing have broad buy-in from all the relevant parts of the United Kingdom. Can the Minister explain how, without the amendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, this was currently going to be achieved?
For example, the CMA’s parent department is the business department, which is a UK government department. The CMA has a number of board members and panel members; how many of them at the moment have experience of Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish business issues? As the Bill makes clear, the CMA will be appointing a task force where there is a difference between one part of the United Kingdom and another regarding regulatory or statutory requirements. On what basis do the Government envisage these task groups being appointed and set up? Is there any objection to adopting the noble and learned Lord’s suggestion of how to ensure that you get all the other parts of the country involved, as opposed to only BEIS or the CMA? If not, can the Minister put forward an alternative suggestion?
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to seek to reply to this extremely interesting debate. I agree with the noble and learned Lord that this is an extremely important area to consider. There were times in the speech of my noble friend the Duke of Montrose when I reflected that I was probably the 14th Mr True in the context of this discussion. I pay tribute to his ancestors for their long service to the Crown and the country of Scotland. It is true that the Act of Union is still of fundamental importance.
I am extremely grateful, as always, to my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern. Everybody who spoke recognised the good, unionist motivation to seek conciliation and collaboration which lay behind his amendments. I think that was shared by even my noble friend Lord Naseby. Often in debate we are asked to measure quantity and quality; although my noble friend was alone until now in saying that these amendments were perhaps not right for the Bill, I welcome his support.
Turning to the speech and proposals from my noble and learned friend, his Amendments 114, 141 and 171 seek to place obligations on the Joint Ministerial Committee on EU Negotiations—my noble and learned friend suggests this should be the core body—to be consulted on a number of considerations relating to the operation of the internal market.
I have been asked about the work of intergovernmental operations. The JMC (EN), which is the subject of these amendments, is a sub-committee chaired by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. It meets at regular intervals to facilitate political engagement between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations on the outcome of the UK’s exit from the EU, of which this Bill is one consequence. In total, since 2016, it has met 25 times, including the meeting that took place on 3 September 2020. The JMC system provides central co-ordination for the IGR machinery. I will come back to that later.
Before I address the amendments individually, I stress that the Government agree that the internal market should be underpinned by an effective system of governance and consultation between the four Administrations of the United Kingdom. However, we argue that the Joint Ministerial Committee on EU Negotiations is not the most appropriate or effective intergovernmental structure to engage on such technical considerations. As I mentioned, it was established in 2016 and has been valuable since then; it involves Ministers from each Administration.
I say with all respect to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, that there is no antithesis in regretting—as I hope he does—the decision of the Scottish Administration to withdraw from internal market discussions last March, as I referred to in a recent speech in your Lordships’ House, while seeking to continue co-operative work in the broad area of intergovernmental relations and through the common frameworks process. I will return shortly to the points on that made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. The United Kingdom Government seek co-operation and understanding between the different Administrations. We want effective governance and consultation.
Through the review of intergovernmental relations, which is going on at the moment, as your Lordships are aware, we are working together with the devolved Administrations to revise and update the existing JMC system. Good progress is being made and we look forward to reporting on our finalised governance and parliamentary reporting structures in due course. As such, it would be counterproductive to pre-empt the conclusion of the review of intergovernmental machinery and place these obligations on the existing Joint Ministerial Committee, which would perhaps not be the most appropriate forum.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, asked how disputes relating to the internal market should be resolved. Where disagreements relate to the internal market impacts of specific regulations that fall under a common framework policy area, it is anticipated that they will be considered through the dispute resolution mechanisms for individual common frameworks. The Government remain committed to resolving issues, including those relating to the UK internal market, at the lowest possible level. Most conversations on the UK internal market should therefore take place at departmental level to consider the impact on the UK internal market of individual policies at the technical level. This will be done through increased and improved engagement across all UK government departments and their devolved Administration counterparts. The proposal for reforming the formal process for avoiding and resolving intergovernmental disputes was jointly drafted by officials from all Administrations and endorsed by Ministers.
The UK Government are committed to the principle of dispute avoidance, as all Administrations continue to work closely behind the scenes to resolve issues through constructive dialogue, rather than detailed procedure. In the past, differences rarely escalated into disputes—in only four instances, I am informed. We can therefore expect the principle of dispute avoidance to remain central to managing disputes in the future.
My noble and learned friend suggested a specific function for the JMC (EN) on these issues. Amendment 114 requires that the committee be consulted prior to a task group of the Competition and Markets Authority being set up. We have already written into the Bill, in paragraph 2(3) of Schedule 3, that the Secretary of State will consult devolved Administrations prior to the appointment of panel members to the office for the internal market. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, referred to this. He said that it is just appointing the panel members but, in appointing members to a panel, it stands to reason that the devolved Administrations, being consulted, will be aware of the purpose for which that panel is being created.
In addition, we need to think carefully before compromising the independence of the CMA. The CMA is an independent non-ministerial department with a global reputation, as my noble friend Lord Callanan argued on an earlier group. Ministers have no day-to-day involvement in its operations. So that the advice and outcomes of the OIM’s work is trusted, its advice and future panels must be seen as impartial. There can be no suggestion of political interference, at any point. The involvement of a political engagement forum would therefore not be appropriate, in our judgment.
Amendment 141 then requires that all periodic reports by the office for the internal market on the operation of the UK internal market are laid before the JMC (EN). Subject to Clause 31(7) and Clause 34(3)— which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, pointed out, are governed by Clause 30(1)—the OIM will lay reports to the UK Parliament and each of the devolved legislatures. It will be for the relevant Administrations and legislatures, which receive the reports, to determine the most appropriate course of action, rather than a committee such as the JMC (EN).
Finally, Amendment 171 places an obligation on UK Ministers to bring regulations proposed under powers in the Bill to the JMC (EN). It suggests that, in the absence of agreement, UK Ministers would be obliged to lay reasons for the failure to agree before both Houses of Parliament and to table a Motion for a debate on the proposed regulations and the disagreement. I understand why my noble and learned friend is searching us on this point, but this mechanism is likely to introduce considerable delay in the implementation of policy to protect the internal market. Such a process would not facilitate timely discussions, given the frequency of such JMC (EN) meetings, and could undermine Parliament’s responsibility to legislate for the internal market as a whole.
I do not normally like to go with technical objections to amendments, but this amendment, as well as creating a new procedure for all powers across the Bill, would change the way regulations are made for Northern Ireland. It would require all the devolved Administrations to consent to regulations for Northern Ireland. Even if my noble and learned friend were minded to go forward on this route, and I hope he is not, we would have to respect the particular regulating arrangements for Northern Ireland in the Bill.
In summary, I hope noble Lords agree that, although these matters are important—I do not resile from the importance of the considerations raised and I will reflect on the debate—there are clear limitations to using the JMC (EN) in this capacity, particularly for measures relating to the office for the internal market, where there are already provisions in place to report directly to the Senedd, Holyrood and Stormont. With this in mind, I ask that this amendment be withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
I have received requests to speak after the Minister from the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Purvis of Tweed. I call the noble Lord, Lord Fox, first.
Lord Fox (LD)
I appreciate the Minister’s reply on the important points put forward. Whether the amendments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, are adopted or there is some other form of regulating the relationship between the UK Government and the devolved authorities, does the Minister agree that there can be a smooth-running internal market only if there is trust between the UK Government and the devolved authorities? Could the Minister say what the Government’s assessment is of the effect on that trust of publishing the Bill?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I strongly agree on the principle of trust between all parties in a negotiation. It is not always there in every negotiation, but this is more than a negotiation; it is a relationship. It is a life together, which we all wish to carry forward as the four nations and peoples of these islands. Standing at this Dispatch Box, I have sought to assure the House of the Government’s total commitment to proceeding with trust and respect. That has to come from every Government and institution in the United Kingdom. I go no further than that. I do not believe that seeking to set out a common approach to the management of the UK internal market in the UK Parliament, to which all four nations of this kingdom send representatives, should in any way undermine trust.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the discussions of the intergovernmental review, the conclusions of which we are asked to await, will specifically cover the operation of internal market legislation? Until now, as the Minister knows, legislative consent has been denied by both Wales and Scotland. The Minister repeated today that he regretted that the devolved Administration of Scotland has walked away from single market considerations. Will the intergovernmental fora that were referred to specifically cover the internal market?
Secondly, in their joint letter to my noble friend Lord Fox, the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and me, the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, stated that the office for the internal market will have a role in providing independent advice in the dispute resolution process. With regard to the devolved Administrations in the intergovernmental fora, has it been confirmed that the OIM will have a role in dispute resolution?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I believe I heard my noble friend Lord Callanan addressing this point in the previous group and that there was talk of a letter. I may have misheard but, if such a letter were proposed, I would not want to interpose my rather excessively considerable body between my noble friend’s pen and your Lordships’ House. But I take the point. If it is not covered in the response that my noble friend Lord Callanan has promised, I will address it. I am not pleading for an institutional parsing of the text in my comments, but I repeat that we are jointly exploring a number of options to strengthen the impartiality of the intergovernmental dispute resolution process. We hope it can be carried forward successfully.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful for the general support for my proposal to require co-operation between the devolved Administrations and the UK Parliament. I am sorry that my good friend, my noble friend Lord Naseby, does not care for it. I am not sure why that is, because I do not think that what I am proposing would damage in any way the independence of those seeking to set up a task force. All I am concerned about is that the task force should be familiar with the various areas of the United Kingdom that will be affected by the dispute in question. However, I have to be thankful for the support of your Lordships for the general principles that I am trying to further.
I am using the JMC (EN) because I understand that, at the moment, it is the body that is running the common frameworks policy. I want to make it absolutely clear that I am strongly supportive of the common frameworks policy and of bringing together in that connection various important matters. The system seems to work well. I am happy to use any organisation that the Government come out with for continuing that work with a degree of friendship.
I indicated in my speech at Second Reading that although the Scottish Government had stood apart from the situation in a formal way, they were apparently encouraging support for trying to resolve the main problems of the internal market in the common frameworks policy. As far as I can make out, that is the position. Needless to say, I got that information from the Scottish Government. It is a description of our situation which shows a certain degree of separation and co-operation at the same time; I very much welcome that co-operation.
The general point of who will eventually run this is a matter that I cannot anticipate. Therefore, when I use the JMC (EN) in my amendments, I am simply using what I understand is the present situation. The Government may well be able to produce a better system and, if they do so, I will be glad of that. In the meantime, I think that there is general acceptance of the view that the devolved Administrations need to be closely involved. After all, in Scotland at least there is a very strong interest in this, because something like 60% of its exports go to the rest of the United Kingdom. An internal market that functions properly and fairly is very much in Scottish interests, and I certainly would like to do everything I can to promote that.
In the light of the very good response I have had from my noble friend Lord True, I am happy to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
We now come to the group beginning with the question that Clause 30 stand part of the Bill. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in the group to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
My Lords, for the general reasons that I elaborated in the earlier group, I do not consider the CMA to be the right body, or the OIM the right structure, so in this group I give notice that Clause 30 and Schedule 3 should not stand part of the Bill. Clause 30 is about the setting up of task groups in the OIM and Schedule 3 contains more OIM detail.
Perhaps I may correct a small misspeak in the previous group. I referenced accidentally Clauses 29 and 30 instead of Clauses 28 and 29. I also pointed out then that this is part of a wider aim that Part 4 and Schedule 3 should not stand part, but as the Minister will know, it is not possible to put all of that in one amendment and debate it—we have to go through it clause by clause. However, I do not need to be reminded that removing one clause would leave the rest of them standing in a slightly awkward way. My solution is that we should get rid of them all.
I have also put forward Amendment 116 to probe how an independent OIM would look. It covers broadly the themes or principles that keep recurring as we move through the Bill and which need to be picked up, even when forced into the CMA straitjacket. I also heard what the Minister said about not creating new bodies. I recognise that there is a money aspect to this, but the point is that we need something that is better than the current proposals.
The first paragraph of Amendment 116 mentions having an MoU between the Administrations about the market access principles, and then the OIM being set up to assist in oversight. The message is simple: these matters should be consensual, and a consensually agreed body should be representing the four nations, rather than an imposed one that could potentially pay only lip service to the devolved authorities, or that does not necessarily have the right range of knowledge and abilities.
Proposed subsection (2)(a) envisages transparency, other than for commercially confidential information; maybe there could be some confidentiality for the Administrations in some instances too, but there should be a presumption of transparency, because how else are consumers or anyone else to know whether their views have been properly taken into consideration? Proposed subsection (2)(b) states that the board must include nominations from all of the devolved authorities and from the regions of England. I accept that the regions suggestion is as yet unstructured, but the principle I seek to convey is that it is no good just having the view from Westminster, it needs to be more “on the ground”, which is the enormous benefit of devolution.
The proposed third subsection says:
“Any task or investigatory group within the OIM must have a minimum of five persons drawn from all four nations of the United Kingdom.”
I have not tied the structure to the CMA-type panels, because I do not see that they are needed. However, whatever investigatory teams are used, there should be national diversity, not just cosmetically and not because it is political, but because there are genuinely different sets of knowledge and perspectives. The “minimum of three” task force of the CMA structure is clearly too few.
The proposed final subsection refers to the original CMA, not the OIM, and states that when in the ordinary course of its business the CMA conducts an investigation that requires consideration of the internal market, it shall also appoint balanced inquiry panels from all four nations. This could be in mergers, for example. I note that this part of my amendment contains thoughts that are somewhat similar to Amendment 153 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, which we will get to on Wednesday.
That is my vision of the starting principles for the OIM and how the Government’s construct could also be improved. I do not understand why the Government have given it copy-and-paste structures that derive from those that the CMA has for its investigations, and I question whether that is appropriate. This also underlies the clause should not stand part notices both in this group and generally.
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
My Lords, I will speak to the amendments in this group to which I have added my name: Amendments 117 and 118, and Amendments 120 to 124. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, have also signed these amendments, which have been put forward with the agreement of the Welsh Government.
Clauses 28 to 40 of this Bill establish a new Office for the Internal Market, within the CMA, as other noble Lords have already noted. The OIM will have reporting, monitoring and advisory functions and information-gathering powers; it will monitor the health of the internal market and provide advice on the economic impact of proposals and regulations, including their impact on trade, investment and competition. It will publish reports available to stakeholders and devolved Administrations. The problem is that all this is to be provided within the existing structure of the CMA, which is a body established and designed to work within the UK Government structure.
These amendments relate to the status, role and membership of the CMA, which was established in 2013 as a non-ministerial government department, accountable to Parliament via its sponsor department, which at the moment is BEIS. Although the CMA works at arm’s length from the Government, BEIS gives it a strategic steer that outlines the Government’s strategic priorities. The Secretary of State appoints, or removes, the chair and board of the CMA, and it produces an annual report for the Secretary of State. It is the CMA which represents the UK Government abroad on relevant issues.
The CMA was designed to deal with purely reserved matters, whereas the Office for the Internal Market is designed to have functions in relation to the devolved Administrations as well. The OIM is therefore a mismatched limb, grafted on to the CMA. For instance, Schedule 3 includes measures to establish an OIM panel and task groups. The Secretary of State must simply consult the devolved Administrations before these appointments. That is inadequate, as it provides no guarantees of agreement from the devolved Administrations before appointments are made and no guarantees of balanced representation.
These amendments seek to address these problems and to be fully respectful of devolution, including requiring the Secretary of State to get the consent of the devolved Administrations to appointments, although with the provision that they must respond within one month so they cannot unreasonably hold up the work of the OIM. Importantly, these amendments would also adjust the structure and relationship of the CMA so that it will no longer be a purely UK Government and parliamentary vehicle. The DAs would each be able to appoint and remove a CMA board member, subject to the usual five-year term and the CMA’s annual plan and annual report would be laid before the devolved legislatures as well as Parliament. Thus the parent organisation, the CMA, is structured to ensure that its offshoot, the Office for the Internal Market, works genuinely for all parts of the UK.
I spoke in an earlier debate about the hybrid role of UK Ministers, who are expected by this Bill to operate at one moment as English Ministers, acting in the specific interests of England, then to switch hats into their UK role and act as impartial arbiters between the interests of the four nations. This Bill requires a similar constitutional contortion from the CMA in relation to its baby, the Office for the Internal Market. There is a reason why the referees in Saturday’s rugby internationals did not come from either of the nations represented on the field—and we all know that. You cannot guarantee an even-handed approach unless you have the structures in place to ensure that, and it has to be built into and throughout the appointments of the organisation, into its remit and reporting processes.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB) [V]
As the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, has very carefully explained the purpose of these amendments, I can be much briefer than I had intended.
The amendments are directed at the CMA and the Office for the Internal Market as set out in the Bill, but the principles behind these amendments would apply to any different structure that emerged, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, envisaged. It seems to me that the critical point for this House to consider is that whatever structure is established must command the confidence of all the nations of the United Kingdom. Secondly, it is obvious that there will have to be a body that exercises independent powers and makes judgments that may go against one part of the United Kingdom or another part of it.
Thus, it is important to ensure, as these amendments seek to do, that the appointments both to the Competition and Markets Authority and to the office for the internal market take into account the change in the CMA’s role and cater for the new role of the OIM—assuming that these roles will be given to them when the Bill emerges from Parliament.
It seems to me that there is one useful analogy to make. Because the CMA has certain quasi-judicial and independent functions, it must be set up in such a way that those who are affected by its decisions know that those appointed to it have their confidence. They must also have a proper knowledge of the different constituent parts of the UK. When this House enacted the Constitutional Reform Act in 2005, a statutory provision was included that there had to be judges from Scotland and Northern Ireland; Wales was dealt with as part of England, and I will say nothing about that today. But recent experience of devolution legislation has shown how important it is for a body such as the Supreme Court—and for this body—to have representatives who know and understand the position in each of the constituent nations.
I need not elaborate on the detail of how this provision will work. I stress that the body must comprise those who understand the different nations of the UK and are able to provide it with confidence in its decision-making. It must address the point to which the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, referred—namely that, more and more, Ministers are seen not simply as UK Ministers but as Ministers of England.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD) [V]
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendments 116, 127 and 130, to which I have added my name. I agree with the arguments put forward by my noble friend Lady Bowles, who put it much better than I can.
The aim of the amendments is to seek to bring some clarity to the office for the internal market. Gosh, it needs some clarity. I am unsure that we even require this quango. If it stays in the Bill, then please let us flesh out how it could work. Does the Minister accept that, if the office for the internal market remains, there is still much ambiguity in this Bill? It is not even constructive ambiguity; it is ambiguity pure and simple. Can he explain it?
Amendment 116 seeks to add a clause which should be the bed-rock of the Bill. There has to be an understanding agreed between the Secretary of State, Welsh and Scottish Ministers and the Northern Ireland department in order to make the internal market work, be transparent and involve all the devolved authorities.
Amendments 127 and 130 underline the need for transparency and representation. I hope the Minister can accept that the amendments seek to clarify and flesh out what the Bill means in respect of the office of the internal market and to get rid of any ambiguity. Amendments 116, 127 and 130 seek to do that.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
My Lords, as other noble Lords have explained, the aim of these amendments is to ensure that not only is the office for the internal market appropriately constituted and organised so that it is accountable to all four democratically elected legislatures of the United Kingdom but also that the Competitions and Markets Authority—if this is to be the home of the new office—should be reconstituted to reflect the fact that its functions no longer relate exclusively to reserved matters.
I say “if” the office for the internal market is to sit within the Competitions and Markets Authority. Other noble Lords have already addressed that issue thoroughly and made clear that it is neither necessary nor desirable. The more radical attempts by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, to establish the office for the internal market as a truly independent and unattached new body are far more logical and would ensure the proper functioning of the office. The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, explained this very clearly. Their proposal has great merit. We will all be interested to hear the Minister’s arguments as to why a truly independent office is deemed undesirable.
Ministers keep claiming that passing the Bill is extremely urgent. If it is that urgent, perhaps he could explain why it would not be possible to initially brigade the office for the internal market under the CMA as an interim measure until it can be established by statute. After all, that is what seems to be happening with the Trade Remedies Authority. If I am correctly informed, the Government found it easy enough to establish a new body—the Trade and Agriculture Commission—as an independent statutory body.
If there are compelling arguments supporting the current proposal then it is imperative that the CMA can demonstrate that it really can command the trust of the devolved Governments and legislatures. If the Minister cannot give us those arguments during this debate, can he write to us specifying the justification? Nothing in these amendments suggests that it would be impossible for the CMA or for the OIM to function should a future devolved Government simply not want to engage.
The right of appointment of a board member to the Competitions and Markets Authority is important, but the board could function without one or more of these members. In the case of the OIM panel—where the devolved authorities would have to be fully engaged in appointments—if consent is not forthcoming within one month then the Secretary of State could proceed without their consent as long as he made a statement as to why proceeding without consent was desirable. That seems to strike an appropriate balance between ensuring the operability of the new arrangements and ensuring that the devolved institutions have confidence in a body that will have such significance for the future integrity of devolution.
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff. As she has made so many of the points that I intended to address, I shall not repeat them and I shall curtail my comments accordingly. I agree with the telling arguments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. I shall also limit my remarks because of the diabolical communications between Wales and Westminster this afternoon. Noble Lords may see this as an ironic reflection on the amendments that we have just been addressing.
I oppose Clause 30 standing part of the Bill and support Amendment 117, to which I have added my name and to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, has spoken. Like the noble and learned Lord, I shall desist from being drawn into the argument that Wales has so often been treated as part of England; that is for another day.
In the earlier debate on Amendment 110, the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, said that the CMA should be equally available to all four nations. During the debate on the last group of amendments, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, argued that the devolved Governments should have a voice. This is why I have added my name to Amendment 117.
The Bill is reinventing the CMA as a hybrid body with the OIM—very different from the widely respected body that has hitherto existed. The CMA has to be restructured accordingly.
The Bill is bringing the CMA into a highly controversial area, as it will be dragged into polarised arguments between the Governments of the four nations. Several noble Lords have already raised doubts about whether it is in any way appropriate that the CMA should be used in this way. If the CMA is going to act as an adviser to the Government, it has surely to be an adviser to all four national Governments within the UK. It has to be equally responsive to all four Governments and not beholden unto one Government more than the other three.
It is in that context that I support the amendment requiring there to be a nominee of each of the devolved Governments on the CMA board. Unless this is delivered, the CMA will be seen as the referee and as a body beholden unto one of the teams between which it potentially has to adjudicate. This will inevitably lead to conflict, and it is to give the devolved Governments greater confidence in the CMA that Amendment 117 proposes having a nominee of the devolved Governments within its structure. Having rejected earlier amendments to amend the statutory functions to avoid these dangers, the very least the Government can do is accept Amendment 117, or alternatively bring forward on Report an amendment to achieve a similar purpose. I urge the Minister for once to take a sympathetic approach to this constructive amendment.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and all previous speakers in the debate. I wish to speak especially in support of Amendments 117, 118, 125 and 131. As Amendment 131 is in the next group, I shall not speak in that debate as I am listed to do.
These amendments concern the future governance of the Competition and Markets Authority—the CMA—and the creation within it of an office for the internal market, or OIM, under the Bill. These amendments seek to ensure that appointments to these bodies are representative of the four constituent legislatures of the UK and that, in overseeing the internal market within the UK, the OIM does not effectively act as an arm of the UK Government and therefore of only one nation, England.
These proposals are important because they are part of the emerging architecture of what Robert Shrimsley of the Financial Times has called the “one-legged economic strategy” of No. 10, namely the “levelling-up” of the UK regions and nations, which appears to mean allowing No. 10 to subsidise favoured industries without any willingness to partner with either the devolved Administrations or, for that matter, regional and local government, such as mayors. In July, the Financial Times quoted an individual close to these discussions as saying:
“The current plan is an odd combination of reserving state aid [for control from London] but then agreeing to a free-for-all. They just want to be able to bung money at things and do not want UK internal market legislation cutting across that.”
The Bill therefore seeks to create a UK-wide, or at least a Great Britain-wide, regime for market access overseen by the new office for the internal market within the CMA that undermines the current devolutionary settlements, certainly for Scotland and Wales and potentially for Northern Ireland, depending on the outcome of the UK trade negotiations.
The provisions of the Bill to curtail the scope of EU state aid rules that could potentially apply through Article 10 of the Northern Ireland protocol, which the Prime Minister agreed to last year, reflect objections by No. 10 to possible “reach back” into the UK by these EU rules. The Government now seek to give the Westminster Government legal powers to control UK state aid, which will potentially replace the estimated £2 billion average annual European Union structural funds previously distributed to the UK’s devolved nations and regions. Just as the Government are resistant to demands by the EU for a level playing field between the UK and the EU, neither do they apparently wish to see the UK’s internal market subsidy regime between England, Scotland and Wales, and possibly in the event of no deal even Northern Ireland, overseen by an independent UK regulator.
The reason why Scotland and Wales in particular are so unhappy about the Bill is that the arrangements proposed are seen by them as undermining the very principles of devolution. This is because the Bill not only curtails devolved competence in specific ways, for example, by making state aid a matter reserved to Westminster, but will ironically also cut much more deeply into areas of devolved competences to regulate economic activity in relation to goods and services than did the previous EU rules. This is because areas of permissible exemptions from similar EU internal market rules, including public health, environmental protection and the protection and promotion of local heritage, do not appear to be exempt from the proposed UK internal market rules. The Bill also gives the Westminster Government new spending powers in devolved areas with no obligations to consult the devolved Administrations.
The previous Conservative Government of Theresa May envisaged that post-Brexit there would be a new legally enforceable regime for state aid under the CMA. However, the arrangement now envisaged for the office for the internal market is that all appointments to its board and the panel of task force members will, like those currently at the CMA, which is a non-ministerial department of the UK Government, be made by Ministers at Westminster and that the role of the new office will be purely advisory.
Amendments 117 and 118 would give each of the devolved Administrations the power to appoint a member of the CMA board itself and would also ensure that the consent of the devolved Administrations is obtained for appointments of the chair and members of the office for the internal market panel. The Bill as it stands provides only for consultation with, as opposed to consent from, the devolved Administrations in relation to such appointments. Amendment 125 would require the CMA to lay its annual plan, proposals for its plan and its annual report before each of the devolved legislatures. Amendment 131—I accept that it is in the next group—contains similar provisions related the involvement of the devolved Administrations in appointments to the OIM and would strengthen the independence and enforcement powers of the OIM so that it would not be effectively an agent of the Crown.
In addition to crucial aspects relating to undermining devolution in the UK, there is an additional disturbing element to what the Government are trying to achieve here. As pointed out by the Institute for Government, under the Bill as it stands the office for the internal market will have very limited powers. Its reports may be useful in gathering relevant information about how the internal market functions, but there is no obligation on any of the Governments to act on them.
In the Conservative manifesto of 2017 there was a promise to use the returning £2 billion average annual EU structural fund money to set up a UK shared prosperity fund. The March 2020 Budget said that the fund would be realigned to match domestic priorities. The Government have yet to publish a consultation on this fund, but the Welsh Government have already made clear that they are strongly opposed to the idea of the fund being administered from Westminster.
The devolved Administrations have vocally expressed their opposition to the proposals relating to the Bill’s blueprint for the future UK economy, which they say was drawn up with no consultation or respect for divergence between the nations. Nicola Sturgeon has pronounced it “an assault on devolution” and the Welsh Government called it
“an attack on democracy and an affront to the people of Wales”.
I have previously argued that the rarely convened Joint Ministerial Committee, which was created to allow the UK Government and the devolved regions to discuss issues relevant to devolution and consider any disputes between the Administrations, should adopt a modified form of the EU system of qualified majority voting so that the Westminster Government would need the support of at least one of the other three nations for a measure to go forward. Such a measure is supported by the Welsh Government, but not—unsurprisingly maybe—by the chair of the committee, Michael Gove.
The Covid crisis has emboldened the UK’s devolved Administrations to make decisions that significantly diverge from those in Downing Street, and they are thought by many to have shown greater surety in their handling of the pandemic than has Westminster. Far from rewarding them for their competence, however, the Government are exploiting Brexit as an opportunity to impose an autocracy on Great Britain, and potentially on Northern Ireland as well, in respect of these internal market rules.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the noble Lords, Lord Wigley and Lord Hain. I agree with much of what they have said. The noble Baroness was particularly clear in setting out the issues that arise with this group. I have attached my name to, and will speak to, Amendments 119 and 126, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, who I thank for originating them.
They share the purpose of many amendments in this group: to ensure that the devolved nations have a voice in the operation of the internal market—the market that will govern much of what they can regulate and what protections they can provide to their peoples, as the Committee discussed last week in the group starting with Amendment 15.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has not yet spoken, I will briefly address the detail. I interpret Amendment 119 as something of a back-up to Amendment 118, which would ensure that the Government have to obtain the consent of devolved Administrations before appointing the chair and members of the CMA’s office for the internal market panel. Amendment 119 says “seek consent”. I prefer Amendment 118, but it is important that at this stage we offer a range of amendments to the Government.
Amendment 126 refers to the membership of the OIM panel, saying that it should include representatives from each of the four nations of the United Kingdom. The purpose of these two amendments, as in so many of the amendments in this group, is—to adapt the well-known phrase— to ensure that there is no regulation, or deregulation, without representation or democracy.
In briefly making the case for these amendments, I go back to the first group debated today, which, as your Lordships will recall, related to professional qualifications. I quote the words of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, in that debate:
“There is the whole world of artificial intelligence or gene editing—there is a massive range of new and potential professional areas, bodies and qualifications that may come forward … in the case of new professions, it is entirely possible that the individual nations of the UK might seek to regulate them differently, and we want no new barriers to trade to emerge”.
In that one short statement, the Minister managed to sum up the disturbing intention of the Government to centralise in Westminster decision-making on extremely important areas of public policy that are currently devolved; the reasons for the objections to this Bill held by many, particularly those concerned with defending the devolution settlements; and the case for these amendments. Even if the protections that the still relatively new institutions of the nations have been able to create for their peoples stay in place, they will not be able to react to social, economic or technological changes, or strengthen existing protections.
To go back to the single-use plastics example that was discussed extensively under Amendment 15, if the Welsh Government want to provide extra protections for their people and environment from these deeply damaging products, they can rush to get measures under the wire now, before the internal market replaces the single one. For what happens after that, I cannot think of better examples than those provided by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan—gene editing and artificial intelligence, where different regulations might be applied by the devolved Administrations in their areas of competence. That would include areas ranging from agriculture to education, from food safety to transport. We need to ensure that the devolved Administrations can keep control.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I listened carefully to noble Lords who spoke before me. The devolved Administrations are failing to recognise that both the CMA and the office for the internal market are fundamentally UK-wide bodies working on UK-wide issues. They are not bodies where territorial interests will be played out. The devolved nations are part of the United Kingdom, which exists and is not just a federation of four independent nations. There are clear United Kingdom functions, which is why we have UK Ministers looking out for the interests of the whole United Kingdom. We should not regard the UK as somehow morphing into an equivalence with England, which the noble Lord, Lord Hain, came close to saying, even if he did not actually say it, when he spoke earlier.
Furthermore, these significant independent public bodies should not be seen as having nominees or representatives on them: it is important that you get the best people to contribute to the functions given to these bodies by statute. Those people will require qualifications and experience. It does not matter where they come from: the most important thing is to get the right quality of individual on those bodies to carry out their functions. Any sense that those individuals become the possessions of devolved Administrations could take them into political alignment, which would have a very negative influence on the effective operation of the independent bodies.
Schedule 3 already requires consultation with the devolved Administrations over the appointment of the chair and panel of the office for the internal market. That is the normal formulation. I do not think that there is a precedent for what is proposed, for example, in Amendment 117: direct appointments by devolved Administrations to independent UK-wide bodies. That would take us in a direction that could undermine the independence and coherence of those bodies. I hope that noble Lords will not pursue their amendments.
Lord Empey (UUP) [V]
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Hain, has said, much of the debate on this group has coincided with the next group and Amendment 131, and with what I was going to say on that group, so I will not exercise my right to speak then.
The word “confidence” has been used consistently, and it is the one thing currently missing. We do not have the support of any of the devolved Administrations for these measures, and it worries me that if we follow the same pattern in future, areas of conflict will arise, because there is no consensus on what we are trying to do. I take the point made by my noble friend Lady Noakes that this is a UK-wide body and you cannot expect the United Kingdom Government to be held to ransom by any of the devolved Administrations. I would not wish to see that.
Equally, however, we have, in our haphazard way—I have drawn the attention of the House to this before—provided devolutionary powers to these regions. As I said last week, we have a collision between the powers of the devolved institutions and what we are now trying to create. It makes sense, therefore—whichever way the Minister intends it in practice—to ensure that the devolved regions feel confident that they have someone at the table, in this new body, who understands their local circumstances and will speak up on their behalf, as well as exercising the UK-wide powers.
I must say that as far as my own region is concerned, while the Government will not allow the truth to pass their lips, from both the economic and state-aid points of view Northern Ireland is left in the European Union. We will be operating on EU state-aid rules and operating an EU regulatory regime. While we are all on the same page today, over time there will be differences. I do not believe, nor I do see any evidence, that Whitehall fully understands that. If we want proof of that, we were told a year ago to tear up any pieces of paper we were given and throw them in the bin; on 1 July we were provided with £25 million to ensure that our traders could deal with the paperwork and the administrative burden that they were going to be confronted with; and by 29 August that had risen to £355 million.
It is perfectly clear that there is a border in the Irish Sea, there are differences and the regime that businesses in Northern Ireland will have to operate under could well be very different over time, so having representation on this body is the minimum that we wish to achieve. I do not want to see a veto—I do not want to see a body that is crippled by disagreement—but people have to be realistic: if you give powers to the devolved Administrations then you cannot be surprised if they take offence when Whitehall says, “We know best and we will do things that you don’t agree with”.
I would say that we have created our own problems. I would like to see in response to some of these probing amendments the Minister address the point about how we get buy-in if we do not have broadly-based representation on the body that understands the different social, legal and economic contexts, particularly when one part of our United Kingdom is left under EU regulations and state-aid rules. I look forward to what the Minister has to say in that regard because we want to succeed. We have to move forward coherently and with restored confidence, because I have never seen it at a lower ebb than it is today. It would be so much better if the JMC were functioning as it was originally intended and if it were a forum where we could jointly work together on solving our problems. What we have achieved at the moment is a stand-off with the devolved Administrations, none of which support this legislation.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Empey. I support Amendments 117 and 125, to which four noble Lords with a special interest in Wales have put their names. I should like to add a Scottish point of view when I say that the amendments that they propose have everything to commend them, and the arguments that they put forward are ones that I entirely endorse and support.
The key point underlying both these amendments was expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, when she said that these matters should be consensual and the body taking the decision should represent all four nations. Whatever the structure of that body, and indeed whichever body we are talking about—the options are before us in these various amendments—it has to command the confidence of all four nations.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I also offer my support to these two amendments. It is a privilege to be able to follow two such wise speakers as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and my noble friend Lord Empey. Implicit in their speeches was a recognition of the fact that the United Kingdom is on the verge of becoming the broken kingdom. The Government underestimate at their own potential peril just what dangers surround us. I beg my noble friend who will wind up this debate—for whom I have a genuine regard, as I have said many times before—to take seriously the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and the noble Lord, Lord, Hain, all of whom, coming from different parts of the United Kingdom, speak with a tone of real concern and sorrow because they passionately believe in the UK, as do I, and they know it is in peril.
We have to be extremely careful. I will speak for a moment or two longer than I would otherwise have done. I too, like the noble Lords, Lord Empey and Lord Hain, will not trouble the House in the next series of amendments because they rather overlap with these, and in many ways I would have liked them to have been grouped together so, like both noble Lords, I will speak as if they are.
My noble friend Lady Noakes was right to talk about our dealing with the United Kingdom. However, we have had 20 years or more of devolution and in the case of Northern Ireland considerably longer, although much more fractured from time to time. Therefore, we cannot behave as though ours were the only elected legislative body—of course, we in your Lordships’ House are in a unique position. We cannot behave as if there were just one Parliament; some of us may wish that there were but there is not. Therefore, to neglect what has been built up over the last 20 years would be sheer folly. We have to have a proper regard for the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Senedd and the Northern Ireland Assembly, and to make sure that in this new world where the United Kingdom is no longer part of the European Union, we pull together, work together, recognise what each constituent part brings to the United Kingdom and strive to ensure that it remains the United Kingdom.
I deeply regret the fact that we are rushing pell-mell towards 31 December. The crisis that has engulfed the United Kingdom over the last seven or eight months, unique and grave as it is, ought to have made the Prime Minister and his Government realise that there would have been real merit not in trying to undo Brexit—that has happened—but in trying to get the very best possible relationship and, therefore, taking more time. I deeply regret that, but, as they say, we are where we are. It is therefore tremendously important—utterly vital—that we go into the new year as a united kingdom, each nation complementing the other and, as a collective country, moving forward.
We have seen over the last few months, with the way devolution has operated in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, that the constituent parts of the kingdom have behaved differently with regard to Covid. I am not making any value judgment, but I would say that we have made our fair share of mistakes in this part of the United Kingdom. We have made some sweeping judgments, which we will be debating on Wednesday, and, in many things, other constituent parts of the United Kingdom have behaved perhaps a little more wisely than we have.
One point that has cropped up time after time in this very interesting debate is that we must command confidence. The prime duty of the United Kingdom Government here at Westminster is to command that confidence. I urge my noble friend the Minister to ensure that the bodies we are talking about tonight are able to command that confidence—that the office for the internal market does not become an office where dissension rules the day but where all the constituent members, from the constituent parts of our country, can recognise that they are complementary one to another, each with a contribution to make. It is therefore important that all four constituent parts are represented within this office by people in whom we can all trust. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, said that we really did have to be able to trust each other. He made a number of very valid points which I hope my noble friend the Minister will take on board.
I do not want to sound too much of a Jeremiah, but I have never felt more worried for the future of our country than as we enter 2021—for its continued existence as a united kingdom, for its prosperity, and for our ability to come out of this crisis in a way that gives us a new and bright future.
The Government must practice a degree of humility as they realise that they have not had all the answers right in these last few months. If they are to get them more right in the next few months, they must not behave as though they have a monopoly of wisdom— they have not.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is always interesting to hear the reflections of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and I have a tremendous amount of sympathy with a great deal of what he said. However, I think he must come to understand—if I may put it this bluntly—that we have moved on and we are perhaps at a stage now where the future strength of our four nations working together will have to be rooted in an understanding of their separate identities and democratic systems, which complement our own.
I happen to believe that the road we should be exploring far more often is that of a federal United Kingdom. I hope that does not hurt the noble Lord; I feel that that is how our people can become strongly united in the way forward. In some ways, the determination to leave the European community has made this more urgent and important than ever. Our success as four nations depends upon our mutual co-operation and our recognition of interdependence.
Our debate this afternoon has been on a theme to which we have returned several times during the passage of this Bill, and it is crucial. We must have a situation in which the peoples of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England feel a sense of ownership in what is being done, and a genuine sense that it is being done on their behalf rather than being dependent on a dominating lead from England, and finding ways of talking to them to try to meet their needs in the best way possible.
We simply have to make sure that there is common ownership of what is being done. That is why the amendment by my noble and respected friend Lady Hayter is so important and I am so glad to see it—although I am slightly intrigued by the groupings as I think it is closer to the perhaps more detailed Amendment 131 tabled by my noble friend Lord Stevenson. As we go forward, I am sure that we will fail if there is any feeling that there is not common ownership and agreement about the things that are being done. This will take time and effort because, as has already been said, it is not just an administrative matter but a trust-building matter. These amendments are desperately important, and I hope that the Government will take them seriously.
Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and so many other noble Lords. I support the thrust of this group of amendments, particularly those in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, who explained her reasoning with such clarity. I also support the aims of the wholly reasonable amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. I particularly support Amendments 116, 117, 121, 128 and 129, echoing the calls for specific representation of all the devolved Administrations in the operations of the office for the internal market. I also support the aims of amendments like Amendment 118, which call for the devolved Administrations to be properly involved in both the OIM and the CMA.
I hope that, when responding to this group, my noble friend the Minister can accept the intention of these amendments and return on Report with proposals to help dispel the impression that the establishment, as currently proposed, of this office for the internal market represents a power grab by the English Parliament, which shows wholly insufficient respect for, and inclusivity of, the Parliaments of each devolved nation in the United Kingdom. As the noble Lords, Lord Empey and Lord Hain, my noble friend Lord Cormack, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, rightly say, surely, representation of each devolved Administration is the minimum that is required to reassure each nation that its own particular interests will be taken into account by a representative with local understanding.
I also agree with other noble Lords that the CMA seems an inappropriate home for this new office for the internal market. Of course, I understand and support the aim expressed by my noble friend the Minister in earlier groups to avoid establishing more arm’s-length bodies if there is a viable alternative to use. However, the CMA does not seem to be a viable alternative for this purpose: it is an organisation sponsored by two government departments, BEIS and the Treasury, and it aims to promote competition for the benefit of consumers, which is primarily concerned with large businesses, competition issues, mergers and oligopolistic power. It does not have experience in monitoring an internal market across all four of our nations, particularly with the interests of so many small firms in each sector being at stake. Therefore, I believe that the office for the internal market does not really belong in the CMA, and, whether or not it is there, it absolutely must have representation from all four nations of our United Kingdom.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and other noble Lords in this very robust but genuine and philosophical debate about the role of the CMA and the office for the internal market. The general thrust of the debate has been that there needs to be a degree of independence in this body but also that it should embrace the devolved legislatures as well as that within Westminster and Whitehall. As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, to protect identities and recognise and acknowledge democracies that Westminster and Whitehall put in place with the devolved settlements, it is important that they are recognised. The best way to do that is through membership on an equal basis on the CMA and office for the internal market panels.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Hain, I was intending to address Amendment 131, which is now in the next group, because I agree totally with its sentiments, as well as Amendments 117, 118 and 119 in this group. It is interesting that, in its recent report, the Lords Constitution Committee states:
“The Government should explain why the Competition and Markets Authority is the right body to have oversight of the monitoring of the UK internal market”.
Perhaps the noble Lord will provide reasoning for that —I hope he does—because none of the noble Lords who have spoken this evening, apart from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, have seen any merit in this organisation doing the job that will be required if this legislation is implemented.
The Lords Constitution Committee also states:
“The Government should seek to make the Office of the Internal Market more clearly accountable to the different legislatures in the UK.”
If you want their buy-in—and, as the noble Lord, Lord Empey, has said, there is no buy-in in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland—it is going to be an uphill struggle for the Government to achieve that.
In looking at various aspects of this over the last few days, there is no doubt that members should be appointed by all four Executives on an equal rather than proportionate basis, with substantial stakeholder input from the business sector. It should have a dispute resolution capability and sufficient powers of enforcement. Its remit should include measuring additional costs of GB goods to Northern Ireland and the source of the extra cost. Coincidentally, this issue has already been referred to in this debate by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and an information session was given by the Government to Northern Ireland businesses today, which said that there will be 30 million customs declarations on an annual basis between GB and Northern Ireland. That is the extent of the issue and the extent, for some of us, of the problem and the work required.
There is no doubt that the resources and information necessary to monitor the impact of the UK internal market as it relates to the implementation of the protocol could be covered in Amendment 131, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara. I also highlight the capacity to be informed by relevant stakeholders and business and consumer groups. There is a view in the wider business and academic worlds that the Competition and Markets Authority is not a natural fit, as it deals with private, not government, business. The proximity of the CMA to BEIS would always leave it open to accusations of political influence, even though it is a non-ministerial department with strategic influence given by BEIS.
In summary, it is important that that overarching authority should be—here I go further than other noble Lords, perhaps—independent of all political and governmental influence. However, there is no doubt that the work, influence and devolution settlements need to be recognised and, as such, representatives from the devolved structures need to be on the overarching body for it to work and bring some sense to this organisation. I am happy to support Amendments 117, 118 and 119.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, this is a characteristically interesting and deep group, and it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness. Having listened to and thought through all the contributions, I start by asking the Minister a question. Did the CMA respond to the Government’s consultation on their White Paper? If so, will the Government publish that response? Over the years, the CMA, as an independent body, has responded to many consultations on government proposals. What was its response to this? We know, as the Minister has indicated in answers to previous groups, that the Bill was, to put it most kindly, drafted within a constrained period; others may say that it was rushed. It seems there are concerns that the Government have found the CMA to be the appropriate body for a function to identify problems which the Government themselves have not indicated exist yet. It is all to do with future problems.
I will start by reflecting on the very good point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, who is frequently wrong in these debates. Her points are excellent, but when she shows the working of her arguments, we often come to a different conclusion. I have struggled to find a recent example of a UK body, operating on UK reserved matters, which has a direct role on devolved Administrations and Parliaments for areas within their competencies. Maybe the Minister can indicate where that has been the case. If that is not common practice, then we are in new territory. The closest that I can think of would be the operation of certain UK regulators that, by virtue of the decisions they can make within the reserved functions, could have an impact on devolved ones. We addressed that in the Scotland Act 2016, under which there are, for example, new requirements, which did not exist previously, for Ofgem and Ofcom to lay their reports to the Scottish Parliament. Interestingly, both Ofgem and Ofcom have a statutory duty under that Act to appear before a Scottish Parliament committee. This is part of an advance recognition that the decisions that they can make in regulating a UK market will have an impact.
In response to the noble Baroness, the role that the Government seek for the CMA is now markedly different, because the CMA is not just a UK body operating under explicitly UK issues of competition and regulatory functions. It will now report on non-UK-wide policy proposals made by the UK Parliament for England only, for Wales only or for Scotland only. That is a very different way for that body to operate; it was not the policy intent when it was formed in 2013. It is worth considering in detail, because it is a deviation from the policy intent in its parent legislation.
The CMA is also, fundamentally, about private enterprises in the market and the protection of consumer interests, but it will now have new responsibilities to report directly on decisions made by one Parliament, within its legislative competencies, which do not have private enterprise relationships or consumer interests at their heart. This goes back to the debate about what legitimate aims are. We are moving from a single market which had a wider scope of legitimate aims—environmental policies for example—to a more restrictive one. However, the decisions that will be made for England, Wales or Scotland alone will be within their existing devolved competencies or, indeed, their new ones. It goes far beyond what we have at the moment.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I rather regret that, early on in this debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, mentioned rugby. I would have thought that this was not the weekend for her to do it, but I am sure that it cheered up others in the House.
It is hard to add much to the case so clearly set out by earlier speakers, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for covering the amendments in our names, so I do not need to go through them. I will just say that, yet again, the Bill bears testimony to the haste in which it was cobbled together. Perhaps even more serious was the lack of consultation and joint working with the devolved Administrations. How else was it possible to think it appropriate to give the OIM to a non-ministerial government department, accountable only to the UK Parliament through its sponsor department, BEIS, without a thought to the interests, the responsibility, the competences or the rights of the devolved authorities?
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, said, whatever structure we end up with must surely have the confidence of all four nations. Indeed, he said that the appointees should have the experience and the expertise of the four constituent nations. That point was emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, who said that, particularly in the case of Northern Ireland, which will be working in a different regime from the others, it was absolutely essential to build in the requirement that someone with that expertise and knowledge was involved in the governance of this organisation.
Without these amendments, it would simply be the Secretary of State who had the power to appoint the chair and members of the CMA’s board and of its panel—the latter, of course, as we have heard, is responsible for operational and casework decisions. More than that, BEIS is a UK department, which gives the CMA a non-binding strategic “steer”, as the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, reminded us. Therefore, one Government of the four gives the CMA a steer with that Government’s strategic priorities, to which it is expected to have regard. Placing the OIM in the CMA to monitor the health of the internal market—apart from all the issues about whether it has any expertise to do so—including its impact on intra-UK trade, investment and competition, but with no voice from the other three parts of the UK, appears, at its kindest, forgetful, but at worst, deliberate.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate so far. At the risk of agreeing with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, I can say I have been listening very carefully to what everyone has had to say in this debate. We take these matters extremely seriously.
Let me respond directly to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis. No: the CMA did not respond formally to the consultation when we issued it, but as you would expect, there has been extensive, official-level discussion on the design and development of the OIM proposal with the CMA.
Before addressing the individual amendments, I shall set out why Clause 30 and Schedule 3 should stand part of the Bill. I have set out the purpose of the office in previous groupings, and noble Lords will be delighted to hear I will not repeat that here.
The purpose of Clause 30 is to introduce the office for the internal market panel and task groups and allow those task groups to carry out all the functions set out in Part 4 of the Bill on behalf of the Competition and Markets Authority. This will ensure that the CMA, through the OIM, can carry out a set of independent, advisory, monitoring and reporting functions to support the development and effective operation of the UK internal market on an ongoing basis. Building on existing governance arrangements, it allows the CMA to authorise the task groups to do anything that the CMA can do under Part 4. This would include delivering specific pieces of reporting, such as annual health of the market reviews or requested monitoring on the intra-UK trade impacts of specific regulations.
To fulfil those independent functions, Schedule 3 sets out the constitution of OIM task groups, to which functions of the CMA may be delegated by virtue of Clause 30. Schedule 3 also provides for the establishment of a panel from whose members such groups may be selected. In performing its role, the OIM will have the ability to gather market intelligence from UK businesses, professionals and consumers to develop its evidence base. The effect of removing Schedule 3 would be that no public body undertook those independent advisory, monitoring, and reporting functions to support the smooth running of the UK internal market. The Government believe that this outcome would be detrimental to the future health of the internal market and to the benefit of every region and nation of the UK. Thus, it is crucial both Clause 30 and Schedule 3 stand part of this Bill.
Amendment 116 would insert a new clause seeking to ensure that the creation of the OIM was subject to a memorandum of understanding being agreed between the Secretary of State and Ministers in the devolved Administrations. It also seeks to set out how the OIM should handle and use information that it requires to fulfil its functions. It proposes that the office for the internal market panel and task group members should include nominees from the English regions and devolved Administrations. It also proposes who should be members of any internal market work undertaken by the CMA if it undertakes such work separately from the OIM. I will respond to these latter points later, as they are referenced within other amendments.
The Government have considered a wide range of delivery options for the advisory, monitoring and reporting functions for the UK internal market as set out in the Bill. We have concluded that the CMA is best suited to house the OIM to perform these functions. This option was strongly supported by a wide range of stakeholders during the White Paper consultation earlier this year.
The Government have sought to work closely with the devolved Administrations. For example, I would like to say how much the engagement with the Welsh Government to date on this Bill has been appreciated. I believe these conversations have helped enormously to ensure that the purpose and effect of the OIM is understood. The Government are committed to continuing to engage constructively with the devolved Administrations on the establishment of the OIM and how it operates in future in fulfilling its functions as set out. In recognition of the keen interest of the devolved Administrations in the operation of the UK internal market, these appointments will be made following consultation with Ministers from all three devolved Administrations. This will ensure that the panel comprises members who all represent the interests of stakeholders in all parts of the UK. For the reasons I have set out, I am not able to accept the amendment by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles.
I turn to Amendments 117, 121, 122, 123 and 124. Amendment 117 would allow each devolved Administration to appoint a CMA board member, with Amendments 121 through to 124 setting the terms and conditions of those appointments. The CMA is an independent non-ministerial department with a global reputation for promoting competition for the benefit of consumers and ensuring that markets work for consumers, businesses and the economy. Ministers have no day-to-day involvement in its operations. It is for these reasons that the CMA is a natural choice to take on the functions of the OIM.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, asked how it is that the CMA deals with reserved matters but the OIM can address devolved issues. The statutory objective of the OIM in Clause 29 is designed precisely to draw a distinction with the current CMA objective and functions. This is wholly compatible with operating effectively and independently in relation to devolved matters, with a difference in focus on devolved and reserved matters respectively.
So that the advice and outcomes of the CMA’s work and the members undertaking such work are trusted and continue to be seen as impartial, it is clearly important that board members and the appointments process are seen to be trusted. As my noble friend Lady Noakes said, board members must be seen as capable of overseeing the promotion of competition throughout the entire United Kingdom, rather than as a representative of any one individual nation. It would therefore be inappropriate to risk politicising the CMA’s board by accepting this amendment.
Having different routes to the appointment, resignation and removal of CMA board members would be at odds with the UK-wide remit of the CMA and would have the effect of creating two categories of member. I recognise the keen interest of the devolved Administrations in the appointment process for the CMA board given that the proposed OIM panel chair will, by extension, become a CMA board member. We have stressed during engagement and written into the Bill that devolved Administration Ministers will be consulted on appointments ahead of the OIM becoming operational.
Amendments 118, 119 and 120 propose devolved Administration consent mechanisms for appointing the chair and panel members of the OIM. The first two of these amendments would require the Secretary of State to seek the consent of the devolved Administrations before appointing the OIM’s chair and panel members. As it stands, the Secretary of State appoints the CMA board chair and will appoint the OIM panel members and chair with full and mandatory consultation of the devolved Administrations. The priority will be ensuring that each appointment is on the basis of the relevant range of expertise and, crucially, is someone who can serve the interests of the whole of the United Kingdom.
During this consultation and the appointment process, the Secretary of State will aim to work closely with the devolved Administrations to ensure that their interests and comments are taken fully into account before decisions are made on who should be appointed. These amendments, on the other hand, would encourage a narrowing of expertise and risk the effective establishment of the panel. Consent would give each Administration a veto, which could delay and politicise appointments, which would undermine the OIM from the outset. For those reasons, I cannot accept these amendments.
Amendment 125 would require CMA’s proposed and finalised annual plan and annual report to be laid before each Parliament of the devolved Administrations. I assure noble Lords that the Government share the concern of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, that adequate opportunities for debate and scrutiny of the CMA’s annual report and other documents exist for the devolved legislatures. The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 requires arrangements to be made to lay the annual plan and report to Parliament; in practice, they are also laid before each devolved legislature. I assure noble Lords that this will continue in future. Should this reassurance be insufficient, the CMA’s annual plan and report are made public, allowing each legislature to scrutinise and debate them if it sees fit. In the light of those reassurances and reasons, I hope that noble Lords will not move their amendments.
Amendments 126, 128 and 129, and subsections (2)(b) and (4) of the new clause proposed by Amendment 116, would require either the OIM panel or task groups to have representatives from each of the four nations of the United Kingdom. This amendment could lead to members of the relevant task groups placing regional or political interests ahead of the CMA’s UK-wide mandate. This would harm the OIM’s ability to monitor the internal market effectively. All panel members chosen to be on each task group should represent the UK as a whole when undertaking reporting for the OIM. For that reason, I am unable to accept these amendments.
Amendment 127 would increase the mandated size of an OIM panel group from three members to five. Having consulted the CMA carefully on this and other points, the Government are confident that three members are sufficient to provide the range of expertise necessary to undertake the work of a task group. Since the panel may need to be able to form multiple task groups at a given time, increasing above this number would reduce the resilience of the panel as a whole and create additional unnecessary expense. For this reason, I hope the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
I have received one request to speak after the Minister, from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I apologise for detaining the Committee; I know I spoke at length on this group. Can the Minister clarify something that he said at the outset? I heard him say that responses to the consultation supported the Government’s proposals for the CMA having this role, but I have the White Paper and the consultation in front of me. No one asked; the Government did not ask. The CMA is not mentioned at all, as I think the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, indicated. In fact, questions 3 and 4 do not refer to the CMA, and in the entire section the CMA is not mentioned. To resolve this, would the Government publish the consultation responses before Report, or can the Minister clarify in his remarks that he may have inadvertently misled the Committee?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I will certainly check that, and of course I will respond to the noble Lord if that proves incorrect. We obviously proposed the creation of the office for the internal market in the White Paper and said that we were interested in views—the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, shakes his head but I think we did. I will clarify that for the noble Lord in writing, in one of the many letters that I will be sending him. I definitely remember having discussions at the time of the White Paper with many noble Lords whom I spoke to during the consultation. We certainly discussed at the time how the creation of a new body would best monitor the function and effectiveness of the UK internal market process in the context of the White Paper, but I will certainly clarify that for the noble Lord in writing.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
My Lords, we have had an extensive and thoughtful debate, and I thank all noble Lords who have taken part. I thank my noble friends Lord Palmer and Lord Purvis for supporting my amendments, and indeed others who have mentioned them; one who springs to mind is the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. As ever, the major constitutional issue has taken pride of place over technical issues. I am sure that noble Lords have realised that I am rather interested in the technical issues too, but we will end up having to come to grips with them, so I will not reiterate now.
To comment on some of what has been said—I cannot do justice to all speakers—my noble friend Lord Palmer said that there needed to be much more clarity to the OIM, and that we needed to resolve the ambiguity of its structure, flesh out how it works and find out what it meant in real terms. I think that is also the basis for a lot of other thoughts, whether they are technical or to do with devolution. What comes out loud and clear is whether all parts of the UK will feel that they have voice or ownership. My noble friend Lady Randerson led with the proposals that others have also spoken on and which have the support of the Welsh Government. It is all about having a structure that is workable for everybody and not part of something working inside the UK Government.
The Minister says that the CMA is independent. I accept that to a large extent that may be true, but there is still the problem that its strategy can be directed or steered by BEIS. That is just not the way to give the devolved Administrations confidence when, as has been outlined, the hybrid role of UK Ministers leaves us in the rather unsatisfactory situation of the same person trying to arbitrate. It is like the referee in the rugby match that my noble friend Lady Randerson referenced. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said that basically the referee cannot be the manager of one of the teams—which rather seems to be the situation that we have here.
Some very valid points were made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, who said that judges had to be drawn from the different parts of the United Kingdom who understood everything vis-à-vis their specialist knowledge. I would not hold myself out at the level of a judge. I am not bad when it comes to negotiating things internationally, but I am English and would never hold myself out as being able to represent the positions of the devolved Administrations. I know that there are known unknowns that I do not know, and that is the situation we have to recognise. Whatever the integrity of the people on the CMA, you just do not know that the background is there unless they are drawn from a diverse field. I am very much one of those people who says that you cannot have sectoral interests, but this is different. I do not consider that devolution is political in that sense—we are all trying to get on together.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, made a very interesting point when she suggested that it could perhaps be an interim measure because it has all been brought together very quickly. The noble Lord, Lord Hain, investigated the governance of the CMA and came up with many of the same conclusions as others. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, echoed that it is all about a voice for the legislatures and how to keep devolution alive.
As I said, I share with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, the view that the CMA is meant to be a UK-wide body and that nominees are not always the best people, but what is good enough for judges is, I think, good enough for the OIM. Yes, perhaps you always have to compromise, but my compromise comes down on the side of voice and ownership; otherwise, the body will never be trusted, as the noble Lord, Lord Empey, said. You have to have the confidence of knowing that people are properly at the table. I acknowledge that we have had rather haphazard devolution but, just because we have left the EU, that cannot be solved with “Whitehall knows best” and by taking back things that properly have been devolved.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, supported consensual Motions and said that consultation is not a guarantee. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, warned us of the danger of a broken United Kingdom, emphasising again that there was a need for more time to be taken and for more confidence. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, had a good point in suggesting that we need a federal UK. That would perhaps make things easier, but we are not able to resolve that now—so, as he said, it comes back to understanding separate identities and to ownership.
The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, supported some of my amendments and wanted the proper involvement of all parties. She also felt that the CMA was the wrong home, and really was not a viable place or a viable alternative to constructing a new body, because of the strategic involvement of BEIS and HMT, and because of it not being sensitive to matters of small businesses and diversity.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, was I think the first to bring forward the same points about needing a degree of independence and embracing the devolved legislatures, and also the fact that the Constitution Committee had also asked, “Why the CMA?” This was echoed by the views of my noble friend Lord Purvis. I agree with him; I could not find the flagging up of the CMA. It may be that one respondent said “a body such as the CMA”, but I did not see any consultation on it being the CMA or whether it was appropriate. The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and other noble Lords also pointed out that the CMA is used to dealing with private business and enterprise and has a BEIS strategic influence.
I cannot begin to summarise what was said by my noble friend Lord Purvis, but the fact is that the CMA is left trying to analyse hypothetical benefits. It is true that we do not really know how this is all going to work out. If noble Lords follow the logic of my noble friend’s argument, they will find that he concluded by asking what incentive there was for this body to be used by the devolved Administrations. It is not intended to stir up wars between the devolved parts of the UK and the centre, but my view is that, by its set-up, it is likely to stoke rather than resolve concerns.
As I said before, the noble Lord does not like looking to the EU for examples, but it is a bit like when the Commission comes out with a proposal. It always wants to harmonise everything to make it easier and then the member states, notably the UK, get stuck in. You then get down to the nitty-gritty and you solve it. At the moment, we have this sort of overview coming from the Government that gives the devolved Administrations no room to manoeuvre—yet, when they get down to the nitty-gritty in the common frameworks, what happens? You can reach a conclusion.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
Perhaps the noble Baroness cannot feel the mood of the Committee, which is that she should now withdraw her opposition.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
I am sorry; I had basically come to a close anyway. There is much more that needs to be done. I do not think this is politicising; I think it is respecting devolution.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
Does the Minister wish to add anything?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Not if the noble Baroness has withdrawn her opposition.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 115. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division should make that clear during the debate.
Amendment 115
“Office for the Internal Market: establishment as a body corporate
(1) Within the period of six months beginning on the day on which section 30 comes into force, the Secretary of State must by regulations establish the Office for the Internal Market (“the OIM”) as a body corporate.(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may amend or modify any enactment including this Act for the purposes of requiring or authorising the OIM to do anything required or authorised to be done by the CMA under this Part.(3) Schedule (Office for the Internal Market) contains further provision about the OIM once it has been established as a body corporate.(4) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I move Amendment 115 and speak to Amendment 131. They need to be taken together. We have covered a lot of ground in the last couple of groups, so I will be brief. We have looked at the role, functions and operational mechanisms of the Bill’s proposed office for the internal market and have also covered what happens if and when things go wrong.
The emerging view—although it is not shared by the Minister—is that the Bill has not got this right. Amendments 115 and 131 which, as I said, need to be considered together, take us in a new direction. I take the feeling of the Committee that we are talking about an independent body, which has to be a UK body. As was rightly said by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, being a UK body does not mean that it also part of the individuals it is supervising.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lords, Lord Hain, Lord Cormack and Lord Empey, have all withdrawn their names from this debate, so I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
My Lords, I listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. The separate grouping of these amendments has put an additional focus on some of the intent.
I see the merit in taking time to get it a bit more right and use regulations for the detail, but it seems to me that the moment to legislate is still when there has been agreement between the four nations, rather than in a fixed time period. I am not sure that I condone such a wide ability to amend any Act—could the Act or Acts not perhaps be named?—although I acknowledge that the purpose is limited. However, those are details; I accept the principle and direction the noble Lord is suggesting.
Concerning the new schedule in Amendment 131, I still question the ratio of six Secretary of State appointments to one each for the devolved Administrations, especially in the absence of introducing a regional element for England. Quite controversially, the new schedule also creates powers for the OIM to deal with distortive or harmful subsidies and subsidy races.
Such a provision is the elephant in the room if it is not done at some stage. Third countries could launch trade remedies complaints against the UK if they were affected by distortive or harmful subsidies. From that perspective, it is of great benefit to have a body that is seen to be independent overseeing those matters, rather than being at the political level of government, which is where it seems to be held at the moment. It is the opposite side of, but with the same logic as, the Trade Remedies Authority needing to be seen to be independent. However, regarding the four nations, the scope of intervention would be wider than would interest third countries, unless there is some corresponding agreement with third countries or the EU.
I am not actually sure how it would all work out. As yet, because I have concerns about the CMA—although I accept that looking at subsidies might be something it is better adjusted to do—it will be a little while before I could slip in this enormous power without resolving all the other issues that remain, including powers, unless the noble Lord is suggesting that this is all that the OIM can do. Anyway, I think that there are some good things and some bad things in there, and it is interesting food for thought.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
I call the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]
My Lords, the Government are certainly getting a lot of advice during the passage of this Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said, they really ought to know that they do not have all the answers. So I do hope that the Minister listens.
The amendments in this group follow perfectly the Government’s announcement that they are putting the trade commission on a statutory footing. If the Government want to run an internal market, surely it is right to create a fully functioning governance body for that purpose. Merely tagging on a few functions to the Competition and Markets Authority shows a weakness of purpose and a lack of understanding of exactly how everything should run. Giving the new office for the internal market the power to investigate distortive and harmful subsidies could have a powerful impact on wiping out the implicit and explicit subsidies for fossil fuels, particularly unconventional oil and gas fracking. These implicit and explicit subsidies include a streamlined planning process and no requirement for the company to make a bond, unlike the landfill industry, equating to the government underwriting of the clean-up of fossil fuel sites in the event of corporate bankruptcy. So once again taxpayers would pay to clean up other people’s mess.
Just to be clear, the journalist at Drill Or Drop? suggests that the OIM can comment on controversial issues such as fracking, which, as we all know, is a dangerous, polluting, expensive, intrusive and—in view of our global need to limit our carbon emissions—unnecessary process. The OIM could give advice contrary to the devolved Administrations’ decisions. Can the Minister tell me if that is true?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
I apologise to the Committee and very personally to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, whom I omitted to call before the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. So I call the noble Lord now.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
Thank you. My Lords, I will be brief. I just want to say how much I commend the amendments from my noble friend Lord Stevenson. He is setting out principles which are very important, rather than just the general purpose, and for that we should be grateful. I would also like to put on record that I am glad that he has taken, on previous amendments, the point that what we must be aiming for in all this is a situation in which there is a sense of shared ownership and the shared involvement of all the parts of the United Kingdom.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for introducing these two amendments and giving us the opportunity to probe the very heart of the functioning of the OIM in terms of its independence. Can my noble friend the Minister say how the Government will ensure that this body will be independent? My noble friend will be aware of my concerns and those of others that the Government have got into the habit recently of creating such public corporate bodies and then trying to direct how they operate. Recent examples are, as the noble Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb, just alluded to, the Trade and Agriculture Commission, which falls within the Department for International Trade, which basically does not provide any resources to those who serve on the commission and, even more recently, the Office for Environmental Protection which, apparently, is to be appointed by and subsumed within Defra. So that is my main concern here, and there is much to commend in Amendment 115 as to how the body corporate is to be set up.
Furthermore, the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asks in subsection 2(2) of Amendment 131 for consultation with the devolved Administrations. I would prefer it if went further, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, requested: consent for such appointments should be sought from the devolved Administrations. Presumably, if the Government were to adopt the terms of this amendment, it would be the OIM that would ensure the level playing field, which I imagine is the Government’s intention. However, if it was not the OIM, can the Minister explain which body would, as in subsection 3(2),
“rule that any distortive or harmful subsidies are illegal and should be repaid”,
and, as in subsection 3(4),
“recommend to the Secretary of State changes to the test for a harmful subsidy, the scope of exemptions, and time limits on approvals”?
There should be a body to ensure levelling-up, not just of the regions but between the four nations. I hope that the Government are taking a consistent approach here, in their position on the European Union and their position on state aid between the four nations of the United Kingdom internal market. It would not behove the Government to be seen to be parti pris on their position on competition and state aid in this regard.
I share the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and others, in the previous debate, regarding responses not always being published. I am having great difficulty, and perhaps the Minister can point me in the right direction, but rather than a summary of the responses, it would be enormously helpful if the Government published the responses to the consultation regarding this amendment in full, and preferably before the next stage of the Bill. That would enable us to form our own view of who said what in response to the consultation.
With those few remarks, I would like to put the key questions to the Minister: how do the Government intend to ensure the independence of the OIM, and how do they intend to carry the devolved Administrations with them in this regard?
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, so far there have been four groups of amendments dealing with the CMA and the OIM, and three different Ministers fielding. That perhaps summarises the fragmented nature of this Bill and the unjoined-up nature of what we are seeking to achieve. In those four groups, and this group, amendments have sought, in a sense, to correct and improve this Bill, but there is no point, because this Bill is beyond that stage. Other speakers have sought to probe and get information from the Government, and there has been no point to that either, because the Government have not answered questions. Despite extremely well directed, forensic analysis and questioning, the Government have ducked, dived and shrugged.
In addition to supporting the request made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for the consultation to be published, I would like this Minister, who is before us for the first time in this debate, to answer the questions on this group, and to undertake, on behalf of the other Ministers, to answer all the questions that the last four groups have presented, because they are all extremely important to understanding what on earth the Government intend to do.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I appreciate the comments made in the debate and I appreciate that these amendments seek to correct, improve and debate the issue. Indeed, that is the role of this Committee. Given that, I take issue with the last point made by the noble Lord, Lord Fox.
Amendments 115 and 131 would bring in fundamental changes to the statutory basis for the Office for the Internal Market. They propose making the office a separate, standalone public body, thereby removing its Crown status. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, suggested that the new OIM should use Ofcom or the National Audit Office as a model. This would fundamentally change the nature of the OIM. It would change its funding model and would ask it to operate like a regulator, although it is not intended to act as one.
It has already been explained that the Government have concluded that the CMA is best suited to house the Office for the Internal Market to perform these functions, and the reasons were set out in the Government’s consultation response. I will again emphasise the key points. The CMA has built up a wealth of expertise and experience that makes it a natural fit to take on these additional functions. It has a global reputation for promoting competition for the benefit of consumers and for ensuring that markets work well for consumers, businesses and the economy. We will come on to discuss the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, about the interests of consumers being reflected in the OIM.
The Office for the Internal Market will build on the CMA’s existing technical and economic expertise which will now support the further development of the UK internal market. My noble friend Lady McIntosh asked how we can guarantee the independence of the OIM and ensure that we carry the devolved nations with us. The OIM will be independent and will operate at arm’s length from the Government and the devolved Administrations. It will not be an enforcement body and it will not be able to override the decisions of any of the Administrations. As noble Lords will know, the Government are continuing their engagement with the devolved Administrations as the functions are developed further.
In the last group, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, asked what the incentives are for the devolved Administrations to use the OIM. All of the devolved Administrations have an interest in the smooth functioning of the internal market and the development of effective regulation to support it. The Government are confident that all the Administrations and legislatures will value the expertise and advice of the OIM and the authority of the evidence base that it will build up.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, asked whether the OIM will give advice on the decisions made by the devolved authorities. I assure the noble Baroness that the non-binding advice of the OIM will provide a complementary and expert resource to help facilitate better regulation and, should it be requested, this will include regulation developed by the devolved Administrations as well as by the UK Government. The OIM will be independent and will operate at arm’s length from the Government and the devolved Administrations. As I have said, it will not be an enforcement body and it will not be able to override the decisions of any of the Administrations.
An earlier grouping addressed the involvement of the devolved Administrations in the panel membership of the office. I will therefore say briefly that the direct devolved Administration appointments to the panel of the OIM would risk its effective and independent operation. Appointments to the body will be made by open and fair competition and the chair through the robust procedures of the Public Appointments Commission and the Cabinet Office, which operates across the jurisdictions of all of the devolved Administrations.
I turn to UK subsidy control. Clause 50 reserves to the UK the exclusive ability to legislate for a UK subsidy control regime in the future. It is an issue of national economic importance as it is essential to supporting the smooth functioning of the UK’s internal market. We will debate the detail of subsidy control reservation in a later grouping, but I will cover it briefly now. On 9 September, the Government published a statement regarding the future of subsidy control. In that statement, we committed to publishing guidance on the international commitments that will apply to the UK on 1 January 2021, before the end of the year. This will cover World Trade Organization rules on subsidies and any commitments we have made in free trade agreements.
We also set out our intention to publish a consultation in the coming months on whether we should go further than our WTO and international commitments. This will include consulting on whether any further legislation should be put in place. The amendment would create uncertainty and fundamentally undermine the future consultation which will be the mechanism through which decisions regarding future regulations for UK subsidy controls will be made.
In addition, it should be noted that the function of the office for the internal market will be to provide non-binding technical advice, monitoring and reporting on the health of the internal market. It is not the Government’s intention to give it a range of enforcement and regulatory powers, which the proposed new schedule would do in respect of UK subsidy control.
My noble friend Lord True said on an earlier group of amendments said that, in line with GDPR, not all respondents had consented to sharing their views, so publishing only a subset of the consultation would not offer an accurate enough reflection.
For the reasons set out now and earlier, I am not able to accept this amendment. I hope that the noble Lord will therefore withdraw it.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I have had no request to speak after the Minister, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank those who have spoken in support of the amendments, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, who accepted the principles despite having doubts about some of the factual points, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for covering a lot of ground and raising questions that will need to be addressed by Ministers. In fact, I do not think that they were addressed in the response this evening. I thank my noble friend Lord Judd for bouncing back after having been ignored and making some very good points about why it is important to seek principles as we go through the Bill, because they are sadly lacking at the moment. The legislation seems a formulaic response, almost an early policy draft of what one might do if one were to regulate an internal market. It does not smack of having had a lot of discussion and debate or even wider consultation. The Government do not seem to have in mind a process whereby they can arrive at a solution to the problem of how we get shared ownership and trust into a system which is broadly voluntary in its basis without it looking as though it is a top-down, heavy-handed approach. There may be political advantages in that in the short term, but in the long term it is not the way to go.
This was a probing amendment to which we heard some responses, but there are still one or two to come. I am left with the feeling that, whatever we call the body and wherever we locate it, if it is capable only of providing non-binding advice and has no powers, it leaves the question of who will police the whole system. What happens, for instance, if the devolved Administration in Scotland decide they want to do something in particular in relation to whisky, chicken or flour—and we now know an awful lot about flour adulteration? Who will police that? Will it be BEIS? If so, can the Government really say, hand on heart, that the right way to approach what is effectively a devolution issue is through a top-down, UK Government-organised structure? I wonder. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“UK SHARED PROSPERITY COMMISSION1_(1) A body corporate called the UK Shared Prosperity Commission is established.(2) The UK Shared Prosperity Commission is not to be regarded—(a) as the servant or agent of the Crown, or(b) as enjoying any status, immunity or privilege of the Crown. (3) The UK Shared Prosperity Commission’s property is not to be regarded—(a) as the property of the Crown, or(b) as property held on behalf of the Crown.Membership
2_(1) The UK Shared Prosperity Commission is to consist of—(a) a Chair and five members appointed by the Secretary of State,(b) a member appointed by the Scottish Ministers,(c) a member appointed by the Welsh Ministers,(d) a member appointed by the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland.(2) Before appointing a chair and member under sub-paragraph (2)(1)(a) the Secretary of State must consult the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers, and the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland.(3) Before a chair can be appointed under sub-paragraph (2)(1)(a), the appointment must be confirmed by the Treasury Select Committee or a committee of either House whose remit covers the Treasury.Funding
3__ The Treasury must pay to the UK Shared Prosperity Commission such sums as the Her Majesty’s Government considers appropriate for the purpose of enabling the UK Shared Prosperity Commission to perform its functions.Powers
4_(1) The UK Shared Prosperity Commission may distribute sums from the Treasury across the four nations and regions of the United Kingdom following an assessment of relative need.(2) The UK Shared Prosperity Commission may conduct an assessment of relative need across the four nations and regions of the United Kingdom.(3) The UK Shared Prosperity Commission may do anything which appears to it to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of, or in connection with, the performance of its duties in sub-paragraphs 5(1) and 5(2).Accounts and audit
5__ The UK Shared Prosperity Commission must—(a) keep proper accounts and proper records in relation to them, and(b) prepare a statement of accounts in respect of each financial year.Annual report
6_(1) The UK Shared Prosperity Commission must prepare a report on the performance of its functions during each financial year.(2) The report must include the statement of accounts in respect of that year.(3) The report must be prepared as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of the financial year to which it relates.(4) The UK Shared Prosperity Commission must send the report to the Secretary of State.(5) The Secretary of State must lay the report before Parliament.Public records
7__ In subparagraph 2 of the Table in paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 to the Public Records Act 1958 (definition of public records), at the appropriate place insert—“UK Shared Prosperity Commission.” Investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner
8__ In Schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 (departments subject to investigation), at the appropriate place insert—“UK Shared Prosperity Commission.”House of Commons disqualification
9__ In Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 (bodies of which all members are disqualified), at the appropriate place insert “UK Shared Prosperity Commission.”Northern Ireland Assembly disqualification
10__ In Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 (bodies of which all members are disqualified), at the appropriate place insert—“UK Shared Prosperity Commission”Freedom of information
11__ In Part 6 of Schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (other public bodies and offices: general), at the appropriate place insert—“UK Shared Prosperity Commission.”Public sector equality duty
12__ In Part 1 of Schedule 19 to the Equality Act 2010 (public authorities: general), in the group of entries under the heading “Industry, business, finance etc”, at the appropriate place insert—“UK Shared Prosperity Commission.””
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I will also speak to Amendments 167 and 168, which are also in my name. I am grateful to other Members for contributing to this group. The group is about another of the black holes that we are discovering in the Bill. This one is about state aid or, as we must learn to call it, subsidy—or, as the Government would have us call it, “the UK shared prosperity fund”, although details about that are incredibly difficult to find.
State aid matters. It particularly matters if people think money is being stolen from them and used for other purposes. The Government have quite a lot to do to try to explain where they are going with this state aid issue, the timescale and how they intend to make progress in bridging the gap between people’s expectations and where they currently are.
We currently get an awful lot of money through state aid; it is certainly money that would be felt if it were not there. It is hard to get a complete picture of it; the best figures that I have been able to find come from the Institute for Government, which suggests that about £20.7 billion is currently available through state aid in two main forms, the European Regional Development Fund and the European structural funds. The regional development fund focuses on physical development—physical capital, as it were—while the ESF, the structural funds, are about employment and young people and are probably best described as human capital. The combination is a significant quantum of money, held by people who I think regard it as not being money provided directly by the UK Government, although of course money technically circulates around and presumably was originally from taxation in the first place.
Two significant points come from that. First, the headline funding from the EU at the moment is matchable. We currently think that about 40% is added on top of the just over £10 billion—£10.6 billion, I believe—that is available directly from Europe to the UK agencies that spend it, so that gives us the figure of about £20 billion when it is matched with local authority and central government funding and from the lottery.
An issue that is hidden, or at least more opaque, in terms of how state aid is organised is the way in which it seems to come in response to different requirements. For instance, the long-standing convention is that there is a regional bias based on deprivation, which takes into account the broader picture across the whole of Europe. In the UK, there are only two counties currently in the most deprived areas—or most in-need areas, I think they are described as—which are west Wales and Cornwall and the Scilly Isles. However, there were recently rumours that, had we stayed in the EU, which we are not, four more might have been put into that higher-needs category. That leaves the question: will the Government continue that process? Will they also think in terms of how individual parts of the country are treated in relation to that?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, I apologise; I should have reminded noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate and anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB) [V]
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, for explaining the place of this in the Bill and for his proposal to try and make something of the provision. As it stands, it seems wholly separate from the other provisions of this Bill. It should not be there, and it is profoundly undemocratic. Its only connection with the rest of the Bill is that it seems part of an attack on the scheme of devolution. I therefore seek to argue that Clause 48 should not, in its current form, stand part of the Bill.
The Bill is concerned with the internal market; it is not concerned with the allocation of government powers to spend money between the devolved Governments and the United Kingdom or English Government. It authorises the UK Government, as it stands, to spend funds in devolved areas—education, roads—and, giving Clause 48 (1)(a) and (b) their ordinary meaning, almost any aspect of government spending, including hospitals.
Therefore, I have a question for the Minister: why is this in the Bill? How is it going to work? Let me put forward some ideas as to why it may be there. First, the Government might, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, has suggested, have the noble aim of investing additional resources into the devolved nations and the other regions of England. If that were the case, they might be doing the work alongside the Governments of the devolved nations and doing it as the English Government in their capacity as the UK Government. If so, why do they need these powers? They have done city deals and dealt with expenditure of this kind without specific statutory versions. If that is the noble aim of this Bill, it seems unnecessary.
There may be a different aim, which again has been foreshadowed by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson: that the UK Government see themselves as taking over the role of the EU Commission, steering the use of such funding. If the Commission did it, so the argument goes, why should not the UK Government? In other words, it is an example of this Government doing something the EU has done rather well, but which they will never give it credit for. If that is the Government’s aim, it is fair to point out that the European legislation provided for the European Commission to set overall very high-level objectives for funding, and then to negotiate with the devolved Governments of Wales and Scotland as to how these objectives should be reflected in the programmes the devolved Governments designed. The European Commission, at the end of the day, had the veto, but it negotiated with the elected authorities in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, rather than bypassing them in the way the Bill would enable it to.
There may be a third aim, which is that the United Kingdom Government, the Government of England, know far better how to direct spending and cannot trust the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland Governments to spend wisely. Nor, if that is their reason, can they trust the people of Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland to choose the Government they want, as that entails the choice between different manifestos regarding the way in which money is to be spent on areas of devolved competence.
As it stands, the clause strikes at that democratic choice and the devolution schemes. It will enable the UK Government to spend funds in ways that the UK/English Government think best, but which the people of Wales, for example, may have rejected. That is not democracy. In effect, it would give legislative underpinning to the now discredited principle that the Government in Westminster know best and the people of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, which have Governments with devolved competences, are not to be trusted to spend money wisely in areas of devolved competence.
In short, I can see no justification for these powers which is compatible with the commitment to the integrity of the devolution schemes. Last week, Ministers were asked repeatedly to confirm whether they supported the devolved institutions’ powers to tailor their policies and spending needs to the wishes of the people of the devolved nations. I understand that no such assurances were given. If Ministers wish to overturn the devolution settlements, let them say so. Let them show that the devolution schemes do not work and, in the light of recent experience, that we would all be better off in the devolved nations if only the UK Government could take spending decisions on matters that have been devolved, in place of the Governments in Cardiff, Edinburgh and Belfast.
As it stands, therefore, the clause should not be in the Bill. If there are constraints on how this is to operate, they should be set out in the Bill, or a proposal of the kind made by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, should be put in its place.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]
The Bill appears to invite a clutch of ironic metaphors. In moving the Bill at Second Reading in the House of Commons, the Prime Minister drew inspiration from Adam Smith’s invisible hand but, by contrast, the Bill delivers a clunking great fist, and the Prime Minister’s oven-ready deal is at best not even half baked. The Government assert that substantial powers are coming to the devolved Administrations and, on the surface, that is true. However, the lack of reference to common frameworks, which we have debated, and the subordination of the proposed office of the internal market, on which previous amendments have focused, to the Competition and Markets Authority, all points to a centralising agenda. The state aid and financial powers clauses of the Bill—which, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, said, do not appear relevant to the Bill’s stated purpose of regulating the internal market—raise serious questions, providing sweeping powers for the UK Government to intervene directly on a wide range of policy areas without even consulting the devolved Administrations, let alone securing consent and agreement.
At a time when relations between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations are at rock bottom, and with elections for the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Senedd only six months away, this is absurdly provocative and, frankly, foolhardy. Following the shambolic communication of the emerging lockdown in England over the weekend, confusion reigns today over furlough provision in Scotland. On the one hand, the furlough extension is UK-wide, which is welcome. On the other, it appears that if Scotland goes into lockdown at a later date, comparable support to that being provided in England is not assured. Scottish Conservative leader, Douglas Ross MP, is at odds with the Government over this. It raises the question of whether the Government are trying to force Scotland into a similar lockdown at the same time as England, not because the measures currently being applied north of the border are not working—it is too early to judge that—but just to secure funding for any lockdown. That is not the way to promote trust or make rational, balanced and objective decisions.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, and my noble and learned friend Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, who has explained, from a constitutional perspective, why Clause 48 has very little to commend it. I will illustrate why the powers that Ministers want to take for themselves might, in practical terms, be dangerous and damaging.
Under the last Labour Government, the Labour-led National Assembly chose to go in a different direction on education, which was one of the ways in which the late Rhodri Morgan put clear water between his Government, reflecting the unique circumstances of Wales, and the Government in London. The Welsh Government eschewed moves to establish foundation schools, academies and free schools. They have maintained the central role of local authorities in funding and supporting all schools, arguing, not least in rural areas, that an unplanned proliferation of schools would damage the viability of all educational establishments. They have vigorously championed comprehensive education. Whether or not you support this approach, the current Welsh Government have a mandate for it, supported by Plaid Cymru, meaning that more than two-thirds of Members of the Senedd back this policy.
Were the powers in Clause 48 to be granted, the UK Government could choose to fund free schools across Wales. This would positively undermine the policies backed by a majority of the Members of the Senedd and, more relevant still, a majority of the electorate. Even if the funding for such an initiative was genuinely additional to the block grant—I ask the Minister to give an unequivocal guarantee that that would be the case—such an intervention, even though it would give extra money, would undermine the Welsh Government’s education policy. A free school in an area such as Denbighshire could easily dramatically impact on the viability of local maintained schools. This does not seem right.
The cleanest way of dealing with and preventing this threat would be to remove the clause from the Bill. Nevertheless, for my part, I would be prepared to support alternative approaches. At the heart of this is the question of the so-called shared prosperity fund, which I am afraid some in the devolved nations suspect is a way of reallocating the funds that should come their way, especially to west Wales, to benefit the prosperity of England. The proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, to establish a shared prosperity commission would dispel such suspicions by allocating replacement funds on the basis of need, not politics. However, as my noble and learned friend Lord Thomas explained, the onus really is on the Minister to give an explanation, which has been lacking to date, of why these powers are needed now when they have never been needed before.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]
My Lords, I join the previous three speakers in giving notice of my intention to oppose the question that Clause 48 should stand part of the Bill. The grounds for my opposition to Clause 48 are based on paragraph 4(1) of Part 3 of Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998. This is, after all, a devolution issue. That paragraph provides:
“This Schedule does not reserve giving financial assistance to commercial activities for the purpose of promoting or sustaining economic development or employment.”
In other words, it is within devolved competence for Scottish Ministers to provide financial assistance for these purposes. The same is true, I understand, of Welsh Ministers and in Northern Ireland.
The geographical reach of this provision is indicated by the fact that it applies to the whole of the UK. The power being sought would seem to cut across the powers of the devolved Administrations to provide this assistance in accordance with their own policies and order of preferences, although I appreciate that it extends over a wider field of activities. Providing assistance for reasons not at one with those policies and preferences would cut across the devolution settlements and for that reason be regrettable. I was very impressed by the example which the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, gave of how it could interfere with preferences felt in Wales, and no doubt examples could be found in the other devolved Administrations.
More importantly, I, like others, am looking for further information about how this clause is intended to operate. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, asked, what is the plan? Is it the intention that there should be consultation with the devolved Administrations before this power is exercised? If so, what weight will be given to any concerns that they may have? There is no attempt that I can see in the Bill to repeal the paragraph of Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998 to which I referred, so presumably that power is to survive along with the power being given by this clause. To what extent, with regard to purpose and the amount of money involved, is this intended to reproduce within the UK what until now has been forthcoming from the EU? Can we expect the same amount of benefit to be spread among the nations as we have received hitherto? Will the ability of the devolved Administrations to use the powers reserved to them by the provision I quoted be limited in any way when this clause is brought into effect? If so, is that the intention? How are the funds which may be made available to be divided up between the nations? Can we be given any clarity on that point?
I hope that the Minister can shed more light on how this power is intended to operate, but at the moment, from what we have seen so far, it seems to cut across the devolution settlement and to be highly objectionable on that ground.
Baroness Boycott (CB) [V]
My Lords, I tabled Amendment 166, which would amend Clause 48. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Hayman, and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for supporting it. As ever, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead.
Clause 48 gives powers to Ministers to provide financial assistance across the UK for a number of purposes, including all economic development and provision of infrastructure. My amendment would set out on the face of the Bill that any financial assistance to be provided must be consistent with the achievement of any applicable climate and environmental goals and targets. As we all now know, we are in the midst of a climate and nature emergency. These powers to provide assistance would be subject to almost no restrictions. The recently published Global Biodiversity Outlook 5 report from the UN highlighted how we have failed to halt environmental decline over the last 10 years, and the 2020 progress report by the Committee on Climate Change says that clear investment priorities to help support economic recovery and the transition to a low-carbon economy are now essential. We need to ensure that financial assistance helps, not hinders, this progress.
My concern is that, if we do not have this amendment, the Government could risk supporting projects, companies or industries that threaten in some way or another to undermine the progress towards meeting our environmental and climate goals. Providing financial assistance for projects that are not consistent with our climate and environmental goals could have major environmental impacts, for instance on roadbuilding, transport and housebuilding. It is also really important that the goals and targets include countries’ respective own targets on net zero—for instance, new targets set under the Environment Bill such as the Welsh recycling targets, which are extremely good.
This is an opportunity to support a progressive domestic climate and environmental policy in all parts of the UK, which is tremendously important ahead of COP 26; Amendment 166 could help achieve this. Indeed, if we do not have an amendment such as this when we turn up in Glasgow this time next year, we could be in a very embarrassing situation. What assurances can the Minister give that these powers will be exercised in a manner that is consistent and compatible with any climate and environmental goals and targets applicable in the relevant parts or part of the UK?
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]
My Lords, it is a real pleasure to support Amendment 166 from the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, which I have signed along with the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. I also, of course, support Amendment 169, tabled by my noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. These amendments are important because they come back to the crucial question of what the market is for: does the market exist to serve us or do we exist to serve the market?
The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, used the word “progressive”. We need a progressive agenda. We have to harness and tame the market to make sure that it protects our natural world. The market does not care, and would rather see a woodland turned into logs than exist as a habitat for thousands of species, a sink for carbon, a filter for water, a protector of soils, or the hundreds of other ecosystem services that it provides. In truth, we should be seeing amendments like Amendments 166 and 169 in every single Bill that the Government bring to your Lordships’ House. Their absence is a dereliction of duty by Ministers, not only because we have made promises about the environment, but because we make things worse for everybody when we do not do these things. It is not just about making the market worse; it is society that suffers.
It is a year to the day since the Government announced that the Treasury would conduct a net-zero carbon review following the passage into law of the 2050 net-zero target. This review is still nowhere to be seen. Can the Minister please tell the Committee what has happened to the review, whether it is still happening and, if so, when it will be published?
Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]
My Lords, when the debate on this group of amendments started, it seemed that it would be another round of Westminster versus the devolved Administrations, which is a major theme of the group. Nevertheless, there are other issues.
I added my name to Amendment 166, which the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, spoke to so ably just now. I also support Amendment 169 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, in principle. Both amendments would correct a glaring omission: the absence of any reference to environmental outcomes in either the Bill and the Government’s earlier statements on a shared prosperity fund or my noble friend Lord Stevenson’s otherwise admirable attempt to set up a shared prosperity commission to administer the framework of financial aid across the four countries of the UK.
In effect, the shared prosperity fund concept is a sort of replacement for the EU’s structural funds and regional funds—probably other funding too—which have hitherto been provided back to the UK by the European Union, largely to level up economic and social well-being and performance across Europe. In principle, I like the concept of such a fund or a commission, which may well be a better home for the administration of that framework than the office for the internal market within the CMA, but I must confess to your Lordships that I do not like the term. I racked my brains as to why. I think that it is somehow a bit redolent of the euphemistic terminology of the Soviet era or, perhaps even more worryingly, of imperial Japanese militarily dominated eastern Asia during the time of the co-prosperity zone in the 1930s and during the war. Neither of those historical examples were ever cited by Brexiteers as preferable to the supposed centralisation by Brussels. If that rings alarm bells for me, no wonder it does for the devolved Administrations. Whatever we do, can we perhaps set up a body such as the one proposed by my noble friend Lord Stevenson, but find a better title?
More substantively, if the UK is to distribute aid to business and others to replace and improve on the benefits of the money that we previously received from the EU—which, quite rightly, disproportionately benefited the devolved nations of the UK and deprived areas in England—we need some objective criteria, constraints and rules surrounding that allocation. We also need an institution along the lines proposed by my noble friend Lord Stevenson. His amendment lists a lot of economic and social criteria that such an award of funds would have to take into account, but there are no environmental criteria.
As Amendment 166 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, indicates, the biggest crisis facing us all is the climate emergency. Our international obligations under the Paris Agreement and national commitments under the budget of the Committee on Climate Change surely mean that future state aid of any sort must advance progress on mitigation of and adaptation to climate change, and certainly not lead to effects that undermine our carbon and greenhouse gas targets or make worse the outcome of our industrial system. To that degree, it needs to be an improvement on the operation of some EU funding to sectors and projects that even I, as a passionate pro-European, recognise were not always done well in the EU—that is, some projects, particularly in eastern Europe, undoubtedly damaged the environmental prospects for Europe as a whole, particularly by favouring the substantial further use of fossil fuels.
It is therefore important that any such criteria are written into the terms of the proposed shared prosperity fund, and the commission must reflect those environmental aims. Indeed, any proposition for state aid subsidy, preferred public sector procurement treatment or clearance for planning permission, whether by the UK Government, a devolved Administration, local government or a quango, needs to have attached to it a clear environmental assessment of the impact on the climate, particularly regarding greenhouse gas emissions.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, takes it further than the carbon figures to cover other environmental dimensions, particularly the protection and enhancement of the natural world. Some of what she refers to may be more difficult to measure than greenhouse gas effects, but in reality, if subsidised projects lead to a deterioration in biodiversity and habitats, as did some European projects under the common agricultural policy, that is a contribution to environmental degradation and in many instances leads directly to increases in carbon, methane and other greenhouse gas effects. We should adopt the concepts in these two amendments before we move any further towards something like the shared prosperity system proposed by the Government.
The negative effects of some government subsidy need to be discouraged by the criteria, but positive investment—in renewable energy and other carbon-saving outcomes, for example—needs to be sustained through this system and written into it. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, was right to say that Clause 48 in its present form should be deleted, but if we are to provide a substitute it has to be an improvement, and an improvement on my noble friend’s amendment—it has to be greener.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 166, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. It is an honour to follow her, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and my noble friend Lord Whitty. I also support Amendment 167, in the name of my noble friend Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, and its inclusion of the impact of climate change—particularly flooding. That is an issue close to my heart, living as I do near Cockermouth in Cumbria, which has suffered such devastating flooding over the past 10 years.
As we heard today, and in last week’s debate, Part 6 does not rule out working through the devolved Administrations, but—and this needs repeating—sets no requirements to do so, and enables Ministers to spend money directly in otherwise devolved policy areas.
Right across the world it has been recognised that we have to combat global warming and restore biodiversity. It has been agreed that the next round of European structural funds will have tackling climate change and addressing the just transition as a major theme. In May of last year, Parliament recognised, on the Floor of the other place, that we are in a climate and environment emergency. Last week, in his response to Amendment 52, the Minister said that
“the protection of the environment and tackling climate change are vitally important, and something that the Government are, of course, already committed to.”—[Official Report, 28/10/20; col. 339.]
If the Government are serious about achieving this aim, they need to ensure that where direct financial assistance is given it is consistent with these climate and environmental goals. We need to commit to environmentally sustainable, transparent legislation and policies, and apply them to any future trade deals and relationships, if we are to have any hope of tackling climate change. Whatever the formal future relationship between the UK, its constituent nations and the EU, it is vital that we maintain close environmental co-operation and do not risk undermining it through poorly thought-out legislation. As the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, explained, Amendment 166 could avoid funding being provided for projects that are not compatible with climate and environmental targets and could undermine these goals.
Funding to support the environment needs to be secure as we leave the EU, because we will lose access to so much. I will give a couple of examples that have not yet been mentioned. The EU LIFE programme for environment and climate action has €3.4 billion to support, among other policies, the special conservation areas in the Natura network. The EU maritime and fisheries fund is a €6.4 billion programme, more than a quarter of which supports projects protecting marine environments, developing sustainable fisheries, and supporting the scientific and data-collection aspects of fisheries management. The concept of sustainability involves operating in a way that takes full account of an organisation’s impacts on the planet, its people and its future. That includes how Government operate and the decisions they take. Amendment 166 will help us to secure this for the future.
Baroness Humphreys (LD) [V]
My Lords, I oppose the Question that Clause 48 stand part of the Bill. I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, for introducing this part of the debate so clearly. We have heard assurance after assurance from Ministers that the Bill does nothing to take powers away from the devolved Parliaments, but the inclusion of Clause 48 certainly belies their assertions.
This clause, were it to stand, would mean that powers would be returned from the EU to the UK Government to spend on areas such as economic development, infrastructure, sport and education, and will therefore give Whitehall the powers to fund projects to replace EU funding programmes in areas that are devolved to the Welsh Government. But these powers are wider than those in the EU funding programme. The EU structural funds have never funded health, housing or education, and the inclusion of this clause on financial assistance has given cause for concern. It gives rise to a number of questions, to which I hope the Minister will respond.
Our building regulations, and fire and energy safety standards are different in Wales. If the UK Government choose to fund our housing associations to build more social housing, which regulations and standards would apply? As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has said, there are no academies or free schools in Wales; the Welsh Government have rejected their implementation. Clause 48 would allow the UK Government to fund education projects in Wales. Does this mean that the UK Government would march in, with no consultation, and build these schools in Wales?
The intention of the UK Government to implement the M4 relief road scheme is provocative, to say the least. It is an issue the Senedd has examined and debated in detail. It made the decision to reject the scheme on the grounds of cost and impact on the environment, and to develop plans for another route. It is an arrogance that the UK Government feel they can overthrow its decision.
The UK Government fail to understand that they have no mandate to operate in these areas in Wales. In this House, we are expected to honour the manifesto commitments made by the Government in a general election and not to vote against them. In Wales, at the last Assembly elections, the people of Wales gave the Welsh Government a mandate based on their manifesto commitments. What right do the UK Government have to act against the expressed wishes of the people of Wales? For years, we have been clamouring in Wales for the UK Government to invest in projects that they have responsibility for—in our railways and the development of tidal energy, for example. I suggest that that would be a good starting point.
Wales has been eligible for £375 million a year from EU funds for almost 20 years. The management of these schemes has always been shared between the EU and the Welsh Government. The guidelines and parameters have always been clear, and the principles of co-operation and consensus have always been evident.
Now that EU funding is coming to an end, we need clarity on its replacement. The time has come for this Minister to give this House details of the proposed replacement through the shared prosperity fund. Up until now, the UK Government have failed to explain how that fund would operate and what role the devolved Governments would have in spending decisions made under it. Will the Minister do that today?
Many speakers, from all four nations of the UK, have spoken against this Bill’s attempts to undermine our devolution settlements. At Second Reading and in debates on this and other amendments, we have heard the same calls. I hope that the Minister and, through her, the Government, are beginning to understand that, after 20 years, the devolution genie cannot be put back in the bottle. I know that to this Prime Minister and his Government a bullish determination to win at all costs is important, but we have to find ways of working with and not against each other and to find solutions to our problems together. Clause 48 is a perfect example of the Government attempting to grab the devolution genie and force it, feet first, back into the bottle. Sadly, such an attitude does nothing but provide further ammunition to those who would favour the break-up of the United Kingdom.
Lord Dunlop (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, and to participate in the debate on Clause 48 and the financial assistance power in the Bill. I want to offer a further Scottish perspective.
I welcome the intent of Clause 48. The UK Government should be able to invest in all parts of the UK on initiatives that support and strengthen the union. I also recognise the anxiety that, if such an ability did not exist, the danger is that the UK dimension in devolved nations would become squeezed out or diminished as a relevant part of the lives of people for whom Scotland is home. So, as ever, the question with the Bill is, for me, not about its aims but about the best way in which to achieve them.
Let us not forget that, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, pointed out, the UK Government already invest in areas which, strictly speaking, fall within areas of devolved competence. For example, in government I was a very active proponent of the UK Government investing in both a comprehensive network of city and growth deals across Scotland and Scottish cultural assets important to our shared British heritage. The then Chancellor, George Osborne, was persuaded to open the Treasury’s cheque book and the Scottish Government were persuaded to come on board and invest alongside.
Today, the UK Government are investing £1.5 billion in UK city and growth deals in Scotland, with the Scottish Government co-investing a similar amount. The wide range of Scottish cultural institutions supported by UK Government cash includes the Glasgow School of Art, the Burrell Collection, V&A Dundee and a new Edinburgh concert hall. Of course, the UK Government do not get the credit they deserve for these investments, but in my view that is because there has been a tendency to “fund and forget”, just as successive Governments have over the years slipped into a habit of “devolve and forget”.
Clause 48 is a widely drawn power. It has caught many, including the devolved Administrations, by surprise. The internal market White Paper said that the Government would
“consider which spending powers it needs to enhance the UK internal market”.
However, the power in the Bill permits a potentially broader incursion into areas of devolved competence, including, as we have heard, health, housing, education, prisons and sport, and certainly beyond what is strictly necessary to support the internal market. The Government have provided very little detail on how they intend the power to be used. Like others, I hope that my noble friend, when she responds, will fill in some of the missing detail.
It may be that what the Government have in mind is, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and others have surmised, to replicate, through the UK shared prosperity fund and other initiatives, the range of EU funds that will disappear at the end of the transition period—funds in which the devolved Administrations are of course involved now in deciding how resources are allocated in their areas. The lack of clarity is problematic because the scope for misunderstandings becomes greater. Uncertainty creates a breeding ground for suspicions and scare stories, with predictable but no less unhelpful, consequences.
A month ago, the UK Government announced the union connectivity review to be chaired by Sir Peter Hendy, the chair of Network Rail. In my view, this is an excellent initiative to bring communities across the UK closer together and to support the levelling-up agenda. It is just the sort of initiative the UK Government should be promoting and leading. In response, the Scottish Government have refused to co-operate and taken away their ball. Their response is profoundly unhelpful and not, I would suggest, an example of how to look after the best interests of people in Scotland, so I very much hope the Scottish Government will reconsider their stance. However, while I do not condone in any way the behaviour of the Scottish Government, I cannot help but wonder if their unco-operative approach to the Hendy review might have been avoided if the Government had adopted a more consultative and collaborative approach to the financial assistance power in this Bill.
In fleshing out how the power will be exercised in practice, I hope that Ministers will be guided by three important considerations, which, if addressed properly, will help to ensure that this financial assistance power does not inadvertently destabilise devolution itself. First, on additionality—and here I apologise for getting a bit technical—the block grant allocations for the devolved nations are worked out by reference to a population share of any change to Whitehall departments’ expenditure limits adjusted by a comparability factor, depending on the extent to which a policy area is or is not devolved. So, for example, the comparability factor for education and justice is 100%, for health it is 99.4% and for transport it is 91%. If the power in the Bill is not to undermine the existing funding arrangements, the financial assistance provided by it should be additional to the normal block grant allocations. Can my noble friend explain what effect directly spending more at a UK level in areas of devolved competence will have on the block grant comparability factors, and thus for the devolved Administrations’ budgets?
Secondly, on financial accountability, a core purpose of the Scotland Act 2016, and the fiscal framework that accompanied it, was to make the Scottish Government more financially accountable by making them responsible for raising a significant proportion of the money they spend. The Scottish Government should rightly be held accountable by people in Scotland for the policy choices they make—good and bad. Therefore, the wide scope of the Clause 48 power really does matter and should matter to the Government, too. It should most certainly matter to the Treasury, which will have to fund it. If democratic accountability in Scotland is to flourish in the years ahead, it is important that the allocation of responsibilities between the UK and Scottish Governments is clear and better understood. I suggest to Ministers that, in exercising the financial assistance power in the Bill, they will need to take care not to blur the lines of accountability in a way that lets the Scottish Government off the hook.
Thirdly, on co-operation, if the power in the Bill is to be fully effective, it will be important for the UK Government to work in partnership, not conflict, with the devolved Administrations and representatives of local communities throughout the devolved nations. It would be a retrograde step indeed if Ministers sought to substitute local priorities with the priorities of the centre, uninformed by local views. In my experience, the maxim “The man in Whitehall knows best” is never a popular one, and certainly will not cut much ice in Scotland.
There is one very good practical reason for involving the devolved Administrations in how the power is exercised: many of the delivery mechanisms are ultimately in their hands, from the planning system through to the agencies that have the responsibility for managing and improving, for example, local transport networks. Therefore, I would commend to your Lordships the Constitution Committee’s report on the Bill, which concluded that:
“to ensure practical cooperation around the use of the power, the Bill should be amended to include a requirement that ministers, in exercising their power to spend directly in devolved areas, consult with the relevant devolved administration.”
I want to make a broader point. In a week’s time, we will complete Committee Stage. I sense that the mood of the House is to make changes to the internal market aspects of the Bill, not in order to frustrate it, but in a genuinely constructive bid to advance its aims in a way sensitive to devolution. I suspect the votes will be there at Report to make those changes. Ideally, I hope that, prior to Report, the Government Front Bench will play an active and willing role in working with all parts of the House to improve the Bill. But if Ministers in this House do not have the latitude to respond substantively to suggested improvements, I would ask the Government to consider when the Bill returns to the Commons this simple point: the health of our union is, and always should be, a constitutional issue to be carried forward on a cross-party basis.
As we heard earlier from my noble friend Lord Cormack, in 2021 the union may face some very choppy waters. It will be important that, as we navigate those choppy waters, the Unionist parties in Parliament are able, on this issue at least, to present a united front. For that reason, I hope the Government will think long and hard before overturning in the Commons, on the back of Conservative votes alone, any sensible changes to bring about a better reconciliation within the Bill of the twin aims of UK free trade and respect for devolution. After all, just because you can do something does not mean you should.
Lord German (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, and to echo many of the points he has just made, caution being one of them and care for the union another. I want to illustrate some of his points in what I have to say. I must declare my interest: I am Welsh and I live in a recipient area of huge amounts of European funding.
This part of the Bill is definitely a bolt-on: it has nothing to do with the operation of the internal market or with the four countries being able to trade freely together. This is about the replacement money for the EU funds—how it will be spent and by whom. Fortunately, I asked a question of the Minister in this very Chamber a few months ago about the European money that came to Wales. I was given a guarantee, which I am hopeful the Minister will repeat today, that the people of Wales will get, pound for pound, what the European funds gave them. That was the guarantee given in this Chamber by the Minister. If he wants to check, I can refer him to the relevant Hansard. The point I am making is this. It was not a question of the receipt of the money: I am pleased to bank the £2.2 billion that the European funds have given to the people of Mid and West Wales—that is two million people—over the last six years, but I am worried about how that money will be spent and what effects it will have. Effectively, this part of the Bill puts the cart before the horse. We have to agree a whole set of rules which cross devolved boundaries in ways we can only guess at, and nowhere are we given clear answers to fundamental questions about upholding and respecting the devolution settlements in the UK.
The implication in this part of the Bill is that it will have no impact on the functioning of the Barnett formula or on additionality, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop. However, that is only an implication. Will the Minister give us today the answer to that fundamental question: will it have no impact on the normal functioning of the Barnett formula?
There has been no problem thus far with the UK Government seeking to spend money in Wales, in collaboration with the Welsh Government. Long may it continue, and I will encourage the Government. However, the key word is collaboration. Now, we are being asked to approve a law so broadly drawn that it will have a coach-and-horses effect on the powers of devolved Governments. I have to say to the Government that if it is not done collaboratively, spend does not necessarily mean approval. Approval will not automatically be given when the legal framework is in the hands of the devolved Governments. Factors such as planning approval, environmental impact assessments and curriculum development legislation all have a bearing here.
The Explanatory Memorandum implies that the UK Government will determine what moneys are available and how they are spent. The Welsh Government have had major control over the design and implementation of EU structural funds spent in Wales. For a few years, I had that responsibility in the Welsh Government. It is different, of course, for the smaller cross-EU programmes such as Erasmus and Lifelong Learning, which includes Comenius for school exchanges. These programmes were centrally designed but nevertheless locally administered.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord German. I would like to build on some of his questions, particularly the question of who administers the funds, especially in relation to regions and local authorities in England.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for his Amendment 132 and for the chance to debate Clause 48 stand part. The noble Lords, Lord German and Lord Stevenson, and a number of others, asked about the situation going forward in respect of the Barnett formula. Is it the Government’s intention that that will remain in place, or is it the implication of this part of the Bill that the formula will be replaced by a new shared prosperity fund on the criteria that we are currently debating here?
My main concern as someone living in England, albeit of Scottish descent, is about the shared prosperity fund. Who will administer it and to whom will applications be made? How will a balance be reached between rural and urban areas? I declare an interest as a former MP in North Yorkshire for 18 years. I was delighted by the announcement in February this year that £6 million of funding has been allocated for a rural connectivity project in North Yorkshire with the specific task of helping to unlock the rural economy’s potential. It will be to the benefit of farmers and rural communities to support superfast mobile connectivity and rural broadband generally.
Looking at Clause 48(2) as it currently stands, however, rural broadband or broadband and mobile connectivity simply do not appear. Does that mean that, whichever nation or local authority or region you live in, once this shared prosperity fund comes into effect, these funds will disappear? Funds that have only just been allocated this year, presumably, under the existing European Regional Development Fund, will run their course. Is my understanding correct that the omission in the Bill of connectivity—either rural or urban, in whichever nation or region we happen to live in—means that it has been dropped from the shared prosperity fund? I will be interested to know and understand why, in particular, infrastructure has been limited in Clause 48(2) to,
“water, electricity, gas, telecommunications, sewerage or other services (for example, the provision of heat) … railway facilities (including rolling stock), roads or other transport facilities”.
It goes on over the page. I am severely disappointed—I am sure that others living in rural areas will feel the same way—that rural connectivity is being overlooked. It is not acceptable in this day and age that special provision is not being made for rural areas. The 5% who are the hardest to reach are being overlooked. I understand that the Scottish Government have given very generously to rural businesses in this regard, to their benefit and that of English customers who are buying from them.
I want to repeat a question posed by a number of other noble Lords: what is happening with regard to match funding? Will it continue to be required as it was under the ERDF and the European structural funds? How will economic development be administered? Is it going to be the case that local authorities such as North Yorkshire, Ryedale District Council, Hambleton District Council, Harrogate District Council or York City Council will have to go cap in hand to the Government? At this stage, it will be interesting to have more flesh on the bones of Clause 48. Who will determine what the balance is to be in applications from rural and from urban areas?
On the much-vaunted policy of the levelling-up agenda set out so effectively in the Government’s manifesto and to which they promised to commit themselves during the life of this Parliament, and which I entirely support, what role will the shared prosperity fund have in levelling up the regions and local authorities?
I want to end on this note. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, referred to the ERDF and structural funds having regard to levels of deprivation. It is not generally understood that rural areas have pockets of deprivation that are every bit as bad as those which are generally better known and recognised in urban areas. With these few remarks, I look forward to the answers from my noble friend.
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
My Lords, this is a very important group of amendments because they deal with another recentralising measure in this Bill; that is, powers for the UK Government to spend money on wholly devolved areas of competence. Let us remember that power without spending power is hollow. At the least, this is a petty pot-shot at the devolved Administrations, while at the worst, it will lead to a direct conflict of policies and a huge waste of taxpayers’ money.
Let me give a hypothetical example on environmental spending. You could have the Welsh Government subsidising wind farms and the UK Government paying to close them down. Before anyone scoffs at that idea, in relatively recent years the Conservatives in Wales have campaigned against wind farms. In the best case scenario, it will lead to disjointed rather than joined-up policymaking.
The list of specified policy areas goes well beyond the usual devolved areas, so this is clearly a naked power grab. However, all of this is unnecessary because the UK Government can and do spend money on the devolved areas, but they do so in partnership with the devolved Administrations. City deals are a prime example of this successful approach. In these deals, the UK Government will set out pretty stiff conditions for additional funding. They do not simply hand over the cash. If we take the example of higher education, universities in Wales and Scotland receive funding from UK research funds, and here I declare an interest as chancellor of the University of Cardiff.
If the Government feel that they are not getting full recognition for their funding, they should take a leaf out of the EU’s book and put a badge on it. As the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, said in his truly excellent speech, they should not just fund and forget. In 2012 in the Wales Office, we recognised that the Welsh Government did not have enough capital funding for the significant infrastructure improvements that were needed if Wales was to compete economically. We gave the devolved Administration additional borrowing powers and we worked with the Welsh Government to agree a shared programme of funding for, for instance, the South Wales Metro. We worked with the grain of their views, but we still set the framework. Now I hear that the UK Government are threatening to build the M4 relief road, which the Welsh Government and local people have rejected.
Looking back to the days prior to devolution in Wales, there used to be huge rows about the smallest details of how social and economic support from the EU should be spent. Often, rather foolish decisions would be made by central Government, which were basically too remote from the areas concerned. The proposals in this Bill threaten a return to that centralised, counterproductive approach.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I shall not now speak to the group starting with Amendment 134, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. As this debate went forward, I came to realise that I can perfectly adequately cover what I want to say in that context in this group.
At several points in this evening’s debate, I have been struck by the measured and telling way in which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, has said that he believes that the Bill is undemocratic. It is certainly undemocratic in the arrangements for the even distribution of resources. I do not want to become a Jeremiah; I would rather leave that role to the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. However, as someone who is half-Scottish and half-Welsh and closely identifies with both families, who has northern Irish blood, and whose wife has Welsh blood, I see disturbing trouble ahead unless we get the spirit of what we are doing right.
The key to that is to recognise that what happens in the future must belong to the people of Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland and England. Even in the context of this debate, in an excellent speech, the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, referred to partnership. I am not sure that partnership is an adequate description; it must be a completely common approach, in which all parties are on an equal footing.
We are rather good in this House—no less than anywhere else—at talking with utter conviction about the priorities that must be faced in political and social policy, and then failing to make consensus on the detailed policy before us. My noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock made that point about the environment very well indeed.
If the Bill is basically undemocratic, Amendment 167 in the name of my noble friend Lord Stevenson, is highly relevant. I am very glad that he has brought into it one of the big preoccupations of this House and the other place: poverty and child poverty. He has made it central to what we are doing.
I also commend the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, for bringing up the environment and climate change so seriously. Climate change is going to dwarf everything else that we are dealing with as it moves forward. We must not only speak about it and make dealing with it an aspiration; we have to make it central to everything that we do in mainstream policy and legislation. If this is not mainstream legislation, then I do not know what is. Therefore, it is crucial that climate change comes on board as well.
I was very glad to see the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, because obviously we want policies in the interests of the people in all four parts of the United Kingdom: Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England. We want long-term policies which are sustainable and tackle climate change and the nature emergency. We have a major nature emergency at the moment, not least in the sphere of biodiversity. We need all those things, and I am glad to see that amendment there to keep our eye on the ball and our feet on the ground as we move forward, not just with a constitutional arrangement but with an arrangement that will be viable because it really belongs to all the people of the United Kingdom and deals with crucial issues that will make all our tactical politics seem pretty trifling by comparison.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I thank those who assisted me in getting the chance to speak after the accidental omission of my name from the original list. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and welcome his front and centring of the climate emergency and nature crisis. I thank the noble Lord for his expression of support for Amendment 169 in my name. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for his expression of support.
Before I get to that, I wish to briefly speak in support of Amendments 132, 167 and 168 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara. It is notable that in the EU there are rules about the funds allocated for the alleviation of poverty and inequality—something that has been entirely lacking from UK practice and procedure, under which the Government have been able to direct money for electoral advantage without rules or oversight. The Americans have a word for that, “pork-barrelling”, and the practice is as unattractive as the metaphor.
I share the concerns expressed by other noble Lords speaking in this group about devolution issues, which other amendments seek to address, but as I have addressed those in other speeches I now speak chiefly to Amendment 169. It seeks to ensure that those who receive financial assistance, provided under the provisions of the internal market, can receive it only if a climate and nature emergency impact statement is undertaken first. This would ensure public money is granted only to development consistent with net climate, nature and environmental targets.
Amendment 169, and my argument for it, build on the comments of my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb on the previous group, who reflected on the damage done by massive and continuing fossil fuel subsidies. As others have noted, my amendment has much in common with Amendment 166 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, to which my noble friend has already spoken, but my amendment extends further, calling for a detailed mechanism for each project, rather than the overview included in Amendment 166.
I must remind the Committee, as the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, did, that the UK is the chair of the COP 26 climate talks. We have a responsibility to be the world leader the Government often proclaim they want to be. Green finance is an issue of great interest to a wide range of international bodies and commercial organisations. All new and continuing financial schemes, whatever their sources, have to be green, given the urgency of our climate emergency and nature crisis.
I note that on 25 June, the Committee on Climate Change made a progress report to Parliament, although we are yet to hear the Government’s response. The report showed how far our current policies are from meeting our existing commitments and the future, larger commitments we must surely make to live up to our enhanced ambition, beyond that of Paris 2015—something we have recently seen China taking a clear global leadership role in.
I refer to an Answer I received today from the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, to a Written Question on the green homes fund. I asked whether the programme would be extended and the funding enhanced. In his Answer, the noble Lord helpfully told me that £65 billion of investment will be needed for housing retrofit across the 2020s—£65 billion in nine years versus £2 billion of current funding. We clearly need to see some of the funding covered by this Bill directed towards this area, not nature-destroying, planet-trashing options.
Since the Government are very keen to look at league tables for education, we might look at two published in the last fortnight on the environment. One showed per capita contribution to plastic waste production. In this, we are, unfortunately, world-leading. We are second behind the United States on this plastic-choked planet—a huge and terrible responsibility. We have to use regulatory tools and funding to promote ways of cutting back on this. Secondly, the European Environment Agency reported that the UK has the third-greatest proportion of marine and land areas in bad conservation status; we are close behind Belgium and Denmark. More than 70% of our habitats
“exhibit overwhelmingly bad conservation status.”
Again, we must not only make sure we do not fund further damage but, as a matter of extreme urgency, direct funding in ways that start to repair the centuries of damage that has been turbocharged by our economic structure in recent decades.
These are not abstract, environmental, “nice to have” issues. They are about human survival. I ask your Lordships to think about the people of Nicaragua and Honduras seeking shelter and safety. To quote an NBC headline:
“Eta forecast to make landfall as a Category 4 hurricane, a rare occurrence in November.”
If noble Lords think that is an odd name for a hurricane, we are using the Greek alphabet now, because the normal alphabet has been exhausted this year.
The Committee might think about the people living now in low-lying areas around the world, including in the UK—we had a reference to flooding earlier. There have been reports from the Arctic of the failure of sea ice to form by the end of last month. That month broke the record for the lowest extent of sea ice in October. Its extent was more than 1.5 million square miles less than the 1980s average. That is an area larger than India, if noble Lords can envisage that.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I will focus on whether Clause 48 should stand part, as my noble friends have done on this group. In so doing, I shall comment on the contributions. I agree with my noble friend Lady Randerson, who said that the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, was very important. I hope that the Government Front Bench was listening very carefully to that contribution. I see the Minister nodding, and that is very positive.
I looked again at the Explanatory Notes for Clause 48. It is quite telling that the Government are seeking financial assistance powers. I wondered for whom. The Explanatory Notes state that the power to provide financial assistance enables
“the UK Government to provide funding to local authorities, sectoral organisations, community groups, educational institutions and other bodies and persons in order to support and promote these policy areas across the UK.”
It is very telling that there is no mention of the devolved Administrations. It is fairly obvious that the Government’s intention is to have powers which effectively go over the devolved competencies of the nations, because in many respects the areas that had European structural funds are within the devolved competences. As the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, and others indicated, there is no mention in the Bill of concurrent or shared expenditure, or of supporting joint policy initiatives. This is against the thrust of what we have had over the past 20 years with devolution.
This is not purely about devolution, because this affects developments within England too, such as growth deals and city partnerships. This expenditure will go beyond the structures that have already been agreed, and in many respects all those aspects have been included in the multiannual financial frameworks of the European structural funds. So it right to ask: what is the purpose of this? If this is the mechanism through which the shared prosperity fund will be delivered, why is there no reference to the shared prosperity fund? Why is the scope of the legislation far beyond what the Government said in their 2019 manifesto about a national skills fund? Why is there no reference to the delivery mechanisms that the Government have indicated should be in place for the shared prosperity fund? Or does the legislation seek to go beyond the shared prosperity fund? There is no statement in the Explanatory Note and there is no framework in the legislation for how that expenditure will be committed.
The sums are huge, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, who I am glad introduced this group. I rely on the House of Commons briefing paper from September this year to give the figures. In 2018, public and private sector organisations in the UK received £5.9 billion from the EU, through various channels. On top of that, we received £4.4 billion for UK projects on infrastructure, some supporting the growth of employment, from the European Investment Bank. That is included within this clause of the legislation, but we know that UK support from the European Investment Bank will no longer be available, so what is the source of this expenditure to support infrastructure investment? How will infrastructure investment from loans or grants be delivered?
As the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, and other noble Lords have said, to date, most expenditure has been allocated to member states and then managed through our devolved Administrations, regional partnerships or local authorities. Until this point, 76% of all European investment has been allocated, first, to the member state to manage—and then it has gone through our existing frameworks. If there is to be a new system to deliver that level of expenditure, separate from our existing delivery and accountability mechanisms, the Government need to say so.
Until now, in the multiannual financial framework 2014-20, the UK partnership agreement gave granular detail—it is a 373-page document—for all projects and where they are, with a chapter for UK-wide expenditure, and chapters for England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Gibraltar. Interestingly, Gibraltar is included in this, but there is no reference in the scope of the legislation to providing financial assistance to Gibraltar, so the poor Gibraltarians have been completely dropped off the ability to support.
In their manifesto, the Government said about the shared prosperity fund:
“We will consult widely on the design of the fund, including with the devolved administrations, local authorities, businesses and public bodies.”
It was to be finalised after the comprehensive spending review. That has been delayed, for understandable reasons, but can the Minister state when the conclusion of the design of the fund will be published? If the shared prosperity fund is to be in place from April 2021, as the Government said in their 2019 manifesto, it leaves little time for our public bodies, which will be managing it, to operate. If it is not the intention of the Government for our public bodies to administer it, what central government structures will be in place to administer this fund? Why does this legislation have some areas that go beyond what the Conservative manifesto said, which was that it would be spent on skills?
Secondly, as was referenced by the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, how do the intended powers of this legislation impact on the statement of funding policy? The statement of funding policy is the core document on financial relationships. It has population proportions expenditure and comparability factors, and it is applied to all spending and spending rounds. How does this power interact with the statement of funding policy? Will it be over the top of regional strategies? How will it be accounted for in the recipient public bodies? If it is to go to local authorities, how will it impact their accounting? If it goes directly to local authorities, how will it go to those areas?
I close with a tangible example. We heard references from colleagues from Wales and across England. I live in the Scottish Borders which, using the NUTS2 areas, has the lowest GVA per head in the United Kingdom, at 59.3% of the UK average. Outer London has 67.9% of the UK average. Under the Government’s current proposals, an area such as the Scottish Borders will not be eligible for this kind of support. Will the Government ensure that this funding is aligned to not only devolved but local authority strategies? Will it be aligned with the state aid maps? This separate approach will be beneficial for our country only if it is consistent with and supports our existing policies and strategies, at a local, regional and national level.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, this Government are determined to deliver on the commitments upon which they were elected: levelling up the whole United Kingdom, delivering prosperity for all citizens and strengthening the ties that bind our union together. Part 6 of the Bill helps to achieve this. This power to provide financial assistance will enable spending in the areas of infrastructure, economic development, culture and sport. It will also support educational and training activities, and exchanges within the UK and internationally. Previously, as noble Lords have noted, much of this was done at the EU level.
I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, among others, that over the course of discussion and debate on this Bill, throughout Parliament and beyond, the Government have repeated our intention to work with the devolved Administrations. This power, in addition to existing powers, will allow the UK Government to complement and strengthen the support given to citizens in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, without taking away devolved Administrations’ responsibilities.
As noble Lords have noted, the response to Covid has shown how the UK Government, alongside important co-operation with the devolved Administrations, can save jobs and support communities. This could only have been delivered strategically and at that scale by the UK Government. This power will ensure that we can invest UK taxpayers’ money nationwide on UK priorities as we leave the transition period, as well as supporting people and businesses across the UK to recover from Covid.
The UK Government are uniquely positioned to level up across every part of the UK, ensuring that the entire country can feel the benefit of increased trade, improved business conditions and a truly global economy. The power to provide financial assistance will facilitate this. Noble Lords will know that these aims support the Government’s manifesto commitments to strengthen the union, level up the country and match the current levels of EU structural funding in each nation through a UK-wide replacement programme—the UK shared prosperity fund. That is why I commend this clause to stand part of the Bill.
I will now discuss Amendments 167, 168 and 132. Collectively, they seek to remove the power to provide financial assistance in Part 6 of the Bill and replace it with provisions for the operation of a UK shared prosperity commission, detailed in a proposed new schedule. Let me begin by emphasising that the power to provide financial assistance in Part 6 would operate UK-wide to support a variety of purposes. This includes economic development but is not limited to it. It is therefore wider than any single fund or organisation. I say this in response to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, about the purposes of the power.
The effect of these amendments would be that the Bill would not confer on the UK Government the power to provide financial assistance UK-wide for infrastructure, economic development, culture or sport, or to support educational and training activities and exchanges within the UK and internationally. Although the UK Government have some existing powers to spend across the whole UK, the power we are taking now creates a unified power that operates consistently UK-wide, to deliver investment more flexibly, dynamically and in partnership with the devolved Administrations and other partners. Part 6 will make sure that the UK Government are well positioned to deliver investments following the end of the transition period, and to meet their commitment to replace EU structural funds.
I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, tabled his amendment to probe the Government’s plans on this and I hope to be able to provide some answers. On the level of funding, the Government committed in their manifesto to maintaining, as I already said, at a minimum the existing levels of investment across all four nations from the EU structural funds. The noble Lord is correct that this was based not on Barnett but on an EU formula. In future, the UK can ensure that funding reflects the needs of the UK, not the 27 other member states, as this work is taken forwards. He is also correct that there are a number of ways in which this funding could be done but, if I may reassure noble Lords about the purpose of the funding, the Government have been clear on their aim: to tackle inequality and deprivation, and level up across the United Kingdom.
On timing, the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, is right that to prioritise the response to Covid-19 and focus on supporting jobs, the multi-year spending review has been postponed. But he is also correct that we have some time, as EU funds are still being provided. Our aim is to ensure a smooth transition from current EU structural funds to the UK shared prosperity fund.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
My Lords, I have received one request to speak after the Minister, so I now call the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]
Does the Minister not agree that shared prosperity requires an attitude of sharing—in other words, for the Government to talk with, not at, the devolved Administrations? Are they listening to Douglas Ross, the Conservative leader in Scotland, who says that the Government are completely failing to promote the benefits of the union to the people of Scotland and, indeed, that their attitude is alienating people? Will the Government recognise that, whatever the commitment behind what they are trying to do, the approach is counterproductive and deeply damaging?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, all I can say to the noble Lord is that the attitude and approach of this Government is one where we intend to work in partnership both with the devolved Administrations and with local communities to ensure that these new powers are used to the best effect and that the UK’s shared prosperity fund supports citizens across the United Kingdom.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank all those who have contributed to this wide-ranging debate, which was conducted throughout at a very high level indeed with respect to the very important issues that we had in front of us. I am grateful to the Minister for her quick-fire response. She covered a lot of ground; I will have to read Hansard carefully to be sure that I picked up all her points.
I have three responses to make. First, I do not think she was convincing in her defence of why the new powers contained in Clause 48 are required. The noble and learned Lords, Lord Thomas and Lord Hope, among others, were incredulous about the reasons for them and put their case very well. I do not think she was able to be as convincing on that as perhaps she hoped to be.
However, the Minister was very positive in response to the questions that a number of us asked about the replacement for the current level of EU funds, saying that the level of funding will be a minimum to match, it will be based on need and will tackle inequality and level up spending for these issues around the UK, and there will be time for a smooth transition. She stressed the collaborative approach that will be taken, but I will want to come back to that. She also left a few serious concerns about how exactly the process would go.
I think she will want to look again at the words of the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, who spoke with great power; he made a number of points about additionality, accountability and co-operation as the necessary building blocks for any process which involves the insertion of UK Government-led funding in areas which have previously been done on a co-operative basis—bottom up rather than top down. Part of that was also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, who asked the Minister to recognise the differences that have arisen over time.
I shall leave with her two points. At this stage in the process when it is not certain how things will develop—even if the total amount of money and other things being said around funding are convincing—lack of information and engagement will breed distrust and suspicion. The Government need to think very hard about what approach they will take on a consultative and other basis, or else they will bring instability with them as they move forward.
Secondly, the case made by a number of people who spoke—not just those concerned about the direct impact on devolution but those concerned about other matters to do with climate change—has not been properly answered. There will not be any real return for the Government on this if they think that devolution will be assisted by what looks like a power grab without collateral arrangements being put in place. These funds need to be administered locally and planned co-operatively. At the end of the day, as one person said in the debate, the levers that are used to fund the people who are going to see the money will be local. If the Government do not get that right at the beginning, the rest will not work. However, we will read carefully in Hansard what was said. It has been a good debate on all sides. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
My Lords, we come to the group beginning with Amendment 134. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate, and that anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division should make that clear during debate.
Clause 31: Monitoring and reporting on the operation of the UK internal market
Amendment 134
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment deletes the phrase “from time to time” from Clause 31(1).
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to move this amendment and speak to the others in my name. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, for her support; I think she is going to speak at some stage on the clause stand part debate. I take this opportunity to thank once again the Law Society of Scotland for its briefing and its assistance in drafting these amendments.
Amendment 134 would delete the phrase “from time to time” from Clause 31(1). The reason for this is simply to state that reviews should take place on a more structured and regular basis than simply from time to time. I would like to press the Minister on what the intended timeframe for a review is within the terms of Clause 31.
Amendment 135 is on a similar theme. It looks to set out the significance of a matter that the CMA would review under the terms of Clause 31, and to press the Minister to say that surely it must be intended that the CMA conducts reviews into important and significant matters only. Is that the Government’s intention? Currently Clause 31(1) provides the CMA with an extensive power to conduct reviews. In my view that should be used only in accordance with clear rules that will ensure that only important issues are reviewed. The purpose of the amendment is to press my noble friend and the Government on what would instigate such a review and be deemed a sufficiently important and significant matter for this purpose.
Amendment 137 looks at the purpose of a proposal that should be made only, as I state here, by the Secretary of State or others that I have set out. The purpose is to ensure that only the Government and the devolved Administrations can make a proposal to the CMA to conduct a review. The reason for that is that the Bill currently provides that the CMA can receive and consider any proposals for undertaking a review, so in fact anyone can refer a matter to the CMA. Surely it must be intended that there is some qualification relating to this to exclude vexatious or frivolous referrals that might be deemed to be wasting the time of the CMA or others involved. The purpose of this probing amendment is to restrict the capacity to make referrals to the Government and the devolved Administrations, and to ask my noble friend if that is indeed the Government’s intention.
Amendment 144 looks at Clause 32, taking out “part” and replacing it with “or the entirety of”, thereby ensuring that the Secretary of State can request advice on a report for the whole UK, not simply a part of the UK. That is simply to note that the Secretary of State may request the CMA to provide a report for any part of the UK under Clause 32(11)(d), but not apparently for the whole of the UK. It is my intention to resolve that anomaly and clarify whether my understanding is correct.
Amendment 146 would delete Clause 35(4), which states:
“A duty of the Secretary of State to make a statement to Parliament is to be discharged by laying a copy of the statement before each House of Parliament.”
Is it not the case that such duties should be discharged in person directly to Parliament by making an Oral Statement rather than by laying a copy of the Statement before each House? Or do the Government intend to use that procedure and this is just the phrase that they have used? My amendment seeks to probe this.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to speak in this group on my own amendments. I recognise that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, has picked out some relevant points, including probing what I call the business aspect in Clause 31.
I have already rehearsed many of the arguments relating to my stand part notices, so I shall only speak briefly. The question of whether the OIM is set up to provide independent technical advice regarding business disputes with one another or with national authorities, becoming a first-round settlement process—or not, as it chooses—is all left too vague. Some not entirely technical criteria are intimately involved. I cite again my concern as to whether the OIM is the right body or structure and whether the powers exercisable over people and businesses in Clauses 38 to 40 are justified and proportionate to the reporting requirements in Clauses 31 to 34, which largely relate to the activities of Administrations.
My Amendment 145 would delete Clause 33(2), which states:
“A relevant national authority may not request a report from the CMA ... unless the authority has considered whether any other person or body is qualified to provide an independent report on the matter.”
What is meant by “qualified”? I could not find a definition in the Bill other than that in respect of professional qualifications in Part 3, which I do not think applies here. I understand and accept the subsection if the reference is to another statutory body, but the present wording seems to relate, for example, to advisory firms. I might have all kinds of views about that and how the Government seem to use advisory firms too much already, but I am concerned that such private reports would be less transparent.
However, perhaps there is a case for saying that it is more appropriate for an Administration to pay for that research and advice than foist the cost on to businesses, which is what this provision does. Can the Minister advise me of the intention of Clause 33(2)? Does it mean statutory bodies or private bodies?
Finally, Clause 37 requires the CMA to prepare and publish general advice and information about how it expects to approach the exercise of its functions. At present, how the CMA will use its powers is left solely to its own discretion, without guidance or safeguards in the Bill, but I think it is necessary to have guidance about when enforcement and fines are appropriate. For example, they are not appropriate when there is no reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing or contravention of market principles by the person or body from whom information is sought.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, has withdrawn, so I now call the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB) [V]
I can be very brief in speaking to Amendments 151 and 152, which stand in my name. They relate to matters that were discussed earlier. The first deals with the need to insert into the Bill provisions to ensure that the Competition and Markets Authority—if indeed it is to be the body that plays a central role in the Bill—consults the devolved Administrations in relation to its policy for enforcement.
The second amendment deals with penalties. The Minister has a regulating power and the amendment proposes that the penalties are made with the consent of the devolved Governments. That is obviously in line with what I hope will be the approach of the Government —that is, to work with the devolved Administrations. The reasons were set out earlier and I need not repeat them.
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
My Lords, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, I will be very brief. I have added my name to his amendments, which simply reiterate the need for the CMA to consult the devolved Administrations, as well as the Secretary of State, and to obtain consent. They emphasise the importance of respecting devolution. I say to the Government that small things count. They guarantee good and fair government. It is important that the Government take note of the tone of the debates this evening and pay that respect to devolution in the terms in which the CMA operates in the future.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
My Lords, these amendments are part and parcel of the approach that my noble and learned friend Lord Thomas and I, and indeed the Welsh Government, have advocated. It seems essential to ensure that the office for the internal market is genuinely independent and accountable, on a basis of equality, to institutions in all four parts of the UK.
I want to take this opportunity to seek clarification on some of the powers that the Government propose to give the office. I understand that it would be able to compel persons to provide information and impose financial penalties on those who do not. I can see why these powers are necessary for the Competition and Markets Authority when it investigates matters of anti-competitive practices which possibly violate the criminal law. However, can the Minister please explain why the powers are necessary in the very different circumstances of providing independent advice on the potential internal market implications of measures proposed by a Government?
More specifically, one point in particular needs clarification. It is my understanding that devolved Ministers could not be compelled to provide such information, as, like UK Ministers, they are covered by Crown immunity. However, I am informed that such immunity does not extend to the devolved legislatures, meaning that the Senedd Commission could be compelled to provide information and fined if it did not. This seems wholly unacceptable, and I seek clarification.
The Duke of Montrose (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to be able to contribute to this stage of the debate, and to offer my support to my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and particularly to her Amendment 134. Just recently we have heard much discussion, even by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, about the suitability of the CMA for this role. But there is no doubt that we need a body, and what we are discussing are the functions it would need to perform. I have sight of the briefing provided by the Law Society of Scotland, which supported some of these amendments, and it has been pretty forensic in striving to ensure, in particular, that this Bill contains enough representation and consultation.
I also support Amendment 135; it seems to me very appropriate that the CMA should have powers to decide what is a matter of importance, because the general idea that anybody could ask it to produce a report is a recipe for overenthusiastic demand from all sorts of people.
Moving on to Amendment 146, Clause 35 deals with who gets to receive the reports that the CMA produces, before, during or after measures that are being introduced, and who will present that report. Subsection (4) excuses the Secretary of State from being the one who gives the report in person. Surely most of the reports will actually be initiated by the devolved Administrations, and reports on the initiative of Secretary of State will be far fewer, so why should the Secretary of State be excused from speaking to the report that he has asked for?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
The noble Lord, Lord Naseby, has withdrawn, so I now call the noble Lord, Lord Razzall.
Lord Razzall (LD)
My Lords, I will be brief, unlike many earlier speakers in this Committee, who clearly were revelling in being freed from the tyranny of two, three and four-minute speeches. As the evening goes on, I think we come back to the discipline of being brief.
As to whether Clauses 31 to 37 should not stand part of the Bill, the arguments have been well rehearsed earlier and at Second Reading, but I shall reiterate why they seem appropriate here. Why are we rushing to legislate at this stage in this area? Why are we not working with all four Governments to arrive at agreements and to legislate when necessary? As noble Lords who followed this will be aware, the process of managing the United Kingdom internal market through common frameworks has not yet been exhausted. I do not accept the argument of the noble Lord, Lord True, at Second Reading, that the list that has been dealt with by the common frameworks is not exhaustive. Those discussions can continue to take place.
Why are we not continuing to work with the four Governments and to legislate when needed? Why do we not establish a properly independent body representing all four nations in due course, and then legislate? I support the deletion of all those clauses; they should not stand part of the Bill.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, has withdrawn, so I now call the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, we have said it before, so I will repeat only briefly: these amendments would never have been needed had the legislation been drafted in consultation and agreement with the devolved authorities. Instead, the legislation, as we have heard, reads like a complete desire to run everything from the centre, as if devolution never happened, and that the UK Government would simply decide and tell the others what they are to do. For example, as we have heard, it gives the CMA a cross-UK role with regard to the internal market but leaves the CMA, which currently has no devolved accountability, with the power to set penalties above the IM without any devolved authority consent.
I keep asking the same question: do the Government just forget about the other three Governments? As I have already said to the Minister tonight, we need the Government to respond to the thrust of these amendments positively and make it clear that they respect and want a proper role for the devolved authorities. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, said that little things matter. These are quite little requests, but they certainly matter.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank noble Lords who have taken part. They have asked for a lot of information on the various clauses and whether they should stand part, and I will provide it.
I start with Clauses 31 to 37 and why they should stand part. As we have discussed previously, Part 4 of the Bill creates the office for the internal market within the CMA, charged with carrying out a set of independent advisory, monitoring and reporting functions to support the effective operation of the UK internal market. Clause 31 defines a regulatory provision for the purposes of the CMA’s UK internal market reporting, advisory and monitoring functions, as well as stating which of these provisions are within scope. The purpose is to establish that the CMA may undertake monitoring reviews on an ad hoc basis, either of its own volition or at the request of other parties, including the UK Government and the devolved Administrations and legislatures. This monitoring will focus on cross-border competition, investment and trade, as well as access to goods and services.
There are two categories of monitoring and reporting that the CMA must undertake. The first is an annual health of the market assessment that will set out trends and developments in the internal market, including levels of integration across different sectors and nations. The second is a review of the impact of the measures in Parts 1 to 3 of the Bill, dealing with the internal market system itself, to be published at least every five years. Both types of report will be published and laid before both Houses and all the devolved legislatures.
Clause 32 sets out the provision for the CMA to advise on a regulatory proposal prior to it being passed or made in law. If an Administration in one part of the UK wishes to do so, it may request non-binding advice from the CMA on an approach to regulation it or any other person proposes to make in the relevant part of the UK. This is on a voluntary basis but will help support effective policy development. The advice, or report, from the CMA will examine the potential economic impact of the proposal on areas such as competition and trade distortions, the impact on prices and the choice and quality of goods and services for consumers. To ensure transparency, all advice will be published and shared with all four Administrations.
Clause 33 details the CMA’s reporting procedure on regulatory provisions already been passed or made in law. The request may be made by one or more Administrations and must concern a regulatory provision applying to its part of the UK and within its legislative competence. Similarly, to ensure transparency, the CMA will publish the report soon after it is provided to the requesting Administration. The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, asked about this clause. The clause sets out that it is for the national authority seeking the report from the OIM to consider and determine whether another body could provide advice. This is not a technical term and is simply intended to make it clear that the OIM is not intended to displace other bodies that might in theory provide more relevant advice on the same matter and, in doing so, make the best possible use of public funds.
Clause 34 sets out the reporting procedure that the CMA will undertake for regulatory provisions that are already enacted in any part of the United Kingdom and are considered to have actual or anticipated detrimental impacts on the internal market. The CMA may produce reports upon the request of a Minister in the UK Government or a Minister in any devolved Administration. The CMA must provide copies to all other Administrations in other parts of the United Kingdom, laying the report before each House of Parliament and all devolved legislatures, as well as making it public.
Clause 35 sets out the process that the CMA, the UK Government and the devolved Administrations must follow once a report has been produced by the CMA and laid before the legislatures under Clause 32. The process requires the Minister in the Administration responsible for implementing the regulatory provision that was the subject of the report, and the Minister in the Administration who requested the report, to make a Written Statement in their relevant legislature. This supports effective parliamentary oversight, as well as prompting legislatures to determine the most appropriate subsequent course of action.
Clause 36 allows the CMA the discretion to exclude particular categories of information from its reporting on impacts on the internal market. The discretion to exclude some categories is not novel or contentious, and is used by public and private organisations to protect commercial and private information about an organisation or a person. This discretion is necessary in specific circumstances to provide assurances for business and individuals’ interests.
Clause 37 requires the CMA to publish general advice, information and guidance about how it expects to approach the exercise of its monitoring, advisory and reporting functions under Clauses 31 to 34. This mirrors existing requirements in the Enterprise Act 2002 to publish documents, as the UK’s competition authority, on how it works to promote competition for the benefit of consumers, both within and outside the UK.
I turn to Amendment 134, which seeks to delete the phrase “from time to time” from Clause 31(1), which deals with the CMA’s ability to produce ad hoc reports on matters it considers relevant to the effective operation of the UK’s internal market. The Government agree that it is essential for the CMA to undertake reviews and report on matters it considers relevant to the effective operation of the internal market. However, the Government believe that it is also important that, as an independent body, the CMA should not be under pressure to frequently produce ad hoc reports, which is what removing this phrase “from time to time” would imply. As Clause 31(5) and (6) make clear, the office for the internal market will produce regular reports on the health of the internal market; it will therefore be well placed to make the right judgment on the need for the production of other reports.
Amendments 135 and 137 would require the CMA to conduct reviews only into what are called “important” matters, and that only the UK Government and devolved Administrations may request a review from the CMA. The Government appreciate the intention of these amendments, which is to ensure that the CMA is not overburdened by expectations in relation to reviews. However, the CMA is experienced in the matter of reviews and should not have its work impeded due to debates as to what constitutes a “matter of importance”. Furthermore, it is important that all stakeholders with an interest in the internal market should be able to request that the CMA undertake a review. This in turn will help to maintain stakeholder confidence in the independence of the OIM from the UK Government and the devolved Administrations.
Amendment 144 seeks to amend Clause 32 by inserting the word “entirety” to ensure that the Secretary of State can request advice and a report from the CMA on matters relating to the whole of the UK, not just a part of it. The current wording of Clause 32 aims to capture that reporting made possible by the clause is limited only to devolved regulatory competence. In the case of the Secretary of State, this would mean England-only legislation by the UK Government would be in scope of Clause 32. The effect of the amendment would be to extend the scope of Clause 32 to capture powers being exercised for the whole of the UK by the UK Government. To support the effective operation of the internal market, the office will need to focus its reporting and monitoring on areas of regulatory divergence across the UK. If regulatory measures apply UK-wide, the same risks to the functioning of the internal market will not feature. It is therefore vital to narrow the focus of the reporting in question to regulation that covers only a proportion of the UK and could pose an issue to the functioning of the market.
I turn to Amendment 145. The purpose of Clause 33 is to enable the CMA to produce reports on the impact of regulatory provisions which have already been passed or made into law. This procedure is voluntary and can be requested by an Administration, solely or jointly, in all parts of the United Kingdom, in relation to a regulatory provision applying to the relevant part of the UK and within its legislative competence. The Government understand the concerns around transparency, but the aim of subsection (2) is to ensure that the requesting Administration consider whether any other person or body is also qualified to provide an independent report on the matter before a request to the CMA is made. It is important to consider whether any work done by another person or organisation would put the CMA in a better position to provide advice to an Administration and for this to be taken into account and considered before a request to the CMA. This is a pragmatic and wholly sensible approach and ensures that the CMA’s resources are best directed at requests for advice, monitoring and reporting where it has the relevant expertise.
Amendment 146 advocates for the removal of subsection (4) within Clause 35. This clause requires the national authority responsible for implementing the regulatory measure that was the subject of the CMA’s report to then make a written statement in the relevant legislature. This amendment would remove the obligation of laying a copy of a written statement before each House of the UK Parliament. This would clearly result in inconsistency between the UK Government and devolved Administrations in accountability to their respective legislatures. We believe that this change would result in a democratic deficit and the loss of accountability towards both Houses of this Parliament.
Amendments 147 and 148 would require the CMA to consult stakeholders before preparing advice and information about how it expects to approach the exercise of its functions and revising or withdrawing any advice or guidance. Clause 37 mirrors existing requirements in the Enterprise Act 2002 to publish documents, as the UK’s competition authority, on how it works to promote competition for the benefit of consumers, both within and outside the UK. As a matter of good practice and maintaining effective working relationships with a range of stakeholders, the CMA already undertakes extensive consultations with stakeholders in respect of its existing statutory duties before publishing advice and information. The CMA will be maintaining this approach in respect of the advice, information and guidance it publishes under Clause 37. In light of this reassurance, and to safeguard the independence of the CMA, the Government do not think it is necessary to compel the CMA to do this, as proposed by the amendment.
Amendment 151 seeks to amend Clause 39 to explicitly require the CMA to consult the UK Government, the devolved Administrations and other relevant persons in preparing or revising its statement of policy in relation to the enforcement of its information-gathering powers. Clause 39 allows the Competition and Markets Authority to take actions in response to non-compliance with the information requests described in Clause 38. To ensure that its penalties regime is fully considered and proportionate, the CMA will be required, as it already is now under its existing statutory functions in relation to the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013, to consult other parties as it sees fit when developing or revising its approach. I can assure noble Lords that, in practice, the UK Government and the devolved Administrations would always be consulted as a duty on the CMA as it stands in the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, asked about compelling devolved Administration Ministers to give information. We can give DAs information notices, but they cannot, of course, receive any penalties for non-compliance.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to all those noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. I did rather enjoy my noble friend’s description of not wishing to overburden the CMA with expectations; I do not think that that is quite the case as yet. As the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayter, Lady Randerson and Lady Finlay, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, have said, we are seeking to ensure that the devolved Administrations are consulted, that consent is sought and that they are respected. That was the main thrust of the argument.
I am disappointed that my noble friend does not find common cause with my amendments. I am very grateful in particular to my noble friend the Duke of Montrose for highlighting the fact that, as he recognised, which is most pertinent, most of the reports will in fact emerge from the devolved Administrations. That is why it is bizarre that the Secretary of State can be excused from speaking to these reports from them so that Parliament itself, along with the devolved Administrations, would be made aware of his arguments and reasons for either accepting or rejecting the reports.
My noble friend’s response begs a question which it will be interesting to explore at subsequent stages. If the Government are not prepared to accept a de minimis rule on what the status of referrals and the reports to be made by the CMA would be, that begs a question about how we define the distortion of the market. I spent six happy months in the European Commission looking at how competition was being distorted in the context of the single market, which we have just left, and what defined a distortion of the market. I shall seek to develop that argument at a later opportunity. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
We come now to the group beginning with Amendment 136. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in the group to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 136
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak also to the other amendments in this group that are tabled in my name. I would have thought that it is clear by now, in particular to those noble Lords who have sat through all three days of our debates in Committee, that I think it is really important that, as we look at how the internal market is working, we need to include consideration of how it impacts on consumers.
For example, the first of these amendments would ensure that where the CMA reviews the effective operation of the market, it would measure how well it was serving consumers. Similarly, in Amendment 139, its annual report should include the impact of the internal market on consumers. In Amendment 142 it should look at the prices, quality of goods and services, and choice for consumers, in addition to the volume of trade between the four parts of the union.
We do not want trade to go rocketing up if it simply means monopolies are growing and choice diminishing, nor simply a rush of goods of shoddy quality, or services that offer no standards and no redress. These amendments do not mean the consumer impact trumps everything else, but that it must be considered in the mix in any report so that decision-makers have the full picture at all times.
Incidentally, the wording in Amendment 142 is a straight lift from Clause 32(4)(c), so it is not particularly innovative, nor surprising to the drafters. It is just saying that if you look at how the internal market is working it must not be just by volumes of trade; it must take into account the various aspects of how a consumer would measure whether the market was serving their needs. I beg to move.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
My Lords, I do not need to say a lot in this group because I have already made it clear that I consider transparency an important part of consumer protection and the way to find out whether consumer interests have been looked after. My Amendment 138 to Clause 31 relates to the provision where any person may request a report, which the CMA can then choose to undertake. My amendment would take away the optionality of publishing the report and says that it must be published.
The Minister said in connection with Administrations that such transparency may prevent forthright exchanges. In this location, it is not advice about regulation that comes under other clauses. This is a general case and if it is reporting—for example, opining on what is or is not a subsidy, discrimination or any of the other matters on which it could be consulted—then the opinions form a body of information that should be publicly available. I would concede safeguards, but they are there anyway in Clause 36 about reports under Part 4. However, I think that the wording should reflect the presumption of publication.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has also tabled amendments about consumer protection. While I have been a bit picky at times or uncertain whether it is the right thing to qualify the internal market with reference to any sector, what she said about consumer protection having to be in the mix is right. Certainly, Amendments 139, 140 and 142 are in the right places to establish that point.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baronesses, Lady Noakes, Lady Jones and Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, have all withdrawn so I now call the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I start by trying to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, that we do not wish to see monopolies increasing and choice and quality declining either.
Amendments 136, 139, 140 and 142 aim to give the monitoring and reporting obligations of the office for the internal market a specific focus on the interests of consumers. Clause 31 enables the office for the internal market within the Competition and Markets Authority to operate general and periodic reporting and monitoring to assess the effective operation of the UK internal market and Parts 1 and 3 of the Bill, including how it operates for consumers. These amendments would limit this function to assessing the operation of the market as it affects consumers.
The role of the office for the internal market is to monitor the health of the UK internal market, including specific regulations, sectors and nations. Moving to a narrower definition of the assessment criteria of Clause 31, from the outset, would hinder its effectiveness in fully delivering this function.
To appreciate this, it is worth setting out the breadth of the areas of monitoring that are in scope. They include emerging trends and developments in the UK internal market, cross-border competition, the nature and level of trade between different parts of the UK and access to goods, services and trade. Monitoring may be undertaken independently by the CMA or upon request by other parties such as the UK Government and the devolved Administrations. Proposals can be submitted to review specific sectors relating to the UK internal market.
In doing its work, the office for the internal market will naturally be able to gather information from consumers, businesses and public bodies. Clause 32(4) also specifies that its advice and reporting can involve consideration of the impact of new regulatory proposals on the pricing, quality and choice of goods and on services for consumers. The interests of consumers are therefore an important concern which is already laid out for the office for the internal market when undertaking its monitoring and reporting functions. So, I can assure your Lordships that it will take into account consumer interests in undertaking its wide monitoring and reporting functions and there is no need for a specific reference to this in Clause 31.
Amendment 138 aims to impose an additional requirement in Clause 31 that reporting on reviews which the CMA undertakes of its own initiative or following a request under subsection (1) on matters relevant to the effective working of the UK internal market must be published. Clause 31(4) already requires that all reports the Competition and Markets Authority produces on matters in subsection (1) be published. Clause 32(10), Clause 33(6)(b) and Clause 34(10) also require publication of the reports on the operation of the UK internal market referred to in those clauses as soon as reasonably practicable. In light of this reasoning, I trust that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, will be assured that the amendments are unnecessary and that the amendment moved should be withdrawn. We are already doing a lot of background thinking on consumer protections; it is not a closed issue.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that reply and particularly for her last few words about ongoing consideration. If these debates feed into that consideration, we will not all have stayed up late for nothing.
I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, for her support. I have not looked at the exact wording or at whether what the Minister said is right, but what the noble Baroness said about transparency is important. Because it is very difficult for individual consumers to take up these big questions, transparency is really important for their advocates—that is, consumer representatives—who are often very underrepresented on all these committees. Transparency is particularly important for those who, from the outside, are trying to ask questions about choice, redress, standards, quality and so on. I hope that those who are thinking about that issue will hear some of the arguments we have made. If they influence the sort of questions that are posed, we will put one little tick there, but the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. Will this be better for consumers when we have the market going? For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 143. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate and anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Amendment 143
“Advice on proposal to make regulations applying Part 1, 2 or 3
(1) Where the CMA is given notice of proposed regulations in accordance with section (Legislation to which market access principles apply)(5), (Services: application of sections 18 to 20)(9) or (Application of Part 3)(3), the CMA must give advice, or make a report, to the Secretary of State with respect to the proposed regulations.(2) The advice or report must (among other things) consider the potential effects on the matters specified in subsection (3)—(a) of any regulatory provision that any relevant national authority has proposed or might reasonably be expected to propose and that would be affected by the making of the proposed regulations, and(b) of the application of Part 1, 2 or 3 of this Act by virtue of the proposed regulations.(3) The matters mentioned in subsection (2) are—(a) the effective operation of the internal market in the United Kingdom, including—(i) indirect or cumulative effects,(ii) distortion of competition or trade, and(iii) impacts on prices, the quality of goods and services or choice for consumers,(b) the following in each part of the United Kingdom—(i) the health and safety of humans, animals and plants,(ii) standards of environmental protection, and(iii) any other aim that any regulatory provision mentioned in subsection (2)(a) would seek to promote. (4) Where the CMA gives advice, or makes a report, to the Secretary of State under this section—(a) it must at the same time send a copy of the advice or report to the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers and the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland;(b) it must publish the advice or report in such manner as it considers appropriate.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the CMA to provide advice or a report to the Secretary of State when notified of proposed regulations applying Part 1, 2 or 3 of the Bill and it specifies matters that the advice or report must consider.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 143 is to some extent a coda to our recent discussions on the role of the office for the internal market and to the amendments I moved last week, which were intended to underscore the primacy of the common frameworks process. They would ensure that the market access principles are triggered only when it proved impossible by consensus for the four Governments to agree a common framework. The triggering would be by bringing forward regulations using the affirmative procedure.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, has withdrawn, so I call Lord Fox.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, my name is on this amendment, and I am pleased to support it and to follow the very clear explanation that we have just heard.
I speak briefly to subsections (3) and (4) of the proposed new clause. The former calls for the report to deal with
“indirect or cumulative effects … distortion of competition or trade”
and, as I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, would be pleased to hear were she still here
“impacts on prices, the quality of goods and services or choice for consumers”
then moves on to consider
“the health and safety of humans, animals and plants … standards of environmental protection”
and other issues that have come forward.
This is another way of trying to do many of the same things that have come through the variety of amendments that your Lordships have heard over the course of the last three days in Committee. All the Ministers have all talked about level playing fields, and the purpose of this legislation is to create a level playing field. We all subscribe to that. The purpose of subsection (4) is to create an informational level playing field, to ensure that all the Governments are receiving the same information and create some transparency so that the outside world—indeed, the companies involved and the people involved—also receives that information.
I am sure that the Minister will stand up in a few minutes and give us very good reasons why this amendment should be withdrawn, but before he does, can he undertake to ensure that the level playing field applies not only to the commercial and trading issues, but also to the information that all the players receive when these decisions are being taken?
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it will be interesting to hear how the Minister responds to this request, which has been well described as a bit of a coda. On the other hand, it also contains teeth, which would be there to be used, if someone wished to. It is important to get this right and understand, if it is rejected, why it is. I look forward to that.
Ministers know that we on the Labour side think that the common frameworks are at the centre of the managed divergence that we want to see and allow to happen across the devolved Administrations. It is important that the process continues and that is at the centre of the Bill, because it is not at the moment; it is hardly mentioned, except in passing. If that is the case, we look for some additional reassurance from the Minister that the powers that might be available to the Government, when they feel the common frameworks are not working, are not used too early or vicariously just to show the devolved Administrations who is in charge. As we were reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, on day one, the Government already have powers to deal with any default they feel is present in the common frameworks. The questions raised by this amendment are important, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank those hardy souls who have stayed for this brief debate. Amendment 143, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, is concerned with a proposed role for the CMA in the laying of regulations on the application of the market access principles. It builds on the earlier Amendments 6, 78 and 104, which concerned the scope within which the UK market access principles proposed in the Bill will apply. I understand that the noble Baroness has tabled this amendment on behalf of the Welsh Government, and I thank the Welsh Government for their positive engagement on the Bill so far. The UK Government look forward to continued and constructive future engagement with them on more aspects of these proposals.
Before I turn to the detail of this amendment, I note the previous discussion on similar amendments also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, which would have narrowed the scope of the market access principles. As I set out then, those amendments would, in combination, prevent the market access principles from applying in time, at the end of the transition period. Earlier, I set out that the lengthy process the amendments put in place before the principles can apply, including the need to exhaust the framework discussions first, would mean a considerable delay in securing business certainty that trade can continue unhindered within the UK’s internal market. Amendment 143 would add an additional layer of bureaucracy to that process.
In our view, it would also problematically risk bringing the CMA into potentially contentious decision-making and mean its role was weighted towards supporting the Secretary of State over the devolved Administration counterparts. This contrasts sharply with our vision for this, which is to ensure that the OIM’s expert reporting is available to all four administrations equally. Above all, however, the advice provided by the OIM will be economic in nature. Its panel will have expertise across intra-UK trade, regulatory impacts on business and competition effects, which is one reason why the Government chose to establish it within the CMA. We had that debate earlier.
The office for the internal market will not be equipped, therefore, to opine on matters related to animal welfare or environmental protection. To lay this obligation on the OIM would bring a significant risk of duplication of the remit of other public bodies, which would cause considerable confusion for the many stakeholders in this field. For these reasons, and the uncertainty and confusion that this and other related amendments would generate for businesses and citizens, the Government regretfully cannot support them, and I hope the noble Baroness is able to withdraw.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for recognising the staying power of some noble Lords, because we have had three days of this debate. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for going through some of the aspects of this amendment in more detail and clearly pointing out that its aim is to establish a level playing field, at every level. There has to be a level playing field, because it is the only way in which the four nations will eventually be able to work together properly.
I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and I am grateful to him for stating that there is a need to have common frameworks at the centre of the Bill. This is something to which we will return on Report, because the Bill, as it is written, does not make this clear at all. In the way it is written at the moment, it looks as if the common frameworks are almost disposable. We need to come back to that.
I am glad that the Government recognise the involvement and commitment of the Welsh Government to have positive discussions, and I know that from the Wales end that that is true. They want to engage and come to a good solution. They want business certainty just as much as anyone else; they want less bureaucracy just as much as anybody else, but they need to know there will be a level playing field and fairness at the end of the day. That is why the common frameworks were so attractive, and why people have worked so hard towards them and are committed to carrying on working towards them.
Having said that and knowing that we need to have further discussions on this and that we will return to this on Report, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.