House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)
The Ministry of Justice has been running a consultation on increasing the retirement age for judges and magistrates. The consultation closed on 16 October. Over 1,000 responses were received and we will respond formally very shortly.
Edward Timpson
My hon. Friend is very aware of my private Member’s Bill to raise the retirement age of magistrates to 75, which has been bumbling along the bottom of the Friday Order Paper for a couple of months now. Bearing in mind that his own consultation on this increasingly urgent matter closed over two weeks ago, is he able to give me and many hundreds of magistrates, who have been forced to give up dispensing justice at a time when we can least afford to lose them, some hope that he will be able to legislate at the earliest opportunity, either through my Bill or through other means, so we can get that on the statute book as soon as we can?
Chris Philp
My hon. Friend is quite right. We are losing something like 1,000 magistrates a year as they turn 70, often very experienced magistrates who still have a great deal to offer the justice system. The consultation had two options: raising the age to 72 or to 75. I strongly commend my hon. Friend for his patience, persistence and perseverance in trying to get his private Member’s Bill through, often in the face of somewhat unfortunate headwinds, on private Members’ Bill Fridays. This is an urgent issue. As soon as we have formulated a response to the consultation, we will certainly be looking to legislate via whatever vehicle is available as quickly as we possibly can.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)
Naturally, I do not disclose the details of private conversations I have with Cabinet colleagues, but they, and everybody else who cares to listen, should be in no doubt that I am, and will continue to be, a very active Lord Chancellor in supporting the rule of law, using the authority of my office to advise, to warn and to encourage. I am absolutely committed, under the oath I took, to my constitutional duty to uphold the rule of law.
Alison Thewliss
The Lord Chancellor said he would resign if he saw the rule of law being broken in a way that he found unacceptable. Ten days ago, more than 800 of some of the most senior legal figures across the UK wrote to the Prime Minister stating that attacks on the legal profession by the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary undermine the rule of law. When he read that letter and saw the signatories, did he think things had got to the stage of being unacceptable?
Robert Buckland
The hon. Lady is eliding two issues. I was talking in early September about the United Kingdom (Internal Market) Bill. Since then, the Government made important concessions in this House to qualify the coming into force of those provisions, and set out examples where, to all intents and purposes, the EU would have acted in clear bad faith. She is eliding the two issues, I hope inadvertently. When it comes to defending the legal profession, I have already publicly stated my steadfast support for the profession that I am honoured to be a part of.
John Nicolson [V]
Former Supreme Court Justice Lord Dyson described the Government’s toxic rhetoric on the legal profession as “irresponsible”, “dangerous” and “inflammatory,” and
“the language of a demagogue.”
The former Director of Public Prosecutions, Lord Macdonald, said the Government’s language is indecent and typifies
“precisely this sort of ugly authoritarianism that the rule of law is called upon to counter.”
What discussions has the Lord Chancellor had with the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary about those very serious allegations from senior lawyers?
Robert Buckland
As I said in response to the previous question, I do not disclose details of discussions I have with Cabinet colleagues. However, I can reassure the hon. Gentleman and everybody else that people should be in no doubt about my steadfast defence not just of the judiciary but of an independent legal profession. We have, of course, seen criticism of lawyers throughout the ages. I respect the views of members of my profession, but we should put things into their full context.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I welcome what the Lord Chancellor said about defending the legal profession and I join him in that. It is an honourable profession and I have always found that those I dealt with at the Bar and solicitors generally left their politics behind when they went to argue the case for their client, which they must do without fear or favour. Equally, will he recognise that when he and I were doing an awful lot of legal aid work in practice, the former leader of the Labour party and then Prime Minister was describing legal aid lawyers as fat cats? No one has entirely clean hands on this and perhaps we all ought to moderate our language when dealing with the professions.
Robert Buckland
The Chair of the Justice Committee puts the matter into its fullest context. Sadly, from Shakespeare onwards, and probably before, lawyers have come in for criticism. The question is how far that goes. We live in a lively democracy and none of us is above criticism, but I say to him that in all my years in practice, I did precisely what he did, which was to leave my politics at home whenever I went into chambers or into the courtroom.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
Our country is a country that prides itself on the rule of law. Without lawyers, the rule of law would collapse. In recent weeks, the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister have launched repeated attacks on lawyers representing asylum seekers. Even after a man launched a knife attack on an immigration solicitor days after the Home Secretary condemned “activist lawyers”, the Government continue to pour petrol on the fire. Does the Lord Chancellor agree with his colleagues’ characterisation of legal professionals as “activist lawyers”, or does he have the courage to publicly condemn that vile rhetoric?
Robert Buckland
The right hon. Gentleman will know that on two occasions in public forums, I have made my defence of lawyers very clear and made it clear that physical and verbal attacks and the other types of threat that we might see are entirely unacceptable. He talks rightly about a very serious case that is ongoing—I do not think it would be right for me to comment directly upon it—but we all know the context within which we operate. I can assure him that I will continue in my resolute defence of lawyers. I will say this: I think there are times when there is a legitimate debate to be had, and I firmly believe that lawyers who are passionate about politics are best advised, if they wish to pursue politics, to do as he and I did, which is to get elected and pursue politics here or in other democratic forums.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP) [V]
The Home Secretary’s remit includes responsibility for making sure that all our communities are kept safe and secure. On 7 September, a man wielding a knife entered an immigration lawyers’ office in London and launched a violent, racist attack. In mid-September, counter-terrorist police from SO15 warned the Home Secretary that it was suspected that a far-right extremist had attempted to carry out a terrorist attack at a solicitors’ firm in London, yet in early October at the Tory party conference, she went on to intensify her anti-lawyer rhetoric. I am not asking the Lord Chancellor to disclose the precise details of private conversations, but can he confirm newspaper reports that prior to her speech, he warned the Home Secretary against using this sort of language? If she will not listen to him, will he consider his position?
Robert Buckland
I am grateful to the hon. and learned Lady for the way in which she put her question, but I have to repeat again that it would be invidious of me to repeat private conversations. She knows that I have been publicly on the record twice in the last month making my position very clear and condemning attacks. I think she would agree that we all need to be careful, as lawyers, about a matter that is currently sub judice and within the criminal process. Therefore, I think it is best not to try to draw direct links at this stage without knowing more about the evidence, but I reassure her that I will continue to do everything I can to make sure that the tone of the debate is right and that passions are cooled when it comes to talking about the important role of lawyers.
Joanna Cherry
I reiterate that I am not asking the Lord Chancellor for the precise details of conversations or, indeed, to comment on an ongoing case. I am asking him about the general advice that he has given to his colleagues in relation to his duties and responsibilities regarding the rule of law, because, after the Home Secretary’s speech, the Prime Minister went even further in his conference speech, declaring that he would prevent
“the whole criminal justice system from being hamstrung by…lefty human rights lawyers and other do-gooders.”
I ask the Lord Chancellor again: are newspaper reports that he spoke with the Prime Minister in advance of that speech correct? And did he tell the Prime Minister about the attack on the immigration lawyers’ offices and the warnings from counter-terrorism police to the Home Secretary about the dangers of inflammatory language against lawyers?
Robert Buckland
I can assure the hon. and learned Lady that the information about the serious allegations about the attack has been communicated to the appropriate Ministers and that everything that I have done and will continue to do is entirely consistent with my duty. Although, sadly, it might be the province of previous and current Prime Ministers to make provocative and sometimes lively comments about the legal profession, it is not the job of the Lord Chancellor to police every jot and tittle. I will continue to make sure that we get the tone of the debate right and that where we can improve on our language, we will do so.
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)
Reoffending is a complex issue, so we need to take a wide-ranging approach. That is why we will invest £20 million in the prison leavers project to test new solutions. We are also making sure that our new prisons have rehabilitation right at their heart. Our programme to build 10,000 additional places, plus two new jails at Wellingborough and Glen Parva, will deliver improved security and better training facilities to help offenders to find employment on release.
Karl MᶜCartney [V]
May I be the first of the magnificent seven to thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer? Reoffending rates have historically been too high, as many of us are aware from our time in court as advocates or on the magistrates bench. Does he agree that working with organisations and businesses such as the Gelder Group at HMP Lincoln, which has been involved in delivering meaningful training courses to equip those spending time at Her Majesty’s pleasure with useful skills, is the right way to provide inmates with a positive restart to their lives after jail time?
Robert Buckland
My hon. Friend, who has considerable experience of the justice system in a former capacity, is right to highlight the work of organisations such as the Gelder Group and its great work in delivering training to prisoners in his county. He is also right to identify how transformative training and work can be for serving prisoners and those who are released, which will take a cross-government approach as well. I was delighted to hear recently about the great work of Agile Homes at Her Majesty’s Prison Leyhill, which is not only training men to build homes but helping them to save for their own homes in future through work.
Stephen Hammond
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his commitment to the investment in the prison leavers scheme. He will know, however, that not all schemes provide rehabilitation and training. Some schemes, such as the so-called Nottingham Knockers scheme, send out men and ladies who are released prisoners to sell overpriced goods to embarrassed customers, providing humiliation but no training. Will he make sure that the investment in the prison leavers scheme has the element of training and rehabilitation that is needed, so that ex-prisoners can have successful lives thereafter?
Robert Buckland
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Without that specialist support, there is a real problem that such matters might become counterproductive. Nottingham Knockers-type activities, as described, are not part of a recognised rehabilitative scheme, so I urge the public to be vigilant. When it comes to authorised schemes, we anticipate spending more than £100 million a year on accredited services.
Tom Hunt
Social media use in prisons essentially amounts to prisoners reoffending before they have even been let out. It sends a poor message about our criminal justice system that could lead to more reoffending. Will the Lord Chancellor commit to doing everything he can to ensure that those who use social media in prison are robustly punished, and will he be open to increasing and reviewing sentences rather than just giving in-house slap-on-the-wrist punishments?
Robert Buckland
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to talk about the potential impact and the shock that can be caused to members of the public if people who are known to be in custody are communicating and using social media, and prisoners who break the rules should face consequences. The internal adjudication system allows the removal of privileges, stoppage of earnings and confinement to cell, and more serious breaches can be referred to the independent adjudicator, but some crimes committed in prison are clearly so serious that governors will continue to refer those matters to the police.
Jack Lopresti
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that prison education in itself is crucial to reducing reoffending?
Robert Buckland
My hon. Friend makes an important point, because the evidence is that the completion of any prison education reduces reoffending by 7.5%. We plan to strengthen rehabilitation further by creating a prisoner education service that will be focused on work-based training and skills. The Prison Service’s new future network is doing great work to build partnerships between prisons and employers to ensure that prisoners are job ready on release.
Shaun Bailey
Reoffending rates in the Black Country currently stand at around 30%, and it is clear that we need to take a local stakeholder approach. What work is my right hon. and learned Friend doing with local stakeholders in the Black Country to ensure that we can bring reoffending down? Will he meet me to discuss a long-term strategy to tackle reoffending in the Black Country?
Robert Buckland
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who speaks with knowledge on this subject, and I would like to thank him and the Mayor, Andy Street, for their continued work on helping to tackle reoffending. We know that offenders typically have complex needs, and the community sentence treatment requirement programme, which went live in the Black Country in June this year, aims to improve access to appropriate mental health and substance misuse services as part of community sentences. Of course I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this and other issues relevant to West Bromwich in detail.
Scott Benton
What assessment has my right hon. and learned Friend made of the likely impact of the reduction of rehabilitation periods on reducing reoffending?
Robert Buckland
My hon. Friend speaks with continuing passion on behalf of his constituents in Blackpool, and he knows that when it comes to improving rehabilitation, employment is a key factor. Reducing the length of time that offences need to be disclosed for most jobs will improve job prospects for people with previous convictions. It not only supports them but protects the public by decreasing the likelihood of reoffending, as there are few better crime-fighting tools than a regular pay cheque.
Virginia Crosbie
In my constituency, Jackie Blackwell, the CEO of the citizens advice bureau, and her team provide support for offenders and their families as they transition out of prison. How is the Lord Chancellor supporting charities such as Fine Cell Work and the Irene Taylor Trust, and Jackie and her team, in this vital work?
Robert Buckland
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her passionate work in this area and her advocacy on behalf of the people of Anglesey-Ynys Môn. I recognise the value that organisations such as the ones she mentions can bring to supporting offenders and families through a challenging time. Our grants programme supports the piloting of new rehabilitation services and the further development of current programmes. I am delighted to be able to say that Ynys Môn’s citizens advice and the Irene Taylor Trust have both benefited from our grants programme, and I look forward to seeing the contributions they make to supporting prison leavers as they make the transition towards a new life.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lucy Frazer)
Access to open prison conditions is not a right, and there is no automatic progression. It is based on a detailed risk assessment. To be considered for open conditions, an individual must generally have served two to three years and have that time left to serve to the earliest release. In addition, a thorough risk assessment must be completed, considering the likelihood of the individual absconding and the risks to the public, as well as whether they are overall suited to the open estate.
Sarah Champion [V]
I ask this question on behalf of my constituent, who I will call Elizabeth. For a decade, she was subjected to brutal abuse by a grooming gang in Rotherham. Because of her tenacity, she managed to secure convictions, including one for an individual for nine years for two counts of child rape against her. After two and a half years, she discovered that he had been downgraded to an open prison. Neither Elizabeth nor the police were consulted about this or notified as part of a risk-assessment process, so one wonders whether it is just prison conduct that contributes to risk assessments. More concerningly, he is potentially up for weekend release, although that is not going to happen because of covid. In Elizabeth’s own words, how effective does the Minister think the release on temporary leave system is? I would appreciate a direct answer.
Lucy Frazer
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for raising this important and tragic case. She has written to me about it, and I hope that she has had the content of my letter back. I know that the service has already apologised to her constituent, and I apologise on its behalf, for not contacting her before the referral to open conditions. The victim liaison officer has made the offender manager aware of conditions that should be imposed on any release on temporary licence and so those will be taken into account should there be any ROTL granted. I am happy to continue to discuss this case with the hon. Lady at any opportune moment.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lucy Frazer)
In March, we faced 2,500 to 3,500 deaths in our prisons, according to Public Health England’s worst-case scenario, and we took decisive action to implement national restrictions to protect our staff, prisoners and the NHS. As the pandemic continues, and in line with the overall Government position, we have now developed a more localised approach, which allows governors to operate regimes that are proportionate to the risk in their local area. Throughout the pandemic, we have continued to recognise the importance of prisoners’ wellbeing and mental health, and we have responded accordingly. We will be thinking again in line with the new national restrictions that will be imposed on Thursday.
Rosie Cooper [V]
Given the likelihood that prisoners will continue to suffer extreme restrictions, resulting in possible damage to mental health, for the whole of this winter and beyond, will the Minister guarantee that additional phone credit for prisoners and free access to video calls for families will continue for the duration of the pandemic?
Lucy Frazer
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for highlighting the measures we put in place during the last wave; as I said, we are very conscious of the impact on reduced liberties in prison. We did make available 1,200 handsets and £5 extra phone credit, and, as she mentioned, we rolled out video calling. Of course, we will continue to consider whether those are appropriate in the next phase of this pandemic.
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab) [V]
Between today and Christmas, thousands of people will be released from prison, many of whom will have spent the past six months locked in cells for 23 hours a day, with education impossible, rehabilitation disrupted and mental health problems rising. They will be released with no job, money or second chance and an increased risk of reoffending. So, Minister, when will we have an action plan, learning the lessons from past months and providing prisoners with support, which, in turn, keeps our communities safer?
Lucy Frazer
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s question, but I would like to challenge her position, because we already have an action plan. We have had the roll-out of a national framework to position 3—many prisons are already operating that. It rolls out the lifting of a number of restrictions, so that we have increased social visits across the estate, as well as offender management and a number of other measures. We are, of course, now reassessing the position and we will be having an action plan, following the imposition of further national restrictions on Thursday.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lucy Frazer)
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the impact of drugs in our prisons, because there is a link between drugs and violence and assaults. That is why we in Government are supporting the Prisons (Substance Testing) Bill, promoted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan). The Bill had its Second Reading last month and will ensure that we can extend the range of substances that can be tested automatically, so that we can respond quicker to new formulations of psychoactive substances.
Henry Smith [V]
I am grateful for that answer. What support can be provided for prisoners to ensure that they can recover permanently from drugs misuse?
Lucy Frazer
We are taking a number of approaches, of which I shall name just one: the rolling out of the NHS Reconnect service, which ensures that those having treatment in prisons can continue that treatment when they go into the community on release. The service includes assistance in making referrals and also provides peer mentoring services. It will ensure that, as my hon. Friend said, offenders permanently stay off drugs on their release.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
Access to justice is a fundamental right and the Government are committed to ensuring that individuals can get the timely support that they need to access the justice system. In 2018-19, we spent £1.7 billion on legal aid for those who needed it. In response to the destruction caused by covid-19, we have introduced measures that include scheduling more than 100 additional Saturday court sittings each month; providing funding to not-for-profit providers of specialist legal advice, such as law centres; and rolling out the cloud video platform to enable remote hearings in all civil, family and criminal courts.
Bambos Charalambous
The Government have failed to provide any significant additional support for legal aid practitioners. The breaking point for many firms is likely to come in 2021, especially as the volume of completions in the Crown court remains low. Many legal aid firms and practitioners urgently need financial support to survive, so will the Government announce new measures to support legal aid lawyers over the second national lockdown?
Alex Chalk
Legal aid lawyers do a magnificent job of ensuring access to justice. I am pleased that the Government have been able to roll out support through furlough and so on, but it is also important that in this second lockdown the courts are continuing. It is really important to note that the magistrates courts are dealing with more cases than they are receiving, and the Government have accelerated CLAR 1, the first criminal legal aid review, which means that defence solicitors, for example, are being paid to review unused material—something that did not happen under a Labour Government.
Daniel Zeichner
We know that too often the courts are clogged up partly because too little has been done to minimise crime in the first place, which is why it is astonishing that in Cambridgeshire the number of police community support officers is to be halved, particularly at a time when they have a key role to play in covid compliance. Will the Minister join me in condemning those cuts and demanding that they be withdrawn?
Alex Chalk
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question, but I hope he will welcome the fact that this Government are recruiting an additional 20,000 police officers. It is those officers who will crack down on crime and ensure that people who rob innocents and cause violence end up getting their just deserts.
Navendu Mishra
Court users deserve the fullest protection from covid while they access justice, as do the staff who serve them, yet there have been an alarming number of outbreaks at courts and tribunals throughout the country, including at Manchester magistrates court and others near my constituency. Does the Minister agree that by failing to consult properly with the staff union, the Public and Commercial Services Union, over risk assessments, the courts service risks making a bad situation much worse?
Alex Chalk
I pay tribute to the staff of Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service whom I had the privilege of meeting when I went to Isleworth Crown court. It is the staff who are keeping courts running in extremely difficult circumstances: they are the ones who have ensured that the perspex is there, that the jury retirement rooms are properly socially distanced and that the jury assembly points are well administered. I pay tribute to them for what they are doing, and it is a testament to their achievements that the courts will continue to do what they do best: dispensing justice in our country.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab) [V]
Equality before the law is a fundamental right, but for the vast majority of people in the country who are not eligible for legal aid, that right does not actually exist. Facing a difficult winter, even greater numbers will find themselves trapped in the justice gap of being forced to choose between legal representation and the basic essentials, as 94% of working single parents—mainly women—already do. What is the Minister going to do to ensure that the rights that we hold dear actually exist in practice?
Alex Chalk
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that ensuring access to justice is of fundamental importance, which is why, when we saw that the law centres, for example, were going to have difficulties during this pandemic, we answered the call and provided them with the funding. I was also able to speak to a great number of them to reassure them about the work that they were able to continue doing. That was the right response to take, and we are proud of the actions that we took.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
We continue to make significant progress on criminal courts’ recovery. Since August, magistrates courts have consistently completed more cases than they are receiving. In the Crown court, millions of pounds have been invested in perspex screens, technology and Nightingale courts to enable thousands of hearings to be listed each week. Significant progress, too, has been made to accelerate the roll-out of the section 28 pre-recorded cross-examination service to support alleged victims to give their best evidence.
Chi Onwurah
Rape is a violent and devastating crime, putting enormous pressure on its victims, who may view the trial of their rapist as a second violation. Across the north-east, rape victims are waiting months and months for their trials to start and Northumbria police and crime commissioner Kim McGuinness tells me that that is putting enormous strain on their mental health. What support is the Minister providing, specifically to victim support organisations such as the sexual exploitation hub in my constituency, and what is he doing to make sure that more trials can take place?
Alex Chalk
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise this point, and I am grateful to her for doing so. We take this extremely seriously. Of the £76 million that we allocated to victims’ organisations, a full £20 million was rolled out through PCCs to provide the community support that she refers to, but that did not emerge from a clear blue sky. We were also providing money for independent sexual violence advisers to support victims as they progress through the criminal justice system. The critical thing is to keep the courts going during this pandemic. That is what we are doing when others might not have done, and we are proud of what Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service is providing.
Dame Diana Johnson [V]
In Hull North, levels of antisocial behaviour in areas such as Orchard Park, Beverley Road, Pearson Park, Princes Avenue and Kingswood have been growing, and the perpetrators behave as if they were beyond the reach of the justice system and the law. What discussions has the Minister had with his counterpart in the Home Office about a specific strategy for communities where antisocial behaviour is growing to work with victims affected by court delays, and will he meet me to discuss what more can be done?
Alex Chalk
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. Let the message go out in Kingston upon Hull that people who want to perpetrate antisocial behaviour should understand that the courts are operating, that the police are there to make arrests and that justice will be done. That is what is being delivered during this pandemic, thanks to the hard work of plenty of people. On her final point, of course, I would be delighted to meet her to discuss this matter further.
Rushanara Ali
I hope the Minister will meet with me as well to discuss this matter. The delays, as my colleagues have already said, have meant that victims of serious violent crime, such as rape, sexual abuse and other kinds of crime, are facing a double threat: first of the crime and then of the delay. That is causing huge trauma. In the context of half a million unheard cases, can the Minister specifically state how many of the 200 additional court venues have been provided and how much additional funding has been provided to deal with the additional crisis caused by coronavirus?
Alex Chalk
Let me deal with this point about courts. Because so much money has gone into providing perspex and so on, the number of courtrooms available for trials is higher than the baseline. That is important. Even before this pandemic, we had increased by 50% the amount of funding that was going into rape support centres, because we recognised the importance of providing that support. We will continue to support individuals through independent sexual violence advisers and through providing that capacity in our court system so that victims can get the justice they deserve.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
The court backlog is not just a number; it is a tragedy for every victim who is awaiting justice. The Tory PCC for Hertfordshire wrote to Ministers back in June to say that victims were pulling out of trials and that criminals were walking away scot-free as a result. How many crimes need to go unpunished before Ministers will come before the House with a plan backed up by targets and resource so that criminals are brought to justice?
Alex Chalk
I regret that the hon. Gentleman has not read the plan that has been published, because if he had, he would know that in the magistrates courts the backlog is being eroded, because disposals have exceeded receipts since the end of July, and that the number of trial courts is higher than the baseline. If he had read the report, he would know that. This Government are keeping courts running and ensuring that justice will be served.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)
We have made a very careful assessment of the safety of all our court buildings. I am pleased to say that courts across the country are opening and operating regardless of the tier they may have been in previously and regardless of the altered circumstances that are commencing on Thursday. The courts are open, they are operating, and justice is being done.
Nick Smith
In firebreak Wales, the justice system has had to operate under really difficult circumstances lately, and I pay credit to those who have worked so hard to adapt. However, figures shared with me by the chief constable in Gwent point to significant delays in first hearings and a 57% increase in witnesses being supported locally. To help deal with this, will the Government prioritise hearings for the most serious crimes before they get lost in another backlog?
Chris Philp
I share the hon. Gentleman’s thanks to HMCTS staff and the judiciary and magistrates who have been keeping our courts running in what have been difficult circumstances. The cases that are prioritised are decided by the judges, who take responsibility for listing. However, cases such as domestic violence protection orders, which are often very urgent, are certainly being prioritised, and the most serious cases, particularly where there are vulnerable victims—we have heard about rape cases already this morning—are being listed at the earliest possible opportunity.
As the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), said, in the magistrates court we are now disposing of more cases than are being received. That has been the case since the end of July, so the outstanding caseload is coming down. As for Crown court jury trials, we now have more Crown court courtrooms for jury trials open and operating than was the case before the pandemic, so we are expecting similarly encouraging progress to start feeding through with regard to those trials as well.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
In recent times we have seen outbreaks of covid in different courts around the country, despite the claims and answers to my parliamentary questions that everything possible is being done to keep them safe. The Government have been found out and hit with fines by the Health and Safety Executive for what can only be described as a catalogue of failures at Westminster magistrates court, including risk assessment found not to be suitable and sufficient. Then there were issues with social distancing, staff training and management arrangements. Can the Minister put his hand on his heart and honestly say that other courts would not fail the HSE test, and will he agree that it is now time to work with staff representatives to put things right, and carry out the national risk assessment demanded today by the Criminal Bar Association?
Chris Philp
A huge amount of work has happened over the past six months to risk-assess different courts, working with Public Health England and Public Health Wales, and talking to union representatives as well. That is how we have got almost every court in the country now up and running in a socially distanced way. For example, we have installed perspex screens to make sure that jurors are separated from one another, and we are making sure that there are jury retiring rooms where jurors can space out. There is extremely frequent cleaning happening throughout every courtroom. What is important is that justice is done, justice is delivered, and it is done safely, and that is precisely what is now happening.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lucy Frazer)
The female offenders strategy launched two years ago recognises a different approach to female offenders, and we are making good progress. We initially invested £5.1 million in funding to 30 women’s services across England and Wales, and we are currently in the process of allocating a further £2.5 million for this year to improve women’s centres’ financial viability.
Ellie Reeves [V]
There are over 2,200 more women in prison compared with 25 years ago, and 82% have been sentenced for non-violent offences. A second lockdown will hit them hard, so can the Minister confirm what steps are being taken to give women in prison virtual access to their children? How many pregnant women are currently in custody? How many women have been released as part of the early release scheme?
Lucy Frazer
We are very conscious of the impact of lockdown on our female estate, and we will be looking very carefully, as we look at the new framework for the new provisions on Thursday, at how we can in particular protect women in the female estate, recognising the significant mental health issues they face. We are very conscious of the need to ensure family contact, and all our female estate have access to virtual calls. The hon. Member is aware, I hope, of our recent mother and baby unit review in relation to operations to look after pregnant women and women with young children on the estate. That is currently in a consultation phase. We have set out a number of measures, including personalised access and plans to help those across our female estate who are pregnant or who have dependants.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)
Throughout the pandemic, dedicated public servants across the justice system have continued delivering vital services. We have implemented contingency measures to ensure that hearings could continue safely and securely, and we now have 16 Nightingale courtrooms. We have also implemented a national framework for dealing with covid in our prisons and secured greater access to testing in order to manage outbreaks.
As the Prime Minister outlined at the weekend, it is now necessary for England to enter into a new set of national restrictions so that we can stem the spread of the virus, protect our NHS and save lives, but essential public services will stay open and that of course includes courts and prisons. We are well prepared to respond to the current restrictions, having acquired valuable knowledge from the first wave of the virus, with contingency plans in place to manage risks throughout the winter. I am sure the whole House will want to join me in expressing gratitude to all our justice heroes working in prisons, probation and the courts, who will continue to go the extra mile.
Geraint Davies [V]
Can the Justice Secretary give an example of a military operational decision that has been changed as a result of court action or the threat of court action, and an example of a vexatious claim that has not been dismissed by the courts, with costs?
Robert Buckland
I take it that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Bill that will be debated this afternoon, which contains important provisions to get the balance right between the need to make sure that our armed services are supported properly and their contribution is valued and the need to make sure that, like everybody else, no one is above the law. There have at times in years gone by been a number of examples where members of our gallant armed services have been unfairly exposed to the potential of legal action, which has caused real hurt, disquiet and genuine concern among the general public. It is right that in the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill we take corrective action to get that balance more finely adjusted.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
A decade of cuts, court closures and mishandling of the pandemic has created a backlog in the Crown courts of nearly 50,000 cases. It could reach 195,000 by 2024. The Courts Service says we need at least an extra 200 venues to fill the gap, but on 19 October 2020, the Judicial Office confirmed only five Nightingale courts were hearing jury trials. That is a failure of epic proportions, leading to thousands of victims of serious crime being denied justice. Has the Lord Chancellor failed to ask for enough resources to get justice moving, or has he been denied it by the Treasury?
Robert Buckland
The right hon. Gentleman is wrong on all fronts. First, we secured an extra £80 million of funding from the Treasury to deal specifically with covid court recovery. That came on top of the largest investment and increase in court maintenance in 20 years, including during his stewardship. That has resulted in the scaling up of courts, so that today we have 255 courtrooms hearing jury trials, which is ahead of the target I had set for the end of October. We will go further. We have already opened 19 courtrooms under the Nightingale court scheme. This is not a story of failure. This is a story of success and hard work on the part of everybody in the court service. The projections that he mentioned are based upon some pretty inaccurate predictions that do not bear the closest scrutiny.[Official Report, 9 November 2020, Vol. 683, c. 8MC.]
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
Robert Buckland
Like my hon. Friend, I am very grateful to the magistracy in County Durham and elsewhere for the part they have played in keeping our system working. All victims—none more so than those he mentions—deserve prompt justice. That is why I am grateful to every part of the criminal justice system that is working so hard to ensure case progression. To that end, we have made available £1 million to improve the recruitment process. We reviewed our planned recruitment in line with changing demands on our magistracy and are consulting on proposals to increase the mandatory retirement age of all judicial office holders.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Robert Buckland
The hon. Lady can be reassured that these issues are being examined at the moment. The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer), and I take a particular interest in the threshold in the change from youth status to adult. It applies in a multiplicity of different ways. I can assure her, for example, that people who have attained the age of 18 are dealt with as youths for the purposes of sentencing, but the position is complex, and we are looking at all the ramifications of it, including the one that she raised.
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lucy Frazer)
I would like to thank all the staff who have been working so hard at this particularly challenging time. We have started to routinely test staff, and we are providing personal protective equipment, including medical-grade face masks.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
Robert Buckland
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising an important and enduring issue. I, too, similarly pay tribute to the work that law centres and other organisations play in administering important advice and those first steps that are so crucial sometimes in actually dealing effectively with problems that can be averted. Already as part of pre-covid work, we had allocated £5 million for early legal help. I know the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), is working tirelessly to evolve a scheme of early legal support and advice. It is something that I passionately endorse as well. We will continue to develop that and to achieve the ends that I think both she and I share.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The female offender strategy rightly recommends women’s centres over custodial sentences, but the funding committed as part of the strategy ran out in March. The Minister earlier actually referred to more funding for women’s services, but I am talking about women’s centres, and I have been unsuccessfully trying to set up one in Bath. Will the Government commit to providing a significant amount of core funding for women’s centres?
Lucy Frazer
If I could correct the hon. Lady, the £2.5 million that we have committed this year for the female offender strategy will be going directly to women’s centres where they bid for it. I am very happy to talk to her about her particular centre, but the £2.5 million is specifically to help sustain the women’s centres to continue to support our female offenders.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
Robert Buckland
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, and I know she works closely with support services and victims groups in her constituency. We are committed to ensuring that victims like the ones she mentioned receive the support they need. We have delivered £22 million of emergency funding to support victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence. That has reached more than 540 charities in the frontline so far. Indeed, following the No. 10 hidden harms summit, which I took part in, we are delivering an action plan that puts victims at the centre of the criminal justice system and, indeed, our courts recovery programme. We are strengthening the victims code to establish a clearer set of rights for victims.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) [V]
Robert Buckland
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and he can be reassured that, throughout the pandemic, domestic abuse cases appearing in a magistrates court and indeed in the Crown court have been given the priority that we all expect them to be allocated. We have seen, of course, a big demand spike in the covid crisis for domestic abuse support services, which is why the package that I referred to in the previous answer—the £25 million package, of which £22 million has already been allocated to support groups dealing with domestic abuse and sexual violence—is already making a real difference to victims and those affected by domestic abuse.
Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Robert Buckland
I am sure the hon. Gentleman would support very much the Government’s moves to scale up the number of police officers. In Cleveland, the numbers are already rising in an encouraging way. I note the point that he makes about particular custodial facilities. Of course I will discuss the matter with him. He will know that it is vital that we maintain local justice, but at the same time make sure that we use remote technology as well in order to get cases on as quickly as possible and to deliver justice to victims.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
Robert Buckland
My hon. Friend has worked tirelessly on this very sensitive and sad case, and I pay tribute to him for his hard work on behalf of his constituents. I am sure that this delay is causing them additional distress, and of course I will be happy to meet him. He knows that, sadly, the Government cannot compel the production of documents for a coroner investigation from the Egyptian authorities, but my officials have indeed contacted the senior coroner in the local area for more details and an update, and I understand that the senior coroner has now written to the Egyptian prosecutor general.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
Robert Buckland
The hon. Lady raises a very serious case in her constituency, and I am sure that her colleagues in the Scottish Government, who of course have always had responsibility for these matters, Scotland being a separate criminal jurisdiction, will consider this very carefully. I am concerned to hear that in that local instance, despite best intentions, there does not seem to be that reach into the community to give people the speedy comfort and the confidence that they deserve. May I say that south of the border we are working very hard to enhance and improve community treatment requirements to deal with drug addiction and alcohol abuse and, indeed, to try and get to the root cause of some of this reoffending that causes misery to communities such as the one the hon. Lady serves?
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
Lucy Frazer
I would be very happy to visit when we are allowed to do so, and certainly before then to discuss the issues in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and I pay tribute to the work of LandWorks in his area. The issue of universal credit is fundamental, as is getting people into homes, and I work very closely with my counterpart at the Department for Work and Pensions and the Secretary of State at the Department, along with the Lord Chancellor, to ensure that prison leavers can access universal credit in a timely way on their release, and we are doing other work in relation to their getting a job and a home.
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
As we enter another lockdown with severe restrictions on prisoners, will the Minister consider the impact of the very serious other harms that the minimising covid restrictions risk causing to prisoners, prison officers and their families?
Lucy Frazer
My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. We are very conscious of the impact that the very restrictive conditions we have imposed will have on those in our custody and care. Since restrictions were lifted over the summer, prison staff across the country have worked very hard to open up the estate. Since the end of the previous lockdown we have reintroduced visits in every prison, and 119 of our prisons are operating at stage 3 of the national framework; this reintroduced key work, education and offender management activities where it was appropriate to do so. As we enter a new phase, we are thinking very carefully about the balance between security and resistance to the virus and the mental health needs of our prisoners.
Mr Speaker
In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I suspend the House for three minutes.
Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
Before I call the shadow Chancellor to ask an urgent question, I have a brief statement to make. Motion No. 9 on today’s Order Paper extends the proxy voting scheme to allow proxies for hon. Members present on the precincts of the Palace. If the motion is passed, I intend to introduce the new scheme with effect from tomorrow, including hon. Members who make their designation before 9.30 am tomorrow. To apply for a proxy, Members must email proxyvote@parliament.uk with the name of their nominated proxy. On subsequent days, notice will be given before the House rises on the preceding sitting day, or 3 o’clock on a non-sitting Friday.
Lockdown: Economic Support
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on economic support available to individuals and businesses during and after the recently announced lockdown.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Steve Barclay)
Yesterday, the Prime Minister set out why we are introducing new measures to tackle coronavirus.
Mr Speaker
Order. Toby, I do not need this all the way through. Please, I want to get on with this statement. I have granted the UQ, and I do not need Back Benchers chirping.
Steve Barclay
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister set out why we are introducing new measures to tackle coronavirus. This decision is not one we would wish to take, but it responds to the soaring infection rate.
Just as we have a responsibility to protect lives, we must also safeguard livelihoods. That is why the Government have provided unprecedented levels of financial support throughout this crisis, in a package described by the International Monetary Fund as
“one of the best examples of co-ordinated action globally”.
This package includes an extension to the coronavirus job retention scheme, where employees will receive 80% of their usual salary up to a maximum of £2,500, while employers need only pay national insurance and pension contributions. We will provide more support to the self-employed. We are increasing the self-employed income support scheme grant from 40% to 80% in November. This boosts the total grant from 40% to 55% of trading profits from November to January, up to a total of £5,160, aligning it with the furlough scheme. In addition, homeowners hit by the pandemic can continue to claim a six-month mortgage holiday, and businesses that are required to close can receive non-repayable grants worth up to £3,000 a month. In total, these grants are worth over £1 billion a month.
We are also planning to extend the existing business loan schemes and the future fund to the end of January, as well as making it possible to top up bounce back loans. Local authorities will also receive £1.1 billion to support businesses more broadly, and up to £500 million to support the local public health message through the contain outbreak management fund. We will also uplift the Barnett guarantee this week to give Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland further certainty over their up-front funding.
These measures build on the Government’s economic package that now totals over £200 billion. They will provide security to millions of people while giving businesses the flexibility to adapt and plan, and they underline our unrelenting focus on listening and responding to the damaging path of this virus.
Anneliese Dodds
Thank you very much for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. The circuit breaker that Labour proposed three weeks ago would have been shorter and more effective, so less damaging to jobs and businesses, than the Government’s last-minute, but lengthy, lockdown. The cost of that Conservative delay will be counted in lives and livelihoods, so was it the Chancellor who vetoed the circuit breaker? Why did he tell the Welsh Government that it was impossible to extend furlough, and why did he dismiss those in the north who said his plans would lead to hardship?
I heard from one restaurant about the strain caused by this panicked, last-minute approach. As rumours of a lockdown circulated on Friday, staff wiped away tears before putting on a brave face to customers. They did not know whether, in the following week, they would be working as normal, facing redundancy, being paid at 67% of their normal wages or being paid at 73%.
Similarly, the self-employed endured intransigence and then rumour, before a last-minute announcement yesterday that still leaves many people with nothing. Businesses need to know what support they will receive if their area faces further restrictions on the other side of lockdown, but the Prime Minister said yesterday that they will not find out until just before those restrictions are imposed.
How can any business plan on that basis? How can people cope with that level of insecurity? The lack of any plan for economic support is making a very, very difficult situation even worse. Will the Chancellor and his Ministers finally get a grip, and set out the plan for the next six months? Will they indicate how the different scenarios facing us will be dealt with, not retrospectively, or at the last minute, or once businesses have gone bust and jobs have already been lost, but in advance? Will they set out a plan for support if the lockdown is extended, or if some regions or devolved nations remain under restrictions for longer? Finally, will I continue having to drag Government Ministers here week after week as this Government stumble from one crisis to the next?
Steve Barclay
The hon. Lady started by saying that the circuit breaker would have been shorter, but those on her Front Bench have repeatedly said, when interviewed, that a circuit breaker would have to be repeated.
The deputy chief medical officer was clear that an earlier national lockdown would not have been appropriate, because at the time, the path of the virus was very slow in certain areas, such as the south-west, so the economic damage would have been disproportionate. I might have expected to hear the hon. Lady’s argument from some Members of the House, but it is surprising that the economic spokesperson for the Opposition was willing to see that economic damage. [Interruption.] She chunters, but I am simply quoting the deputy chief medical officer, whose advice was that a lockdown would have been the wrong action to take at that time. I am pointing to economic damage, which she seems to see as trivial and something to be disregarded.
The hon. Lady then claimed that the Government had in some way dismissed certain parts of the United Kingdom. I gently point out that furlough was not ended; it continued to the end of October, and has now been extended. Furlough has continued in all parts of the United Kingdom without any gap in its provision.
The hon. Lady asks whether the Government have a plan in place. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor came to the House on 24 September to set out our winter plan for jobs. It included the kickstart scheme, which is up and running, and provides much-needed training to our constituents across the country. While setting out his winter plan, he said candidly that if the pathway of the virus changed, the Government would listen and adapt, and that is exactly the action that we have taken.
Finally, somewhat strangely, the hon. Lady said that she needs to “drag” Ministers to the Chamber to set out their approach. [Interruption.] She is repeating the point. Mr Speaker, I thought the Prime Minister was here yesterday to give a statement to the House. It is somewhat strange to say, the day after he did that, that Ministers have to be dragged to the Chamber to give updates on the position.
Mr Speaker
Order. I decide whether we have an urgent question, and I am sure that the Minister is not questioning my judgment on that.
Steve Barclay
Mr Speaker, I hope that you know me well enough to feel that I would never do that; I clarify that for the record in case any other impression was given. My point was that the diligence of Ministers in updating the House was demonstrated by the Prime Minister yesterday in his statement.
Mr Speaker
Order. We will leave it at this, but it is no good to have something played out through the press on Saturday and Sunday, so that on Monday everybody already knows about it, and it is no shock. That is why the right hon. Gentleman could not judge whether to have a UQ. We will leave it there.
Steve Barclay
We have a plan set out—the winter plan. We have always demonstrated that we will listen and adapt; that is what the Government are doing. They are setting out a comprehensive package of support to protect as many jobs and livelihoods as possible.
Mr Speaker
Let us enter Central Devon with the Chair of the Select Committee on the Treasury, Mel Stride.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con) [V]
I broadly welcome the new measures that the Government have brought forward to support jobs and, in particular, the increase in support for the self-employed from 40% to 80% under the self-employment income support scheme arrangements. However, as my right hon. Friend will know, the Treasury Committee produced a report earlier this year in which we identified more than a million individuals—the self-employed in particular—who were missing out on support. Will he update the House on whether, under the new measures, any of those identified in the report will receive support where they were not before? If the answer is no, why is that the case?
Steve Barclay
My right hon. Friend is right to point to the fact that some were not covered. In fact, that has been an area of much debate within the House. He will understand that there is a distinction to draw between employees who, because their details had not been notified to HMRC at the cut-off point last time, were excluded, and those who because of the furlough extension will be included moving forward, so some of that population cohort are covered.
In respect of the self-employed cohort, my right hon. Friend will be aware that we have so far offered over £30 billion of support to the self-employed, which is generous by international standards. He knows, however, that, within that, there are different cohorts. There is the cohort relating to company directors, where the issue remains the same: what is dividend income and what is not. He will know that another part of that group is those earning above £50,000, and we made a decision to target support below that threshold. He will know that some people are self-employed but that is not the majority of their income—less than 50% is through their being self-employed—and that we targeted funding at those for whom self-employment was their main provision. So there are different cohorts within the excluded population, but those who were employed will be covered by the furlough extension.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The UK Government continue to lurch around in absolute chaos, with a Prime Minister forced, due to the leak of his plans, to come on TV and, after hours of delay, squeezing in before “Strictly” to announce an English lockdown and the extension of furlough just before it was due to expire. We have been telling them for months that it would need to be extended. While I welcome the action, this late extension will be of absolutely no comfort to those who have already lost their jobs due to the Government’s incompetence, or to the businesses in my constituency who have done their utmost to support their staff and now have no idea where they stand. It is no comfort either to those who continue to be ignored. Those excluded from the initial support schemes face a bleak winter ahead. Will the Chief Secretary ensure that they do not lose out again? There are still many sectors of the economy that cannot go back to normal.
The overwhelming sense, for many of us, is that this is not a Union of equals. When Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland and parts of the north-east of England asked for furlough to be extended this autumn, they were told that the Chancellor’s magic money tree had lost all its leaves. Yet, when the Prime Minister decided that England needed to go into urgent lockdown, it turned out that the magic money tree was in fact an evergreen.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister gamed his answers on furlough in the House in a pathetic and transparent attempt to make the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) look good, but he was contradicted on Sky News this morning by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government who said it would be up to the Chancellor to decide if furlough would be available to the devolved nations after 2 December. In an act of further disrespect, the Chancellor is not even here to answer this question. Will the Chief Secretary therefore be clear and honest about whether the Treasury will make furlough and SEISS available at 80% to any part of these islands that requires that after 2 December?
Steve Barclay
The hon. Lady started by saying that we were disrespecting parts of the United Kingdom. I was on a call yesterday with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the First Secretary of State and the Home Secretary and others, with the First Minister of Scotland, the First Minister of Wales and the Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland as part of our regular dialogue. That continues across the United Kingdom and, indeed, at official level. The chief medical officers liaise extremely closely together.
Secondly, the hon. Lady’s various grievances are somewhat both surprising and disappointing when the Government have listened and introduced, for the first time, an up-front Barnett guarantee that has provided the Scottish Government with £7.2 billion of funding at an earlier point than would traditionally be the case, recognising the volatility of the situation with covid. It would be good for her to recognise that that is unprecedented and different. Again, on the call yesterday, I signalled to the First Minister that this week we would update with a further uplift—following our unprecedented action—to give more clarity on the Barnett guarantee and the consequentials flowing from that.
Thirdly—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady keeps chuntering. Many of the schemes are UK-wide ones: we have extended the loans, the coronavirus job retention scheme and the self-employed income support scheme. Those can be delivered through the broad shoulders that the United Kingdom offers. It is true that, through that capacity to act as one United Kingdom, we have been able to protect up to 1 million jobs in Scotland. It is important that we work together. That is why we were engaging with the Scottish Government yesterday. More can be achieved if the Scottish Government and the UK Government work together. That is how, to date, we have protected up to 1 million jobs, and that is the best way forward.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
As we have just seen, uncertainty in Scotland is always a basis for grievance for the SNP. My right hon. Friend can end that uncertainty simply by clarifying that, should the scientific evidence demand a further lockdown in Scotland, the furlough scheme at 80% will be available to protect jobs in Scotland.
Steve Barclay
My right hon. Friend is right to pick up on that grievance culture. Through our ability to act on a UK basis, we have been able to offer the unprecedented support that we have to date. Furlough has always been a UK-wide scheme and, as the Prime Minister said, the Government will always be there to provide support to all parts of the United Kingdom.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
Last month, the Government disgraced themselves by voting against extending free school meals into the holidays for our most vulnerable children. Even if the Government will not reverse that cruel decision, will they at least follow Action for Children’s recommendations and extend free school meals for all families in receipt of universal credit?
Steve Barclay
The hon. Lady raises a serious issue and one that all Members of the House care deeply about, but it is also important to look at the package as a whole. We have put in an additional £9 billion of welfare support, recognising the increasing pressures. That includes the £20 uplift on universal credit, the lifting of the minimum income guarantee and the various other measures in the package. Above all, retaining jobs and getting people back into the labour market is the best way that we can protect people from poverty.
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con) [V]
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s positive response on the additional measures of economic support. Does he agree that our Government have committed one of the most comprehensive and generous economic support packages anywhere in the world, worth more than £200 billion? That is the right approach in these difficult times. He rightly quotes the IMF in saying that our response is
“one of the best examples of coordinated action globally”.
Is it not also important that the IMF praised our response for holding down unemployment?
Steve Barclay
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for that. He is quite right to pick up on the IMF report and the comments of the director of the IMF. It is worth reminding the House exactly what the IMF director said: that the UK’s economic support package is
“one of the best examples of coordinated action globally”.
I very much agree with my right hon. Friend that that speaks to the comprehensive package that the Chancellor has put in place.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that funding would be available for the furlough scheme in the devolved nations, not just now but for the future. As the Minister has just pointed out, furlough is a UK-wide scheme, needed in all parts of the United Kingdom, not only at the behest of the Chancellor. This morning, however, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government said that it would be a matter for the Chancellor, not the Prime Minister. Will the Minister confirm today exactly what the situation is? Will he tell businesses in Gower and across the United Kingdom what the situation is? Also, will he tell us who is in charge, the Chancellor or the Prime Minister?
Steve Barclay
We have already extended the furlough for the rest of this month, and, as the PM said yesterday, we will always be there for all parts of the United Kingdom.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
Some of the most difficult conversations I have had this year have been with Stroud’s wedding and events industries and their supply chains—great businesses such as Eastington Park, Stonehouse Court, Elmore Court and Bisley Hire. They are usually thriving, but they basically feel ignored. They have had a stop-start situation this year and are now nervously looking at next year, having lost a year’s revenue. Will my right hon. Friend commit to looking at this valuable sector again to see what support we can make available, and will he meet me to discuss this matter?
Steve Barclay
I am always very happy to meet my hon. Friend. She is right to talk about a sector that has been particularly hit by the impact of the covid pandemic. She will be aware that, as part of the comprehensive package of support, such sectors qualify for the extension to the job retention scheme and the cash grants of up to £3,000 per month to businesses that are closed. I also point her to the £1.1 billion of additional funding that has been allocated to councils, which is a key part of the business support at their discretion that they can allocate to those businesses acutely hit in their authorities.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) [V]
Businesses across my constituency and across the country made irreversible decisions last week based on advice from the Government that furlough was going to end on Saturday. They now find themselves in a situation where furlough has been extended, but only for a month, and there is a complete lack of clarity still today about the devolved nations. Will the Chief Secretary please urge the Chancellor to extend furlough through to the spring—covid-19 is not going away at the end of this month—and can he give us a simple, one-word answer? Is furlough going to be available to the devolved nations, or is he going to continue this uncertainty, which is damaging the Union?
Steve Barclay
At the risk of repeating myself, I refer the hon. Lady to the reply I gave earlier, but she did make a specific point about those who may have recently been made redundant. [Interruption.] Again, the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) chunters from a sedentary position. The hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) made a specific point about those recently made redundant and I was just coming on to answer that precise point. Employees notified by real-time information submission to HMRC on or before 30 October are eligible for the furlough extension, but employees employed as of 23 September, which is the day of the job support scheme announcement, and notified to HMRC by RTI on or before that date who have since been made redundant can be re-hired. In answer to the hon. Lady’s question, the timing is important, but the point is that people can be re-hired as part of the furlough extension.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I am glad that the Government agree that where, by law, they stop people working and earning a living, they should compensate them. Will the Government look again at the terms of the scheme for the self-employed—there are restrictions on several categories of self-employed who have no other means of earning their living and no large company support—and be more generous? Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need all those self-employed people to be ready to return to work to get some kind of recovery going soon, because the economy is in deep trouble?
Steve Barclay
I agree with my right hon. Friend that we need to ensure that the economy is able to bounce back quickly. That is why we have provided over £13 billion of support to the self-employed, which by international comparisons—I know my right hon. Friend looks at international comparisons—he will see is extremely generous. I have set out previously in the House part of the operational difficulties, for example with owner-directors in terms of what is dividend income and what is not. The point is that we have set out a generous self-employment income support scheme, but we need to deliver that operationally in a way that meets the tests set by, for example, the Public Accounts Committee, which has asked whether we have the right level of controls in place, given the speed at which these schemes were deployed.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The latest ill-advised lockdown is going to present an enormous burden for the economy in terms of lost tax revenue, additional Government spending and reduced GDP. It is right that since the economic pain is being imposed by the Government, those affected should be compensated for the pain that they will suffer. I welcome the Chief Secretary’s assurance that the furlough scheme will apply across the whole United Kingdom, but can he tell us what Barnett consequentials will be received by Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales for the business support grant that he announced in this package?
Steve Barclay
The right hon. Gentleman raises a valid and fair point. As I said on my call with the First Minister yesterday, I hope to be in a position to update her this week about the additional Barnett guarantee that we can give. The right hon. Gentleman is right to point to the consequentials that flow from the £1.1 billion of additional local authority funding that the Chancellor set out. He will also have seen, for example, the additional support that the UK Government gave to Transport for London, the rail support measures that we have provided, and so on. Those are the issues on which the Barnett consequentials will be shaped. He is right that it is important for them to have sight of that. That is why we have taken the unprecedented decision to give that up-front guarantee, and I hope to be able to give an update on that later this week.
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)
My heart is breaking for the once-thriving businesses across the Windsor constituency and the country. I have met owners of pubs, clubs, restaurants, bars, sports venues, salons and retail outlets. They cannot magically become online businesses. I have spoken to business owners who have literally been in tears on the phone and in person when they think about their staff and their livelihoods.
The new proposed lockdown will prove fatal to many such businesses. There are many questions about the strategy, the need for a lockdown and the generous support the Government are trying to give, but I will contain my question to this: how do the Government intend to protect retail businesses that are forced to close from the increasing dominance of online retailers, which often benefit from lower business rates and taxes than their terrestrial partners?
Steve Barclay
My hon. Friend has a deep understanding of business from his career prior to coming to the House. He is absolutely right to talk of the personal consequences, the commitment that people who set up and run businesses have made, and the devastating impact of the virus and its consequences. On the tax position, he will know from his time in the House that those are questions for the Budget and for my right hon Friend the Chancellor.
On the support that has been given to businesses, I direct my hon. Friend to the extension of the loans that we have given to help businesses with their cash flow, which recognises that the biggest cost for many businesses is the fixed cost of their property. That includes the up to £3,000 a month grant for those with rateable values above £51,000 and the support to local authorities, as I referenced in my response to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) a moment ago, for their discretionary support to specific businesses. It is part of that comprehensive package, but he is right to draw attention to the human consequence of those decisions.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
Any additional investment to help the self-employed is welcome, and I do welcome it, but I ask the Chief Secretary to look at the eligibility criteria that he has set. With the furlough scheme, the eligibility criteria have been updated so that businesses that have been registered with a bank account right up to last Friday can apply. For the self-employed, however, the eligibility criteria have not changed at all and will exclude many self-employed people from all the additional investment that is now available. Will he look at that?
Steve Barclay
Such has been the number of times that the matter has been raised in the House and through the campaign, we have looked at it. Some of those issues have not changed—for example, the difficulty of determining what is dividend income as opposed to earned income, as I referred to in my answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood). We took a decision to target those below the £50,000 threshold. Some of those issues have not changed from the previous period.
The hon. Gentleman is right that the furlough allows some of those who were excluded to come within scope, but I draw the House’s attention to the fact that, even within the House, there is a degree of conflict here. The Treasury Committee has said that we should be more willing to bring the cohort of the self-employed into scope, yet the Public Accounts Committee has expressed concern that we need to have much stricter operational controls because of the risks, for example, of fraud. We see that difference even between the two Select Committees in this House. Of the different cohorts within what is known as the ExcludedUK campaign, some of those on furlough will be able to come back into scope, but much of the rationale has not changed. Of course, we will continue to look at it.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
May I seek further clarification on the previous answer and on the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood)? Self-employed people who have in effect created a limited company and draw dividends are being prevented by the Government from trading. Rather than just outlining the difficulties, will the Chief Secretary commit to saying we will find a way around that, so we can actually tell our constituents what support they will receive over the next few weeks?
Steve Barclay
For reasons I set out some time ago to the Treasury Committee, and for the reasons set out by the Chancellor, operationally the concern is that while there will of course be many legitimate circumstances where people wish to make a claim, unfortunately there will also be significant risk of fraud. I pointed to the fact that within the House itself part of the challenge is how we ensure we have the right balance between the speed of delivery—we move quickly to get schemes to people—with the operational controls we put in place. That is why we have taken the position we have.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
Since the previous lockdown was lifted, two leisure centres in my constituency have not reopened. Both facilities were outsourced by my council due in part to the lack of funding to local authorities. Leisure centres such as these are vital to the mental health and wellbeing of the communities they serve. Indeed, I believe they should be defined as an essential service. What will be done to ensure that that essential service and leisure centres such as St George’s and Tiller in my constituency do not face permanent closure as a result of the forthcoming, and any future, lockdown?
Steve Barclay
The hon. Lady is right to point to the pivotal nature of leisure centres in our constituencies. I think all Members would agree with that. I draw her attention to the £4.7 billion of additional funding we have given to local authorities as part of our response to covid, and to the discretion we have given local authorities so that they can apply that funding with the local knowledge they have and target it in the most effective way.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
First, I would like to welcome the unprecedented innovative package of support the Chancellor has put in place, which has undoubtedly helped to support businesses and families in my constituency. What more can my right hon. Friend do to support the coach tourism sector specifically? Small family companies such as A & P Travel and Sleafordian Coaches have done so much to make their transport covid-secure. However, while the venues they support have received funding from the culture recovery fund and enhanced local authority grants, they have not. We need to ensure that when the theatres, museums and the like are able to reopen there is still a viable coach tourism industry to get their customers there.
Steve Barclay
The coach firms sector has been particularly impacted as a consequence of covid. That is why, in response, we worked with the Department for Education to provide over £70 million of funding for local transport. That has been to the benefit of many, including coach firms. Of course, the wider package of support—for example, the furlough scheme, the cash grants of up to £3,000 for businesses that are closed, the extended loans and so on—applies to the sector as it does to others. The wider package applies, but I also draw my hon. Friend’s attention to the specific education funding that has been provided, which I know has been a help to a number of coach firms.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
If there were no confusion about the furlough support for Scotland in the event of another lockdown, the right hon. Gentleman’s own Tory MPs and Members across the House would not need to constantly have to ask for clarification. That confusion and uncertainty is a failure of his own Government, after the Communities Secretary said that it would be for the Chancellor to decide at the time of any future Scottish lockdown. Will the Chief Secretary apologise for that confusion and uncertainty? Will he meet the Scottish Finance Secretary, who has been requesting a meeting since Saturday, to discuss funding for Scotland and put an end to the chaos, confusion and uncertainty which is detrimentally affecting jobs and businesses in Scotland?
Steve Barclay
I do find it somewhat surprising to be asked to have a meeting the day after I had a meeting with the First Minister of Scotland, who I assume spoke with the authority of the Scottish Finance Minister. I have regular meetings with the Scottish Finance Minister. I hope, and certainly feel from my point of view, that we have a very constructive dialogue. It is in part due to her representations that the Barnett guarantee—this unprecedented up-front guarantee—was put in place, and I look forward to further discussions with her in the weeks ahead.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
Pubs such as the Crown Inn in King’s Somborne are really concerned about how they will weather the coming lockdown. They make the not unreasonable point that if it is safe to sell takeaway food, it should also be safe to sell takeaway beer. Will my right hon. Friend look at this anomaly and see if he can throw a lifeline to these valuable community hubs?
Steve Barclay
My right hon. Friend makes an interesting point. She will know that in terms of the epidemiology and the guidance, that is for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, but she is right with these questions to point to the economic impact of the measures. That is something on which we continue to have close dialogue with colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that she gets the clarification she seeks.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
Yesterday, the Prime Minister stated in the House:
“The furlough scheme is a UK-wide scheme and will continue to be available wherever it is needed.”—[Official Report, 2 November 2020; Vol. 683, c. 54.]
Will the Minister therefore confirm whether the Prime Minister was right and that furlough support will be available to Wales in the future, should public health priorities require restrictions to be reintroduced? A simple yes or no will suffice.
Steve Barclay
Several times now I have quoted what was said. The Prime Minister said that the Government will always be there to provide support to all parts of the United Kingdom. It is worth taking a step back and looking at the fact that the UK-wide ability to act is how we have been able to provide so much support across the UK with schemes such as the furlough scheme, the self-employed scheme, the loans, extensions and so forth. It is our ability to act across the United Kingdom that has helped many businesses to weather the storm.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
I begin by thanking the Government on behalf of the businesses and employers in my constituency that have benefited and will continue to benefit from the extraordinary steps that have been taken. However, we know that, sadly, people have already lost their jobs and we may expect future job losses. What more can we do to help people to overcome this incredibly difficult time in their lives, in terms of support for jobseekers and for retraining? I know that there are jobs out there, but this is about how we get people into those jobs in growing areas.
Steve Barclay
My hon. Friend makes a hugely important point. It is not just the number of jobs that are lost, but the duration of time that people are out of those jobs that is critical in mitigating the economic scarring that results from this pandemic. That is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out in his winter plan the plan for jobs, which included £2 billion of funding for the kickstart scheme. I was speaking to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions this morning and I was very pleased to hear about the progress that has already been made on the kickstart scheme, which is up and running and providing support to 16 to 24-year-olds across our constituencies. It is part of the wider package of support on training—the tripling of traineeships, the £2,000 for apprenticeships, the £2 billion on kickstart—and as we accelerate our infrastructure and bring back the green jobs, such as through the decarbonisation of public buildings, that will also offer new opportunities for training as we deliver that record infrastructure investment.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) [V]
The new grant scheme for businesses in the hospitality, leisure and accommodation sector is welcome, but those in my Brighton constituency need to know that all small and medium-sized enterprises in that sector will benefit. In particular, will the Minister scrap the business rates link and the rateable value cap from previous schemes, which caused such hardship? They meant, for example, that business tenants in shared buildings got nothing or that a pub owner in Brighton lost out because rateable values here are higher than in a place such as Bolton. Will he reassure them that they will not lose out again?
Steve Barclay
First, it is perfectly fair and reasonable to target a level of support shaped by the rateable value of the property, which is what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has done. The hon. Lady is right to point to the fact that within different local authorities there are different pressures, which is why in the £1.1 billion that has been allocated, we have given discretion to local authorities in their ability to then target support to businesses in the way that best meets local needs.
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend and the whole Treasury team for the remarkable job they are doing in these difficult times. However, I wish to highlight the plight of the people and businesses that have fallen through the financial gap. These are businesses that, through no fault of their own, have had to cease trading or are trading with a massive reduction in productivity, and are doing so without grants or access to salary, not because the Government have closed their business, but because they are in the supply chain that supplies the businesses that the Government have closed. Will he at least give reassurances that consideration is being given to these businesses, which have suffered huge losses in the past nine months? I am thinking of businesses such as the Little Valley Brewery in Calder Valley and the Robinwood outdoor education centre.
Steve Barclay
My hon. Friend is right to pick out the specific challenges faced by the supply chain, often because they supply multiple sectors; they may not be in a given sector where there are specific issues, but they supply across a number of sectors. So he is right about the issue. Part of the reason we have taken the universal approach on the wider package of schemes, whether on support for cash flow with the loans and grants, or on the direct measures to support the labour market through the furlough and self-employed income support schemes, is to recognise that once one tries to demarcate sectors, that becomes difficult in the supply chain. So part of the package of support that applies to the supply sector is provided through those universal schemes, but he is right about the issues that these businesses face.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab) [V]
Prior to this lockdown announcement, we had had almost universal calls for an extension to the full furlough scheme in areas with tighter restrictions, which Ministers had rejected for months. Despite that, the Government saw fit to announce a new version of this on Saturday, only hours before the previous furlough was due to be replaced by an inferior scheme for us in the north, as further restrictions were becoming inevitable in many areas. Many people in the north therefore now believe that until workers in the south were to be affected by the national lockdown, they were somehow thought to be worth less. Businesses in Gateshead and elsewhere are desperate for clarity and certainty to help them in planning and so that they know whether and how they can survive. Will the Chief Secretary commit today to publishing details of a comprehensive, ongoing financial support package available to businesses and their workers in areas that will continue to need it, where tiers of restrictions might, sadly, have to continue after 2 December?
Steve Barclay
First, on the suggestion that there has been a differentiated approach, the point is that a number of arrangements were put in place, for example, with the Mayor of the Liverpool City Region, with civic leaders in your own Lancashire region, Mr Speaker, and with South Yorkshire, because we recognised that there were additional pressures in those communities. We also put in further support retrospectively, recognising that a number of areas had been in tier 2 restrictions for a period. So the suggestion that additional support had not been offered does not stand that scrutiny. If one takes the deputy chief medical officer’s advice, it was inappropriate previously to have a national lockdown—Professor Van-Tam set that out—but the pathway of the virus and the infection increase was such that a more comprehensive approach was taken. So this is a response to the health pandemic as much as a response to anything that is geographically determined.
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)
I welcome the extra support for the self-employed and the news that many of those who did not qualify for the initial furlough scheme will qualify under the extended scheme, but I want to ask the Minister about the bounce back loans, which have been a lifeline for so many businesses in my constituency. Back when they made the applications for those loans, businesses would not have foreseen that disruption would have gone on for so long, so can steps be taken to ensure that they can apply for top-ups to their initial loan and get through the difficult winter ahead?
Steve Barclay
In short, yes they can. My hon. Friend raises a valid point, which is that a number of businesses will have taken out loans for what they felt was their need at that time. Further restrictions have been placed on businesses, which is why we have extended the period for availability of loans to the end of the year. He is right about that, and I can provide him with that reassurance.
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister explained that the response when he spoke to northern Mayors was about health data and not about regions, but he must accept that, by callously saying to workers in West Yorkshire and the north that they are on two thirds of pay, the Government have created a north-south divide. That divide is unnecessary when we should be coming together as a country to deal with this pandemic. Will he ask the Chancellor for clarity about the restrictions and for confirmation that, when we come out of this national lockdown, no worker will be expected to earn two thirds of their pay, so that workers in low-paid jobs are not living in fear when they look ahead to Christmas with no money in the bank?
Steve Barclay
The hon. Lady is conflating several different issues. First, the furlough had not expired; it was running until the end of October. It applied universally until that point, so the suggestion of it being applied differently is simply not the case. Secondly, the purpose and the design of the job support scheme is different from the furlough. The furlough is a response to the need for people to stay at home. The job support scheme is intended to try to encourage them back. That is why the design is for at least 20% of hours—one day in the office. Thirdly, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has set out on a number of occasions, the two-thirds support is dynamic in its interaction with the wider support through the £9 billion of additional welfare spending. One needs to look at the fact that there are two different purposes behind these two schemes, but the fundamental point is that there is no gap between the furlough that was due to expire on 30 October and the new furlough extension.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend and the team for the package of support, which will save jobs and livelihoods across Wimbledon. He will know that since March, I have been raising the plight of people who are excluded from the scheme because they have been forced to close their businesses, so I support a number of the comments made about the self-employed. May I raise yet again with him industries such as events, exhibitions and hospitality supply, which are all excluded from the business rates scheme and the business grants scheme? They need that support if we are to have those vibrant contributors to the economy in the future.
Steve Barclay
I am aware of the concerns that my hon. Friend has raised. I point him to the fact that, to date, the Treasury has spent more than £200 billion as part of our comprehensive package of support. We have applied a universal approach in terms of the furlough, loans, business grants and so forth, but I am happy to have further discussions with him in the weeks ahead.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP) [V]
While welcoming the news that the support will return to 80%, many people here in West Dunbartonshire and across Scotland regret the fact that this decision has been made at the last minute, when many have already made life-changing decisions in anticipation of the rate being reduced. To give those whom we will rely on to rebuild our economy some degree of certainty, will the Minister commit the Government to fill the gaps in the scheme so that freelancers and creatives—the excluded—can start to grow the companies of tomorrow?
Steve Barclay
I draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to the future fund, which has provided additional support. On the timing of the furlough extension, I refer him to the answer I gave earlier. Those who have lost their jobs recently could come back through the furlough extension. Those employees employed as of 23 September—the day of the job support scheme announcement—and notified to HMRC by real-time information on or before that date who have since been made redundant can be rehired.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I welcome the extension to the coronavirus loan schemes and the ability to top up bounce back loans. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that that ability to top up loans also applies to the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme? Will he also look at bounce back loans for customers of non-bank lenders? According to research by the all-party parliamentary group on fair business banking, which I chair, around 250,000 businesses currently bank with non-bank lenders who do not have access to these schemes because they do not get access to the Bank of England term funding scheme. Will he look at that problem?
Steve Barclay
I can probably go one better than looking at it myself, because the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who leads on these matters in the Treasury, will have heard my hon. Friend’s representations and will do so. I know that he is looking at the issue of the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme specifically. On my hon. Friend’s second point, I think that there are 28 creditors, but I know that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury will follow up with him.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
The Chief Secretary will be aware that many businesses feel that the Government have acted arbitrarily in imposing restrictions on their sectors, and none more so than the hospitality and pub sector, with the 10 pm curfew. During the first lockdown, local independent brewers such as Slaughterhouse and Church Farm in my constituency, and also the independent pubs that they serve, such as the Somerville Arms and the Old Post Office, were able to sell takeaway alcohol, but that has now been banned by the Government. That will damage the sector dramatically. What has the Chancellor got against pubs?
Steve Barclay
Not least through the eat out to help out scheme, one can see the Chancellor’s support to this sector. Also, VAT was cut from 20% to 5%, and many within the sector have benefited, particularly from the wider universal package of schemes such as the furlough scheme. The exact health advice, as I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), is a matter for the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. I will relay the hon. Gentleman’s concerns to him, but this is driven by the epidemiology and the health data; it is not a question of the Treasury acting arbitrarily, as he says.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
The Government’s financial support has included the very welcome £200 million for hospices. However, the Norfolk Hospice in my constituency has warned that the national restrictions and the closure of charity shops will result in a loss of income of £100,000, so will my right hon. Friend ensure that when the Care Minister meets the sector tomorrow, a package of urgent support can be put in place for hospices, their patients and their families?
Steve Barclay
My hon. Friend raises an issue that unites the House. The huge value of the work done by the hospice movement was recognised as part of the package of measures put in place by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, with £750 million of support for the charity sector and with the hospice movement being specifically identified. I am happy to continue working with my hon. Friend as we work together, and we recognise the importance of that sector.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Many small business owners have been forced to raid their personal savings to keep their businesses afloat over the past eight months, but that is not a bottomless pit. Many small business owners are not wealthy people, and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury must understand that if they go under, the whole company goes with them. The Treasury has now had eight months to get this scheme working. Why is it still excluding 3 million people? Does he not recognise how perilous the situation is for many of those businesses?
Steve Barclay
I drew attention earlier to the fact that more than £13 billion had been allocated to the self-employed income support scheme and through the income support grant. That indicates the support that the Treasury has given. The hon. Gentleman draws out, as the Chair of the Treasury Committee did, the specific issues around company directors. I have set out to the House the difficulty of clarifying precisely what is earned income as opposed to dividend income, but it is worth drawing the House’s attention to the fact that more than £13 billion of support has been allocated.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) [V]
Before lockdown 2, more than 2,000 jobs based at Manchester Airport were reported to be at risk. The Government have provided business rates relief to thousands of retail businesses, including £700 million to the likes of Tesco, which have seen huge increases in profits throughout lockdown. Will the Government now step in to relieve 2020-21 airport business rates, following the introduction of a new travel ban, by funding the difference to local councils?
Steve Barclay
As I mentioned earlier, within the £1.1 billion of support to local authorities, we have given them discretion to respond to local needs, and that includes Greater Manchester as a region. On the airport sector specifically, one reason why we have allocated more than £12 billion to test and trace is that one of the key issues, as I was told by that sector, is the importance of travellers being able to be tested quickly and released sooner than has been the case in recent weeks. We are working extremely hard on that issue, because that is one of the key measures, alongside the financial support to local authorities, that would make a real difference to the airport sector.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
I very much welcome the commitment that we heard yesterday from the Prime Minister that the furlough scheme will extend to Scotland whenever it is needed. Can the Chief Secretary to the Treasury confirm that the self-employment support scheme will also extend to my constituents in Scotland, ensuring that self-employed people are not left behind?
Steve Barclay
As I said earlier, these are UK-wide schemes. We continue to listen and engage, but the schemes apply on a UK-wide basis. That has been the case throughout, and that continues to be the case now.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I am sure that we have all heard heartbreaking stories about people who have been unable to claim for self-employment support because they had not registered or submitted a tax return for 2018-19. It seems that those people are still excluded from any support. Some of them have been trading for 18 months now. They are clearly not fraudulent and they clearly deserve some support; why cannot they get some?
Steve Barclay
As we referred to earlier, the point is that the package of support includes the £9 billion of welfare measures and the support that is available through local authorities and targeted at their discretion. I have also set out that there are those within that excluded population, for example those who were employed, who may be able to qualify for the extension, but for the reasons that we have covered in a number of earlier replies, part of the challenge from the Public Accounts Committee has been ensuring that we have the right operational controls in place, and that has been one of the difficulties with the cohorts to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con) [V]
The Government’s bounce back and business interruption loan schemes have made a huge difference across the country, including the £90 million to support businesses in Rutland and Melton. What assessment has the Chief Secretary made regarding the macroeconomic impact of these loan schemes?
Steve Barclay
I very much welcome the impact that the various support measures have had on Rutland and on the businesses in my hon. Friend’s area. As for the impact of the various measures, the Office for Budget Responsibility produces an independent assessment of that, and it will do so on 25 November. That will provide an updated position, addressing the impacts to which she refers.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
While this week the Government have extended the mortgage holiday for homeowners, they have refused to help tenants, pay their rent or stop them facing evictions, even if they have lost their job or been placed on furlough. How exactly does the Minister think that that is fair, and will he instead commit to helping renters in Coventry South by immediately putting a stop to all eviction proceedings, reintroducing the evictions ban and cancelling rent arrears for all tenants?
Steve Barclay
There is, of course, a balance to be struck between the interests of those who are renting and those who rent out properties who also have financial pressures. The hon. Lady referred to the support that has been given, but the best support that can be given to those facing such bills is to help as many of them as possible to retain their jobs, and that is fundamentally what the package of support that we have put in place seeks to achieve.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
Further to the points about supply chains, many manufacturers in the ceramics industry in Stoke-on-Trent very much depend on industries such as hospitality and retail, so will my right hon. Friend agree to look at what more support can be given to those industries where order books have severely diminished?
Steve Barclay
I recognise the point made by my hon. Friend. I have spoken about the impact on the sectors to which he refers. That is why such a comprehensive package of support has been set out, including through the job retention scheme, which will now run until 2 December; the generous support for the self-employed; the cash grants of up to £3,000 per month for businesses; the £1.1 billion of council support; and the plans to extend the various loans, and indeed the future fund, to the end of January. This all recognises the wider pressures to which he refers.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab) [V]
Unemployment here in the west midlands is soaring to a level that we last saw in the 1980s, but our Mayor has proved so ineffective that we have failed to secure 95% of what we have asked for in our recovery plan. Yesterday the International Monetary Fund’s chief economist called on Governments to bring forward large-scale investment to kickstart demand. In May, the Government set out their capital budget of £358 billion over the next five years. When are the Government going to allocate that capital budget, will the Chief Secretary maximise what is brought forward into the eye of the storm to kickstart demand for next year, and will he, for the first time, guarantee that the west midlands, at long last, will secure its fair share of that money?
Steve Barclay
I am slightly surprised to have a question from a former Chief Secretary that does not recognise the infrastructure investment that the Prime Minister set out in the summer and that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor updated the House on through his summer economic update, including the £2 billion going into green jobs and public sector decarbonisation, and the massive investment in High Speed 2, in road investment strategy 2, and in control period 6 through the various rail schemes that the Government have committed to. We are accelerating the delivery of that infrastructure through Project Speed.
The right hon. Gentleman is right to speak to the fact that there is a jobs challenge, and I think the concerns about the pressure on employment are shared across the House. That is why it is so important to get the right training package in place. That was addressed by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on 24 September with his winter plan setting out schemes such as the kickstart scheme, which is up and running and is already delivering results. That is how, together, we will weather the storm in terms of bringing forward infrastructure investment but also reskilling people where they do lose their jobs.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
Clearly hospitality and retail have had a particularly difficult time since the spring, but, as hon. Friends have said, there are very many businesses that may not quite come under hospitality, retail or leisure but rely almost entirely on those sectors for their business. Will my right hon. Friend look at how industries such as brewing, pub supply chains, events and weddings can access the support that the Government have provided, such as through the grants and business rate holidays, so that they can protect their jobs and still be growing and thriving once this pandemic is beaten?
Steve Barclay
First, I refer to the answer I gave earlier about the universal nature of the package. Another such area that my hon. Friend did not mention is the fishing sector, which was particularly impacted not only through its supply of the restaurant trade but through its exports, which were also hit. We have listened to concerns there and put in some additional support. But the best way we will support businesses, whether in the wedding sector or elsewhere, is by getting the virus down. That is why we have taken the comprehensive measures that we have for the next four weeks. That is the best way to be able to open up these sectors and get the people who have been furloughed or supported through the self-employed scheme on to the job support scheme, where they will then qualify for the furlough bonus, which will be further support that is available.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) [V]
For all the Minister’s sweet talking, the simple fact is that nearly eight months after the first lockdown was imposed, millions of self-employed people and small businesses are still being excluded from Government support. He has spoken approvingly today of comments from a recent Public Accounts Committee report, so may I draw his attention to the Committee’s 20th report of this Session, unanimously agreed by a Committee with a Conservative majority?
The report says:
“The Committee is disappointed that, so long after the beginning of the pandemic, HMRC has still not made sufficient use of its data to identify small businesses which have been left out of previous support packages, and therefore maximise taxpayer eligibility for grant support.”
Can the Minister not accept that the Committee’s disappointment reflects a view widely held among all parties in the House and that it is time for the excluded 3 million to be supported by actions, not just words?
Steve Barclay
I am somewhat surprised that the hon. Gentleman talks of actions when, as a result of our ability to operate UK-wide, we have been able to support nearly 1 million jobs in Scotland. Some 65,000 businesses in Scotland have benefited from the UK Government loan schemes and, as of 31 August, 242,600 employments were furloughed, at a take-up rate of 10%. Significant support has been offered to businesses in Scotland, as indeed it has been to businesses throughout the UK. It is odd that the hon. Gentleman talks about actions and ignores the nearly 1 million jobs that have been supported as a result of the actions that the UK Government have taken.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con) [V]
Tourism and hospitality businesses have worked hard to get back on their feet, so although I welcome the additional support that my right hon. Friend has announced, will he do all he can to help them to welcome back visitors in the spring?
Steve Barclay
I absolutely support my hon. Friend in her desire to see those businesses able to bounce back, which obviously requires us to get the virus rate down. We recognise that restrictions have affected tourism and hospitality businesses in particular, which is why we have put in place additional support. We will continue to look at ways to support those industries, but the key to doing so is to reduce the rate of infection through the measures that the Prime Minister announced yesterday.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for all that he has done; it is good to have the help.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister assured me that aid was coming to Northern Ireland businesses whose trade is affected by the lockdown here on the mainland. Will the Minister outline what form the aid will take for suppliers who have to cease operations? We should be ever mindful of the regional differences, with the Northern Ireland circuit break and tiers 1, 2 and 3 here on the mainland. On Thursday night, there will be a total lockdown here, whereas we will come out of the circuit break next week. What help will there be for businesses in Northern Ireland whose supplies travel across the water?
Steve Barclay
The hon. Gentleman is right to talk about the impact on businesses in Northern Ireland and part of that coming through its interconnectivity with the rest of the United Kingdom. As I said in an earlier answer, we will update the Northern Ireland Executive this week on the enhanced Barnett guarantee, but that unprecedented action taken to give an up-front guarantee will enable the Northern Ireland Executive to provide support to businesses. Of course, it will be for them to determine the exact scope of that business support.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) [V]
I congratulate the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Government team on the support that they have given the British people during this pandemic. I understand that No. 10 has confirmed that the Treasury has done a full economic impact assessment; will the Chief Secretary confirm that and say when it will be published? It will be very helpful if it is published before tomorrow’s vote.
Steve Barclay
As Members would expect, all decisions are informed by economic analysis. In terms of an impact assessment, the Office for Budget Responsibility will update its forecasts on 25 November. It is right that we have an independent forecast, and that will be produced in a matter of weeks.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that he will be doing much more to support the voluntary sector. Bearing in mind that 10% of charities are likely to fold, with a deficit of £10 billion accumulated over six months, what more will the Treasury be putting on the table and when will that be apparent?
Steve Barclay
As the Prime Minister has already set out, we put in place a £750 million package of support for the charity sector, as part of the more than £200 billion of support that we have given. As he has also said, and clearly demonstrated over recent months, he will continue to listen and adapt as circumstances require.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab) [V]
In response to earlier questions, the Minister said the Government were reluctant to extend additional financial support to the self-employed because of the need for strict financial controls, so why are the Chancellor’s team not as concerned about financial discipline when committing £12 billion of public sector money to the private sector for covid programmes, and doing so without basic procurement disciplines around proven competency, value for money and minimum performance targets?
Steve Barclay
That is simply not correct because the Department of Health, to which we have allocated funding for Track and Trace, is subject to managing public money rules in the same way as any other Department. It is subject to the decisions of its accounting officer and its Ministers in the usual way, so the normal managing public money rules would apply.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I am terribly sorry, but I missed out the hon. Member for St Ives—Derek Thomas.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope it is worth waiting for.
Can I thank the Chief Secretary for all that is being done to help my constituents in west Cornwall and on Scilly? One of the great successes of recent years is the job growth across Cornwall, and that is because small businesses have been set up by entrepreneurs—individuals who know they cannot get a big job in big business, because they do not exist in Cornwall, so they have set up their business. The problem is that they are very early in their business, and they are growing, maturing and flourishing, but this year has been a disaster for them. They are at a point now where they just do not know if it is worth continuing, because of his second lockdown being announced, and they just do not know what the future holds. Will the Chief Secretary look very carefully at how we can encourage these people to stick with it, but also look at, as we have discussed already this afternoon many times, the support that is available to these fledgling businesses so they really have the finances to sustain these jobs? We must make sure these businesses can be part of the recovery that we will so badly need next year and beyond.
Steve Barclay
As my hon. Friend knows, it was largely down to his representations that specific support was put in place—for example, to maintain the ferry link that I know was critical for his constituents—and he deserves great credit for the convincing case that he presented to the Treasury, which secured that additional funding. On the wider point about support to the business community, it is in recognition of the importance of those small businesses that the Government have allocated over £13 billion of support to the self-employment income support scheme, but it is also why the Chancellor has put in place additional measures, such as extending the loans that are available to help those businesses get through this period to, hopefully, the more beneficial period as we come out of the winter period.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
I thank the Chief Secretary for his statement, and I thank all the Treasury team for all the work they have done throughout this pandemic and the agility they have shown in rapidly changing circumstances. Can I also put on record my thanks to those people who have had to implement that? The IT systems in HMRC have stood up incredibly well to a lot of brand new schemes. My constituents in Newcastle-under-Lyme will welcome the extension and enhancement of furlough and the self-employed scheme. For their benefit and for the benefit of the whole House, could he set out how the generosity of those schemes compares internationally and how we are doing in this country compared with the rest of the world?
Steve Barclay
First, I thank my hon. Friend for recognising the huge contribution of officials in HMRC, the Treasury and, indeed, across Whitehall in ensuring that that business support was delivered at the pace it has been. On the international comparison, I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to the report of the director of the IMF just last week, which I think is probably the best illustration of the way that the UK package of support is seen as offering one of the most comprehensive packages of support. It was recognised by the IMF and I think that shows where it stands in terms of international comparison.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
When concerns were voiced earlier about the implications that flow from the fact that rateable values in some parts of the country are far higher than in others, the Chief Secretary could only point to discretionary grant funding. However, not only has the detailed guidance that would allow local authorities to distribute that discretionary funding not yet been published, but it will be distributed on the basis of a flat rate of £20 per head, irrespective of geographical area, as he knows. So can the Chief Secretary first ensure that that guidance is published promptly, so that local authorities can plan, but also look again at better tailoring support to account for variations in rateable value across the country?
Steve Barclay
I will take away the fair point that the hon. Gentleman raises about publishing guidance and seek to respond to it constructively. In terms of the £20 a head, often representations have been made to me in the Chamber that it is vital for the Government to move at pace to deliver schemes quickly, and to do so fairly. Without reprising the previous urgent question where the Mayor of Greater Manchester, according to the Labour Front-Bench team, was acting for Great Britain in a way that the Mayor of the Liverpool city region and others were not, which I felt was an unfair characterisation of their position, the point is that we need to deploy schemes quickly, which is why we have taken the approach that we have.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
I am sorry, at the end of this session, to have to raise the issue of furlough yet again but, as my right hon. Friend knows, the economies of north Wales and the north-west of England are very closely integrated and Welsh tourism and leisure businesses in particular are heavily dependent on trade from across that border. The Welsh lockdown imposed by the Welsh Government is due to come to an end on 9 November—some four days after the lockdown in England is anticipated to begin. Welsh leisure and tourism businesses will not be precluded from reopening by the Welsh Government, but in reality it will be purposeless for them to do so because the trade from England will not be there. Can my right hon. Friend say whether Welsh businesses that are affected by lockdown measures imposed in England will be able to access the coronavirus job retention scheme?
Steve Barclay
I know that my right hon. Friend is a strong supporter of the Union and part of the strength of the furlough scheme has been its ability to provide support across the United Kingdom; it is a UK-wide scheme. Thanks to the Treasury’s ability to operate a UK-wide scheme, we have been able to put in place more than £200 billion of support—the comprehensive package that I mentioned a moment ago—which is why it stands international comparison in terms of its scale and speed. That was recognised by the IMF director just last week, and the furlough will continue to be a UK-wide scheme.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those anticipating the next item of business, we will suspend the House for three minutes.
Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab) (Urgent Question)
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, if he will make a statement on Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe
The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) for raising this question. We are deeply concerned that Iran has issued new charges against Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. This is indefensible and unacceptable. We are relieved that the groundless new trial, which commenced on 2 November, was adjourned and that Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe remains on furlough, but we will continue to call on Iran to make Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s release permanent.
On 29 October, we summoned the Iranian ambassador to make clear our deep concerns about these new charges. We fully support the family’s request for officials from the embassy in Tehran to attend any court hearings. The UK Government issued a note of avowal formally requesting UK Government attendance at Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s recent 2 November hearing. So far, regrettably, we have not been granted access to Iranian judicial hearings of any of our dual British national detainees. We will continue to firmly lobby for access to them.
On 22 September, we summoned the Iranian ambassador and handed over a letter from E3 Foreign Ministers about the human rights situation in Iran, including our shared concern about the arbitrary detention of dual nationals. The ambassador in Tehran will continue to raise this with his Iranian counterpart. The Foreign Secretary has spoken directly to Foreign Minister Zarif three times since the summer and continues to raise the situation of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and the other UK dual nationals in the strongest terms.
Since the Foreign Secretary was last at the Dispatch Box both he and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office officials have been in regular contact with Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe and her family. The Foreign Secretary has spoken with both Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe and her husband, when he reiterated that the UK Government, from the Prime Minister down, remain committed to doing everything we can for her.
The UK Government continue to engage with international partners and directly with the Government of Iran on the full range of issues of interest to the UK. Our priority remains to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons capability, to promote stability and security in the region, to secure the release of all our dual national detainees, and to keep the diplomatic door open for a new talks with Iran.
Alongside our E3 partners, we are committed to the nuclear deal with Iran—the joint comprehensive plan of action, or JCPOA—as the best means available to monitor and constrain Iran’s nuclear programme. As we have said before, we are deeply concerned by Iranian non-compliance. Iran must engage with the dispute resolution mechanism, which we triggered with France and Germany on 14 January, and return to compliance. We also continue to have serious concerns regarding the implications for the security of the region with the expiry date of the United Nations conventional arms embargo on 18 October.
I can assure the House that the safety and good treatment of all dual national British detainees in Iran remains a top priority of the UK Government. We will continue to lobby at all levels for their permanent release on humanitarian grounds so that they can return home safely to their loved ones.
Tulip Siddiq
Before I begin, I would like to thank the Speaker’s Office for granting this urgent question, because I am aware that there is a lot of parliamentary business on at the moment.
The case of my constituent is well-rehearsed. She was arrested in Iran in 2016 and was handed a five-year sentence. We had dared to dream that she would be returning home next year in April, until last week, when she was told that she would be facing new trumped-up charges. As the Minister has pointed out, she went to court yesterday prepared to put forward her defence, and she was told that her case had been adjourned. Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe has told her family that she is sleepless with worry anticipating the next move from the Iranian authorities.
Before I ask the Minister some questions, I want to raise the issue of the £400 million debt that we owe Iran. The date for the court hearing for the debt was meant to be today, but last week we were told it was being postponed. On the very same day last week, Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe was told that she faces trumped-up new charges against her, that she has to go to court and that she may be sent back to prison. That was not a coincidence; it is a punishment.
I want to ask the Minister the following questions. Did the Government anticipate or risk-assess the consequences for Nazanin when they agreed to postpone the IMS debt hearing? Secondly, as we know, Nazanin is not the only British citizen being held as a political hostage in Iran. How many prisoners have the Government managed to get access to since the British embassy in Iran reopened in 2015? Is it more than zero? The Minister has touched on UK officials not being present at Nazanin’s court hearing yesterday. Will he clarify exactly what date they requested to attend and whether it was simply asked for, or was it asserted as a consular right? Finally, can the Minister give any examples of how Nazanin’s status of diplomatic protection has been or will be deployed by our Government to make a material difference in her case?
I know that the Government have continually denied the link between the debt that we owe Iran and Nazanin’s imprisonment, but burying our heads in the sand is costing my constituent her life. I know the Government have a lot on their plate at the moment with the pandemic, but I know the Minister well and I know he wants to bring Nazanin home. I am asking him to do a bit more and to try harder to resolve this debt issue, so that we can end the cycle of despair for Nazanin and her family.
I will finish by saying that this is my sixth urgent question about Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe in this House, and I sincerely hope it is the last one I will be asking.
James Cleverly
I pay tribute to the hon. Lady, for whom I have a huge amount of respect, for her tireless campaigning on behalf of her constituent and more widely on the other British dual national detainees in Iran. It is commendable. She raises the question of the delay in the hearing about the IMS debt. As she said in her comments, these are unrelated issues. However, the adjournment of the November hearing is at the request of the Iranian Ministry of Defence. It would be inappropriate for me to comment further on ongoing legal positions in regard to that.
The hon. Lady also speaks about our requests for access to Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe and the other British dual national detainees. That is something we continue to do. Requesting does not guarantee us access—indeed, demanding does not guarantee us access. What we are doing at every stage, while working with the Iranian Government at every level, is what we genuinely believe is in the best interests of our dual national detainees to secure their permanent release on humanitarian grounds, so that they can return home and be with their families.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) for securing this urgent question on such an important matter. Her campaign for her constituent Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe has been inspiring, but the Minister knows that many other Brits are being held. Will he please confirm that he will be dealing with all Brits being held by the Iranian regime? Will he also agree that the attempts by the Iranian Government to connect the IMS debt and the release of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe would seem to suggest that she is not being held on the charges that they claim, but actually is just a hostage? That would cheapen Iranian justice. Surely the Iranian Government would never argue that case again.
James Cleverly
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The British Government’s position is clear. We do not link this to the debt, but we do not dispute that there is a 40-year-old debt, and we continue to explore options to resolve it. I will not comment further, because this is an ongoing situation. He is right to raise the plight of other British dual nationals in detention in Iran. We make the case strongly and regularly for the full, permanent release—not just release on furlough—of all British dual nationals held in detention.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
I add my voice to those thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) for her refusal to give up, her persistence on behalf of her constituent, and for ensuring that the voice of Nazanin and her family is heard in this House and beyond. As my hon. Friend said, it is four and a half years since Nazanin was first arbitrarily detained by the Iranian authorities, and just as the end of her original five-year sentence is in sight, she faces the terrifying prospect of a second trial—for which there is no evidence or legal justification—for more crimes that she did not commit, which could extend her detention still further.
The adjournment of Nazanin’s hearing on Monday delays a potential further miscarriage of justice, but also any prospect of a conclusion to a truly unimaginable ordeal. We believe that the threat of reincarceration, the constant harassment by members of Iran’s revolutionary guard, the repeated delay to judicial hearings, and the levelling of false charges are tantamount to mental torture, and I would be grateful if the Minister told the House whether the Government share that view. They have rightly voiced opposition to Nazanin’s return to prison during a second trial. It is welcome that the Foreign Secretary has made representations generally about Nazanin’s case, but can the Minister say whether the Government have made representations, through the Foreign Secretary, specifically on the issue of the return to prison during a second trial?
Almost two months ago, I asked the Foreign Secretary about the historical debt that is owed, and whether he agrees with the Defence Secretary, who acknowledged that there is a debt to be paid; the Foreign Secretary said that he did. At an Iranian Foreign Ministry press briefing yesterday, officials repeated that they are pursuing this debt. No one in this House accepts the legitimacy of any direct link between the debt and the arbitrary detention of dual nationals, including Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, Anousheh Ashoori and others. However, there is the prospect of our putting our relations with Iran on a better footing if we resolve this issue, which has dragged on for decades, in which there is a clear legal obligation on the UK, and in regard to which the Defence Secretary has described the UK’s behaviour as “un-British” and obfuscatory.
I was very concerned to hear the Minister’s response to the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn asked about the date for a hearing. Will the Minister tell us what steps he has taken in the last two months to progress this issue and find a resolution that ensures that this historical debt does not present an ongoing obstacle to the safe and swift return of Nazanin and other British-Iranian dual nationals? Does he agree with the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt) that if Nazanin is released soon, the acknowledgement of our historical debt will have paid an important part in the release?
The Minister knows that this is not a party political matter, and that Members in all parts of the House have voiced their full support for Nazanin’s release. As we approach the fifth Christmas that Nazanin will be unable to spend with her family, I hope that he can give us his assurance that everything in the Government’s power is being done to bring her safely home.
James Cleverly
I can only reiterate the point I made about the debt. We recognise that the debt is due, and we are working to resolve this. It is a 40-year-old debt, and we are exploring options to bring this to a conclusion. It is not possible for me to comment further or in more detail on this, and I am sure that the hon. Lady will understand why.
On the new charges being brought against Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe, our position is clear: they are indefensible and completely unacceptable. The hon. Lady mentions the other British dual nationals in incarceration. Our passion for securing their permanent release is just as strong as our passion in the case of Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe. As I said, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, I and, indeed, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office have this as an absolute priority. I have already mentioned the number of occasions on which the Foreign Secretary has spoken directly with his opposite numbers, the times when the Iranian ambassador has been called in and, indeed, when Her Majesty’s ambassador in Tehran has raised this issue. It is and will remain a top priority for the Government. We welcome the fact that Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe has not been sent back to prison. However, that is not enough. We continue to work for her full, permanent release and that of the other British dual nationals in incarceration. We will not rest until that is accomplished.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
I congratulate the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) on securing the urgent question on this vital matter and the cross-party agreement that Nazanin should be returned to the UK, with all the charges dropped. Recent reports suggest that the Iranian revolutionary guard corps has constantly harassed Nazanin while she has been in Iran. Does my right hon. Friend agree that such behaviour is totally and utterly unacceptable and that we need to proscribe the IRGC in its entirely to send the strongest possible signal to Iran that its behaviour cannot be tolerated?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend will know that it is a long-standing convention that we do not discuss future proscriptions or sanctions. He makes a broader point about the international standing of Iran. I can only assume that Iran wishes to be brought back into the international fold, but, for that, its behaviour must change.
As I said, we regard the treatment of Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe and the other British dual national detainees to be completely unacceptable and we strongly urge the Iranian regime to do the right thing and release all British dual national detainees on humanitarian grounds so that they can return permanently to their families and loved ones.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) [V]
Let me once again put on record the SNP’s unequivocal condemnation of the Iranian Government for the outrageous detention of Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe. I repeat our call for her immediate and unconditional release. Nazanin, her husband Richard and their young daughter have been treated appallingly by the regime in Tehran. If, as the Minister says, this is the Prime Minister’s top priority, I feel she will be let down again, having been let down by him while he was Foreign Secretary.
The UK Government have finally acknowledged that the outstanding debt owed to Iran is a major factor in the ongoing illegal detention of Nazanin. What discussions have been had to explore practical and legal ways to repay the debt? What advice has the Department sought and received on whether that could be done in the form of humanitarian aid supplies?
James Cleverly
As I have said on a number of occasions, the debt, which we recognise, is unrelated. We are seeking ways to resolve this 40-year-old debt, but I am unwilling to go into further details about that as it is an ongoing situation. I would, however, echo the hon. Member’s point that the incarceration of all British dual national detainees in Iran is unacceptable and they should be released.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) for the tireless and impressive work she has done on behalf of her constituent. What assessment has my right hon. Friend made of the likely impact of June’s presidential election in Tehran on Nazanin’s case? Obviously, Quds commander Qasem Soleimani will not be in the frame, but he was the front runner. Does my right hon. Friend feel he can make progress where previously that was not the case? To what extent does he feel that his interlocutors, Ministers Zarif and Araghchi, can have influence since the IRGC, which is actually pulling the strings, is very much separate from those to whom he speaks regularly?
James Cleverly
I thank my right hon. Friend for his work in this role prior to my tenure. He makes a strong point about the need to maintain working relations with a number of individuals in the Iranian Government, and we seek to do so. Ultimately,
I am not sure it is useful for me to speculate about the outcome of elections or which individuals may be in what posts, because the UK’s position will be unchanged: the detention is illegitimate, all the British dual national detainees should be released and we will continue to work with whoever is in whichever role to achieve that.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
I thank my colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), who has worked so tirelessly on this campaign. Perhaps we might try a slightly different approach and tone. I have had the privilege of conversations with Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury, regarding an all-faith delegation to Tehran to discuss the cases. Possibly, there is a chance that an all-party delegation could go to Iran specifically for that purpose. At the moment, I know that Iran will not accept delegations, but perhaps the mood music will change after today and we might get, particularly, an all-faith delegation. If the ministerial team made that possible, perhaps we would get some beneficial results.
James Cleverly
I thank the hon. Gentleman for putting forward ideas he believes may be useful to bring about the goals that we all want. I am unsure about the effectiveness of that one, but I am willing to receive any ideas from him. We will continue working, and to explore ideas with whoever puts them forward. I commend the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn for engaging with us regularly. Ultimately, we are all—across party and right across the House—trying to achieve a resolution and to have the British dual national detainees returned home.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his commitment to Nazanin’s case and for taking such a clear position that she should not be sent back to jail. Does he agree that Iran’s attempt to exploit dual nationals for political gain is unacceptable and that we should continue to lobby strongly for their release?
James Cleverly
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Ultimately, he is right: the responsibility lies with the Government of Iran, the Iranian regime. We remain committed to securing immediate, full and permanent release. While we are pleased that Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe has not been returned to Evin prison, that is not the end of the matter. We will continue to work to have her and the other detainees return home.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
I thank the Minister for his responses so far and I share the House’s view that this is absolutely ridiculous, that we are still here talking not just about Nazanin, but about all those political prisoners who are being detained. I am particularly concerned about Anousheh Ashouri and his susceptibility to covid-19. Specifically, which other detainees is the Minister aware of who also have susceptibility to covid-19, and what assurances will he give the House that robust conversations have been had about their getting specific medical attention for the those comorbidities?
James Cleverly
The welfare of all our British dual nationals imprisoned in Iran remains a priority, and we have raised their cases at the most senior level, in particular with discussions about health vulnerabilities. Ultimately—I find myself coming back to this point, but it is the fundamental one—the very best thing that we can do for all of them is to secure their permanent release back to their families at the earliest opportunity. That is what we will continue to work towards.
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
I, too, commend the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) for her relentless work on behalf of her constituent. I also commend the Minister for all the work that he is doing to secure the release of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. Will he join me in urging the Iranian Government now to release all UK dual nationals who are being arbitrarily detained and allow them to return home to their families in the UK?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is in the gift of the Iranian regime. We will continue to call on it to do the right thing, which is to release all British dual nationals in incarceration and allow them to return.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I wholeheartedly support the comments made by other hon. Members. I urge the Minister, the Foreign Secretary and, indeed, the Prime Minister to bolster efforts to bring Nazanin home. Her life of fear is similar to that lived by many religious minorities in Iran. Earlier this year, the Christian human rights activist Mary Fatemeh Mohammadi received a suspended prison sentence of three months and a directive to receive a flogging of 10 lashes. What is the Minister doing to protect religious minorities in Iran?
James Cleverly
We continue to have concerns about Iran’s human rights record and the treatment of minorities. Although that is an allied issue, it is separate to that of Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe and the other dual national detainees. We continue to work with Iran at all levels to encourage it to improve its human rights record.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
I also commend the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) for her efforts in this area. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that his Department is doing everything in its power to ensure that Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe receives all the necessary medical care during this difficult time?
James Cleverly
We regularly raise health and welfare concerns with the Iranian Government at the most senior levels. The Foreign Secretary continues to raise the UK’s concerns with his opposite number Foreign Minister Zarif. We will continue to raise such issues until these people are allowed home.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
I, too, thank the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) for securing this important urgent question. I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) in that Nazanin is not the only one who has fallen foul of a malign Iran’s attack on human rights.
The UN conventional arms embargo on Iran expired last month, in line with the 2015 nuclear deal, which failed to address Iran’s human rights abuses and detention of foreign citizens. The UK’s decision to abstain on the UN Security Council resolution to extend the embargo was regrettable. Will my right hon. Friend explain how the UK plans to address Iran’s regional aggressions, which represent one of the most pressing challenges to international peace and security and British foreign policy interests?
James Cleverly
We have long been clear about our concerns about Iran’s continued destabilising activity throughout the region, including its political, financial and military support for a number of militant and proscribed groups, including Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria, militias in Iraq, and the Houthis in Yemen. We will continue to work with international partners to promote stability and security in the region and to do everything we can to ensure that that activity ceases.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) [V]
I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) for championing the rights of her constituent Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and for securing this urgent question. The United Nations has ruled that Nazanin’s imprisonment is unlawful and ordered Iran to release her. What more can the British Government do to work through the wider international community to put pressure on Iran to follow its international obligations?
James Cleverly
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. It is good that we have international support on our calls, which reflects our belief that the charges are illegitimate and that her detention and that of other British dual nationals is unacceptable. We will continue to work with international partners and directly with Iran to secure all their releases, and we are grateful for the international support that we have received on this issue.
Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) on not only what she said today but all she has said for her constituent. I echo the call for Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s proceedings to be ended forthwith, but if that is not the case, I am sure my right hon. Friend will accept that the fairness and transparency of the next set of proceedings against her will become fundamental. Will he redouble his efforts to ensure that those proceedings are observed by a representative of the UK Government and/or those who represent international organisations? I ask him to accept and to communicate that if these proceedings are fair—if these charges are fairly laid and are to be fairly tried—the Iranians have no reason to prevent the world from seeing them.
James Cleverly
My right hon. and learned Friend makes a very good point. We are seeking to be allowed to attend any future hearings. Our embassy in Tehran formally requested that last week, and we have consistently made the point with the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. We are committed to securing the immediate and permanent release of all arbitrarily detained British dual nationals. The point he makes about the Iranian regime acting transparently is a good one.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP) [V]
The Iranian regime’s behaviour is reprehensible, but there are moderate voices within Iranian society, including President Rouhani. Does the Minister accept that unilateral action by the USA, including targeted executions, worsens the situation for all? Will he therefore ensure that the UK’s diplomatic efforts to ensure Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s release are in line with those of European partners, not those of an American President, whoever is elected today?
James Cleverly
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The Iranian people are famed through history for their science and culture, and our criticism is not of the broader Iranian people; it is of the behaviour of the Iranian Government. I would be very uncomfortable making comments that might be perceived to give excuses to those in the Iranian regime who seek to arbitrarily detain Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe and others. It is their actions that we should be focused on. It is their choice to detain these people, and it is in their gift to release them. We should be relentlessly focused on their behaviour and the decisions that they have made.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
I join others in recognising the determination and commitment of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) on this matter for her constituent. This has gone on for five years. The Government granted Nazanin diplomatic protection status over a year ago. Can the Minister tell us what has changed in the Government’s approach since then and what difference that has made? Many of my constituents who share a deep concern for Nazanin’s future are wondering what difference that made.
James Cleverly
Our ability to support Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe is determined in large part by the behaviour of the Iranian Government. We have made it clear on numerous occasions that we want to have access to our dual national detainees. We now have the opportunity to speak directly with Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe, which is welcome. But ultimately, we will continue to do what we believe to be in her best interests and those of the other detained British dual nationals, and we will continue working with the Iranian Government, within the limitations that they impose, to secure their permanent release.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con) [V]
If Iran is going to come in from the cold, it has to start to comply with basic values of international law. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that starts with its respecting basic principles of human rights and ending its policy of industrialised hostage diplomacy? This current policy of taking dual nationals such as Nazanin hostage shows that it has zero intentions of ever engaging meaningfully with the international rules-based system.
James Cleverly
Ultimately, we do want to see the Iranian Government come back into the international sphere, but the decisions that will enable them to do so are in their gift. Their permanent release of British dual nationals in detention would be a very positive step in the right direction, and we will continue to call on them to do that.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
From Craigend down to Carmyle, my inbox last week was flooded by constituents wanting to see Nazanin brought home. Given that I think most fair-minded people would agree that the Prime Minister, when he was Foreign Secretary, very much bungled things last time around, can the Minister tell us what the Prime Minister is doing personally to try to intervene in this case and raise it at the highest levels of Government?
James Cleverly
I have spoken with the Prime Minister about this issue, and I know that it remains a priority for him. It is very much a priority for the Foreign Secretary, me and the FCDO. I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House of our passion for working towards the permanent release of British dual nationals in detention; it remains an absolute priority for us, and we will continue doing what we can to bring about their permanent release. Our actions will be relentlessly focused on that, and I can assure him that it remains a priority throughout Government.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
In view of the growing normalisation between Arab states and Israel in an anti-Iran alliance targeted at its human rights abuses and its regional aggression, how is the Foreign Office going to tap into this source of growing antagonism towards what Iran is doing in order to achieve Nazanin’s release?
James Cleverly
I think there is widespread support for the UK’s attempts to bring our dual nationals home. I cannot speak on behalf of other Governments, but I hope that Iran will have seen that there is international support for us. Ultimately, as I have said in response to previous questions, there is an opportunity now for Iran to reset its international reputation by doing the right thing and permanently releasing the British dual nationals in detention.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) on securing this important urgent question. The postponement of the new trial of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe on Monday will have had a major impact on her mental health. She has been unlawfully held in Iran for four years, separated from her husband and daughter. As has already been discussed and commented on, her imprisonment is linked to the £400 million debt that the UK owes Iran. The case of Nazanin is a national tragedy. Can the Minister tell the House how many other British citizens are imprisoned in Iran and what the Government are doing to secure their release—and when?
James Cleverly
I have already explained that the International Military Services debt is a separate issue and one we are working on. Ultimately, our efforts are to secure the release of all British dual nationals in incarceration, and that will continue to be a priority of this Government.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
Iran has long walked the knife-edge of what is and is not acceptable under the joint comprehensive plan of action, exposing the agreement’s significant flaws in the process; it is clear that it is not deterring Iran’s actions, either in the region or with respect to dual nationals. I recognise the Government’s reluctance to walk away from the agreement without something else being in place, but we cannot reward bad behaviour or this hostage diplomacy. I therefore urge the Minister to give full consideration to what might be the point at which we have to walk away, and to reconsider the arms embargo.
James Cleverly
As the Foreign Secretary made clear, the JCPOA is not perfect. However, while it continues to offer some benefits in constraining and verifying Iran’s nuclear programme, and in the absence of something better, we will continue to support it. It would be inappropriate for me to speculate on what future actions the Government might take in relation to Iran.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq). However, we need to note that a key reason why we are in such a mess with the Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe case is that the former Foreign Secretary, who in spite of his incompetence was promoted by the Conservative party to the post of Prime Minister, was, as usual, not paying attention to detail. Instead, he decided to make a public statement that Nazanin was “simply teaching people journalism”. Similarly, the Scottish Sikh, Jagtar Singh Johal, has been imprisoned in India for the past three years. Despite his family’s lawyer alleging that he has faced torture and despite repeated requests, since taking office the Foreign Secretary has not even had the decency, has not bothered, to meet the despairing family. Instead of constantly delegating to others, such as the Minister here, when will the Foreign Secretary finally get a grip, do his job properly and help those Brits languishing abroad?
James Cleverly
The actions of Iran this week show that the reason British dual nationals are being detained arbitrarily is that the Iranian regime choose to do so. To hand them opportunities to make excuses and to externalise their actions is deeply inappropriate. I urge the hon. Gentleman to reflect carefully. He is a deeply honourable person—I know him personally—but I think it is an error to hand them an opportunity to externalise the decisions that they have taken.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
I too extend my thanks to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), and to the Carshalton and Wallington residents who have contacted me about Nazanin. The Minister mentioned bringing Iran back into the international fold. May I seek his assurance that that is very much dependent on Iran’s compliance with international law, respect for human rights, and, ultimately, the release of British dual nationals such as Nazanin?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It is exactly behaviour of that kind that would see a road map for Iran being brought back into the international fold. In this instance, we ultimately wish to see something very simple: the permanent release of all British dual national detainees. That would be a positive step—perhaps the first—in the right direction for Iran.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
I too commend the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq). I wish to reassure her that civil society across these islands is engaged with and vexed about the situation of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. Many Angus constituents stand in solidarity with the hon. Member and her constituent, and with her desire to see her returned home.
While serving as Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister made a difficult situation much worse with, let us call them, those unhelpful remarks about Nazanin. Now that he is Prime Minister, instead of a concerted effort marshalling the entire resources of the state to liberate her and seeking to right his wrong, we have witnessed a total collapse of UK international relations and regular statecraft. When will the Minister jumpstart the Department into life and ensure that UK nationals, starting with Nazanin, can return home to their families, as many other states have achieved for their citizens detained in Iran? The problem is that the Minister has said repeatedly this afternoon that they will continue working, but it seems to many of us that what they are doing is not working.
James Cleverly
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
As well as destabilising the region and having a long history of financing global terror, we must not overlook the Iranian regime’s human rights abuses and their detention of British citizens. Indeed, there was no mention in the 2015 nuclear deal of either financing global terror or human rights abuses. The Prime Minister has been quite right to call out the shortcomings of that deal. Does my right hon. Friend feel it is finally time to look again and call for a new comprehensive agreement with Iran?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend asks a very good question. As long as the JCPOA can offer some benefit to constraining Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear programme and, as I said, in the absence of something better, we will continue to support it. We do raise human rights, for example, at the various highest levels, and we do take action alongside our friends in the international community. We have been clear that we need to find a long-term solution to address the actions across the region that Iran is taking.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) [V]
I am grateful for the urgent question from my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) and for it being granted. The Foreign Secretary and the Minister are fully aware of my constituent Mr Anoosheh Ashoori, who is currently being held in prison in Iran. Do the UK Government class Mr Ashoori as having been targeted because of his dual nationality, and can the Minister explain precisely what steps have been taken to secure his release in the light of the impact of the pandemic on prisoner safety?
James Cleverly
The hon. Lady raises an important point about the health of the British dual nationals held in incarceration. It is an issue that we take very seriously and have raised directly with the Iranian regime. I return to the point that we continue to work at every level, both from London and with our post in Tehran, to secure the permanent release of all the British dual nationals in detention.
Personal Statement
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make an apology to the House.
The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and the Committee on Standards have found that I have breached paragraphs 15 and 16 of the Members’ code of conduct in the inappropriate use of House stationery and that I committed a breach of the code in using contact details for non-parliamentary purposes. I will accept that this is the third time that I have been found to have breached the rules, despite having previously reassured the Commissioner that I now understood the rules in relation to stationery. Of course, I fully accept their ruling, and I volunteered to pay back the cost of the stationery and have already done so. I apologise to the House and to you for my breach of the rules. The Committee further requested that I meet the Chair and other members to agree steps on how to ensure no lapse from the highest possible standards required and that this should be periodically reviewed. I really look forward to working with the Chair and other members to this end. Finally, I thank the members of the Standards Committee and the Commissioner for Standards for all their work. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I thank the hon. Lady for her personal statement. Senior Members of this House ought to know better than to make more noise than is necessary at a time when someone is making a personal statement, which they have the right to do in silence. Just because we are socially distancing and people cannot whisper, they will have to learn to make what would have been whispered comments rather more quietly.
Virtual participation in proceedings concluded (Order, 4 June).
Food Labelling (Environmental Sustainability)
Tuesday 3rd November 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Food Labelling (Environmental Sustainability) Bill 2019-21 View all Food Labelling (Environmental Sustainability) Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require food manufacturers to label products to indicate the environmental sustainability of their origins; and for connected purposes.
We face a biodiversity crisis both here in the United Kingdom and across the world. Around the world, the World Wide Fund for Nature’s most recent “Living Planet” report shows a massive decline in wildlife populations—down by about 68% since 1970. Here in our country, many much-loved species, such as the hedgehog, are facing a catastrophic decline in their numbers. There are numerous reasons for this huge loss of plant and animal species. They range from the continuous erosion of habitats to ill-judged practices in food growing and manufacturing. None of this is news, but as we enter 2021—a year when the future of our environment will be top of the global agenda both in China, at the special conference looking at biodiversity issues, and later in the year here, with the COP 26 summit—surely the time has come for global action to halt this catastrophic decline.
We cannot change the world by ourselves, but we can set an example to everyone in seeking to do so, and when it comes to biodiversity, we must start now and act urgently. I very much welcome the steps being taken by the Government in the Environment and Agriculture Bills to enshrine in law greater protections for our own environment here. Measures such as incentivising farmers to increase the perimeters of fields to create more habitats for animals and wild flowers are really good examples of what can be done to make a difference. However, the most powerful influences of all are not to be found in government or in this place; it is among consumers both here and around the world that a difference can be made. Someone once said:
“You can’t buck the market,”
and she was right. If the markets both here and internationally say, “Enough is enough,” then the world will have to change. That is the point of this proposed Bill.
If anyone wants to understand the need for the Bill, just take a look at an island like Borneo. It is home to the critically endangered orangutan, one of our nearest relatives in the primate world. Where once those magnificent creatures roamed wide areas of rainforest, now huge sweeps of what was once their habitat are covered by plantations growing palm oil for international food markets such as ours. The orangutans are confined to less and less space, and their numbers continue to dwindle. We cannot instruct the Government of Borneo to stop allowing the development of palm oil plantations, but we can stop buying that palm oil ourselves and encourage others to do the same.
The same is true closer to home. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) has just launched an all-party group rightly to try to strengthen protections for chalk streams in this country. They are a really important part of our natural ecosystems and home to many native species. Too often over the years, ill-thought-out farming practices have allowed that biodiversity to be threatened and damaged. As consumers, we should not have to accept locally produced food without the confidence that it has been grown or reared with a firm eye on protecting local biodiversity.
At the moment, we do not know whether the food we eat comes from smart agriculture that protects and sustains nature, or from unsustainable sources. Of course, some producers market their products as coming from sustainable sources and they stress this quality as a result, but, as is often the case with a product such as palm oil, it is a question of scouring the small print on the back of a package to find the truth. The Bill seeks to empower consumers so they are much better able to say no when the issue is one of environmental damage.
I want us to move rapidly to a world where we can see very clearly, when we pick up a product in a supermarket or in a local shop, whether it comes from a source that is sustainable and that it has not caused environmental damage in its development. To give one example, it is perfectly possible to buy sustainable beef from South America when it comes from the plains of Argentina, yet at the same time to say no to beef from South America if comes from grassland secured by cutting down the Amazon rainforest. By saying no and not buying those products, we take away a market and we remove the financial incentive to cut down more trees. However, we need to be able to take such a decision quickly and easily when we go out shopping.
The Bill does not seek to provide all the answers in one piece of legislation; I do not think it could. A plan to introduce a proper kitemark system or similar to highlight whether a product was developed sustainably needs to be developed carefully and with extensive consultation with all interested parties. I do not want to hamstring producers in this country or elsewhere from growing or manufacturing the products that all our societies need to eat, so we will also need their involvement in developing the right approach. I do not want to place an unduly high burden of regulation on businesses, particularly at what is such a challenging time economically, but this is something that must happen.
The Bill would place on the Government a duty to bring forward within a year a plan to introduce clear labelling on food products, showing whether they come from environmentally sustainable sources. I see the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), on the Front Bench—I thank her for turning up—and I would have great confidence in her taking this concept forward with commitment and determination. The Bill would require Ministers and people such as her to work with all the interested parties to find and introduce a system that empowers consumers to protect our natural environment.
When I buy a product with palm oil in it, I want to know that it comes from one of the many sustainable sources of that product and not another newly cut-down area of rainforest. I want to know that it is not taking away more habitat from the orangutans that so desperately need more habitat and not less. When I buy a British product, I want to know that it has been produced without damaging impacts on native species or on ecosystems such as our chalk streams.
The crucial point is that the consumers—the people who buy products around the world—can achieve so much more than the politicians and the regulators because their decisions determine whether there is a market for products that come from unsustainable sources. When a product does come from an unsustainable source, I want every consumer to say, “No, I won’t accept that—I do not want it.” It is that power of those consumers that can change us all, and we need them to know how. That is what the Bill seeks to achieve. It sends a very clear signal every time someone buys a food product so that they know whether it damages the environment or whether it actually comes from a source where the producer has been smart enough to make sure that the natural ecosystems can continue to thrive alongside the manufacture of that product.
We have already seen from this dreadful pandemic what the price is of misusing nature. As a race and as a nation, we need to start changing, and we need to start changing right now. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Chris Grayling, Theo Clarke, Barry Gardiner, Andrew Rosindell, Andrew Selous, Chris Bryant, Tracey Crouch and Cherilyn Mackrory present the Bill.
Chris Grayling accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 12 March, and to be printed (Bill 205).
Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill
Tuesday 3rd November 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill 2019-21 View all Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 3 November 2020 - (large print) - (3 Nov 2020)
18:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 266 / Noes: 336 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:17 - The House divided: - Ayes: 262 / Noes: 335 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:32 - The House divided: - Ayes: 269 / Noes: 334 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 345 / Noes: 260 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Limitation of time for minor offences—
“No proceedings shall be brought against any person in relation to a relevant offence, where—
(a) the condition set out in subsection 3 of section 1 is satisfied,
(b) the offence is subject to summary conviction only, or is one in the commission of which no serious, permanent or lasting psychological or physical injury has been caused, and
(c) a period of six months has passed from the time the offence was committed or discovered.”
This new clause would dispose of minor allegations of misconduct by imposing a time limit similar to that which exists in relation to summary only matters in Magistrates’ Courts.
New clause 3—Access to justice for service personnel—
“Within 12 months of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State shall commission an independent evaluation comparing—
(a) access to justice for members and former members of the regular and reserve forces and of British overseas territory forces to whom section 369(2) of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (persons subject to service law) applies, in relation to legal proceedings in connection with operations of the armed forces outside the British Islands, with
(b) access to justice for asylum seekers and prisoners seeking to bring an action against the Crown.”
New clause 4—Ability to conduct a fair trial—
“The principle referred to in section 1(1) is that a relevant prosecutor making a decision to which that section applies may determine that proceedings should be brought against the person for the offence, or, as the case may be, that the proceedings against the person for the offence should be continued, only if the prosecutor has reasonable grounds for believing that the fair trial of the person has not been materially prejudiced by the time elapsed since the alleged conduct took place.”
This new clause is intended to replace Clause 2 of the Bill. It replaces the presumption against prosecution with a requirement on a prosecutor deciding whether to bring or continue a prosecution to consider whether the passage of time has materially prejudiced the prospective defendant’s chance of a fair trial.
New clause 5—Restrictions on time limits: actions brought against the Crown by service personnel—
“Nothing in this Part applies to any action brought against the Crown by a person who is a member or former member of the regular or reserve forces, or of a British overseas territory force to whom section 369(2) of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (persons subject to service law) applies.”
This new clause amends Part 2 of the Bill so that it explicitly excludes actions brought against the Crown by serving or former service personnel from the limitations on courts’ discretion that the Part imposes in respect of actions relating to overseas operations.
New clause 6—Duty of care to service personnel—
“(1) The Secretary of State shall establish a duty of care standard in relation to legal, pastoral and mental health support provided to service personnel involved in investigations or litigation arising from overseas operations, as defined in subsection (6) of section 1.
(2) The Secretary of State shall lay a copy of this standard before Parliament within six months of the date on which this Act receives Royal Assent.
(3) The Secretary of State shall thereafter in each calendar year—
(a) prepare a duty of care report; and
(b) lay a copy of the report before Parliament.
(4) The duty of care report is a report about the continuous process of review and improvement to meet the duty of care standard established in subsection (1), in particular in relation to incidents arising from overseas operations of—
(a) litigation and investigations brought against service personnel for allegations of criminal misconduct and wrongdoing;
(b) civil litigation brought by service personnel against the Ministry of Defence for negligence and personal injury;
(c) judicial reviews and inquiries into allegations of misconduct by service personnel;
(d) in such other fields as the Secretary of State may determine.
(5) In preparing a duty of care report the Secretary of State must have regard to, and publish relevant data in relation to (in respect of overseas operations)—
(a) the adequacy of legal, welfare and mental health support services provided to service personnel who are accused of crimes;
(b) complaints made by service personnel and, or their legal representation when in the process of bringing or attempting to bring civil claims against the Ministry of Defence for negligence and personal injury;
(c) complaints made by service personnel and, or their legal representation when in the process of investigation or litigation for an accusation of misconduct;
(d) meeting national care standards and safeguarding to families of service personnel, where relevant.
(6) In section (1) “service personnel” means—
(a) members of the regular forces and the reserve forces;
(b) members of British Overseas Territory forces who are subject to service law;
(c) former members of any of Her Majesty‘s forces who are ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom; and
(d) where relevant, family members of any person meeting the definition within (a), (b) or (c).
(7) In subsection (1) “Duty of Care” means both the legal and moral obligation of the Ministry of Defence to ensure the well-being of service personnel.
(8) None of the provisions contained within this clause shall be used to alter the principle of Combat Immunity.”
This new clause will require the Ministry of Defence to identify a new duty of care to create a new standard for policy, services and training in relation to legal, pastoral and mental health support provided to service personnel involved in investigations or litigations arising from overseas operations, and to report annually on their application of this standard.
New clause 7—Duty of care to service personnel—
“(1) This section applies where—
(a) a person has been acquitted of an offence relating to conduct on overseas operations; or
(b) a determination has been made that an investigation into an offence relating to such conduct should cease under section (Judicial oversight of investigations).
(2) No further investigation into the alleged conduct shall be commenced unless—
(a) compelling new evidence has become available; and
(b) an allocated judge advocate determines that the totality of the evidence against the accused is sufficiently strong.”
This new clause would require a judge advocate of the armed services to determine if new evidence is sufficient to grant reinvestigation of armed forces personnel for alleged offences in which they have been acquitted or the original investigation was ceased.
Amendment 11, page 1, line 4, leave out clause 1.
Part 1 of the Bill introduces restrictions on prosecution for certain offences, including a presumption against prosecution. This amendment is one of a series that would remove Part 1 from the Bill.
Amendment 18, in clause 1, page 2, line 2, leave out “5” and insert “10”.
This amendment is one of two providing that the presumption against prosecution should apply after 10 years (instead of 5 years).
Amendment 19, in clause 1, page 2, line 4, leave out “5” and insert “10”.
This amendment is one of two providing that the presumption against prosecution should apply after 10 years (instead of 5 years).
Amendment 64, page 2, line 12, leave out clause 2.
This amendment, which would remove Clause 2 from the Bill, should be read together with NC4, which replaces the presumption against prosecution with a requirement on a prosecutor to consider whether the passage of time has materially prejudiced the prospective defendant’s chance of a fair trial.
Amendment 13, page 2, line 18, leave out clause 3.
Part 1 of the Bill introduces restrictions on prosecution for certain offences, including a presumption against prosecution. This amendment is one of a series that would remove Part 1 from the Bill.
Amendment 24, in clause 3, page 2, line 20, leave out
“(so far as they tend to reduce the person’s culpability or otherwise tend against prosecution)”.
This amendment would ensure that, in giving particular weight to the matters in subsection (2), a prosecutor may consider whether any matter tends to reduce or increase culpability, tending against or in favour of prosecution respectively.
Amendment 21, in clause 3, page 2, leave out lines 23 to 29.
This amendment is one of two that together would delete the requirement for a prosecutor to give “particular weight” in a prosecution decision after 5 years to the adverse effect on a person of the conditions the person was exposed to during deployment.
Amendment 25, in clause 3, page 2, line 33, at end insert—
“(ba) the thoroughness, promptness and efficacy of any ongoing investigation into the alleged conduct or any relevant previous investigation, and the reasons for any delays in such investigations;”.
This amendment would ensure that the adequacy of any investigative process to date is given particular weight by a relevant prosecutor.
Amendment 26, in clause 3, page 2, line 33, at end insert—
“(bb) the public interest in maintaining public trust in the criminal justice system and upholding the principle of accountability of the Armed Forces;”.
This amendment would ensure that a relevant prosecutor gives particular weight to maintaining public trust in the criminal justice system and upholding the principle of accountability of the Armed Forces.
Amendment 27, in clause 3, page 2, line 33, at end insert—
“(bc) the nature of the alleged conduct, in particular whether it engaged the obligations of the United Kingdom under Articles 2, 3, 4 or 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights;”.
This amendment would ensure that particular weight is given by a prosecutor where the alleged conduct engages the UK’s obligations under Article 2 (right to life), Article 3 (prohibition on torture and inhuman or degrading treatment, Article 4 (prohibition of slavery and forced labour) or Article 5 (prohibition of arbitrary detention) ECHR.
Amendment 28, in clause 3, page 2, line 33, at end insert—
“(bd) whether the person had command responsibility for the alleged conduct, and to what extent;”.
This amendment would ensure that particular weight is given by a relevant prosecutor where the person had command responsibility for the alleged conduct.
Amendment 38, in clause 3, page 2, line 33, after subsection (2)(b), insert—
“(c) the quality and duration of relevant investigations.”
This amendment would require prosecutors to give weight to the quality and duration of relevant investigations when deciding whether to bring or continue proceedings against a person relating to alleged conduct during overseas operations.
Amendment 22, in clause 3, page 2, leave out lines 34 to 43.
This amendment is one of two that together would delete the requirement for a prosecutor to give “particular weight” in a prosecution decision after 5 years to the adverse effect on a person of the conditions the person was exposed to during deployment.
Amendment 14, page 3, line 1, leave out clause 4.
Part 1 of the Bill introduces restrictions on prosecution for certain offences, including a presumption against prosecution. This amendment is one of a series that would remove Part 1 from the Bill.
Amendment 15, page 3, line 15, leave out clause 5.
Part 1 of the Bill introduces restrictions on prosecution for certain offences, including a presumption against prosecution. This amendment is one of a series that would remove Part 1 from the Bill.
Amendment 31, in clause 5, page 3, line 29, at end insert—
“(c) where the offence is punishable with a criminal penalty by the law of Scotland, except with the consent of the Lord Advocate.”
Amendment 39, in clause 5, page 3, line 29, at end insert—
“(3A) Where the consent of the Attorney General is sought under subsection (2) or (3) above, the Attorney General must prepare a report containing his reasons for granting or withholding consent, as the case may be, with reference to sections 1 to 3 of this Act, and must lay a copy of this report before Parliament.”
This amendment requires the Attorney General to lay out their evidence and assessment as to why they granted or refused consent to prosecute.
Amendment 16, page 3, line 40, leave out clause 6.
Part 1 of the Bill introduces restrictions on prosecution for certain offences, including a presumption against prosecution. This amendment is one of a series that would remove Part 1 from the Bill.
Amendment 20, in clause 6, page 4, line 13, at end insert—
“(2A) An offence is not a “relevant offence” if it amounts to—
(a) torture, within the meaning of section 134 Criminal Justice Act 1988; or
(b) genocide, a crime against humanity or a war crime as defined in section 50 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001.”
This amendment provides that the presumption against prosecution does not apply to war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide or torture.
Amendment 32, in clause 6, page 4, line 13, at end insert—
“(3A) A service offence is not a “relevant offence” if it is an offence whose prosecution is required under the United Kingdom’s international treaty obligations.”
This amendment would exclude the prosecution of serious international crimes (such as torture, genocide, crimes against humanity, and certain war crimes) from the limitations otherwise imposed by the Bill.
Amendment 17, page 4, line 27, leave out clause 7.
Part 1 of the Bill introduces restrictions on prosecution for certain offences, including a presumption against prosecution. This amendment is one of a series that would remove Part 1 from the Bill.
Amendment 33, page 6, line 4, leave out clause 8.
Amendment 34, page 6, line 15, leave out clause 9.
Amendment 35, page 6, line 26, leave out clause 10.
Amendment 23, page 6, line 38, leave out clause 11.
This clause would introduce a hard deadline for human rights claims and also includes detailed provision around the impact of proceedings on the mental health of Armed Forces witnesses. This amendment deletes this clause from the bill.
Amendment 60, in clause 11, page 7, line 23, at end insert—
“(c) the importance of the proceedings in securing the rights of the claimant.”
This amendment adds a further consideration to which UK courts must have particular regard when determining whether to disapply the standard HRA limitation period of one year so as to ensure that the claimant’s interest in having their claim proceed is not subordinated.
Amendment 46, in clause 11, page 7, line 30, leave out from “before” to the end of line 34 and insert
“the end of the period of 6 years beginning with the date of knowledge.”
This amendment is one of a series that change the relevant date from which the six-year longstop starts to run so as to account for legitimate and explicable delays commonly experienced by persons bringing claims under the HRA arising out of overseas operations.
Amendment 41, in clause 11, page 7, line 34, at end insert—
“(4A) The court may disapply the rule in subsection (1) (b) where it appears to the court that it would be equitable to do so having regard to the reasons for the delay, in particular whether the delay resulted from—
(a) the nature of the injuries;
(b) logistical difficulties in securing the services required to bring a claim, so long as the claimant was making all reasonable attempts to secure such services, or
(c) any other reasons outside the control of the person bringing the claim.”
This amendment introduces a discretion for UK courts to allow a Human Rights Act claim arising out of overseas operations to proceed in prescribed circumstances so as to account for legitimate and explicable delays commonly experienced by persons bringing such claims.
Amendment 29, in clause 11, page 7, line 36, leave out
“first ought to have known”.
Amendment 47, in clause 11, page 7, line 40, at end insert—
“(c) of the manifestation of the harm resulting from that act which is the subject of the claim; and
(d) that they were eligible to bring a claim under the Human Rights Act 1998 against the Ministry of Defence or Secretary of State for Defence in the courts of the United Kingdom.”
This amendment is one of a series that change the relevant date from which the six-year longstop starts to run so as to account for legitimate and explicable delays commonly experienced by persons bringing claims under the HRA arising out of overseas operations.
Amendment 40, page 8, line 14, leave out clause 12.
Clause 12 would require the Secretary of State to consider making a derogation under Article 15(1) ECHR in respect of any significant overseas operations. This amendment would remove this requirement.
Amendment 37, in clause 12, page 8, line 20, at end, insert—
“(1A) No order may be made by the Secretary of State under section 14 following consideration under this section unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by, each House of Parliament.”
This amendment would require significant derogations regarding overseas operations proposed by the Government from the European Convention on Human Rights to be approved by Parliament before being made.
Amendment 66, page 11, line 1, leave out schedule 1.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 16.
Amendment 1, in schedule 1, page 12, line 6, at end insert—
“(13A) An offence under section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (torture).”
This amendment is one of a series designed to ensure that the Bill’s “triple lock” provisions to block prosecutions would not apply to torture and related offences under UK law. This suite of amendments would ensure that the existing offences of torture – contained in the 1988 Criminal Justice Act and in other parts of UK law incorporating longstanding laws of war – would not be included within the Bill’s “triple lock” against prosecutions of UK soldiers.
Amendment 2, in schedule 1, page 12, line 40, leave out “or” and insert—
“(b) a crime against humanity within article 7.1(f),
(c) a crime against humanity within article 7.1(i)
(d) a crime against humanity within article 7.1(k), or”.
This amendment is one of a series designed to ensure that the Bill’s “triple lock” provisions to block prosecutions would not apply to torture and related offences under UK law. This suite of amendments would ensure that the existing offences of torture – contained in the 1988 Criminal Justice Act and in other parts of UK law incorporating longstanding laws of war – would not be included within the Bill’s “triple lock” against prosecutions of UK soldiers.
Amendment 3, in schedule 1, page 12, line 42, leave out “or” and insert—
“(ii) article 8.2(a)(ii) (which relates to international conflict),
(iii) article 8.2(b)(xxi) (which relates to international conflict), or”.
This amendment is one of a series designed to ensure that the Bill’s “triple lock” provisions to block prosecutions would not apply to torture and related offences under UK law. This suite of amendments would ensure that the existing offences of torture – contained in the 1988 Criminal Justice Act and in other parts of UK law incorporating longstanding laws of war – would not be included within the Bill’s “triple lock” against prosecutions of UK soldiers.
Amendment 4, in schedule 1, page 13, line 2, at end insert “, or
(iv) article 8.2(c)(i) (which relates to armed conflicts not of an international character) insofar as it relates to the offences of cruel treatment and torture,
(v) article 8.2(c)(ii) (which relates to armed conflicts not of an international character).”
This amendment is one of a series designed to ensure that the Bill’s “triple lock” provisions to block prosecutions would not apply to torture and related offences under UK law. This suite of amendments would ensure that the existing offences of torture – contained in the 1988 Criminal Justice Act and in other parts of UK law incorporating longstanding laws of war – would not be included within the Bill’s “triple lock” against prosecutions of UK soldiers.
Amendment 5, in schedule 1, page 13, line 14, leave out “or” and insert—
“(b) a crime against humanity within article 7.1(f),
(c) a crime against humanity within article 7.1(i),
(d) a crime against humanity within article 7.1(k), or”.
This amendment is one of a series designed to ensure that the Bill’s “triple lock” provisions to block prosecutions would not apply to torture and related offences under UK law. This suite of amendments would ensure that the existing offences of torture – contained in the 1988 Criminal Justice Act and in other parts of UK law incorporating longstanding laws of war – would not be included within the Bill’s “triple lock” against prosecutions of UK soldiers.
Amendment 6, in schedule 1, page 13, line 16, leave out “or” and insert—
“(ii) article 8.2(a)(ii) ((which relates to international conflict),
(iii) article 8.2(b)(xxi) (which relates to international conflict), or”.
This amendment is one of a series designed to ensure that the Bill’s “triple lock” provisions to block prosecutions would not apply to torture and related offences under UK law. This suite of amendments would ensure that the existing offences of torture – contained in the 1988 Criminal Justice Act and in other parts of UK law incorporating longstanding laws of war – would not be included within the Bill’s “triple lock” against prosecutions of UK soldiers.
Amendment 7, in schedule 1, page 13, line 18, at end insert—
“(iii) article 8.2(c)(i) (which relates to armed conflicts not of an international character) insofar as it relates to the offences of cruel treatment and torture,
(iv) article 8.2(c)(ii) (which relates to armed conflicts not of an international character).”
This amendment is one of a series designed to ensure that the Bill’s “triple lock” provisions to block prosecutions would not apply to torture and related offences under UK law. This suite of amendments would ensure that the existing offences of torture – contained in the 1988 Criminal Justice Act and in other parts of UK law incorporating longstanding laws of war – would not be included within the Bill’s “triple lock” against prosecutions of UK soldiers.
Amendment 8, in schedule 1, page 14, line 8, leave out “or” and insert—
“(b) a crime against humanity within article 7.1(f),
(c) a crime against humanity within article 7.1(i),
(d) a crime against humanity within article 7.1(k), or”.
This amendment is one of a series designed to ensure that the Bill’s “triple lock” provisions to block prosecutions would not apply to torture and related offences under UK law. This suite of amendments would ensure that the existing offences of torture – contained in the 1988 Criminal Justice Act and in other parts of UK law incorporating longstanding laws of war – would not be included within the Bill’s “triple lock” against prosecutions of UK soldiers.
Amendment 9, in schedule 1, page 14, line 10, leave out “or” and insert—
“(iii) article 8.2(a)(ii) ((which relates to international conflict),
(iv) article 8.2(b)(xxi) (which relates to international conflict), or”.
This amendment is one of a series designed to ensure that the Bill’s “triple lock” provisions to block prosecutions would not apply to torture and related offences under UK law. This suite of amendments would ensure that the existing offences of torture – contained in the 1988 Criminal Justice Act and in other parts of UK law incorporating longstanding laws of war – would not be included within the Bill’s “triple lock” against prosecutions of UK soldiers.
Amendment 10, in schedule 1, page 14, line 12, at end insert—
“(iii) article 8.2(c)(i) (which relates to armed conflicts not of an international character) insofar as it relates to the offences of cruel treatment and torture, or
(iv) article 8.2(c)(ii) (which relates to armed conflicts not of an international character).”
This amendment is one of a series designed to ensure that the Bill’s “triple lock” provisions to block prosecutions would not apply to torture and related offences under UK law. This suite of amendments would ensure that the existing offences of torture – contained in the 1988 Criminal Justice Act and in other parts of UK law incorporating longstanding laws of war – would not be included within the Bill’s “triple lock” against prosecutions of UK soldiers.
Amendment 67, page 15, line 33, leave out schedule 2.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 33.
Amendment 48, in schedule 2, page 16, line 5, leave out
“the section 11 relevant date”
and insert “the date of knowledge”.
This amendment is one of a series that changes the relevant date from which the six-year longstop starts to run in England and Wales so as to account for legitimate and explicable delays commonly experienced by persons bringing civil claims for personal injury arising out of overseas operations.
Amendment 30, in schedule 2, page 16, line 5, at end insert
“save for exceptional cases where the overriding interest of justice should be served.”
Amendment 42, in schedule 2, page 16, line 5, at end insert—
“(1ZAi) The court may disapply the rule in subsection (1ZA) where it appears to the court that it would be equitable to do so having regard to the reasons for the delay, in particular whether the delay resulted from—
(a) the nature of the injuries;
(b) logistical difficulties in securing the services required to bring a claim, so long as the claimant was making all reasonable attempts to secure such services, or
(c) any other reasons outside the control of the person bringing the claim.”
This amendment introduces a discretion for the courts of England and Wales to allow a civil claim for personal injury arising out of overseas operations to proceed in prescribed circumstances so as to account for legitimate and explicable delays commonly experienced by persons bringing such claims.
Amendment 49, in schedule 2, page 16, line 30, leave out
“the section 11 relevant date (ignoring, for this purpose, the reference to section 11 (5) in paragraph (a) of the definition of that term)”
and insert “the date of knowledge.”
This amendment is one of a series that changes the relevant date from which the six-year longstop starts to run in England and Wales so as to account for legitimate and explicable delays commonly experienced by persons bringing civil claims for wrongful death arising out of overseas operations.
Amendment 50, in schedule 2, page 16, line 35, leave out
“the section 12 relevant date”
and insert “the date of knowledge”.
This amendment is one of a series that changes the relevant date from which the six-year longstop starts to run in England and Wales so as to account for legitimate and explicable delays commonly experienced by persons bringing civil claims for wrongful death arising out of overseas operations.
Amendment 43, schedule 2, page 16, line 36, at end insert—
“(2Bi) The court may disapply the rules in subsections (2A) and (2B) where it appears to the court that it would be equitable to do so having regard to the reasons for the delay, in particular whether the delay resulted from—
(a) the nature of the injuries;
(b) logistical difficulties in securing the services required to bring a claim, so long as the claimant was making all reasonable attempts to secure such services, or
(c) any other reasons outside the control of the person bringing the claim.”
This amendment introduces a discretion for the courts of England and Wales to allow a civil claim for wrongful death arising out of overseas operations to proceed in prescribed circumstances so as to account for legitimate and explicable delays commonly experienced by persons bringing such claims.
Amendment 61, in schedule 2, page 17, line 5, at end insert—
“(c) the court must also have particular regard to the importance of the proceedings in securing the rights of the claimant.”
This amendment adds a further consideration to which the courts of England and Wales must have particular regard when determining whether to disapply the standard limitation period of three years so as to ensure that the claimant’s interest in having their civil claim proceed is not illegitimately subordinated.
Amendment 51, in schedule 2, page 17, leave out from beginning of line 35 to end of line 5 on page 18, and insert—
“‘the date of knowledge’ means the date on which the person bringing the proceedings first knew, or first ought to have known—
(a) of the act complained of;
(b) that it was an act of the Ministry of Defence or the Secretary of State for Defence;
(c) of the manifestation of the injury resulting from that act which is the subject of the claim, and
(d) that they were eligible to bring a claim against the Ministry of Defence or Secretary of State for Defence in the courts of the United Kingdom.”
This amendment is one of a series that changes the relevant date from which the six-year longstop starts to run in England and Wales so as to account for legitimate and explicable delays commonly experienced by persons bringing civil claims for personal injury and wrongful death arising out of overseas operations.
Amendment 68, page 20, line 1, leave out schedule 3.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 34.
Amendment 62, in schedule 3, page 20, line 32, at end insert—
“(c) the importance of the proceedings in securing the rights of the claimant.”
This amendment adds a further consideration to which the courts of Scotland must have particular regard when determining whether to disapply the standard limitation period of three years so as to ensure that the claimant’s interest in having their civil claim proceed is not subordinated.
Amendment 52, in schedule 3, page 20, line 41, leave out
“the section 17 relevant date”
and insert
“the date of knowledge (see subsection (13))”.
This amendment is one of a series that changes the relevant date from which the six-year longstop starts to run in Scotland so as to account for legitimate and explicable delays commonly experienced by persons bringing civil claims for personal injury arising out of overseas operations.
Amendment 53, in schedule 3, page 21, line 4, leave out
“the section 18 relevant date”
and insert
“the date of knowledge (see subsection (13))”.
This amendment is one of a series that changes the relevant date from which the six-year longstop starts to run in Scotland so as to account for legitimate and explicable delays commonly experienced by persons bringing civil claims for wrongful death arising out of overseas operations.
Amendment 54, in schedule 3, page 21, line 9, leave out
“the section 17 relevant date”
and insert
“the date of knowledge (see subsection (13))”.
This amendment is one of a series that changes the relevant date from which the six-year longstop starts to run in Scotland so as to account for legitimate and explicable delays commonly experienced by persons bringing civil claims for personal injury arising out of overseas operations.
Amendment 44, in schedule 3, page 21, line 9, at end insert—
“(7A) The court may disapply the rules in subsections (5) to (7) where it appears to the court that it would be equitable to do so having regard to the reasons for the delay, in particular whether the delay resulted from—
(a) the nature of the injuries;
(b) logistical difficulties in securing the services required to bring a claim, so long as the claimant was making all reasonable attempts to secure such services, or
(c) any other reasons outside the control of the person bringing the claim.”
This amendment introduces a discretion for the courts of Scotland to allow a civil claim for personal injury or wrongful death arising out of overseas operations to proceed in prescribed circumstances so as to account for legitimate and explicable delays commonly experienced by persons bringing such claims.
Amendment 55, in schedule 3, page 22, leave out lines 12 to 17 and insert—
“‘the date of knowledge’ means the date on which the person bringing the proceedings first knew, or first ought to have known—
(a) of the act complained of;
(b) that it was an act of the Ministry of Defence or the Secretary of State for Defence;
(c) of the manifestation of the injury resulting from that act which is the subject of the claim, and
(d) that they were eligible to bring a claim against the Ministry of Defence or Secretary of State for Defence in the courts of the United Kingdom.”
This amendment is one of a series that changes the relevant date from which the six-year longstop starts to run in Scotland so as to account for legitimate and explicable delays commonly experienced by persons bringing civil claims for personal injury and wrongful death arising out of overseas operations.
Amendment 69, page 23, line 38, leave out schedule 4.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 35.
Amendment 56, in schedule 4, page 24, line 5, leave out
“the Article 7 relevant date”
and insert “the date of knowledge”.
This amendment is one of a series that changes the relevant date from which the six-year longstop starts to run in Northern Ireland so as to account for legitimate and explicable delays commonly experienced by persons bringing civil claims for personal injury arising out of overseas operations.
Amendment 45, in schedule 4, page 24, line 5, at end insert—
“(1Ai) The court may disapply the rule in paragraph (1A) where it appears to the court that it would be equitable to do so having regard to the reasons for the delay, in particular whether the delay resulted from—
(a) the nature of the injuries;
(b) logistical difficulties in securing the services required to bring a claim, so long as the claimant was making all reasonable attempts to secure such services, or
(c) any other reasons outside the control of the person bringing the claim.”
This amendment introduces a discretion for the courts of Northern Ireland to allow a civil claim for personal injury or wrongful death arising out of overseas operations to proceed in prescribed circumstances so as to account for legitimate and explicable delays commonly experienced by persons bringing such claims.
Amendment 57, in schedule 4, page 24, line 29, leave out
“the Article 7 relevant date (ignoring, for this purpose, the reference to Article 7(5) in paragraph (a) of the definition of that term)”
and insert “the date of knowledge”.
This amendment is one of a series that changes the relevant date from which the six-year longstop starts to run in Northern Ireland so as to account for legitimate and explicable delays commonly experienced by persons bringing civil claims for personal injury out of overseas operations.
Amendment 58, in schedule 4, page 24, line 34, leave out
“the Article 9 relevant date”
and insert “the date of knowledge”.
This amendment is one of a series that changes the relevant date from which the six-year longstop starts to run in Northern Ireland so as to account for legitimate and explicable delays commonly experienced by persons bringing civil claims for wrongful death arising out of overseas operations.
Amendment 63, in schedule 4, page 25, line 5, at end insert—
“(c) the court must also have particular regard to the importance of the proceedings in securing the rights of the claimant.”
This amendment adds a further consideration to which the courts of Northern Ireland must have particular regard when determining whether to disapply the standard limitation period of three years so as to ensure that the claimant’s interest in having their civil claim proceed is not subordinated.
Amendment 59, in schedule 4, page 25, leave out lines 25 to 43 and insert—
“‘the date of knowledge’ means the date on which the person bringing the proceedings first knew, or first ought to have known—
(a) of the act complained of;
(b) that it was an act of the Ministry of Defence or the Secretary of State for Defence;
(c) of the manifestation of the injury resulting from that act which is the subject of the claim, and
(d) that they were eligible to bring a claim against the Ministry of Defence or Secretary of State for Defence in the courts of the United Kingdom.”
This amendment is one of a series that changes the relevant date from which the six-year longstop starts to run in Northern Ireland so as to account for legitimate and explicable delays commonly experienced by persons bringing civil claims for personal injury and wrongful death arising out of overseas operations.
Mr Jones
My hon. Friend says, “Please do,” but I am sure that other Members want to contribute to this debate.
Since speaking on Second Reading and in Committee, it has been my aim, and that of the Labour Front-Bench team, to try to improve the Bill. In my nearly 19 years in this House, I have been someone who is proud of our armed forces, considers myself a friend to them and wants to help them in any way I can. I stand up for them, and I speak passionately, I think, in defending not just them but the case for defence.
It has therefore been disappointing that the Government have not really engaged to amend the Bill. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) said to the Defence Secretary that he wished to work with the Government to try to improve the Bill today, and he got a single-word reply: “No.” We then had the reply from the Minister for Defence People and Veterans in response to a question on the Bill when he said that he would be
“happy to work with anybody to improve this Bill, but we must operate in the real world.”—[Official Report, 2 November 2020; Vol. 683, c. 13.]
The only problem with that is that it is the real world according to the Minister, and that world obviously has a different colour sky from the one that we all live in. The idea that, somehow, as long as he is saying it, it has to be true, even when his evidence is counter to that put forward by various witnesses in Committee, is telling. What was sad in Committee was that all the Minister did was read out his civil service brief to us in response to the various amendments. He was reluctant to accept any interventions, even from rottweilers such as my hon. Friends the Members for Blaydon (Liz Twist) and for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck). When it comes to the Government Members on the Committee, I must congratulate the Whips Office on selecting so well, because those Members must have taken a collective vow of silence, which would have been admired by any silent ecclesiastical order. We had no contribution whatever from them, so it has been very difficult trying to engage with the Government on this Bill. The line is, clearly, that this is the answer, irrespective of what has been raised in Committee. We had some very good witnesses before us in Committee, but the Government are just not interested in changing the Bill, because the world and this Bill are perfect, according to the Minister and the Government.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I concur with much of what my right hon. Friend is saying. He has always been a champion of the armed forces, both in his time in Government and, indeed, during the course of this Bill. Does he share my surprise that even the Government witnesses were saying things that disagreed with the Government’s account of this Bill? Professor Richard Ekins said that the Bill certainly does not stop investigations. He said:
“In fact, if one were to make a criticism of the Bill, one might say that it places no obstacle on continuing investigations”––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 6 October 2020; c. 35, Q63.]
Does he not find it surprising that even Government witnesses did not agree with the Government?
Mr Jones
Indeed. Time and again, supposed Government witnesses went against the Government. My hon. Friend raises a good point with the example that he has just provided.
The other thing that came out, which relates to my new clause, was about investigations. Investigations, or the problems that lead to these issues around investigations, were the thread that ran throughout the evidence. In spite of that, what we had at the weekend—this was a really dangerous move on the part of the Ministry of Defence—was tweets promoting this Bill from the MOD and saying that it would stop investigations. It will do nothing of the sort. As a former Defence Minister myself, using the MOD’s website and tweets to politicise things would not have been allowed in my day. What was put out is just not going to happen. Let us look at the evidence that we heard in Committee from a number of witnesses. The first one I will mention, again a Government witness, is Hilary Meredith, solicitor. She was very good and concentrated on the issue around investigations. She said:
“It is the procedure and investigation in the UK that need to be reviewed and overhauled, and not necessarily a time limit placed on…prosecutions.”––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 6 October 2020; c. 16, Q24.]
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
The right hon. Gentleman has a long track record of supporting the armed services here. Is he concerned by the expression of doubt that has been put by members of the Royal British Legion? They have put in writing to all Members of Parliament the fact that they believe that part 2 of this Bill should be improved and that the time limit really gravely concerns them.
Mr Jones
I am, and I will come onto part 2 in a minute. The hon. Gentleman has hit on an issue relating to the Government’s approach to this Bill. The Minister is saying that it is standing up for members of the armed forces. It is doing nothing of the sort. In part 2, it is actually taking away rights.
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Johnny Mercer)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Johnny Mercer
I just wish to intervene briefly. It is a litany of accusations and they are complete rubbish. Where have I ever said that I wanted to stop investigations in this Bill? That is what I would like the right hon. Gentleman to indicate to me.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. That is a perfectly reasonable question, but, although it is not exactly unparliamentary language, perhaps the Minister, speaking as he does with dignity from the Front Bench, might use a different phrase than “complete rubbish”—just something a little bit different.
Mr Jones
It is better than he did in Committee when he called me a hypocrite, Madam Deputy Speaker, but if he listens to what I am saying, he will know that I am not saying that. I know that his attention span is not very good, and he does not tend to listen. What he tends to do is just stick to what he has in front of him and his view of the world, rather than hearing what people are saying. The issue is—[Interruption.] Well, he can say “brilliant” and chunter as much as he likes, but this is the issue—the delays that are taking place because of the investigations.
I have referred to Judge Blackett, and the Minister was there when the evidence was taken. Judge Blackett is a just-retired senior judge of the service justice system, and he said:
“The Bill is effectively looking at the wrong end of the telescope. It is looking at the prosecution end, and you have got to remember that you do not prosecute until you investigate—and you have got to investigate. This will not stop people being investigated and it will not stop people being re-investigated and investigated again. Lots of investigations do not go anywhere, but the people who are investigated do not see that.”—[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 8 October 2020; c. 120.]
That came up when we took evidence from Major Campbell. I will put it on record again that his case was a disgrace, because it took 17 years, but this Bill will do nothing to speed up such cases or to ensure that reinvestigations do not occur. That is the key problem. The problem is not the prosecutions, because their number is very small.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Ind)
I have put in three written questions about this Bill, and yesterday I had answers to them. Two of the answers were helpful, but one, on the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making, was not. I was trying to establish how many investigations had not resulted in prosecutions, and I could not seem to get an answer, yet that is central to the whole problem. The core of the problem is not the small number who get prosecuted but the large number who get investigated.
Mr Jones
The right hon. Gentleman is correct. That came out in evidence that we took throughout the Committee. The issue is not the number of prosecutions but the number of investigations and how we can speed up the length of time they take.
The problem is that the Ministry seems to have a deaf ear when it comes to recognising that we need to address the issue around investigations, which is what new clause 1 would do. It would ensure that we had judicial oversight of the investigations. We can see what we have at the moment from the example of Major Campbell’s case, which went on and on. New clause 1 states that after a certain period of time, the evidence should be put before a judge to see whether there was a case to answer. Clearly, if the evidence did not meet the test and the case was going nowhere, it would get thrown out there and then. Alternatively, it could be decided that the case needed further investigation, but at least that would ensure that, after six months, there was some judicial oversight of the investigation. That would be a way of ensuring that these investigations did not go on for a long time.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend has always been a strong supporter of the armed forces. Does he agree that, while drafting the Bill, the Government, who claim to be champions of our armed forces, continued to ignore the impartial advice of the Royal British Legion, which has stated again and again that it breaches the armed forces covenant?
Mr Jones
But it really does not matter, because if my hon. Friend wants to see the attitude of the Minister to the Royal British Legion, he has only to read the evidence that came before the Committee.
New clause 2 would provide a way of ensuring that minor offences were dealt with speedily. As Judge Blackett said, this could be done in a magistrates court, where, after a period of time had passed, the cases could be looked at judicially and ticked off and dismissed on the basis that the there was no evidence to go forward. That would deal with a lot of the smaller issues. People ask why that is important, but if we look at the Iraq Historic Allegations Team—IHAT—and Northmoor, some of those cases involved assault and other things that in normal circumstances could be dealt with very quickly in a magistrates court. At least if we had a judge looking at them, he or she could make a decision as to whether or not those cases had any merit. It is amazing that the Government fail to recognise that the problem is not prosecutions but actually the investigatory process.
Then, halfway through the Bill Committee, the MOD announced it was coming forward with a review of investigations, to feed into next year’s Armed Forces Act, when the obvious place to have put that would have been in this Bill. The reason for doing that was given away by the Minister in the evidence session: this Bill has nothing to do with making sure of these matters. There is no reason why what I am suggesting and other issues around investigations could not be put in the Bill now and improve it, yet for reasons of tidiness the MOD wants to do it next year.
I have some sympathy with the MOD on that, because perhaps the best way to do this is in those five-yearly reviews of the Armed Forces Acts—and I think I have been on the Committee for every single one for the past nearly 20 years as either a Minister or Back Bencher. But the reason this Bill is before us has nothing to do with that; the Minister let the cat out of the bag in Committee when he said he had to get this through now, because one of his general election pledges was to do it within 100 days. I am sorry, but that is not a good way of bringing in legislation—just trying to press it forward irrespective of whether or not it is flawed.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
I have a lot of sympathy with what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, but may I drag him away from his politics for a second? Would it not be very simple to incorporate the recommendation in a 1960s magistrates Act of a judge advocate general, as that would deal with exactly what he is talking about?
Mr Jones
It would. That and judicial oversight would improve the Bill tremendously. It would then actually do what it is supposed to do, which is stop reinvestigation and stop the worry that these individuals have, but it does not do that; that is the big hole in the Bill.
It is not as though the Minister has not had a chance to look at this. I have raised it with him—I tabled amendments in Committee, which he pushed aside, and we are going to go ahead with what we have now, which will be a flawed Bill. Once it has passed, it will lead to a situation whereby a lot of people think that as a result they have protections when, frankly, it will do nothing of the sort, because it will not stop investigations and reinvestigations. One of the worst things we can do in politics is promise people things and give them the impression that we have done something when actually we have not, because once the penny drops and they see it is not actually the case, they rightly feel very bitter.
As the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) has just said, there is time to put this in the Bill. If Ministers are not going to do it in this place, they should do it in the other place, because it will improve the situation.
There is another dishonesty with this process. From, again, using the MOD website, which I do not think is appropriate for political reasons, we see there is a promise about Northern Ireland. The Minister is on record as saying that similar legislation will be brought in to cover historical cases in Northern Ireland. Well, I am sorry, but it will not do so if it is like this Bill; if it is like this Bill then, frankly, it will do nothing at all on investigations. If it is a mirror image of this Bill, all those people who think that somehow they are going to get protection will find that they do not, and that is just not fair.
Ian Paisley
I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the officers who served under Operation Banner have been completely jettisoned and abandoned. That is the bottom line, and that is the crying shame of this—and I do not trust anyone in the Northern Ireland Office to bring forward a Bill that will help those ex-servicemen in the years to come.
Mr Jones
The hon. Gentleman makes a clear point: do I feel it right that, frankly, people in their 70s or 80s and even younger are worried about this happening? No, I think that is appalling, frankly, because there is an evidence test: is it in the public interest for those individuals to be now dragged before the courts? No, it is not. Here we have another promise that will not be delivered. I must say he is right in terms of the Northern Ireland Office. I have looked at the matter in detail—I have met all parties in Northern Ireland, including Sinn Féin, along with the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis)—and I think that finding a mechanism is going to be virtually impossible.
Ian Paisley
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. The fact is this will end up in Northern Ireland Operation Banner officers being a trade-off between what the NIO finds politically helpful to buy off bartering with the Provisional IRA and Sinn Féin.
Mr Jones
I defer to the hon. Gentleman’s knowledge of Northern Ireland politics, but I will say that this will not be solved by the promise that has been made. That again is not the issue.
I turn to new clause 3. It relates to the point that was raised on part 2 and is covered by an amendment tabled by Members on the Labour Front Bench. The issue is the stripping away of rights from veterans. I find it absolutely astonishing that, in this week of remembrance, we have a Government who have introduced a Bill that will actually take rights away from veterans. The longstop of six years will mean that veterans—and families—will not have access to section 33 of the Limitation Act, which allows people to bring cases out of time.
In Committee there was a lot of discussion about how many people would be affected. The Royal British Legion was very clear in its opposition to part 2 because, as Charles Byrne said in response to the Minister:
“I think it is protecting the MOD, rather than the service personnel”––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 8 October 2020; c. 86, Q163.]
He said that the Royal British Legion thought it did breach the armed forces covenant. I agree, because the covenant states:
“Those who serve in the Armed Forces, whether Regular or Reserve, those who have served in the past, and their families, should face no disadvantage compared to other citizens in the provision of public…services”
and so on. I agree with that, but this strips away their rights under section 33, which means that if somebody brings forward a case after the six-year longstop, they cannot have recourse to section 33 of the Limitation Act, because the Bill will take those rights away. Those rights are open to every single Member in the House today, and to prisoners and asylum seekers—anybody who wants to bring a case.
The Minister said that 94% of cases were brought within the time limits anyway. That is irrelevant to me, because 6% clearly are not, and it is those 6% that will then possibly use the Limitation Act.
May I put this on record, as I did in Committee? Bringing forward a section 33 case is by no means easy. It pertains to a very small number of individuals who could not bring their case within the time limit because their circumstances were unique; and they have to go before a court and argue out the reasons. I have done it myself when I worked for a trade union on injury or disease cases that were out of time—although you would not take on such a case in the first instance if you thought you would not get anywhere. However, there are those important cases that you can take, and which do make a difference.
The case that was mentioned time and again in Committee was the Snatch Land Rover decision in 2016. The families took forward the case under the Human Rights Act, which I will come on to in a minute, on the basis that their loved ones had been killed and injured in Iraq because of negligence on behalf of the MOD.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Just for clarification, in the silent exchange that the right hon. Gentleman and I have just had, I was trying to indicate to him that it would be helpful to the House if he concluded his remarks quite soon. I know it seems that he has not been speaking for very long, but it has been 22 minutes. I appreciate that he has taken a lot of interventions and this is important. I am requiring not that he finishes now but that he takes into consideration that there are many points of view on this Bill and that there are many people who wish to speak and, although we have a long time, we do not have long enough for everyone to take more than 20 minutes. He has some serious points to make, and I trust he will make them as quickly as possible.
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
Could the right hon. Gentleman take a moment to reflect on what he said in his opening remarks, when he said there was near silence from Conservative Members in Committee? I was there, and I did not hear silence, but his contributions probably put us to sleep. With respect, could he think about it again for one moment?
On our side, we had valuable contributions from Members of Parliament who have served this great country of ours, like my hon. Friends the Members for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) and for Wolverhampton South West (Stuart Anderson). They know what they are talking about. Would the right hon. Gentleman care to think again about saying they were silent?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Let us get this straight. Interventions will also be brief this afternoon. We want interventions because there is a serious debate to be had. As I look around the Chamber, I see experienced parliamentarians and others who understand that this is a very important Bill, and much of it is very sensitive, so let us try to behave with sensitivity and consideration for others.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I do not care how many interventions there were in Committee. This debate is not about Committee; it is about the important matters before us, and that is what we will stick to.
Mr Jones
Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I was being polite in replying to the hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (Miss Dines).
The families took the case against the MOD on the basis that they did not know about the Snatch Land Rovers until the Chilcot inquiry reported. That was way past any time limit.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
Surely the right hon. Gentleman realises that the proposed six-year time limit applies from the point of knowledge or the point of diagnosis, so it is not clear what point he is trying to get across.
Mr Jones
He who waits it all comes to. I was going to answer that point in a minute.
The MOD argued two things in that case. First, it argued that the case was out of time, and the families won the limitation hearing to take the case forward. The hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) has just said it would be within the six-year limit. No, it would not. Let us suppose they had taken the case not in 2016 but six years later. They would not be able to take a limitation hearing at all. The Minister does not quite understand that problem.
The case I raised in Committee was of an aircraft engineer who developed a very serious nerve condition from paint. The only reason he was able to take forward his case was because the technology had changed and research had shown that the paint actually damages people’s nervous system.
The Minister said in Committee that, somehow, he is on record in The Sun as guaranteeing that no one will lose out, but he cannot because that will not happen: as I said to him in Committee, using the Robin Day analogy, we are all here-today, gone-tomorrow politicians. Frankly, what will happen is that MOD lawyers will use this to stop people making claims.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
My right hon. Friend does not have to if he does not want to.
Will the passing of the Bill mean that civilians working for the MOD down the road will end up having, in effect, more rights than Army service personnel who have served in operations overseas? Does that not bring us back to the fundamental issue of the breaking of the armed forces covenant, on which the Government really must think again?
Mr Jones
It does. The Bill’s provisions will also mean that prisoners will have more right to sue the MOJ, for example, than armed forces personnel. The Minister said in Committee, “That’s terrible because you’re comparing armed service personnel with veterans”; no, I am not. I am saying that if the Bill goes through, prisoners will have more rights than armed forces personnel. That cannot be right. The Minister mentioned the 6%; I am sorry, but if even one veteran loses their rights under this Bill, I am not prepared to support that.
My next point is about the Human Rights Act. I support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) and the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), because it is about how this looks in terms of our international reputation. There is derogation in the Bill; I accept that there cannot be derogation for torture, but it can and will be used to stop claims by MOD personnel against the MOD itself. The Snatch Land Rover case was brought under the Human Rights Act. Some people have the idea that the Human Rights Act is there to protect nasty foreigners and people we do not like; no, it is not. It is there to protect us all, including armed forces personnel. I am sure that that derogation will be used again by the MOD to deny the rights of individuals to take cases.
People should look at the Smith judgment on that case. What were the Government arguing? They were arguing that combat immunity, which is covered and was reinforced by the Supreme Court judgment, applied in that case because it happened in Iraq. No, that was not the case; the case was actually about the design and the decision to procure those Land Rovers and put them into theatre. The derogation will clearly be used in such a way.
I wish to make one final point, about our standing in the world. I am a supporter of the service justice system—it works well and we should be proud of it—but the problem with the Bill is this: do I want to see British servicemen and women tried in the International Criminal Court? No, I do not. I want them to be tried by their peers in a court in this country. As the Judge Advocate General, Judge Blackett, said in Committee, under this Bill there is a danger that if we have a presumption against prosecution and the issue around torture, we will get a situation whereby individuals will be tried not here but elsewhere. That would be terrible, not just for those individuals but for this country’s international reputation.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I had been hoping to manage this afternoon’s proceedings without a time limit, but I do not think that is going to work; therefore, I am now obliged, in order to try to get a fair and equitable debate, to start with a time limit of eight minutes, but that will be significantly reduced later in the debate. If hon. Members who have eight minutes choose in an honourable way to speak for less than eight minutes, that would be remarkable.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
The right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) set me a target of 30 minutes, Madam Deputy Speaker, and you have reduced it to eight. It is a crying shame.
The Bill’s importance comes down to the penultimate points that the right hon. Gentleman was talking about. The importance of the Bill is all about the Human Rights Act. It is all about the defence not just of British service personnel—which is absolutely right—but of these islands, this nation and our citizens. The point about this Bill is that the law not only interferes inappropriately in the way that the combat forces of our country conduct themselves, but it actually weakens the defence of our realm. Let me break down what I mean by that and explain clearly why this is a problem.
We are seeing today armies being stopped from deploying in certain areas and individual personnel being asked to stop operations because the law is geared to a civilian environment. We have seen legal action brought against the MOD to protect the rights of an individual on operations who has volunteered and specifically stepped up to serve in a risky environment, knowing the dangers and the consequences. The important difference between the civilian environment and the military one and between, to use the jargon, international humanitarian law and international human rights law—or the Geneva convention and civilian law, if you like—is that the law is geared to the environment. If it is not, we end up doing something most unfortunate that nobody in the House wants to do: we end up giving ammunition to the enemy and power to those who would seek to take power from us.
Mr Kevan Jones
I like the hon. Member, but he is talking complete nonsense. If he has read the Smith case, which went before the Supreme Court, he will know that combat immunity is completely covered under the Human Rights Act. It did not change that one iota, so what he suggests just will not happen. That case reiterated the point about combat immunity under the Human Rights Act.
Tom Tugendhat
I am sorry, but the right hon. Member is completely wrong. If he reads “The Fog of Law” written by—oh—me in 2013, a paper for Policy Exchange written alongside actual lawyers, rather than me, such as Richard Ekins, with a foreword written by Lord Moses of the Supreme Court, he will see exactly what I am talking about. If he reads “Clearing the Fog of Law”, which explains the situation, he will see clearly why this is a problem. This is absolutely an issue.
Tom Tugendhat
I will carry on.
It is also an issue for the human rights of some of the people we are fighting. Bizarrely, there were situations in Afghanistan where individuals could only be detained for a certain number of hours. They could not, for various reasons, be handed over to the Afghan authorities, despite the fact that we were, in theory, supporting the Afghan Government. It meant that after a certain number of hours—normally about 96 hours—they had to be released. The fact that they were known bomb makers who had definitely been handling explosives because chemical evidence showed it, could not be used, because in order to be used, those people would have had to be handed over to the Afghan authorities, and various people argued that the Afghan authorities were too inappropriate, too corrupt or too violent.
So, what happened? What do you think happens when someone who has taken up arms against you, literally tried to kill you and planted bombs to try to maim you cannot be detained? It is simple: after the legal limit was reached, the prisoners were released and followed for a number of hours, until they did exactly what we would expect: they went back to a weapons cache or arms unit and were engaged again as lawful military targets. How is that a defence of the human rights, even of the individual concerned?
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
The hon. Gentleman, who is a good Member and a friend, is making a really interesting argument, but I fail to understand how it has anything to do with the Bill. How has limiting the ability of service personnel to take civil action against the MOD got anything to do with what he is talking about? How is requiring a five-year statute of limitations on things like torture anything to do with what he is saying about the operation in war? Can he explain how the interesting points he is making are relevant to what is in the Bill? I and, I think, my colleagues fail to see it.
Tom Tugendhat
I am sorry that the hon. Member is failing to see it, because I thought I explained it quite clearly with the Ukraine example. We also see in other operations how the use of law has undermined the combat effectiveness of the armed forces. We see time and again in operations the opportunity for an individual with nefarious intent to try to bring legal action against the MOD to prevent operations.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Will the hon. Member give way?
Tom Tugendhat
I will not give way any more; I had two interventions and they are done. We see again and again how legal intervention could be used to try to prevent operations. That, absurdly, prevents the armed forces from doing exactly what they are there for: to be the strong defending the weak. Instead, soldiers deployed on lawful operations will not be able to act in defence of the most vulnerable. The Bill clearly intends to go some way towards dealing with that. I do have a criticism of the Bill in that it does not go far enough to prevent multiple investigations, but the Minister for Defence People and Veterans, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) will agree with me on that. It is true that it goes some way, but not nearly far enough.
Dan Jarvis
I declare an interest as a veteran. It is a pleasure to be called in the debate and a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat). I do not share his analysis on this occasion, but it is a pleasure to follow him none the less.
I begin with what I hope is a point of agreement across the whole House. We all appreciate and understand the strength of feeling and high regard that Members across the House have for those who serve in our armed forces. Sadly, we are all too familiar with stories of our armed forces personnel being hounded for years and years. The Bill seeks to address such abuses but—here is where I part company with the Minister and the Government—in a manner that I believe will see Britain reneging on its international legal commitments. I will focus my remarks on the exception of torture from the Bill.
Torture, aside from being wholly ineffective, is illegal, immoral and inhumane. However, having listened to the Government’s arguments throughout the passage of the Bill, I remain convinced of the need for safeguards on torture. For the most part, Ministers have sought to dismiss the suggestion that the triple lock will weaken our stance on torture, yet an ever-growing number of legal experts, military figures and parliamentarians on both sides of the House think there is a need for a rethink.
It is obvious to see why there is a problem with the Bill. In my view, the Government have taken the correct decision to exclude sexual offences from the Bill. They could not have been more explicit when doing so. In response to the public consultation, the MOD said:
“the use of sexual violence or sexual exploitation during conflict is never acceptable in any circumstances.”
I believe that the same applies to torture. It is never acceptable in any circumstances. When pushed on that matter, Ministers have argued that an allegation of torture could arise as a consequence of the unique and often dangerous tasks that soldiers are instructed to carry out on overseas operations. That is just not correct. The rules on detention and interrogation are clear. The British Army’s training on detainee handling and tactical questioning is rigorous and leaves no room for doubt.
There is no debate on what constitutes torture, nor can an act of torture be conducted in error or as a result of a split-second misjudgment. It is a premeditated action for which there can be no justification. There is a reason why our soldiers are taught where the line is: we lose our legitimacy if we sink to the level of our opponents. By not excluding torture in the Bill, the Government are taking another step backwards on international law and on human rights.
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend is making points with which I absolutely concur. The prohibition on torture is absolute. I have witnessed first hand the training given to our armed forces personnel on the issues that he has described. Does he share my concern, which was expressed in Committee, that not excluding torture in the way that the Government could have done, and have done on sexual offences, puts our armed forces personnel at bigger risk of being taken to places such as the International Criminal Court in The Hague, which nobody wants to happen?
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend raises an incredibly valuable point. That is a real risk and an unintended consequence of the Bill. I hope that the Minister gives pressing thought to that during the remainder of its passage through the House.
My hon. Friend will have seen the excellent report by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which raised significant concerns that the Bill breaches the UK’s international legal obligations under international humanitarian law, human rights law and international criminal law. The Committee recommended that at a minimum, the Government should exclude torture, war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide from the Bill’s presumption against prosecution. That is precisely what the Government should be doing.
When I spoke to the Minister before Second Reading, he said that he was amenable to looking at such changes. I am sure he believes, as I and many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House believe, that torture is incompatible with the values and standards of our armed forces.
Jack Lopresti
There is nothing in the Bill that prohibits any investigation within or after the five years for any such acts. There is nothing that favours them; there is no amnesty, no pardon, and no statute of limitations. By the way, I enjoyed the hon. Gentleman’s book, which I read a couple of weeks ago, but I have to say that on this occasion, he is mistaken.
Dan Jarvis
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the comments towards the end of his remarks. There is a weight of expert opinion. I am reassured about the strength of the case that I and other hon. Members are seeking to make today by the contacts I have had with my former colleagues who are still serving in our armed forces. There is a genuine debate still to be had about this. I am sure that the Minister will want to engage with the substance of the debate. Let us keep talking about it.
Dr Julian Lewis
When the Defence Committee was looking at the matter in the previous two Parliaments, it recommended a Bill of this sort provided that the time limit was qualified by the absence of compelling new evidence. Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman saying that he does not feel that that proviso is in the Bill? If that proviso is in the Bill, if there were compelling new evidence that had not come forward in the first five years but came forward afterwards, then indeed a prosecution could proceed.
Dan Jarvis
The right hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. I certainly assume that all of us attend this debate and seek to make contributions in good faith, and I think there is a genuine desire from Members from all parts of the House to improve this Bill. The Minister has indicated on a number of occasions that in good faith he wants to have that continuing conversation with Members about how we can improve the Bill. There is still time to do so, and I very much hope that we will not miss out on that opportunity.
Mr David Davis
It is a privilege to follow the gallant and hon. Gentleman, who is a co-signatory with me to amendments 1 to 10, which deal with the issue of torture. If this country stands for anything, it stands for the rule of law. That enhances our reputation abroad and increases our influence abroad. It is also important to the reputation and effectiveness of our armed forces, who are made safer and more effective because of it. The right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) spoke at length about the Bill not dealing with investigations, so in the interests of time I will move past that.
As the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) said, the Judge Advocate General—the most senior judge in the Service Prosecuting Authority, the person who is the most knowledgeable about all these issues and who was in place for 16 years when these issues were being dealt with—says that this Bill does not address the issue. I will quote him again later on, because he is clearly not some left-wing, liberal lawyer or somebody who wants to undermine the armed forces; he is somebody who wants this country to succeed.
In the witness statements to the Bill Committee, the overriding view of the witnesses was that the principal failing was the failure to include war crimes, crimes against humanity and torture in schedule 1, which in their view contravenes the UK’s commitment to international law and invites the attention of the International Criminal Court.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Article 3 of the Geneva conventions covers torture and crimes against humanity, and there is a convention on torture itself. When I was a member of the armed forces, we were subject to that as our highest priority. Indeed, I often used the Geneva conventions to justify my actions, and the Geneva conventions guide the armed forces. All those people who go on operations are guided by the Geneva conventions, I promise that.
Mr Davis
My hon. and gallant Friend is exactly right, and I want to see the reputation that comes from that preserved after this Bill becomes law.
I will briefly address the weaknesses of two parts of the Bill separately—this addresses directly my hon. Friend’s comments: first, the criminal prosecutions and then the civil cases.
Prosecutions against armed forces personnel are not brought by just any lawyer. They are brought by the Service Prosecuting Authority, which is part of the Ministry of Defence. As it stands, a prosecution can be brought only where there is sufficient evidence that the accused committed the offence and where it is in the public interest that the prosecution should be made. There is therefore already a high threshold for prosecution. As a result, since 2000, there have been 27 prosecutions. Given how many thousands of members of our armed forces have been in operations in difficult circumstances—in close quarters with the civilian population, fighting against an asymmetric enemy—that is an astonishingly low number. That is not a prosecution system that is out of control. That alone shows that the system is not slanted against soldiers.
Dr Julian Lewis
I agree with my right hon. Friend that the prosecution system is not out of control, but does he agree that the investigatory system is? To answer my own intervention on the hon. and gallant Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), is my right hon. Friend aware that clause 3(2)(b) says that the five-year limit will not apply unless
“compelling new evidence has become available”?
Why is he not reassured by that?
Mr Davis
I will tell my right hon. Friend in a moment exactly why I am not reassured by that, but he is quite right that the issue is the repeated investigation of people who are innocent, in most cases. That is a harassing and destructive thing. The best known case is that of Major Campbell, who underwent eight investigations. I am afraid that the real blame lay with the Ministry of Defence for at least four of them. That is what we should address.
As I say, the prosecution system is not slanted against soldiers. I will give the rather gruesome, well known example of Baha Mousa, a 26-year-old Iraqi man who, in 2003, was dragged from his desk while working as a hotel receptionist by British soldiers, handcuffed and taken to a detention facility in Basra. Thirty-six hours later, he had been beaten to death, having suffered 93 separate injuries while in the custody of British forces. The number of solders convicted of murder as a result: zero. The number convicted of manslaughter: zero. There was a single conviction of one soldier, who confessed to inhumane treatment and got one year in prison.
It is difficult for prosecuting and other authorities to make out a clear-cut case of torture, inhumane treatment or even manslaughter, so I do not believe that the system operates against the interests of the armed forces. Indeed, on the several occasions on which the Government have been asked to produce a case of vexatious prosecution—not investigation, but prosecution—they have never been able to name one. That is not surprising. The Service Prosecuting Authority—the body that brings prosecutions—already dismisses claims that it believes are vexatious. In evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Nicholas Mercer, the former Command Legal Adviser in Iraq, said:
“Before I left the army, I gave legal advice on a number of prominent cases…I found a case that was without merit and I closed it. It was as simple as that. I do not need legislation to do that. It happens already.” That is a good reflection on our system, and we should not be ashamed of it.
The area of contention, which has been mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for Barnsley Central, is the triple lock against prosecutions. The Government’s own stated aim is to raise the bar for prosecutions after five years. In its scrutiny of the Bill, the Joint Committee on Human Rights concluded:
“a limitation period that would prevent prosecutions is unlawful under international law if it prevents investigations and prosecutions in relation to torture, war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.”
The Government state that the measure is not a statute of limitations. The Law Society, which some may dismiss, agrees with the JCHR, and concludes that the presumption against prosecution creates a “quasi-statute of limitation” that is “unprecedented” in criminal law, and represents
“a significant barrier to justice.”
Rather more importantly, the Judge Advocate General, whom I described earlier, has said:
“In my view, what this Bill does is exactly the opposite of what it is trying to do. What it is trying to do is to stop ambulance-chasing solicitors and vexatious and unmeritorious claims. The Minister quite rightly said we want rigour and integrity. What it actually does is increase the risk of service personnel appearing before the International Criminal Court. That is why I said it was ill conceived.”––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 8 October 2020; c.117-18, Q234.]
That is the Judge Advocate General, the most expert person in the country on this subject. He also described, incidentally, the Bill as bringing
“the UK armed forces into disrepute”.
If the Government really think that schedule 1 does not make justice more difficult, they would not have excluded sexual offences from the remit of the Bill. If it is not difficult to get a prosecution, why exclude any category? It was right to exclude sexual offences, and the Government should exclude torture on exactly the same grounds. That is the point of the amendment in my name and in that of many others.
I have a couple of minutes, so I will deal briefly with the issue of civil claims. There have been 1,000 civil claims, according to the Ministry of Defence, all of them against the Ministry, not against individual soldiers—as far as I can tell. Surprise, surprise, someone trying to get money goes to the Ministry, not to a poverty-stricken soldier. However, that does not help veterans; it actually hinders veterans.
The point has been made by other Members, so I will press it no further, except to quote the British Legion director-general:
“it protects the Ministry of Defence from civil action—from someone bringing a case. That longstop does not protect the armed forces personnel.”––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 8 October 2020; c. 86, Q161.]
Of course, what the Bill could stop are the sorts of cases that exposed Snatch Land Rover, the lack of provision of body armour and a number of other scandals, which quite properly improved the operation the MOD.
The Bill does the same for torture cases. All the stories about torture and rendition came in the first instance from civil cases—all of them. That is what brought them into the public domain; there was not a single criminal prosecution in the first instance. It is difficult to bring a torture case. In most, only two people know about the torture: the victim and the oppressor—the torturer, or torturers. Typically, no other evidence is available in the public domain. A case is difficult. Even in the case of Belhaj, the most famous torture case—we delivered Mr Belhaj and his pregnant wife to the Libyans, for heaven’s sake—it took 10 years, essentially, to get to court, and of course he got an apology from the Prime Minister. That is why the issue of torture is almost impossible to bring to court.
Time is running out, so I will finish by quoting the questions that the Judge Advocate General put to the Minister in Committee. He said that
“six Royal Military Police were killed…in 2003”,
and asked:
“would we accept that there would be a presumption against… prosecution”
of their murderers? Would we expect special arrangements—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I will let the right hon. Member read the quote before finishing.
Mr Davis
I will read the quote:
“Would we be content that a member of the Iraqi Government’s consent would be needed to prosecute? Would we accept a decision by that person not to prosecute? In my view, there would be outrage in this country if”––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 8 October 2020; c. 128, Q278]—
the Iraqis behaved in that way. The Judge Advocate General said that we should always remember that the law should be “even-handed” to all people.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to contribute to the debate on Report, and to do so early, following the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and a number of other contributors. Time is tight on proceedings, but had the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) spoken for the entirety of the Opposition, Members would have been largely content. I was clear on Second Reading that, while we support the Bill, many aspects of it could have been—and I regret were not—improved in Committee.
I will make this broader point at this stage: just because the Government have the strength of votes does not mean that they have a monopoly on wisdom, or that they should not engage more productively and proactively with some of the concerns that have been expressed. I do not say that belligerently or to cause difficulty; those who have served with me on the Defence Committee know that I approach such matters sincerely. I say it because we want to see the right outcome and the right protection for our service personnel. I am afraid that, following the Bill Committee, we are not quite there yet. We have the opportunity this evening to make necessary amendments.
I will repeat at this stage, although it is not part of the Bill, that I resent the fact that Northern Ireland provisions have not been brought forward. The Minister gave me a commitment on Second Reading—I am glad that he did—that the Government will not resile from the commitments that they have given to veterans who served in Northern Ireland. I accept that progress on those provisions is now, regrettably, outwith the Minister’s domain, but that commitment is still there from the Government and we look forward to seeing how they will honour it.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
Does the hon. Member recognise that there is already an international agreement—it is called the Stormont House agreement—to deal with issues of legacy in Northern Ireland? It seems now that the Government are determined to abandon that agreement and abandon the victims of the conflict too. Does he think that that is a sensible way to proceed—that the Government will again abandon an international agreement?
Gavin Robinson
The hon. Member’s contribution is timely. We know what commitments were given during the New Decade, New Approach agreement on legacy matters in Northern Ireland, and we wait to hear from the Government where they are. Both of us have engaged in conversations recently about where that may go. While we may wish it to go in different directions, I am not sure that either of us will be overly satisfied with what emerges.
I want to touch on a number of key aspects of the Bill. I saw that the Minister, with his normal enthusiasm, talked at the weekend about some of those seeking to amend the Bill being “deeply disingenuous”, “repeating campaign lines” and
“talking a good game…but fundamentally unwilling to lift a finger”
to protect service personnel. He made those comments. I am sharing them because I want to say categorically that they do not accord with me as a signatory of amendments 1 to 10, and nor do I believe that they appropriately accord with others who have signed the amendments.
I think it is right to say that people are being disingenuous if they think that war crimes or genocide are issues that are precluded under the Bill. They are not—they are clearly included in schedule 1—but the Government are wrong not to refocus and think again about torture. Torture should be exempted from the provisions of the Bill. I say that very clearly, drawing on the comments by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis). He was right to reflect that clause 3(2)(b) draws on cases where there has been an investigation before, but what it does not do, and what it should do—I referred to this on Second Reading—is rule out the provisions of the Bill being used where there has not been an investigation at all.
Can it genuinely be the case that where issues are raised around torture where there has not been an investigation at all, we accept that the presumption against prosecution should be engaged? I do not think so. I have clearly argued, alongside the Minister as a member of the Defence Committee, that where the state has discharged its duty through a satisfactory investigation, then we can seek to protect our service personnel from prosecution, but not before.
We are asking the Attorney General to make the determination through the provisions of this Bill. That is the very same Attorney General who will be asked to agree that, because this Bill is being used, our service personnel have to go to the International Criminal Court. That cannot be right. Take these issues back to St Aquinas on what a just war is; he considers the morality of war. We as a country stand firmly against torture. When we engage in armed conflict, we operate on the basis that we share those values—that there is an international norm: our guys will not be tortured because we give a clear commitment that we will not torture theirs. That goes with this Bill.
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Gentleman is making an incredibly strong and important point. Does he not also agree that it potentially undermines our standing in some of the key institutions which we are party to internationally? He may not be aware, but we are actually chair of the optional protocol to the convention against torture subcommittee. The gentleman who chairs it on behalf of the United Kingdom is a graduate of Llanrumney High School in my constituency. We have a key role to play in international institutions and in setting standards for the world. If we undermine that through the Bill, we risk Britain’s reputation globally.
Gavin Robinson
The hon. Gentleman is right that there is a huge danger. The Government are not tearing up our international obligations—I accept that. The Government are not resiling from our international obligations to say torture is wrong, it is abhorrent, it is immoral and it is not something that we will engage in. I agree with the Government on that. But if that is their position, then why not close the circle in the Bill? Why leave it to others to determine in the International Criminal Court, when those issues should be determined here? I say again very clearly that in the context where there has been no investigation at all that cannot be right, be it five years, 10 years or whatever else. I will listen thoughtfully to the Minister in his summing up and hear what he has to say on that. I know he has the strength of numbers. I know he can push it through. I know he can reject the amendments that have been tabled, whether they are amendments 1 to 10 or amendment 32. But I ask him to reflect seriously on that.
Finally, the right hon. Member for North Durham dealt with this issue well in his new clause 1, but new clause 1 should be what the Bill is about: not dealing with the prospect of a prosecution five years after the fact, but dealing with repeated investigations, again and again and again, before the provisions of the Bill are ever engaged. That door remains open. We know some of the Northern Ireland cases that are going through the courts at the moment do not just involve a veteran, elderly and frail, but have also included dawn raids on an elderly and frail veteran of service in Northern Ireland in the ’70s and ’80s. That is outrageous, but none of that is precluded under the terms of the Bill. The investigations issue is worthy of further exploration during today’s proceedings.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We will have to introduce a five-minute limit now, because of the pressure of speakers.
Jack Lopresti
I will address briefly some of the points raised in this excellent debate. First, I would like to congratulate the Minister for Defence People and Veterans, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), for his efforts to bring the Bill before the House. He has been a tireless champion of the veterans community ever since he was elected and it has been a privilege to serve on the Public Bill Committee with him. And I am so pleased he has had his haircut, finally.
This is a Conservative Government who are delivering on our manifesto commitment to begin to ensure that the men and women this House sends on operations, often into harm’s way, are safe from the sort of vexatious, repeat investigations and harassment that some have had to endure after operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. In this country, we are rightly proud of the men and women of our armed forces. In this season of remembrance, it is right for the House to be considering legal safeguards for them on future operations overseas. The Bill begins to address what many have talked about over many years and which we are finally getting to grips with: it provides some reassurance and protection for those deployed in the service of our nation on operations abroad in the future.
With the greatest respect to Members across the House, there has been a great deal of nonsense spoken about this proposed legislation during the passage of the Bill so far. The statutory presumption against prosecution after five years of any incident does not constitute a pardon, an amnesty or a statute of limitations. Prosecutors will still have discretion over whether to act, bearing in mind the public interest and if there is adequate or new evidence, and, critically, after careful consideration from the Attorney General, who will act in the public interest.
Our service personnel are trained to the highest possible standard and are taught about the laws of armed conflict, as well as the Geneva convention, as some Members mentioned. The Armed Forces Act 2006 clearly states that any criminal act will be considered as an offence under UK law. This proposed legislation does not overturn that principle or statute. This Bill does not make it virtually impossible to bring prosecutions for charges of torture—this is not correct—and I welcome the fact that the threshold for a new prosecution will have to be of an exceptional nature after five years. This legislation will dramatically change the existing culture, where our armed forces personnel are seen as fair game by some lawyers. It is right that any investigation must consider the unique pressures of conflict and decisions made under great stress. This provision will, I am sure, be welcomed by serving personnel and veterans.
This Bill does not prevent personnel from bringing civil claims against the MOD. The six-year time limit proposed applies from the point of knowledge or the point of diagnosis. The MOD estimates that 93.8% of claims by service personnel or their families arising from service in Afghanistan or Iraq would be eligible under the provisions of this Bill. I also welcome the establishment by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence of the judge-led review of the wider service justice system. This will I hope ensure that from the beginning when allegations are made or incidents occur, they will be dealt with more swiftly.
The message from this House must be clear to our allies around the world: this Bill does not exclude British personnel on operations from their obligations under international law or the Geneva convention. The wider interpretation of the European convention on human rights has produced additional confusion. In an area where we have unattributed forces acting in grey zone operations, or not wearing uniforms or insignia, the opportunity to provoke incidents and then claim the use of excessive force will be a more attractive option from these states or others who wish us ill. Crucially, other NATO allies, such as France, obtain a derogation from the ECHR when their forces are deployed overseas on operations. This Bill will put in statute the proviso for Ministers to consider that they would derogate from the ECHR.
In welcoming this Bill, I look forward to supporting the Government’s measures to extend similar protections to our Northern Ireland veterans, which is long overdue. This Government are proud to stand up for our armed forces while they protect human rights, democracy and the rule of law.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
I will speak to the amendments and new clauses tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench, those in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and those that I have signed tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) and others.
I do not want to stray too far from the amendments to hand, but I would like to say that I have sat in on many Bills in this place and I have yet to see one leave Committee completely unamended. Most Ministers accept that Bills as introduced are never perfect. They engage and listen to evidence sessions and Members in Committee, and try to make changes accordingly. It is astonishing that the Bill before us today is identical to the Bill we were presented with on Second Reading—astonishing because not a single witness in oral evidence or in written evidence has expressed full support for the presumption against prosecution in part 1 of the Bill or the civil litigation longstop in part 2 of the Bill.
In fact, there have been strong calls to scrap part 2 of the Bill in its entirety. If the civil litigation longstop part of the Bill remains unamended, there is a high risk that the Ministry of Defence will not be held accountable for violations of soldiers’ and civilians’ rights. The largest proportion of claims made against the MOD are claims of negligence and of breaches of the MOD’s duty of care towards its soldiers. Between 2014 and 2019, the available data shows that such claims amounted to more than 75% of all claims. This legislation will benefit only the Ministry of Defence, yet the Ministry of Defence is the defendant in all those claims. There is a clear conflict. The Minister and the Department have created legislation that protects them from legitimate legal claims. I am unaware of any other instance of our legislation being drafted in such a way to give such inbuilt protection to the defendant over the claimant, especially when there is already legislation in place under the Limitation Act to strike out any baseless claims.
This Bill allows the MOD to strike out not just baseless claims, but any claims, including rightful ones. Those suffering from hearing loss or post-traumatic stress disorder will not always be able to bring claims within the six-year timeframe, for the reasons many in our Committee’s evidence session gave.
There remains a lack of clarity about the number of people who would be disadvantaged by the longstop, but the Government’s impact assessment shows that at a minimum, 19 injured or bereaved members of the forces community who made claims from operations in Afghanistan and Iraq would have been blocked had the legislation we are debating today been in place. One member of our brave forces being blocked from a claim is completely out of order, never mind 19. Crucially, we do not know what will happen in the future, but it is likely that there will be drastic unintended consequences and our forces will have less protection than civilians and, in some cases—as has been said—prisoners. There is simply no justification for introducing a time limit where one currently does not exist.
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck), who is a fellow patron of the women’s veterans charity Salute Her, part of Forward Assist and the only other female who sits with me on the Defence Committee.
In consideration of new clause 1, I remind the House why the Bill is necessary. The Government of the day sent the British military into operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and for over a decade after, these troops were hounded by lawyers, chasing the money and putting our troops through hell once again. So prolific was this hunt that it was given the name “lawfare”, and it is this lawfare that we seek to address.
Over the past few months, I have spoken to a significant number of serving personnel and veterans about the Bill. What sticks in my mind are five soldiers who specifically told me about their experiences of being investigated through Operation Northmoor and the Iraq Historic Allegations Team. All were vexatious claims and four left the service as a direct consequence of their treatment—exemplary soldiers all feeling let down and betrayed. All five believe the Bill would have protected them in some form, and they all welcome its introduction.
Retention is a big challenge for the military, especially the Army. In the British military, we train soldiers to the highest standard. Their professionalism and capabilities are renowned across the globe, but the military is a bottom-up organisation. Someone cannot enter the Army as a regimental sergeant major. Promotion comes from within the ranks. We have lost many to this lawfare and even worse is the feeling that service personnel and veterans are not valued. There have been over 4,000 lawfare compensation claims made against personnel, and only one went to prosecution. Just think about that litigious process and what it did to the remaining 3,999 people’s mental health and wellbeing and the impact on their families, and it was allowed to happen.
Opponents of the Bill suggest that it protects soldiers from prosecution against war crimes and crimes against humanity, and I support the comments made by my hon. Friends the Members for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) and for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) regarding the Geneva convention. The Bill offers no such protection. The service personnel I have spoken to are unanimously affronted by the suggestion that they want and would be protected by such an Act. They find the mention of blanket immunity abhorrent.
I cannot miss out on the opportunity to mention Northern Ireland. More service personnel died in those troubles than in Iraq and Afghanistan put together, and I have already received ministerial assurances, but I urge the Secretaries of State for Defence and for Northern Ireland to expedite this provision for those veterans who served.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The hon. Lady brings up a pertinent point. Obviously, the Bill provides protection, but there does not seem to be the same protection for soldiers who served on Operation Banner, the greatest operation in British history. Does she feel that this protection should be extended to those who served in Northern Ireland on Operation Banner, so that they have the same protection as they would have if they had served in Afghanistan or Iraq?
Sarah Atherton
I am just about to say that they, too, should be afforded certainty that the unique operational pressures placed upon them will be taken into account. Prosecution decisions are made on alleged historical offences, and I understand that there will be some debate in this House on that matter.
I have spent the past few weeks scrutinising the Bill line by line in the Public Bill Committee, along with a number of other Members. Is the Bill perfect? No, it is not, but it is infinitely better than where we are now. No Bill or Act will ever suit all people in all circumstances, but which group would object to this Bill the most? It is the group who would lose out the most: the unscrupulous human rights lawyers. Service charities welcome the Bill, although I acknowledge that they have some reservations. But all service personnel and veterans want to be and should be supported by the Government, their politicians and their people. After all, they are prepared to, and do, put their lives at risk for us, and this is the duty of care these service personnel want. This Bill goes some way in offering that support, and I welcome it.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I am grateful to you for the opportunity to take part in this debate, Mr Speaker. As the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) indicated, it bears a remarkable similarity to the one we had on Second Reading, because, it would appear, of how matters were proceeded with in Committee. That is unfortunate, because on Report the House is charged with the more detailed scrutiny of the sort we would normally expect to have and the Bill will be the poorer for its lack. I have listened with care and attention, occasionally trying to intervene, but I am struck by the fact that so many of those who speak in favour of the Bill continue to do so on the basis of seeking somehow to limit civil claims being brought against the Ministry of Defence.
The hon. Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) spoke about lawfare and made a good point; I speak as a distantly former solicitor and the behaviour she refers to was disgraceful. However, the way to deal with such utterly disgraceful behaviour lies with the regulatory authorities for the legal profession; it is not necessarily for this House to start driving a coach and horses through the important protections we all enjoy, which ultimately benefit most of our armed forces personnel. I do not understand why part 1—an interference with the prosecution and the creation of a presumption against prosecution in criminal cases—will make any difference to the spectacle we saw in relation to lawfare.
Let me deal briefly with the provisions tabled by the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). His suggestion in new clause 1 is sensible: judicial oversight of some sort for investigatory processes in the context where, as we all know, it is difficult to come by evidence, because it has to come from a theatre of conflict. That sort of protection is sensible, and it is unfortunate that the inadequacy of our proceedings today will not allow his proposal the sensible scrutiny and debate it deserves.
However, I wish to focus the bulk of my remarks on amendment 1, tabled by the hon. and gallant Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) and the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). For me, the operation of the presumption against prosecution in relation to torture is the most egregious aspect of this Bill. I suspect that if we could sort that—I am pretty certain that it will be sorted when the Bill goes to the other place—then we could probably fairly easily build a consensus around the Bill: the sort of consensus that, by and large, we manage to achieve most of the time in relation to the conduct of and support for our armed services.
I was struck by what the hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) said about the various protections that he claims are within the Bill and how that would still make it possible to bring prosecutions in the exceptional circumstances envisaged by its authors. There is some merit in his proposition, but it did occur to me that if these provisions are adequate for torture, they should also be adequate for protections against sexual offences—but sexual offences are carved out in schedule 1 expressly because they should never be countenanced under any circumstances. It is absolutely right that they should be carved out in schedule 1 for those reasons, but it is for those reasons that torture should also benefit from the same sort of exemption that we have seen in respect of sexual offences.
The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden touched on Belhaj. I will say only this: let us remember that the Belhaj papers were only found, following the fall of Gaddafi, entirely by accident. That is how difficult it can sometimes be to obtain the evidence of torture.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for being a tireless advocate for veterans and making this Bill possible. I also thank the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) for his loquacious advocacy for veterans throughout the Bill Committee. He raised questions about the participation of other Members, but I would wager that his words that poured forth throughout the Committee covered every aspect of anything we may have an interest in.
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
I was not in the Chamber when that was said earlier, but it is fair to say that I made over 40 interventions in the Back-Bench debate, so I certainly contributed to the Bill Committee in that regard, as did many other Members. It would therefore be unfair to say that there was no contribution from Conservative Members.
Joy Morrissey
It was indeed an honour to serve on the Committee, because I myself, although not serving in the military, had two brothers who were veterans, and I saw the way that war and conflict tore their lives and our family apart.
I have spoken to many veterans who have said that they were at the point of wanting to kill themselves—some attempted it—for the fear of being prosecuted through these kinds of claims. The Bill protects the men and women who have risked their lives and fought to keep us safe and free. It allows our brave servicemen and women to go overseas to fight and represent us, and then come back and safely carry on their lives. That is what the Bill was intended to do, and I believe that that is what it will do.
I appreciate the plethora of amendments presented by the right hon. Member for North Durham. I am grateful for his studious nature in making sure that we have covered every aspect of these clauses. As my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) mentioned, the investigative system is out of control. The Bill goes some way towards mitigating that, and we could perhaps have gone even further. The issue of derogation, which was raised at the start, was not further discussed, but we could have done so with a greater level of debate.
Joy Morrissey
Not at the moment.
The issue of derogation before an overseas conflict or an overseas mission is started might go a long way in any claims made retrospectively after the mission and whatever conflict we have engaged in is completed.
Those are small things that we could have looked at in further detail, but I appreciate and support the Bill. I am grateful to all those who have contributed, and I hope that we will be able to do what we promised in our manifesto commitment, which is to take care of veterans.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
Since this Bill came before us, I have had serious misgivings about its aim and its effectiveness. As it has progressed unamended, we have heard evidence from military and legal experts as well as charities, all stating that the Bill does not provide the protections that the Government claim it does for our armed forces. Worse than failing to protect our armed forces and their families, it risks limiting them from holding the Ministry of Defence to account when it fails to equip armed personnel properly or when it makes serious errors leading to injury and, in some cases, sadly, death. That was confirmed when the Royal British Legion director general told MPs on the Committee:
“I think it is protecting the MOD, rather than the service personnel”.––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 8 October 2020; c. 86, Q163.]
During the past 16 years, there have been 25,000 civil cases against the MOD by British troops who have been injured or their families. If this Bill goes through without protecting the armed forces covenant, we could potentially see thousands of personnel, veterans and families left wanting when what they deserve is justice. When looking at legislation, I always ask, “What’s the problem that this is trying to solve?” When we compare the 25,000 civil cases against the MOD with the number of vexatious claims, we should be questioning who is really being protected with this Bill. Unlike the Minister, I completely agree with the Royal British Legion’s director general: this Bill is about protecting the MOD, not service personnel.
Johnny Mercer
It is important to correct the record. The claims that the hon. Lady refers to have not happened overseas, so those figures are not right. This Bill is specifically designed for overseas operations, and the figures that have repeatedly been raised are incorrect.
Sarah Owen
As has been raised many times by Members on both sides of the House, we would like to know exactly how many, yet we are left wanting.
We know that the armed forces risk their lives every day—[Interruption.] The Minister does not want to hear this. I have already had to suggest to him that he should turn off Twitter and listen to the genuine concerns of Members around the House. We know that the armed forces risk their lives every day, and we owe them a huge debt. We also know that they are sometimes faced with difficult decisions, but even in the heat of war, the rule of law still applies. The Government have provided no rationale for why sexual crimes should be excluded from the Bill, but not torture and other war crimes. All is not fair in love and war. Our armed forces are still bound to international humanitarian law, and the Bill risks UK personnel being dragged to the International Criminal Court, which is why I urge Members to support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) and the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis).
The exclusion of sexual crimes but not torture is important. Under international law, torture is clearly defined as intentional infliction of very serious or cruel suffering, yet the Minister said in Committee that
“we expect our service personnel to undertake activities that are intrinsically violent in nature. These activities can expose service personnel to the possibility that their actions may result in allegations of torture”––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 14 October 2020; c. 206.]
The definition of torture in international law is clear, yet the Minister seemed to deliberately muddle the violent nature of the work of the armed forces with legitimising torture. Given the world that we live in at the moment, that is a very dangerous path to go down. We are rightly condemning the horrendous abuses by the Chinese state in Xinjiang, the violations of human rights in Kashmir and the plight of the Rohingya people, but how can this Government call out other states for their use of torture and human rights abuses when they seek to pass legislation that legitimises the very same? Some Members on the Government Benches have loudly, and in some cases rather surprisingly, become self-appointed champions of protecting human rights overseas, yet we will see them again walk through the Lobby to vote for a Bill that erodes the international human rights laws that we should all uphold. Our armed forces can and should be held to the same high standards, being protected by, and adhering to, the same international law that we expect of others.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) in this debate.
My colleagues and I support the good intention of this Bill. It is the right thing to do to protect those who have protected us and this nation, and indeed many other innocents, in the face of the threat to life and the oppression of fundamental rights.
The Bill is not drafted perfectly, but tonight we have an opportunity to address and debate its deficiencies. One area of significant concern is torture. Amendments 1 to 10 seek to address that deficiency and, indeed, go a long way towards addressing this matter of grave public concern. That is the right thing to do. Like sexual offences, torture must fall outside the provisions of this Bill. Let us do nothing to undermine the values we hold dear as a nation. Where no investigation has taken place, it is absolutely right that the provisions of this Bill do not apply.
Cognisant of the purposes of today’s proceedings, I still wish to raise once again the plight of veterans of Operation Banner. I represent many such veterans who live in my constituency, and indeed hon. Members right across this House do so as well. While the operation was in Northern Ireland, those who served came from right across our United Kingdom and beyond. In the previous debate on this Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and I asked the Minister to state that the provisions of this Bill will not become law until the assurances made in the House on 18 March regarding Northern Ireland are fulfilled. The Minister said in response:
“We are clear that we will deliver our commitments to Northern Ireland. In a written ministerial statement on 18 March, we committed to equal treatment for those who served on Op Banner. We will not resile from that position.”—[Official Report, 23 September 2020; Vol. 680, c. 1049.]
That is a good intention—it is the right intention—but there is no guarantee. I know from our conversations with veterans that the longer this delay continues the more suspicious they get. This is wrong, and I need to know that the Minister believes it is wrong as well, so what is the cause of the delay? Those who await the knock at the door for standing up to terrorism deserve answers, and I urge the Minister to give those answers today.
The Bill is welcome and delivers on promises made by the Government, but we must no longer leave some veterans behind as prey to vexatious prosecutions. That is wrong, especially if, as suspected, it is for no other reason than to give a sop to the political front of the very people who killed and maimed many of those they served beside.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
Having been spared the commitment of serving on the Bill Committee, I am fortunate also to have been spared some of the polarisation that has affected this Bill, so I talk today from a position of complete objectivity. Having also tracked this important journey very carefully for many years, both professionally and personally, I believe this is an essentially good piece of work that deserves a fair passage through Parliament.
As I stated on Second Reading, any new legislation needs to be set in the context of the prevailing macro-conditions and previous legislation. This Bill fills a void where little has previously existed, so I commend the Minister for his vision, resilience and fortitude to date.
The bottom line is that this Bill delivers on the Conservative manifesto commitment to address the issue of vexatious claims and makes the first substantial amendments of their kind to the Human Rights Act by limiting the time during which claims can be brought. I can say from experience that this is what our armed forces want. They aspire to better protected in law. They want to know that the country values their service. They need to know that they will be supported if they pull the trigger lawfully and, after the misery of the ambulance-chasing years, they want the threshold for prosecution to be raised so that the endless knocks at the door finally stop. This is a no-brainer.
Bob Stewart
Not only the ambulance-chasing lawyers, but it is really good that we will not ever see the Iraq Historic Allegations Team, which really made our soldiers’ lives hell when it investigated them. That will not happen again either.
James Sunderland
I could not agree more.
I am aware that several amendments were tabled in Committee, but none was agreed to. The Bill is hence essentially unaltered from Second Reading, so perhaps it is no surprise that such a large list is being considered today. I will admit that some of the amendments have merit. Having been contacted over the weekend by the eminent hon. and gallant Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) and my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), I have looked in particular at amendments 1 to 10. My view, however, is that this Bill will not prevent the UK from rightly prosecuting acts of torture, war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide, and that the Bill does not need to exclude these from its triple lock because existing provisions already exist in law.
I also struggle with the notion that the MOD would somehow fail to investigate or prosecute, because the bad apples will always face justice, as indeed they did during my time in uniform. Regarding torture, the Government’s position is that the presumption against prosecution will not prevent any prosecutor from considering the severity of the crime or the unique circumstances in which it was committed. Indeed, war is a nasty business, so I do not believe that a court should somehow be prevented from giving weight to the mental health of the individual or the prevailing conditions. Hence I am minded against amendments 21 and 22. I agree with the Minister that this would be nonsensical, as prosecutors should give recognition to the difficulty, the trauma and the acute stress of military operations, as any member of HM forces will testify.
In addition, the Bill confirms that on a case-by-case basis, a prosecutor can determine that a crime is exceptional, so there is no collision course here with the UN convention against torture, the Geneva convention, the Hague or even NATO, as nothing will be swept under the carpet. As for the five-year time limit, this is correct, as the clock will start ticking from the point at which matters come to light, not from the time of the alleged incident. That was also the overwhelming preference during the public consultation. Not only should it be possible for all the evidence to be gathered within a five-year period, but I concur with the Minister that memories do fade, that evidence does deteriorate and that it remains in the interests of everyone involved to deliver justice quickly. I do not therefore support amendments 18 and 19, which seek to lengthen the period to 10 years. This is ultimately about taking pressure off our people, not prolonging it.
Part 2 of the Bill relates to claims by service personnel against the MOD. As 94% of all employer liability claims against the MOD since May 2007 have been brought within the limitation longstop of six years, I agree that there should be a time limit here, too. To be fair, I have considered the suggestion that this Bill is more about protecting the MOD than it is about protecting HM forces, but that, too, is ridiculous. I note that the time limit extends here, too, from the point at which the issue first came to light. There is more than enough time here for any complaint to be submitted, and the MOD cannot simply write a cheque for yesteryear. I will be voting against new clauses 5 and 6 and amendment 23 if they are divided on.
Lastly, I am aware that this Bill has attracted lots of interest in the media in recent months, so I want to set the record straight: I am not convinced that the criticism from the Royal United Services Institute, the Royal British Legion, the Joint Committee on Human Rights or other senior figures is necessarily fair, as the Bill delivers what it says on the tin. Having read it in detail, I am clear, too, that any new presumption against prosecution is not a statute of limitations and does not in any way create a bar to either investigations or prosecutions. Unlike some, I have complete faith in both our legal system and our armed forces, so I commend this Bill to the House.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
We all agree that the aims of the Bill are noble, and that the idea of revolving investigations or a life in investigatory purgatory, never knowing when a vexatious investigator will come knocking at the door, is wrong and must end. The mental stress of that legal uncertainty needs clarity. The loopholes need to be closed and fixed, but this Bill does not do that. It does not even come close. In fact, in a number of areas, it makes things worse.
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con)
During last year’s general election campaign, the protection of our service personnel and veterans was the biggest issue that I encountered on the doorsteps of Wakefield, beside Brexit. From tackling the morally bankrupt state of homelessness among the veteran population to ensuring that they are protected from vexatious litigation claims, I am proud to stand behind 4,200 veterans in my constituency and will continue not only to represent and defend them but to champion their causes and those of their families, and to ensure that they receive fair treatment by our society, to which they have given so much.
It is the Conservative party that has always championed and defended our service personnel and veterans. It is the Conservatives who have consistently defended Trident and raised defence spending above the NATO target of 2%. This Bill is doubling down on our beliefs and commitments. It is designed to provide our service personnel and veterans with the protections needed from vexatious claims and repeated investigations.
We should, of course, hold our armed forces servicemen and women to the highest standards. For that exact reason, the Bill does not prevent prosecutions where genuine wrongdoing is found to have occurred. The five-year threshold for prosecutions means that victims have a long window in which to put forward their allegations. As I understand the Bill, the threshold does not apply in cases that are exceptional and begins only from the point of knowledge, such as in the case of post-traumatic stress disorder.
Those on the Opposition Benches unfairly claim that the Bill legalises torture and war crimes committed by service personnel, risks undermining our justice system and defends only the Ministry of Defence. That is ridiculous and demonstrably false. Credible investigations can and will be pursued when there is either new compelling evidence or, as I mentioned, in exceptional circumstances, such as cases of sexual offences.
For almost 20 years, before I was returned to this place, I often found myself in diverse places spanning four continents, living and working alongside our courageous armed forces. I am committed to ensuring that those who have, continue to or will gallantly serve the United Kingdom in our armed forces should not have to face repeated investigations years after they have served on operations. The Bill advances the protection of our service personnel, but not to the detriment of victims or at the cost of our revered justice system. I urge all Members from all parties to support the passage of the Bill.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
Elizabeth Wilmshurst, the former deputy legal adviser at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, says that the Bill calls into question the UK’s commitment to a “rules-based international system”. As of today, nearly a dozen United Nations human rights special rapporteurs and experts have declared that the Bill will violate the
“UK’s obligations under international humanitarian law, human rights law and international criminal law”.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission says that it is
“profoundly concerned by the risk to human rights that this Bill poses.”
The Judge Advocate General of the Armed Forces says that the Bill risks bringing
“the UK armed forces into disrepute”.
How can the Minister justify sticking his fingers in his ears in the face of such grave concerns voiced by legal, defence and human rights experts? Why is this legislation so out of step with the similar legislation of allied countries such as the US and Canada?
I am proud of the strength and unity of Labour’s opposition to the Bill on final Reading, because our party has a record of championing human rights and fighting for the dignity of workers and for the rule of law—everything that the Bill flies in the face of. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) said at the time of the recent publishing of the Human Rights Joint Committee report, it is not the drafting of the Bill that is the problem, because it is perfectly drafted in accordance with the policy; it is the policy itself that is the problem.
This Bill is rotten to its core. Speaking of the Human Rights Joint Committee report, the Minister was unable to explain which vexatious prosecutions would have been stopped by the Bill, so perhaps he can tell us today. No? I didn’t think so, because the answer is none. What is particularly disrespectful and distasteful is this Government’s disingenuous claim that anyone who opposes the Bill is anti-armed forces. I suppose that includes the Royal British Legion, too. A Government source, in characteristically anonymous fashion, told The Guardian this morning that Labour’s stance on the Bill
“confirms their long-held disdain for armed forces personnel”.
Let me tell Conservative Members what disdain for our armed forces personnel looks like. It is shoving through this Bill, despite concerns from the Royal British Legion and senior military figures; it is breaching the armed forces covenant; it is stripping soldiers of their employment rights; and it is rewarding new recruits with poverty pay, with one of the lowest salaries in the public sector at just over £15,000 a year. For more than 300 years, torture has been illegal in this country. The Bill would overturn that principle, and that would be a moment of national shame. So tonight, as a matter of pride, I will be voting against this Bill—this irredeemable anti-veteran and anti-human rights piece of legislation—for the second time.
Stuart Anderson
I am sure that I will have a different view to the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome). I find myself in a surreal place, because I have gone full circle. I once moaned, as a soldier, about not enough being done in this House for the armed forces. Now, I am contributing to legislation that I honestly believe will have a positive impact on our armed forces.
Looking back at the different overseas operations I have served on and being able to bring those experiences to the House has been a huge honour. I was fortunate enough to speak in the first debate about what I did on operations, and also to sit through several weeks of scrutiny on the Bill Committee. I have learnt a lot during this process, and gained a greater understanding of the huge complexities involved in bringing legislation through this House. It is clear that the Minister for Defence People and Veterans has done so much to get the Bill here, and I pay tribute to all the work he has done to get it to this stage.
When I look at all that is said in this House in support of our armed forces, I scratch my head and wonder why it has taken this long to bring this legislation to the House. I have looked back and reflected to try to find out why this was the case. When I joined the Army straight from school several decades ago, the armed forces were not popular. We were not high on satisfaction ratings. We were not allowed in any of the places in the towns where we were posted. We were restricted from most places we went to. People did not come out into the streets and clap for the armed forces, so maybe it would not have been a popular decision to bring a Bill such as this to the House at that time. This has quite rightly changed now, and people do support our armed forces. Maybe that is why people are now saying so much about the forces that they have not said in the past. In this House, you cannot move for support for our troops, yet it is only now that this Bill is being brought forward.
I genuinely think that there is honest support across the House for our troops, and that all Members want the best for them. However, words do not protect our troops. We need to go further, and action is what is needed. As MPs, if we suffer a bad day, we hit the headlines. We might have a media campaign against us, someone might put graffiti on our office or we might end up having harassment. None of that is right, but it passes. It does not change our lives forever. However, when someone is serving on overseas operations, a split second can change their life forever when that shot is fired, that improvised explosive device is set off or that rocket comes into their base when they are asleep. A limb is lost. They witness a friend being killed. Ultimately, people lose their lives.
After an overseas operational tour, something is left on that battlefield. You never come back the same. The time for words has passed. We now need to support our armed forces, and we need to do so by supporting the Bill.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in the debate and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Stuart Anderson). When my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton) was in her place, she outlined the concept of lawfare. There can be no doubt that that exists and has been exploited, leading to vexatious claims against our brave armed forces personnel over a considerable period of time.
Cases such as that of Major Robert Campbell are absolutely scandalous. This man had to face eight separate investigations over 17 years into a single incident that took place back in 2003. He is only 47, so we are talking about more than a third of his life. Each investigation cleared him, only for the goalposts to be moved for each successive investigation. The toll taken on that completely innocent man, who put his life on the line for his country, is enormous.
Tragically and shamefully, he is not alone. To put it into perspective, a long-running streak of claims have been dismissed as far back as the 2009 al-Sweady inquiry, which took five years, cost £25 million and the conclusion of which was that the allegations were
“wholly without foundation and entirely the product of deliberate lies, reckless speculation and ingrained hostility”.
Furthermore, the Iraq historic allegations team determined that 70% of cases did not have a case to answer or that it would be disproportionate to conduct an investigation. Similarly, as of June, the service police legacy investigations had closed or were in the process of closing 1,200 allegations. Operation Northmoor, which took three years and cost £10 million, resulted in no charges, but all that takes significant time and causes huge distress to those under repeated investigation.
Our servicemen and women make enormous sacrifices on behalf of our country and the practice of hounding them must come to an end. It is therefore right that the Government seek to raise the bar for prosecutions in overseas operations by requiring prosecutors to have proper regard to the uniquely challenging circumstances into which we send our personnel to risk their lives on our behalf, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West.
Opponents of the Bill have said that it would issue an amnesty for torture and war crime offences, but that is simply not the case. As the Minister has been at pains to make clear, the Bill does not provide blanket immunity from prosecution; it merely raises the threshold for the prosecution of alleged offences. Those opponents have also claimed that it would damage the reputation of our armed forces. I question instead what sort of a country we would be if we allowed our armed forces to continue to make enormous personal sacrifices only to return back home and be at the mercy—for years—of tank-chasing lawyers such as Phil Shiner, who was, of course, struck off for his actions. The Minister has outlined at length how the Bill meets the UK’s obligations under domestic and international law. I look forward to hearing him do so again in his closing speech.
Most Members on both sides of the House sincerely support our armed forces, but there have always been some who have taken sides against our armed forces and shown no respect whatsoever for our veterans. I am not among them. I am inclined to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), who said that the Bill goes some way to protecting our armed forces but probably not far enough. However, it does improve the current unacceptable position. I therefore support the Bill to protect our armed forces.
Ian Paisley
May I say at the outset that I am extremely proud of our armed services and their conduct, their calibre and their gallantry? They are well renowned and well supported across Ulster. They are applauded, and have been for many years, even through the dark years when people did not like the armed services so much, because people know the sacrifice that young squaddies made to hold the line between peace and chaos in a part of the United Kingdom. They were, and are, applauded.
In principle my party welcomes the Bill and wants to support it. We do think there are many ways in which it could be improved, and we hope the Minister is listening to those calls for improvement. We are bitterly disappointed that the legislation will fulfil only part of the Government’s manifesto commitment—part of the commitment on which Members canvassed around the whole of this nation to obtain support. I will come to the detail of that in a moment.
When I was a student at university, I had a tutor from Germany. She recounted to me a story about one of her earliest and most confusing experiences of Northern Ireland. She wanted to call a colleague here at King’s College London, and for her it was not a problem. She picked up the phone, she dialled the number, and she was told by the switchboard operator at Queen’s University, “That’s fine—that’s a local call.” Some time later, she had to call a colleague at Trinity College, Dublin, but she was not able to make the call, and was told by the switchboard operator, “Oh, that is an overseas call, down to Dublin.”
So I understand the confusion that some people might have, and indeed the justification that the Government have put into this piece of legislation to leave Northern Ireland out, and leave Operation Banner soldiers out, because in theory Northern Ireland is not overseas, and service in Northern Ireland is not an overseas matter: it is a local matter—a domestic issue. But the Government’s manifesto commitment was to all of their personnel, and no matter what way we cut it, and no matter what the small print may now say, those brave and gallant people and soldiers who served in Northern Ireland under Operation Banner have been jettisoned by this piece of legislation.
Johnny Mercer
It may be helpful if at this stage I restate to my hon. Friend the commitment in the Conservative manifesto, which we do not resile from one bit—that those who served with such distinction in a very, very difficult time in Northern Ireland will be entitled to equal treatment when that Bill is brought forward. They have not been jettisoned, they have not been forgotten about, and we will not leave them behind.
Ian Paisley
I thank the Minister for getting to his feet and making that commitment again from the Dispatch Box. That is important, and will go some way to alleviate some of the concerns that have been expressed.
I would just say this. People in Northern Ireland—for good cause—do not believe in the good will of the Northern Ireland Office and its mandarins there. They believe that their attitude to our armed services is that they are expendable, and that there will be a time, when push comes to shove, and if it is expedient, that our soldiers who served in Operation Banner and the police officers in the gallant RUC who supported them would be easily jettisoned in some sort of trade-off with the people who were quite happy to fire bullets at our armed service personnel.
Bob Stewart
I support exactly what my very great friend is saying, but may I point out to the House that no Bill will protect someone like Dennis Hutchings, who has been repeatedly brought back and reinvestigated, in Northern Ireland or elsewhere? This legislation will not be retrospective, as I understand it. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Ian Paisley
I thank my dear friend, who has travelled widely in Northern Ireland, both as a soldier and as my guest in my constituency, with former squaddies. The applause that they gave to him is now legendary in Ballymoney; but the Minister will forgive me for saying that probably the less said about that adventure, the better for both of us.
Some Members have made the point that it is difficult to make a prosecution stick. One of the cases that got me into active politics was that of the UDR Four, on which I worked as a researcher, where four soldiers were wrongly convicted of the murder of a civilian in Northern Ireland. Many Members have advocated today the books that they have written on these subjects. I actually did write the book on the case for the UDR Four, with an exceptional foreword by Robert Kee, the eminent historian. In that book, we detailed the case for those soldiers and how their conviction should be quashed. I am delighted to say that three of those convictions were quashed, but it took us 10 years to get that case before the courts and to have those wrongful convictions quashed. So I do not buy that prosecutions will be hard to pursue and make stick.
There is, unfortunately, an unhealthy appetite out there among some people to blame veterans and our armed services. That will not end with this Bill, but we wish it Godspeed and hope that we can get a piece of legislation that will defend our armed services with the integrity that the Minister speaks with.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
I rise to support amendments 1 to 10 in particular. I thank my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) for his eloquent argument for the amendments, and I thank the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) for putting them forward. I am proud to have put my name to them.
I fear that the Bill fails to meet our obligations on human rights abroad, but it also fails to meet our obligations to service personnel when they return home. The UK should rightly aspire to be a global torch-bearer for human rights, and our military should be held to the highest professional standards. The triple lock and five-year limit on prosecutions in the Bill make a mockery of any claim that we might have respect for human rights and international law. Human rights do not change depending on the miles travelled or the borders crossed. They are universal and non-negotiable. From Hallam to Herat, we all have the right to live free from torture and war crimes. That is why I was appalled to read in the report of proceedings in Committee that Ministers had excluded torture because
“we expect our service personnel to undertake activities that are intrinsically violent in nature,”––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 14 October 2020; c. 206-207.]
which may lead to “allegations of torture” or “war crimes”.
Torture is clearly defined in international law. It is never accidental. It is not a grey area. It is an intentional act of inflicting very serious and cruel suffering on another person. It cannot be justified with heat-of-the-moment arguments, and it is ridiculous to say that conventional military operations could be mistaken for torture. Alongside hundreds of constituents who have contacted me about the Bill, I completely oppose any suggestion that there are any circumstances in which torture might be excusable.
Not only are these proposals an affront to human rights, but they fail to support our veterans, the group the Government say they are defending. The largest number of civil claims made against the MOD are claims of negligence brought by former soldiers. The proposal for a six-year limit on lodging civil claims makes it harder for ex-military personnel to sue the MOD for failure in its duty of care to them. It means that troops who develop PTSD, blindness and other conditions will be left with no recourse to justice. Far from supporting veterans, the Government’s proposals are entirely self-serving.
We should reject any attempt to run down the clock on civil claims, and there can be no “get out of jail free” cards for torture or war crimes. There is no stopwatch on justice, and there are no exceptions—no ifs or buts—on torture or human rights. That is why I will join colleagues in supporting amendments 1 to 10 this evening and in voting against the Bill.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
When the Government brought this Bill forward, their aim was to end vexatious claims against former service personnel and the Ministry of Defence, but the evidence does not bear out what the Government say is the scale of the problem. No service personnel, present or former, deserve to be investigated and prosecuted for a crime they did not commit, or to be repeatedly investigated without good reason, but the figures, as the Government well know, are not of a scale that would justify the proposals in the Bill.
In relation to Iraq, only a handful of prosecutions have been brought against junior personnel.
Of the civil prosecutions against the MOD over the past five years, just 0.8% related to Iraq. The Minister has said, in relation to the majority of the repeat investigations or delayed prosecutions, that
“one of the biggest problems…was the military’s inability to investigate itself properly and the standard of those investigations…If those investigations were done properly and self-regulation had occurred, we probably wouldn’t be here today”.
Rather than put forward proposals to tackle the real reason behind any repeat investigations or delayed prosecutions, the Bill instead proposes unprecedented and dangerous legal protections, which will create a legal regime that secures immunity for serious offences and inequality before the law for victims of abuse and armed forces personnel.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
I am grateful to be called in this important debate.
I believe that this House should promote internationalism that is anti-imperialist and peace seeking, yet as I have raised before in this House and as has been noted by many, the Bill before us could result in torture and other serious crimes being protected from prosecution five years after being committed. That is so clearly in breach of the human rights of those affected by conflicts involving UK armed forces. Due to the amount of time that trials relating to services personnel often take, the five-year period proposed in the Bill is likely to mean that many prosecutions would not be made. Indeed, the whole tenor of this Bill is to deter cases being brought regardless of their merit. I echo Grey Collier, advocacy director at Liberty, when I say that a war crime does not stop being a war crime after five years. This Bill also offers no protection to armed forces personnel; neither does it offer them access to justice.
Bob Stewart
I thank my good friend the Deputy Speaker and the hon. Lady for allowing me to intervene. I do not understand why she thinks a war crime will not be a war crime after five years. A war crime is a war crime forever, and if the Attorney General considers it to be a war crime, it will be brought to a court. I do not think this Bill stops a war crime being prosecuted if a British soldier, sailor or airman carries one out.
Apsana Begum
I thank the hon. Gentleman for making his point, but I disagree with him. The point I am making is about prosecution and allowing for that war crime to be considered by the courts.
If I can continue, I believe in a fair justice system for all. Such a system would have built into it access for justice for armed forces personnel and those bringing cases against them. Most fundamentally, in order to pay tribute and show respect to those who have lost their lives in foreign conflicts—both from the UK and abroad—we must set in place a system of transparency and political accountability. We must face head-on the lasting effects that wars in, for example, Iraq and Afghanistan and sectarian conflicts have had on the lives of many in the UK and around the world. It is only with proper accountability and transparency that we can ensure that such mistakes and injustices are a thing of the past.
Hiding from accountability does not do anyone favours. Rather, it feeds mistrust, because for most people it is only those who have something to hide who fear scrutiny. Going to war and other activity by the armed forces involve decisions about some of the most fundamental values, and people have the right to know what is being done in the name of our country.
I conclude by saying that this Bill will act only to entrench a culture of fear and mistrust, increase the risk of crimes being committed overseas and instigate an opaque justice system, benefiting neither armed forces personnel nor the victims of war.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Wind-ups will begin at 5.26, so I will ask whoever is on their feet at that time to resume their seat.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
I have co-sponsored a number of amendments in the hope—perhaps it is naive—that some of the rougher edges of the Bill can be improved. Ultimately, I think this Bill is flawed from top to bottom and is unnecessary. We have, for example, existing prosecutorial tests. One is the evidential test and the second is the public interest test, which are more than adequate to take into account some of the concerns raised by Members. The Bill also raises the question whether our judiciary are not capable of weeding out vexatious claims whenever they come before them. I believe they are, and we should have confidence in their abilities to address those very points.
The Bill creates some very difficult and unnecessary precedents by breaking up the long-standing convention that everyone is equal before the law. There is no need to put in place measures that create additional prosecutorial tests and hurdles to be jumped in relation to certain categories of people—even those who on the face of it are incredibly deserving of our support, such as our veteran community and current active service personnel.
The most egregious aspect of the Bill is what it does in relation to torture. A number of Members have already said this, but in effect it decriminalises torture. I say “in effect” because that is not on the face of the Bill. That is the outworking of what the provisions entail. People will say that torture and war crimes can still be prosecuted through the courts, but it is a fact that a triple lock of additional hurdles, which do not exist for any other category of criminal offence, is to be put into law, and that makes this situation much more difficult and challenging.
I am conscious that we are all looking across the Atlantic today to see what happens in the US presidential election, and there is a clear interest in ensuring that the values of decency and support for democracy, human rights and the rule of law prevail over those who are pursuing other agendas. At the same time, it is deeply troubling that the Government, and potentially this House, are willing to implement measures on torture in legislation that overturns centuries of precedent. That should be very troubling to us all.
Bob Stewart
I rise to oppose that comment. The Bill does not decriminalise torture. Torture remains a major crime, and I speak as someone who has given evidence in five war crimes trials at The Hague. Torture is torture, and it is still something that the Government deeply oppose. The Bill does not actually legitimise torture in any way.
Stephen Farry
I am grateful to the hon. Member for his comments. I very much respect his service, and his commitment in that service to upholding the rule of law and the highest standards of international humanitarian law. The point I am making, however, is that while on the surface the Bill does not do what he says, the fact that the triple lock and the additional prosecutorial hurdles in effect create that outcome is, I think, deeply troubling to us all.
There are just two other points I want to make in conclusion, to try to let someone else say a few words. First, anyone who opposes the Bill today should not be labelled as someone who is opposed to our armed forces. It can be viewed and construed as respecting our armed forces. Let us ask ourselves the question: what was it that they were actually fighting for, particularly when they were in Iraq and Afghanistan? I appreciate that both of those interventions were controversial in many respects, but surely it is about peace, upholding the rule of law in those countries and upholding international law? We therefore do ourselves a great disservice if, in recognising their contribution, we in turn undermine those very values in what we do in the Chamber today.
My final point relates to Northern Ireland. Members have made reference to potential legislation in that regard. I do not look forward to seeing similar legislation being put in place for Northern Ireland—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. We must come to the winding-up speeches. I call Stewart Malcolm McDonald.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I am only sorry we did not get to hear the end of the speech by the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry).
I rise to support the new clauses, and to speak to amendment 32 in my name and those of my hon. Friends. I want to begin by thanking my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) and for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes), who served on the Bill Committee, among other hon. Members who find themselves here this afternoon. I am afraid to say to hon. Members, particularly those who were with us on Second Reading, that very little has changed from what I said then. In fact, almost nothing has changed from what I said then and that is a great shame. It is the case, then as now, that senior legal, military and political opinion was united in consensus against the Bill. That has not changed. [Interruption.] That did not take very long, did it? The Minister should not worry; I will come to the points that he loves to chunter.
Stuart Anderson
It is not fair to say that opinion is united against the Bill. That is not factual from the evidence given to the Bill Committee.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
Well, we will go through some of that evidence, shall we? We will go through some of the comments made by senior military, legal and political opinion that make it quite clear that what I have said is correct. I accept, of course, that there are differences of opinion within those fields, but it is the case, I am afraid to say to the hon. Gentleman and to the Minister chuntering at me from the sidelines, that senior military, legal and political opinion believes that the Bill is farcical in several respects. I will go through them in turn.
Mr Kevan Jones
We cannot get more distinguished than the Judge Advocate General, Judge Blackett, who was firmly of that opinion. The Minister did not perhaps listen, but the judge made his position about the Bill very clear.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
Yes, that is entirely correct. Or we could take the former Conservative Defence Secretary, Sir Malcolm Rifkind. I think I said in the previous debate that he is not exactly known as a sandal-wearing, lentil-munching, Guardian-reading lefty hipster type, is he Mr Deputy Speaker? I suspect you know him way better than I do, although we have some experience of him in Scotland, of course. He is against the provisions in the Bill. So when the Minister chunters away that what I have said is incorrect, I am afraid what he needs is a mirror, because what he is saying is fundamentally incorrect.
It did not have to be this way. Back in that Second Reading debate, I said, along with others, that we would try to bring forward amendments to get a Bill we could support. But with every attempt to do so—we will see it again, I am quite sure—we have had the door slammed shut in our faces.
The Minister might win in the Lobby tonight, but for a man so convinced of his powers of charm and persuasion, he has failed to bring forward a Bill that the House can unite behind. Those who were here before the election, and who have been in the few defence-related debates we have had since, will know that, on defence matters—setting aside the nuclear question, certainly for myself—there is actually a lot of consensus in the House. So why is it that the one Minister who brings forward a Bill on issues of security, supporting the armed forces and the rule of law, where that consensus exists, has failed to get any Opposition Member to support him? It is his failure that the Bill will divide tonight, with one or two honourable exceptions, between Government and Opposition Benches.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
Does the hon. Member share my worry that potentially putting our armed forces up against the International Criminal Court could be the beginning of a path to undermining the Court itself? It is quite easy to see a situation where British service personnel are investigated, and then Conservative Members start braying for us to leave the Court in its entirety.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
That is exactly the slippery slope I fear we are on. I hate the phrase “the thin end of the wedge”, but I am afraid that it rather fits where we are with this Bill and this Government. We have those senior opinions in military, legal and political circles against the Bill. That is before we get to the recent damning report by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which made clear the number of flaws in the Bill.
I am conscious of time, so I will conclude. The Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), suggested that, were we to change our defence posture with regard to training or peacekeeping in supporting Ukraine, we could be subject to what he called “a Russian hand” trying to take legal action here—no doubt that Russian hand is a Tory donor. That is exactly the kind of thing that would see UK personnel further exposed to the International Criminal Court.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
No, I am going to wind up.
The Minister has to take that into account, but he has failed, and the failure is his alone. I do not want him to think that, when he gets his way tonight, the job is done. The job is not done. He has promised the House legislation to fix the investigation system. My goodness, I hope he will do a better job on that than he has done on this Bill.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
This is not a wind-up speech. We have had a good debate, with 23 Back-Bench contributions, some really good speeches and serious concerns about the Bill raised on both sides of the House. We are legislating, and I want to say to the Minister that it is wrong to see all criticism as opposition or all opposition as hostility. The Government never get everything right, especially with legislation, and no one has a monopoly on wisdom, especially Ministers. I say to him, it is wrong to dismiss anyone arguing for amendments to the Bill as ill informed or ill willed. There has never been a Bill brought to this House that could not be improved—this is certainly one of those. That is our job as legislators.
John Healey
I will not give way, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind. I am going to deal with some of the points made in the debate, despite this not being a wind-up speech.
From the outset, I have said that Labour wants to help build a consensus to convince the Government on the changes needed to make this legislation fit for purpose—that is, a new legal framework for this country when we have in future to commit our servicemen and women to conflict overseas. There has been a long-running problem, with baseless allegations and legal claims arising from Iraq and from Afghanistan under both Labour and Conservative Governments. But this Bill, as it stands, is not the solution.
The Public Bill Committee heard powerful evidence on a series of problems that our amendments on Report, and others on the amendment paper, are designed to fix. I want to stress the strength and depth of those criticisms. On investigations, the former Judge Advocate General, Geoff Blackett, said:
“The presumption against prosecution does not stop the investigation; the investigation happens.”—[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 8 October 2020; c. 127, Q275.]
The expert from Policy Exchange, Professor Richard Ekins, who originally published “Clearing the fog of war”, said:
“It certainly does not stop investigations. In fact, if one were to make a criticism of the Bill, one might say that it places no obstacle on continuing investigations”.––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 6 October 2020; c. 35, Q63.]
On criminal prosecutions, the former Commander Land Forces in the Army, General Sir Nick Carter, said:
“I do not understand why sexual acts have been excluded, but not murder and torture. I do not understand why that distinction has been made”.––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 8 October 2020; c. 96-97, Q196.]
The Judge Advocate General again, as the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) stressed, said of the Bill:
“What it actually does is increase the risk of service personnel appearing before the International Criminal Court.”––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 8 October 2020; c. 117-118, Q234.]
On civil claims, the former chairman of the British Armed Forces Federation said:
“Imposing an absolute time limit places armed forces personnel claimants themselves at a disadvantage compared with civil claimants in ordinary life”.––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 6 October 2020; c. 9, Q6.]
The director for the Centre for Military Justice said that
“it is quite extraordinary that part 2 will only benefit the Ministry of Defence, and the Ministry of Defence is the defendant in all those claims.”––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 6 October 2020; c. 57, Q108.]
The director-general of the Royal British Legion said of the Bill:
“I think it is protecting the MOD, rather than the service personnel”.––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 8 October 2020; c. 86, Q163.]
When my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan) pressed him—
“So it would breach the armed forces covenant, in your view?”—
he replied:
“That is what we think, yes.”––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 8 October 2020; c. 84, Q155.]
Our new clause 7 and our amendment 38 are designed to sit alongside the amendments of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). The answer to the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) about the number of investigations is this: only 27 prosecutions have arisen from Iraq and Afghanistan, yet 3,400 allegations were considered by the Iraq Historic Allegations Team and 670 from Operation Northmoor. Therefore, less than 1% of allegations were prosecuted.
The problem here is investigations. The serious, consistent problems lie in a system of investigation that has proved to be lacking in speed, in soundness, in openness, and in a duty of care to alleged victims or to the troops involved. Those are all problems well before the point of decision about prosecution, which is the point at which the provisions of the Bill kick in.
That is a widely held criticism. It is a widely held conviction, one held by the Minister himself. Before he became a Minister last year, he declared that
“one of the biggest problems….was the military’s inability to investigate itself and the standard of those investigations…If those investigations were done properly…we probably would not be where we are today”.
He was right then; he is wrong now to resist using the Bill to correct those problems.
Another review, Minister? Look, there have been three reviews—and this one will be chaired by Richard Henriques—in the last five years. There are more than 80 recommendations on investigations that the Government could act on. For goodness’ sake, get on and do that! The amendments are in scope, workable and implementable. The Bill is an opportunity to fix long-standing problems. I hope the Government will start to see our proposals on investigations as being additional to what is in the Bill, not as a direct challenge.
Part 1 of the Bill restricts prosecutions of certain offences. The Bill’s purpose is to make it harder to prosecute British troops for some of the most serious crimes under the Geneva conventions. It does that by legislating for a presumption against prosecution after five years. Our new clause 4 deals with that presumption against prosecution; it replaces it with a requirement on the prosecutor, in coming to a decision, to take into account the passage of time, and whether it prejudices the prospect of a fair trial.
The Government say that sexual crimes, in all cases, are so serious that they will be excluded from this presumption, but they are placing crimes outlawed by the Geneva conventions—torture, war crimes, crimes against humanity—on a lower level, and downgrading our unequivocal British commitment to upholding international law. That poses the direct risk that the International Criminal Court will act to put British armed forces personnel on trial in The Hague if the UK justice system will not.
Let me dwell on that point. The contradiction that we are creating in the Bill is this: under clause 2, only exceptionally are proceedings defined in clause 1 to be brought, or continued, against a person. However, as the Red Cross has made clear,
“only in exceptional circumstances will the Prosecutor of the ICC conclude that an investigation or a prosecution may not serve the interests of justice.”
In other words, in the International Criminal Court, it is exceptional not to pursue a case; we are making it exceptional to pursue a case. That is the contradiction, the risk, and the jeopardy for our troops serving overseas in future.
If we adhere to the highest standards of legal military conduct, we can hold other countries to account when their forces fall short—a point made clearly by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis). If we do otherwise, it compromises our country’s proud reputation for upholding the rules-based international order that Britain has helped to construct since the days of Churchill and Attlee.
On civil claims, new clause 5 would amend part 2 of the Bill so that claims by troops or former service personnel were not blocked in all circumstances, as they are under the Bill at present. It is simply wrong for those who put their life on the line serving Britain overseas to have less access to compensation and justice than the UK civilians whom they defend—or indeed than their comrades whose service is largely UK-based. There are already safeguards in the Limitations Act 1980, but part 2 penalises this group of people by applying to them a unique deviation from that Act. That clearly constitutes a disadvantage for those armed forces personnel, their families and veterans. It directly breaches the armed forces covenant, as the director general of the Royal British Legion has confirmed. Frankly, it beggars belief that Ministers are asking Members of this House to strip forces and their families of their right to justice—to penalise them, instead of protecting them. Our new clause 5 flatly rejects that.
On the duty of care and our new clause 6, one of the things that struck me most when talking to troops and their families who have been through the trauma of these long-running investigations is that they felt cut adrift from their chain of command and from the Ministry of Defence. We heard that clearly from Major Campbell, who gave such dramatic evidence to the Committee. When he was asked what support the MOD gave him, he simply replied, “there was none.” Of course, for veterans, it is even worse: for them, there is nothing, not even the chain of command, as Hilary Meredith, the specialist solicitor told the Committee. I have to say to the Minister that although some of the previous decisions—for instance, to cover the legal costs of those who were involved in the Iraq Historic Allegations Team investigation—were welcome, there is a higher standard to reach for us in this regard. I hope that, as we move the Bill into the Lords, he will use new clause 6 as a model so that we can establish a new duty of care standard providing legal, pastoral and mental health support to those who are put under pressure and under investigation or prosecution. I hope that he will do the same with our amendments on derogation and on the Attorney General’s veto. We need greater transparency. We need some role for Parliament in both those areas, and I know the Lords will be keen to look at that.
Johnny Mercer
I appreciate all the contributions made this afternoon, some of which were very thoughtful.
I know that Members get upset when I think that they are disingenuous, but the amount of misinformation that has come over today is quite extraordinary. The right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) just said that the Royal British Legion has said that this directly breaks—
Mr Kevan Jones
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister has just accused my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) of being disingenuous. Is that actually parliamentary?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I am sure the Minister meant “unintentionally disingenuous”.
Johnny Mercer
It is quite extraordinary the way that individuals carry on in this House. That is precisely why I became a Member of Parliament—because quite frankly the military were sick and tired of some of the warm words that come out of this place when actually the actions are what matters.
I thank the Chairs of the Public Bill Committee and my fellow members of the Committee for their scrutiny of the Bill. As I said in Committee, we may not always agree, and that is to be expected, but I have listened to the views put forward, including those of Members who have spoken today. I hope that I will be able to address a number of the points raised and set out the Government’s position on the amendments chosen for debate.
On part 1 of the Bill, as I have said before, I fully recognise the importance of striking an appropriate balance between victims’ rights and access to justice. This has meant seeking to have a balance in the Bill. On the one hand, we are introducing protective measures that set a high threshold for a prosecutor to determine that a case should be prosecuted and ensuring that the adverse impacts of overseas operations would be given particular weight in favour of the service personnel or veterans. On the other hand, we must ensure that in circumstances where our service personnel fall short of the high standards of personal behaviour and conduct that is required, they can still be held to account. That is one of the reasons why we have not proposed an amnesty or a statute of limitations for service personnel and veterans as part of these measures—a claim again produced by Labour Members today. That is not true. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne can chunter from a sedentary position about what is in the Bill, but all that has been mentioned all afternoon is what is not in the Bill. It is literally a waste of everybody’s time. I see that Momentum has said this afternoon that we have forced Labour Front Benchers to vote against it. I was unaware that Momentum had any seats in the House of Commons, but clearly Labour Members are unable to think for themselves. However, that is a matter for them. We have also ensured that the measures are compliant with international law.
I recognise that alleged misconduct by service personnel is dealt with most effectively if individuals are investigated and, where appropriate, subject to disciplinary or criminal proceedings at the time of the conduct. Nobody should underestimate the often inordinate difficulty in delivering timely justice in relation to investigations of alleged historical offences. As we have heard in many oral evidence sessions, this can leave our service personnel with stress and mental strain for many years afterwards. There is a danger that if we fail to recognise that all the elements of the armed forces have come a long way from the beginning of the Iraq conflict, it looks like we are not continuing to learn and adjust. That is not true, which is why the Secretary of State has announced, in parallel with this Bill, a judge-led review of how allegations of wrongdoing on overseas operations are raised and investigated. The right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne raises time and again the issue of the investigations, but he knows that they are for the forthcoming armed forces Bill and will be addressed there. That is why it might be unintentionally disingenuous to suggest that nothing is being done, Madam Deputy Speaker.
A number of amendments are proposed to clause 6 and schedule 1. A number seek to exclude torture offences from the presumption, and we know what this is; I should make it clear again that there is no requirement in customary international law for a state to prosecute a war crime or other breach of the Geneva convention in all circumstances where it has sufficient evidence of the offence, irrespective of this clause. We believe that the statutory presumption, which still allows the prosecutor to continue to take decisions to prosecute, is consistent with our international obligations.
Similarly, amendments 1 to 10 seek to ensure that the offences in section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 in relation to torture, and the relevant sections of the International Criminal Court Act 2001 in relation to offences of torture, genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, should be excluded offences in schedule 1. I am very much aware that many people have misinterpreted the decision to exclude only sexual offences from the presumption against prosecution, including by suggesting that it somehow undermines the UK’s continuing commitment to upholding international human rights law and humanitarian law, including the UN convention against torture. As Opposition Members well know, that is completely untrue. The UK does not participate in, solicit, encourage or condone the use of torture for any purposes, and we remain committed to maintaining our leading role in the promotion and protection of human rights, democracy and the rule of law.
Johnny Mercer
I think I have put up with enough this afternoon; I will not take any interventions.
The Bill does not decriminalise torture or war crimes, and it will not encourage or allow our service personnel to act with impunity. We will continue to take other offences such as war crimes and torture extremely seriously. The severity of the crime and the circumstances in which it was committed will always be factored into the prosecutor’s considerations. I have previously explained the Government’s decision to exclude only sexual offences from the Bill, and I am not going to say it again.
I wish to discuss new clause 5, which seeks to amend part 2 of the Bill so that it explicitly excludes actions brought against the Crown by current or former service personnel. None of the measures in part 2 of the Bill will prevent service personnel, veterans or their families from bringing claims against the MOD in connection with overseas operations within a reasonable timeframe, which most have done historically. To exclude, as Opposition Members would want to me to, claims from service personnel and veterans from part 2 of the Bill would amount to a difference in treatment between categories of claimants, including the civilian personnel who deploy alongside service personnel on overseas operations. That would not be justifiable and it would likely be discriminatory. Therefore, in the interests of fairness to all claimants, claims from service personnel and veterans are not excluded. I am confident that these measures do not break the armed forces covenant. The new factors and limitation longstops apply to all claims in connection with overseas operations, and I have dealt with that point a number of times before.
I wish to say to colleagues that this House has a poor record on looking after those who serve. There comes a tangible moment, which the public can see and feel, when Members must cross the divide. In my experience, Members never tire in this place of warm words towards our armed forces or sombre reflections, particularly at this special time of year, as we run into remembrance weekend, but, as I said, there comes a moment, which the public can see and feel, when we must do better and match our words with action. This is that moment—one our predecessors have consistently failed, time and again, to seize. I am proud that this Government will move from warm words to actually dealing with how we look after those who have served. Gone are the days when this was an afterthought, and I pay tribute to this Prime Minister for his resolution to allow me to change this.
There are a lot of amendments that I am unable to speak to, but what I will say is that I have listened to all the contributions. I know that there is this kind of feeling that I do not listen and that I am not going to change the Bill. The reality is that I did not write the amendments—
Johnny Mercer
No, I am not giving way—I have suffered enough. The House has suffered enough at the hands of the hon. Gentleman. I have listened to all the points about the amendments, but I did not ,write them. I wrote the Bill and the Bill as it stands deals with the problem that we are trying to fix, and hon. Members fully know that. Imagine my surprise—the Al-Sweady inquiry has been picked out by Opposition Members, but they would not believe who was the Minister at the time of the Al-Sweady inquiry: the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). If Members are really going to contribute honestly with a debate that they know the answers to, it has to be done with the sort of standards, values and ethos that we expect our people to adhere to.
Mr Kevan Jones
Actually, it was the Minister of State who was dealing with the Al-Sweady inquiry. As I told the Minister in Committee, it was not the Labour party that set up the IHAT committee or Northmoor—it was his Government—so he should not start lecturing people when Members on the Government Benches at the time were calling for investigations.
Johnny Mercer
I appreciate the intervention, but the fact is that when the Al-Sweady inquiry took place, the right hon. Gentleman was a Minister in the Department. The claimants in the Al-Sweady case were supported by Leigh Day. Leigh Day gave £18,000 to the Labour party. This stuff is quite transparent ,and it is all on the record.
Look, at some point, hon. Members have to make a decision as to whether they are just going to speak very warm words, feel very strongly and think that our armed forces are the best of us, or actually do something that will change their lives, improve their lives, protect them from this new pernicious nature of lawfare and vote with the Government to get things done. I commend the Bill to the House.
Mr Kevan Jones
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) and others have tried to improve this Bill. The Minister is just not listening. He throws cheap shots. I am sorry, but I stand up for members of our armed forces and veterans. I do not need to get paid £85,000 a year, as he did as a Back Bencher, to support veterans. I do it for nothing because I believe in them, so do not give us lectures about people who take money to support veterans for their own pockets, rather than just supporting our veterans.
The problem is that the Bill has gone through Committee and today’s debate and it is not going to be amended. The Minister is not listening at all. He said that actions are what matter. Yes, they do, because what we are going to have is a Bill passed here tonight that does not address the main issue, which is investigations, because the Minister will just not accept it. Part 2 means that veterans and members of the armed forces will have fewer rights than anybody in this House—fewer rights than prisoners—and he cannot say, in the lead-up to Remembrance Sunday, that taking fundamental rights away from members of our armed forces is right. But that is exactly what he is—
Mr Jones
No, I am not going to take an intervention. I am sorry; the Minister, both in Committee and tonight, is one thing if one thing only—consistent. He sits there, chunters from a sedentary position, never takes interventions, reads his civil service brief and will just not listen to anyone because he thinks he is right. I am sorry; he is wrong on this.
I will not press my new clauses and amendments to a vote, but I will end with this point. The Bill is flawed. It could have been improved in Committee and it could be improved here tonight. It will not be, because the Minister stubbornly refuses to accept it. He will then use the parliamentary majority in this House to ram it through. This Bill will do nothing to protect veterans. They will still be investigated. They will still be prosecuted, possibly before the International Criminal Court, and their basic rights, which we should all have under section 33 of the Limitation Act, will be taken away from them. That is shameful.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
First, I acknowledge the hard work that has got us to this point today and the thousands who responded to our public consultation and shaped the measures in the Bill, as well as the legal and legislative experts who have ensured that it provides measured and calibrated protections. I thank Members from all parties who have participated in debating the Bill’s merits, including in Committee. In particular, I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for Defence People and Veterans. His passion and determination to do the right thing by personnel and veterans is genuine and his commitment to his cause is unwavering. Such central determination and duty should be a lesson to us all.
The Bill is more than just a manifesto commitment; it is a necessary and overdue strengthening of the legal framework for dealing with the vexatious claims and repeated investigations that have arisen from recent overseas military operations. There have been many inaccurate and wild accusations about the measures in the Bill. It does not prevent armed forces personnel from being prosecuted for crimes they may have committed. It does not remove prosecutors’ independence or ability to prosecute on the basis of any new or compelling evidence of any crime at any time. It does not undermine the UK’s adherence to the UN convention against torture, its commitment to international law or its willingness to investigate and prosecute any alleged criminal offences. As such, it does not increase the likelihood of International Criminal Court prosecutions.
But do not take my word for it; take the words of the former Attorney General for Northern Ireland, John Larkin QC, probably the lawyer most experienced in dealing with legacy military and security investigations across the United Kingdom, who said in a paper published this September that
“the Bill does not create, or come close to creating, ‘de facto immunity’ for serving or former service personnel in respect of serious crimes.”
However, the Bill does raise the threshold for prosecution, thereby reducing the likelihood of investigations being repeatedly reopened without new and compelling evidence. It does ensure recognition of the unique circumstances of overseas operations, including the constant threat to life and repeated exposure to traumatic events. It does take into consideration the public interest in criminal and civil cases’ being brought to a timely resolution, so that the courts can assess them while memories are fresh and evidence is more readily available. That is entirely in line with the principles of the ECHR. In short, the measures do provide greater protection from the likes of Phil Shiner Solicitors, whose motivations were not justice but money.
It is the right thing to do to defend the men and women who risk their lives to protect us. It is for all these reasons that the House should support the Bill’s Third Reading. But it is just one piece in the jigsaw to fix this issue. Let us not forget that the overwhelming number of these incidents that triggered the pursuit of veterans happened under Labour’s stewardship of defence. They failed to keep training compliance with the ECHR. They failed to equip personnel properly. They failed to reform the service justice system to ensure that they were ECHR-article 2-compliant, including the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who was a Minister in that Ministry at that time, so it is a bit rich—
Mr Wallace
No, I will not. It is a bit rich for them to come here today and condemn the legislation. On the other hand, it is we who have commissioned—
Mr Wallace
The hon. Gentleman has had plenty to say on the Bill; I will not give way. We do not have time to conclude these exchanges. On the other hand—[Interruption.] They can shout me down, but I will just continue to use up Third Reading time, and I will then listen to other speeches. I will not give way; I have made it clear to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr Jones
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister has now added mind-reading to his many skills. The Minister, who is actually a good friend of mine, has just made an accusation against me and has not given me the right to reply to it. It was his Government, in 2010, who set up IHAT and Northmoor, not the Labour Government.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I do not want the point of order to become a subject of debate, but obviously—[Interruption.] Thank you; I can cope. Obviously, the Secretary of State has referred to the right hon. Gentleman, and he may feel it appropriate to give way.
Mr Wallace
It is a shame that the right hon. Gentleman used up more debating time by raising a bogus point of order, but nevertheless, in case Opposition Members think the way to conduct a Third Reading is to shout people down, I will repeat that this legislation is one very important part of the jigsaw. We must not forget, given the point raised by the Opposition about the thoroughness of the investigations, that it was not under their stewardship that the investigative capability of our armed forces was strengthened; it was not under their stewardship that the training for men and women about detention of suspects was improved; it was not under Labour’s stewardship that article 2 compliance was met, often, on some of these investigations that allowed those lawyers to come back and repeat inquests, inquiries and investigations into our veterans.
On the other hand, it is we, a Conservative Government, who have commissioned and started implementing a service justice review programme, who appointed a respected former judge to review and scrutinise the investigative process, and who have brought legislation to actually do something about it.
The Government have listened to many of the contributions throughout the Bill’s progress, but we have been unable to accept the amendments because they would have undermined rather than strengthened the Bill. In the case of the Opposition, they are simply, as it turned out, opposed to its aims, as Momentum has boasted today.
Despite all the warm words and sympathy, the Labour leopard has not changed its spots. In this week of all weeks, with Remembrance Sunday approaching, veterans up and down the country will note Labour’s opposition and recognise what fair-weather friends they are. However, this Government have been determined and resolute in acting to protect our armed forces, and that is why I commend the Bill to the House.
John Healey
We all want the same thing—Labour, the Government, the public, the armed forces: we all want to protect British troops and British values, and that should not be a matter of party politics. It is simply wrong to make debate on the Bill divisive, or to brand those who challenge Ministers on the content of the Bill as somehow standing against British troops.
This is a Bill to deal with long-running problems that have arisen under successive Governments—Labour and Conservative—and the Minister in charge was right when he just said that we must do better, but we can do much better than this Bill as it stands. We want this to be a Bill that protects British troops and their right to justice and a Bill that protects Britain’s reputation as a force for good in the world, upholding universal human rights and a rules-based international order.
In truth, the closer people look at this legislation, the less they like it. Two things have become clear since Second Reading. First, this is a dishonest and damaging Bill that does not do what it says on the tin. It entirely fails to deal with the main problem, which is baseless and repeated investigations and, worse, it breaches the armed forces covenant, it risks British troops being dragged before the International Criminal Court, and it does more to protect the MOD that it does our armed forces personnel. Secondly, despite a growing cross-party concern and chorus of criticism, especially from those with military experience or connections, Ministers are in denial about the flaws in this Bill. With the arrogance of an 80-seat majority, they dismiss those who argue for amendment as disingenuous.
This demands a signal of how serious we see these flaws as being, which is why we will vote against Third Reading. We want our troops to be better protected. We want our British military to be held in the highest regard around the world. We want our British justice system to set standards that others follow. It is because we passionately believe in these values that we cannot accept this Bill as it stands.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
I also thank the Clerks and the staff of the House who have worked on the Bill and the Library staff who have worked hard to ensure that Members are briefed properly. I want to mention Clorinda Luck, our own researcher, who has put a lot of work into this as well.
I echo much of what the shadow Secretary of State has said. We all wanted to solve the Phil Shiner problem. I do not think that any of us wants to see Phil Shiner mark 2, but this was not the way to do it. The Minister, with whom I enjoy these exchanges, has let himself down. He could have had a chance, as he said he wanted on Second Reading, to bring together all the Members of the House who wanted to solve the problem, and he did not accept one single amendment. On arithmetic, he might win this evening, but his powers of persuasion and politics clearly need a lot more polishing than he thinks. When this legislation comes forward on investigations next year, I hope that he will look back at the Hansard of this debate and at how he conducted the passage of the Bill and do it differently next time. He has good will in the House that I fear he has squandered irreparably, especially in the passage tonight. This Bill does not protect the armed forces; it risks them being dragged in front of the ICC. If he is happy with that as his legacy, that is for him to resolve, but it is not something that we can support. For that reason, we will be against the Bill in the Lobby tonight.
Mr Kevan Jones
May I too thank the Bill Committee Clerks, who worked very hard? I congratulate the Minister for Defence People and Veterans on his excellent reading of his briefs in Committee and today.
This is sad, because the Bill is fatally flawed. It will take rights away from veterans, which cannot be right, and it will lead to our international reputation being at stake. It does not solve the problem, which is investigations. That could have been put right in the Bill, but unfortunately, the Minister is not prepared to listen. He says that he is prepared to work with people; the exact opposite has been the truth throughout the passage of the Bill.
As for the Secretary of State trying to blame all this on a wicked Labour Government, it was a Labour Government who met the armed forces pay review every year and ensured that defence expenditure kept pace with inflation. It was his Government who, in coalition, put IHAT and Northmoor in place in 2010. When these cases were going on when I was a Minister, it was Conservative Members who were asking why we were not investigating them more. There is selective memory on the Government Benches. We had an opportunity to get a good Bill that would address the issues and improve the situation for veterans, and that has been missed because of the arrogance of the Minister who has led it through the House.
Business without Debate
Day 1 | Day 2 |
6 November 2020 | 8 January 2021 |
13 November 2020 | 15 January 2021 |
27 November 2020 | 22 January 2021 |
15 January 2021 | 29 January 2021 |
29 January 2021 | 5 February 2021 |
5 February 2021 | 26 February 2021 |
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I remind hon. Members of the Speaker’s statement earlier that he will introduce the new proxy voting with effect from tomorrow, including hon. Members who make their designation before 9.30 am tomorrow. That is to remind hon. Members that, if they wish to have a proxy vote tomorrow, they must make that designation before 9.30 am tomorrow. To apply for a proxy, Members must email proxyvote@parliament.uk with the name of their nominated proxy.
Procedure Committee
Ordered,
That Rob Roberts be discharged from the Procedure Committee and Aaron Bell be added.—(Bill Wiggin, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)
Petitions
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I must remind hon. Members that the presentation of a petition in the House is not an occasion for a speech. The presentation of a petition involves words taking approximately one minute.
Housing: North Somerset
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
I am very grateful for this opportunity to raise the issue of housing and house building numbers for North Somerset. I will make some comments about the general situation, how we got to this point and elements that affect my constituency. Then, with your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) will add some comments about the situation in his constituency.
North Somerset, as it is now, had a population in 1971 of 139,924 residents. By 2018, that had increased to 213,919. We have seen an increase of more than 50% in our population since the 1970s. That has naturally been accompanied by a huge amount of house building in my constituency. That has particularly been around Nailsea and Backwell. There has been huge development and growth in Clevedon and, most recently, the development in Portishead, one of the most successful developments of a brownfield site anywhere in the country. Of course, Weston-super-Mare has seen its own dramatic growth in that time, which my hon. Friend will come to.
Our current adopted requirement for housing is 20,995 dwellings for the period 2006 to 2026, which is 1,049 per year, but—this is where reality breaks in—developers have not delivered anything like those numbers in that period. In fact, despite a large number of sites with full planning consent, only 808 dwellings on average have been produced per year in that period. Only in one year, 2007, did we exceed the target, and that was at the height of growth in Portishead.
I now come to the projected numbers. The previous joint spatial plan gave North Somerset a new target of 25,000 new homes over 20 years, which means 1,250 per year. Under the new methodology, however, with a target of 300,000 new homes per year nationally for each year of this Parliament, that has risen again to 1,365 dwellings per year.
That was already beyond the realms of what we believed possible, but to take us well into “Alice in Wonderland” territory, the Government’s new algorithm in the plan to get us to 370,000 homes nationally per year takes it to 1,708 dwellings per year for North Somerset, which is 25,620 over a 15-year period. That is more than twice as many as the market has delivered on average in that period. So we have these fantasy numbers that come from the socialist planning edict, rather than what the market has delivered for us.
The question is, where will those houses actually go? I am aware of the strictures about not using props, but I will explain to the Minister the little gift that I intend to give him at the end of this debate, which will show him a map of North Somerset plus green belt. By the time we add on the flood plain, areas of outstanding natural beauty, aerodrome safeguarded zones and the conservation areas, he might like to show me on the map where the 26,000 homes will go.
I could encourage the Minister to improve his colouring-in skills, but there is nothing to colour in on a map where everything is already completely used up. Perhaps we will see the Shard built on Yatton high street; perhaps Churchill will have its new skyscrapers. It simply is not credible to apply those housing numbers to North Somerset.
We are not NIMBYs. As I have said, there has been a 50% increase in the number of our residents, and therefore housing, over the period, but we need to safeguard the quality of life for those who already live there. The infrastructure in our area is creaking in terms of the number of schools and the GP services that we have. Our policing is overstretched and our roads leave a great deal to be desired.
In Wrington, one of the villages in the green belt where there has been some development, we have already seen problems with flooding and drainage that were entirely predicted; I raised the issue with the district council at the time. Road traffic access is a nightmare in a village where the infrastructure had already been degraded. In Portishead, our schools are already full. Yatton is used as the emergency route when there is a closure to the M5, which is a joke, because at the best of times it is effectively a single lane road through a small village.
In Clevedon, there is an attempt to use our last bit of green belt in Cleveland East to build an overflow school. Long Ashton and Dundry in particular have the nightmare prospect of a huge housing estate being planned that will effectively take the urban sprawl from Bristol into North Somerset. The whole point of the green belt there is to stop urban sprawl and to stop Bristol moving south into North Somerset. We utterly reject the idea of some of those lovely villages having huge housing estates, which would be an eyesore as well as a burden on the local authority.
The Government have said that they want to increase the infrastructure budget, particularly in the north of England. I am absolutely, fully committed to that; it makes perfect sense to spread opportunity to all parts of the country. But if that is where the infrastructure spending is going to go, why are we increasing the housing supply in the south of England, where we are not getting the investment in the infrastructure? That applies not only to our constituencies in north Somerset but to many of the constituencies of my right hon. and hon. Friends, who took the opportunity in the Lobby tonight to say, “Speak for us when you are having your Adjournment debate.” We need to have house building commensurate with investment in the infrastructure. We cannot have the mismatch that we seem to be developing at the present time.
So what do we want to see in North Somerset? We need to develop brownfield sites, particularly in Bristol. The idea that there are cost issues should not be allowed to get in the way of building on the most appropriate sites where they are closest to the city environment with all the infrastructure that already exists there. We need to look, particularly in the post-covid environment, at change of use from offices and shops to more dwellings, bringing people back into our town centres and improving the life of our communities there. We want to get rid of North Somerset’s obligation to make up for unmet need in Bristol. Why should the residents of North Somerset have to pay the price, in terms of pressure on their infrastructure, for the failure of the authorities in Bristol to meet their own housing needs, especially given that there are brownfield sites yet to be built on?
We need to have—this is a more generic issue than just what we face in North Somerset—a methodology that is realistic. We need to have a clear link to local demographics, not some made-up numbers that are simply applied irrespective of the real conditions in our population. We must have a fact-based assessment of need in our constituencies. We must have a sensible view of the constraints already in place, including all the issues that I mentioned, including the fact that we have such a large amount of green belt, and the fact that we have the north Somerset levels, with some of the areas that would otherwise be used for planning being on floodplain. The clue to the impact on those areas is in the term “flood”, which is why we do not expect to see building there. We need to have to have the right type of housing. We want to see more affordable housing so that young people who grow up in North Somerset are not forced to leave and come back only when they have attained a much higher income later on in their life. We have a mismatch with our demographics. We need more young people to be able to stay and live where they grew up. We have to see housing targets and the type of house building that are in line with our environmental targets.
I believe that the Government fully understand the need for more house building across the United Kingdom, but we have already seen our share of development in our part of the country. We are constrained by the very elements that the Government themselves set down. We cannot build on green belt. We cannot build on floodplain. It is an accident of nature that we have the north Somerset levels. We cannot build in the protected areas: in areas of outstanding natural beauty or conservation areas. I invite my right hon. Friend the Minister, for some amusement over the weekend, to take back the map of North Somerset that shows all these elements included, and show me where 26,000 houses are meant to go.
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), my parliamentary neighbour, on securing this debate and on making the case so eloquently and forcefully not just on behalf of his own constituents but on behalf of my constituents—and, as he rightly pointed out, given the various comments that we have both been getting in the Lobby during the votes just now, on behalf of a great deal more constituencies right the way across the country.
I want to pick up on a couple of the points that my right hon. Friend made—very briefly, because I want to leave time for the Housing Minister to respond. He is absolutely right to say that North Somerset as a whole has absorbed a huge amount of housing over the past 50 years. We cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be described as NIMBYs. We have taken an enormous numbers of houses. We are happy to take more if they are in the right places, because, as he rightly points out, there are very many local residents who want their children to be able to afford to live locally—who do not want them to be forced to move away and come back only when they have made their fortunes, if they can. That is clearly not the right way to do it, and it is clearly not the right way to have sustainable and balanced communities either, so therefore we want to be able to have enough houses for this to be affordable. Both my right hon. Friend and I, and many local residents, agree with the notion that, as a country, we have to build more houses, but the question is where we build them and why the existing system is forcing people to build in the wrong places and in the wrong ways.
My right hon. Friend is also right to point out that if we stick with the current approach, we stand absolutely no chance of delivering on the number of houses that are required. That is not because there are not enough places with planning permission or because there are not enough permitted areas where planning permission has already been agreed, but simply because the existing housebuilders have a business model which requires them to dribble out houses consistently over many years at no more than a pre-set rate—about 800 every year in our areas—in order to avoid deflating the cost of housing by building too fast and ruining their investments. So, if we do not change something soon, we will never get to the numbers that the Minister is rightly setting for the entire country.
Therefore, I urge the Minister to consider that Weston-super-Mare, perhaps some of the areas in my right hon. Friend’s constituency, and certainly central Bristol should be willing to take more homes in the middle of towns, rather than in the areas, which, as my right hon. Friend rightly pointed out in his nicely coloured-in map, are not available to be built on outside towns. Central Weston needs the investment; central Weston would be delighted to have more homes built in the right places. That points to one of the advantages of the Government’s latest set of proposals for permitted development rights with carefully constructed local council-approved planning guidelines.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) on securing this Adjournment debate. Does the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) agree that one of the issues about density of dwelling in planning, and one of the issues with the White Paper proposals, is that we will have less control over what sort of densities would get built out by the developers?
John Penrose
Actually, I respectfully disagree with that last point, because local authorities will be able to set development codes, which will be able to dictate the level of density, and they can also dictate the look and feel of the areas. As a result, places like central Weston and central Bristol, where development is, on average two storeys tall, could easily—and in the case of central Weston, would gladly—absorb more homes if we were able to go up to four storeys tall. We are not proposing to emulate the Shard, as my right hon. Friend rightly points out, because that would be completely inappropriate, but we want to go up to four storeys, or maybe five at the outside. We want to build elegant townhouses and mews houses; the sort of things that we are proud to look at in parts of Weston already, and certainly in parts of central Bristol and parts of Bath. Such beautiful bits of architecture—more dense, but beautifully put together—could absorb all the homes if we were only able to do it. But the current system—the current method of allocating those homes—does not allow us to do it, because local authorities do not get credit if they start to allocate building in those areas.
John Penrose
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and if we do it this way round we are using the existing infrastructure, rather than overburdening the already stretched infrastructure in our rural areas. It is greener, too, because people can live closer to work. If we start building yet more in rural villages—in my case, places like Churchill or Langford or Congresbury—we just create commuter towns and villages, and we add to the level of the commuting carbon footprint as a result. If people can live near where they work—which is much more covid-friendly as well—we stand a chance of creating greener, more sustainable communities, and ones where investment is desired. However, that does require the Government to change the process—to change the way they give credit for the sites that are thus created. That would ensure that the big volume builders, whose whole business plan is based around building on greenfield sites, do not get the only view of the situation, and town and city centre development becomes a route for councils to satisfy the housing numbers they are required to build.
The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) on securing this debate and on his, as ever, eloquent contribution. I am always keen to hear his views. I am also keen and happy to look at his maths, and happy to discuss what the colouring of the maps might be. I am grateful for the insights that he has given to us. The issue of housing, including housing numbers, is of great importance to many Members across the House, including my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), who also spoke with great prescience and insight, and I am happy to discuss his ideas at some future point.
I think we would all agree that, to achieve the aims of our manifesto commitment of building 300,000 new homes a year by the mid-2020s, we need to find the right balance, which is ambitious in its vision for the future of our planning system and house building, and fair. That is why we recently set out our long-term vision in our planning White Paper, “Planning for the future”, the consultation on which closed last week.
We believe that the proposals will create a reformed system that not only delivers the houses that we need, but puts communities at the heart of a process that encourages more community engagement from the very beginning, so that people play a fuller part in the proactive place-making of their environment. Right now, something like 2% of local populations take an active role in individual planning applications. That percentage can fall as low as 1% in the development of local plans.
The proposals will also encourage fairer contributions from developers—a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset—with a new infrastructure levy to fund critical infrastructure and affordable housing. The proposals will contribute to more beautiful homes and communities through local design codes, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare, with pattern book approaches. They will also deliver stronger environmental outcomes, protecting our green belt and our precious green spaces.
At the same time as we launched the planning White Paper, we set out our proposals for the shorter term in our consultation on changes to the current planning system and local housing need calculation. As I said in the Backbench Business debate on the issue a couple of weeks ago, however, some of the numbers we have seen bandied around from the Commons Library or the Lichfields assessment are entirely speculative.
The consultation on the local housing need methodology closed on 1 October, and we are working through the feedback from it. I have heard today, in the Backbench Business debate and in discussions with right hon. and hon. Members across the Chamber, concerns that have been expressed about the proposed changes, in particular some areas that might see increased levels that they will find difficult to plan for.
We have tried to approach the process fairly, based on evidence, because the evidence shows that for too many people homes are simply unaffordable. That is why I should be clear that both the current and the proposed standard method have a focus on affordability, because it cannot be right that in areas where, historically, supply has simply not kept up with demand, people are prevented from living where they most want to, or where they most need to, in the places that perhaps they call home.
Indeed, it is a question of intergenerational fairness. We need to build more homes to help young people on to the housing ladder and also help some of the most vulnerable people in society—some of our elderly. We must consider the question of affordability. However, as I said, I have heard hon. Members, most recently my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset and my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare, who are concerned about the effect that this might have on the geographical balance of our country—that there may be too many homes in the south and not enough in the north.
That is why we are looking at other levers, such as stock renewal—regeneration of places—where it is required, generally in the industrial west midlands and the industrial north. We are looking at all-important city regeneration, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare. We are committed, in the national planning policy framework and in our consultation proposals, to further brownfield development, and we are committed to reimagining our town and city centres.
That is why we have introduced permitted development rights statutory instruments that allow for the demolition and rebuilding of commercial property to make it easier to turn that into residential property. We have introduced changes to use classification to make it easier for town centres to accommodate more residential accommodation so that they can once again become the places they used to be before, perhaps, the 1970s and the 1960s—places where people live as well as work.
I am in no doubt that achieving the right balance is critical. We need to challenge the affordability issues that bedevil so many people in our country and the places that they want to live.
Christopher Pincher
I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman, because I am sure he wants to raise a point about North Somerset.
Matt Western
The Minister is very generous. I want to concentrate on that point about affordability. In his vision, does he see that there is a role for council house or council flat building? Surely, as the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) illustrated about his area—I am sure it is true across the country—truly affordable accommodation must be delivered through council house building as well.
Christopher Pincher
The hon. Gentleman will know that we have made it easier for councils to build council houses. He will know that, through the affordable homes programme that the Chancellor and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced in September, over the next five years we will inject £12.2 billion into house building. We will build 180,000 new homes in our country, about 50% of which will be affordable and for social rent. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman raised that point, and I am pleased to have been able to make the point to him that we are building those affordable homes where they are necessary.
That is why we are looking at housing need now, considering carefully how each element of the formula that I described works together so that we can ensure that we achieve the right distribution of homes in the most appropriate places and address any perceived imbalances. We have consulted, as I said, on each element of the indicative formula, and we are reflecting carefully on the feedback we have received.
Dr Fox
May I take my right hon. Friend back to what the market has actually delivered over time? Does he accept that if councils are given targets for housing that are utterly unrealistic in relation to the numbers that have been built over time, the Government are likely to miss their own house building target, because houses will not be built in those areas to the extent that the Government would like, and that the process can be self-defeating if the correct balance is not achieved?
Christopher Pincher
My right hon. Friend makes a good point. That is why I said that we are looking very closely at the consultation feedback that we have received. As part of the consultation on the “Planning for the future” White Paper, we have asked providers of feedback to consider how we can improve the duty to co-operate between local authorities so that we get the right sorts of homes spread over the regions of our country. We know that political geography does not always map easily on to economic or physical geography, so I recognise what my right hon. Friend says.
I will make a couple more points before the fickle finger of time points us towards the door of the Chamber. My right hon. Friend raised the issue of infrastructure. We recognise that the present system of infrastructure levy does not work. We have heard that 80% of local authorities think that the system of section 106 contributions is too slow, and negotiations between councils and developers cannot be relied on fully to provide what communities truly need, when they need it. That is why, in the White Paper, we have proposed a more widely set infrastructure levy. That will simplify the system and ensure fairer contributions from developers.
Crucially, we want to ensure that the levy provides funds up front for the required infrastructure—the schools, roads, clinics and playgrounds that local people expect to see if new, good-quality, sustainable homes are being built around them. We are consulting on whether the levy should be set nationally, or locally or regionally to take account of regional economies.
My right hon. Friend raised the question of build-out and land-banking. He will know that Sir Oliver Letwin produced a report on build-out a couple of years ago. He found no evidence of speculative land-banking, but we all recognise that developers do not always build out at the pace that we would like. Our proposals will help to achieve that speedier build-out, but I look forward to considering the ideas in the consultation, so that we can better incentivise developers to build out.
My right hon. Friend referred to flooding. He will know that we are considering carefully whether we need to make further changes to the national planning policy framework to protect areas at risk of flooding from unnecessary and inappropriate building. We should not lose sight of the Government’s successes over the past 10 years. There have been half a million additional new homes since 2010, and 240,000 of those were built in England last year alone. We can be proud of that.
I thank everybody who has contributed to this debate. We need to get this right, and that depends on what we build, and where we build. I look forward to reading the many contributions of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset and my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare to the two consultations that have just concluded, and look forward to further debates on this matter.
Question put and agreed to.
Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote
Member eligible for proxy vote | Nominated proxy |
|---|---|
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ali, Tahir (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Allin-Khan, Dr Rosena (Tooting) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West ) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudon (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab) | Zarah Sultana |
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) | Stuart Andrew |
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey( (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) | Chris Elmore |
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con) | Caroline Nokes |
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) | Dawn Butler |
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) | Rachel Hopkins |
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Ms Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con) | Jeremy Hunt |
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) | Maria Caulfield |
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind) | Jonathan Edwards |
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con) | Bim Afolami |
Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con) | Craig Mackinlay |
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con) | Caroline Nokes |
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con) | Steve Baker |
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) | Julie Marson |
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP) | Ben Lake |
Neil Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con) | Fay Jones |
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con) | Maria Caulfield |
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab) | Judith Cummins |
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab) | Kate Osborne |
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab) | Lloyd Russell-Moyle |
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) | Zarah Sultana |
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab) | Kate Osborne |
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) | Patrick Grady |
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con) | Rebecca Harris |
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kate Osamor (Jarrow) | Nadia Whittome |
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con) | Peter Aldous |
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Christina Rees (Neath) | Chris Elmore |
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC) | Ben Lake |
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con) | Mike Freer |
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeff Smith (Manchester Withington) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con) | Robert Courts |
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab) | Dawn Butler |
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
David Warburton (Somerton and Frome) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC) | Ben Lake |
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab) | Rachel Hopkins |
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Draft Tobacco Products and Nicotine Inhaling Products (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Tobacco Products and Nicotine Inhaling Products (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell.
At the outset, may I highlight that we should all recognise our cross-party achievements in respect of tobacco control legislation over the past two decades. They have brought smoking rates to their lowest on record in the UK, and the individual and public health improvements that that has driven for everyone. However, smoking still causes more than 78,000 deaths each year and is one of the leading causes of preventable illness and premature death in England. That is why we have set out an ambition for England to be smoke-free by 2030. We are developing our plans and we will share them as swiftly as we can.
As hon. Members will be aware, the United Kingdom is a global leader in tobacco control, and the regulations that we are debating today will ensure that we maintain that strong commitment to tough tobacco control legislation up to and beyond the end of the transition period.
Through the regulations before us we are making the necessary arrangements to implement the terms of the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol in law for tobacco control. That will ensure that the robust arrangements for tobacco control are able to function effectively from 1 January. The 2020 regulations will amend existing 2019 regulations, which were made in preparation for our exit from the European Union. With your permission, Mr Mundell, for simplicity I will refer to them as the 2019 regulations.
The amendments made by today’s statutory instrument to the 2019 regulations further amend how 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. That 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 EU’s tobacco products directive will continue to apply to Northern Ireland after the end of the transition period. That means 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.
Those wishing to sell their products in Great Britain will be required to notify through a domestic system, as set out in the 2019 regulations. That domestic system is already developed and will be hosted by Public Health England, and its successor organisation, for tobacco products, and by the Medicines Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency for e-cigarette products. Despite a requirement to notify on two systems, that will place a minimal burden on industry as the notification format and information required will be extremely similar.
Secondly, to limit the financial burden on industry, the SI makes amendments to the Tobacco Products and Herbal Products for Smoking (Fees) Regulations 2017 and the Electronic Cigarettes etc. (Fees) Regulations 2016 to reflect that if a producer notifies via both the Northern Ireland and the Great Britain systems, they are only required to pay 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, of course keep the fee structure under review. I am sure that the shadow Minister may wish to comment on that.
Thirdly, the SI places into law requirements for picture warnings, which are central to tobacco control. As a result of the Northern Ireland protocol, the EU’s library of picture warnings will continue to feature on tobacco products sold in Northern Ireland. However, our Government does not hold the copyright for the EU’s pictures for use on a Great Britain market. We therefore require the industry to switch to the picture warnings as set out in schedule A1 of the 2019 regulations, pictures kindly licensed by the Australian Government free of cost. The industry is already accustomed to supplying different markets with varying packaging requirements across Europe and worldwide.
Finally, the regulations amend the sell-through period for existing stock which feature the EU picture library on the Great Britain market in accordance with the withdrawal agreement. That will allow stock first supplied before the end of the transition period to continue to circulate until it reaches its end user.
The instrument will allow goods to move freely between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, subject to the tobacco picture warning requirements. We acknowledge that this will have some impact on industry. To minimise that, we communicated with stakeholders in August, making them aware of the legislative changes; we also circulated further guidance last month regarding the specific requirements for picture warnings. We are clear that it is important that industry has the guidance that it needs, and I know that it is a point that the shadow Minister raised in a similar context in a similar Committee yesterday afternoon. Public Health England and the MHRA will also be publishing detailed guidance on notification requirements for both notification systems later this autumn.
My officials have engaged with the devolved Administrations throughout the development of the SI and may I put on record, as I always do, my gratitude for their contributions, and the positive and pragmatic collaborative approach that has been adopted. Although tobacco legislation is largely a reserved matter, there was a particular devolved matter relating to Northern Ireland about e-cigarettes on which we are grateful to have gained formal consent from the Northern Ireland Executive.
In conclusion, the SI is a necessary measure to ensure that the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol are reflected in law for tobacco control purposes. It is essential that the robust level of tobacco control currently operating in the UK remains in place after the end of the transition period to ensure that we continue to protect the nation’s health. I therefore commend the measure to the Committee.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell, for the first time. As the Minister said, we discussed similar regulations yesterday, and we are heading for a third bout in our series tomorrow, which is proving so juicy that it will held in the main Chamber. So something for everyone.
Alex Norris
Exactly; that’s what all they all said. It is a challenge not to repeat the content, especially not my gags, although some points may bear repeating. The regulations were the subject of very good exchanges in the other place yesterday, which as well as covering the minutiae of the subject also addressed important points about general tobacco control. I may refer to those exchanges briefly, but first I should like to echo what my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), said 18 months ago when debating the 2019 regulations. She outlined how dangerous it was that so much planning was needed for a no-deal scenario, and yet there was so little clarity on a no deal at that point. She warned that with 18 months to go, it was far too close to the deadline not to know where we were going. Well, we are now 60 days away, and we still know very little more. That is concerning: the Government need to get the deal that was promised to the British people, otherwise there will be significant disruption.
As the Minister said, the 2020 regulations amend the 2019 regulations, and implement the Northern Ireland protocol of the withdrawal agreement to ensure that the UK meets its obligations on tobacco control policy under that agreement. They will ensure consistency between the requirements relating to tobacco products placed on the market before and after the end of the implementation period, change the fees payable by producers when reporting information about their products in order to account for such amendments in Northern Ireland and ensure that tobacco control legislation continues to work effectively at the end of the implementation period. To that end, I will not be forcing a Division on the SI, because we do not want to render the nation’s tobacco control policies ineffective. However, I want some reassurance on the Northern Ireland aspects and the smoke-free agenda generally.
As per the withdrawal agreement, Northern Ireland is obliged to rely on specific EU rules, but looking at the bigger picture, time is running out for the Government to implement the remaining elements of the protocol. Any update on when that is likely to happen would be helpful, because proper implementation is vital to the protection of the Good Friday agreement.
Whatever happens in terms of these regulations, and our exit from the EU, that must not slow down our journey towards smoking cessation. I live in and represent one of the most challenged communities on health inequalities in the UK, and half of our health inequality is smoking based. We could remove half of health inequalities at a stroke by achieving that smoke-free goal. To me, that is an absolute priority project for Government. If they want to talk about levelling up, smoke cessation is perhaps the best thing that could be done to achieve that. The Minister made an accurate, well-expressed point about the cross-party record on declining smoking rates in the past couple of decades, and we should all be proud of that. However, smoking still remains the biggest preventable cause of cancer and death. There is an awful human cost, as well as the treatment costs of £2.4 billion each year – cutting smoking represents a really big prize to us.
It was interesting to note the Cancer Research UK report, ‘Making Conversation Count’, which set out the health and economic benefits of improving smoking cessation support in UK general practice. It is worth a read, and I would be interested in the Minister’s reflections on it. Before I draw attention to couple of the report’s highlights, I want to make a broader point about smoking cessation.
Local authorities have been under exceptional financial challenges for a decade. We could have a big political conversation about the necessity or otherwise of that, but I am less interested in that today. What we know for sure, however, is that those challenges have led to a diminution in smoking cessation services. Those services are strongly evidence-backed, and save us money in the long run. It is the falsest of false economies that hard-pressed local authorities are having to make. That matters today, beyond the fact that in itself it is a bad thing, because as councils deal with the impact of covid—it is clear that the total cost to each and everyone of our local authorities will not be met by central Government and that that initial promise will not be met—they will have to make difficult decisions. I know that in Nottingham, and I suspect this will happen across the country, we will see in-year budgets. They are horrendous not least because to try to get a 12-month saving from a six-month budget means that councils have to cut twice as much. Councils can try to finesse reserves, but they are in short supply. I am very concerned, and I hope that the Department are keeping a watchful eye on the aggregate impact on smoking cessation services in this country. If we lose them, we will face significant challenges. I sense that I am in danger of my comments being ruled out of the scope of the regulations. Am I?
Alex Norris
I am on the edge; I am coming back to the substance of the regulations, and how important it is that we do not weaken our approach to the smoke- free agenda. The Cancer Research UK report is worth reading. The target of being smoke-free by 2030 is equivalent to less than 5% of adults still smoking, which could prevent more than 400,000 smoking-related diseases, 90,000 premature deaths and 10 billion quids-worth of smoking-related health care costs. The price for us is significant.
To pivot back to the regulations, I want to refer particularly to the ban on tobacco products with characterising flavours. Those regulations came into force five months ago, but those products are still being produced and made available for sale. I understand that the Minister’s Department has instructed an investigation into that, which is welcome, but my sources tell me—I would love to be told that I am wrong, because I think it is extraordinary—that actually we waiting for the European Commission to make a decision on the matter. Does that mean that it is now Government policy that when we come to these regulations, and others, it is likely that we will wait for the EU to act and then we will take mirror action? If so, we will have lost our voice in that institution, just to wait to mirror it daily. I do not think that was what people were enthusiastic for, and certainly was not sold as a benefit of leaving the EU. I would be grateful to receive a commitment from the Minister that that is not so.
We will be in a much stronger position once we have a deal, and it is worrying that we are considering these regulations at a time of such uncertainty, when we still do not know whether a deal will be reached. The regulations before us underpin and are fundamental to the bigger prize of smoking cessation by 2030. I know that the Minister is committed to pushing us towards that, and I mirror that by saying that I am committed to reaching that target when we are in government in the latter half of the decade.
Edward Argar
I will not dwell on what may be the triumph of hope over reality in the shadow Minister’s final comment. It is always a pleasure to appear opposite the hon. Gentleman, not only as a fellow east midlands Member of Parliament, but as part of our regular double act in these Committee Rooms. He is always pragmatic and highlights reasonable questions.
In terms of implementing the Northern Ireland protocol, and other aspects of the withdrawal agreement, the hon. Gentleman understandably raised the same question today as he did yesterday, and I am afraid that I will give him the same answer. The fact that he is here today, as am I, debating regulations on another aspect of the protocol should give him some reassurance that we will all play our part in the coming days to ensure that the protocol is delivered.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned, as is his wont, the need to secure a good deal—a good future trade arrangement with the EU. I would remind him that we did of course secure such a deal with the withdrawal agreement—we left not with no deal but with that withdrawal agreement—but I take his point about the importance of the ongoing negotiations. As ever, it will not surprise him to learn that I will not prejudge what will emerge from them.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of continuing to focus on tackling smoking and its consequences. We both highlighted the importance of what has been achieved cross-party, but of course there is no room for complacency, and we need to continue leading the way. He highlighted a recent report by Cancer Research UK; I confess that I have not read that full report, but it always produces extremely erudite and important documents, so I am happy to take that recommendation from him and read it.
The hon. Gentleman touched on local council services. In an endeavour to remain within the scope of the debate, I address that point more in the context of how those services and his points about them are important in setting the context in which today’s regulations sit. I served as a councillor for many years before entering the House, including for a period as cabinet member for health and adult social care, so I recognise the importance of council services to smoking cessation. I will of course flag that.
On the hon. Gentleman’s final point about the review of flavoured e-cigarettes, I will ask my colleague who has direct responsibility for that policy area, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), to update him in writing, if appropriate.
On the matter of divergence or otherwise, as I said yesterday, I have been in the House long enough not to be tempted by the hon. Gentleman to answer that question. It is a matter for future negotiations. We continue to lead the way, I believe, in Europe and indeed the world in tackling smoking. We will continue to do so in the future. The regulations are largely of a technical nature, but they will ensure that we can continue to protect people’s health, and that we have a strong tobacco regulatory regime in place after 1 January. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
DRAFT STATE AID (REVOCATIONS AND AMENDMENTS) (EU EXIT) REGULATIONS 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I thank Members for observing the social distancing rules and the places set out for them. Hansard colleagues will be grateful if you could send any speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft State Aid (Revocations and Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies.
I hope that the Committee will support the draft regulations and their objectives. The regulations were laid before the House on 29 September of this year. They were made under the powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, as amended by the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, which I will refer to as the “Withdrawal Act”.
The draft regulations remove redundant EU state aid law from the domestic statute book after the end of the transition period. However, it may help if I set out a little context. State aid, which is an EU concept, is support in any form from any level of Government that gives a business or another entity an advantage that could not be obtained in the normal course of business. The disadvantage is the potential to distort competition within the internal market, affecting trade between EU member states, when state aid is present.
The rules relating to state aid ensure that EU member states operate in a way that is compatible with the internal market. The European Union establishes the rules, and the European Commission enforces them. The rules, together with case law, set out the details on how and when aid can be granted. However, we are no longer members of the European Union or the single market and, after the transition period, we will no longer be bound by those rules. If we did nothing, therefore, after the end of the transition period, EU state aid law would become part of UK law as retained EU law under the Withdrawal Act, but it would contain fundamental deficiencies making such retained EU law for state aid inoperable in the UK.
The objective of this statutory instrument, therefore, is to revoke the redundant law. That is both appropriate and necessary to provide legal certainty for UK businesses and public authorities that EU state aid rules no longer apply in the UK, except where they apply directly under the Northern Ireland protocol. That clarity is essential for businesses. The Government have long been clear that the UK will not follow EU state aid rules after the transition period, and will not align with EU state aid rules in any trade agreement with the EU. Instead, the UK will have its own subsidy arrangements to support its competitive, dynamic market economy.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced in a written statement to Parliament on 9 September 2020 that, from 1 January, the Government will follow World Trade Organisation rules on subsidies and other international commitments agreed in free trade agreements, and that we will consult on whether to go further, including on whether to legislate.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Some of the provisions of the coronavirus business interruption loans and bounce back loans were restricted because of EU state aid rules, which the Government had to work alongside. In future, will we be more fleet of foot in drawing up our own schemes for such loans and, potentially, might we be able to extend them a bit further into the distance? At the moment, they only extend to the end of January. Will the Minister look at extending those schemes perhaps to the middle of the year, because we can determine the rules ourselves? Is that correct?
Paul Scully
I thank my hon. Friend for an apposite intervention. I will not be drawn too much into what we will do in future, but I will say that being fleet of foot is exactly the reason for switching off the state aid rules at this point and having our own sovereign approach.
Over the coming months, we will work closely with businesses and public authorities across all parts of the United Kingdom to ensure that we consider how best to design an approach to subsidy control that works, as my hon. Friend said, for the UK economy.
I now turn to the detail of this draft statutory instrument. The SI will disapply and revoke retained EU state aid rules, which are preserved by sections 3 and 4 of the Withdrawal Act. Articles 107 to 109 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union, together with the EU regulations and decisions made under that treaty, govern the state aid regime. Article 107(1), for example, defines state aid and sets out the general prohibition on giving aid. That prohibition operates by providing that aid is incompatible with the EU internal market, insofar as it affects trade between member states, unless that aid has been approved by the European Commission. Article 107(2) and (3) set out where the Commission must give approval and where the Commission has discretion over whether to approve aid. Article 108 sets out the Commission’s role in monitoring state aid and obliges member states to notify the awarding of aid to the Commission in advance.
Aid cannot be awarded until approved by the European Commission. This is known as the standstill obligation. While the Commission has the exclusive competence to decide whether aid is compatible with the internal market, national courts can enforce the standstill obligation. In effect, national courts can suspend an aid measure until the Commission has considered whether that measure is compatible with the internal market. However, after the transition period, the UK will no longer be bound by EU state aid rules, so the rights and obligations I have just described will no longer be relevant. This SI ensures that they are not retained in UK law by the withdrawal Act.
Furthermore, several EU regulations are in place to enable the EU state aid regime to operate across the member states. These broadly consist of procedural and exemption regulations. The procedural regulations set out how the state aid regime operates and make clear the roles and responsibilities of the Commission and the member states. They set out the procedures to be followed on notification and investigation, and give the Commission information-gathering powers. The exemption regulations set out the conditions under which an aid measure is exempt from the requirement to notify the Commission in advance. After the transition period, these provisions will become retained EU law through the withdrawal Act, but they will have no practical application, because the Commission will not have a role in the UK’s domestic subsidy control arrangements. The SI will therefore revoke these redundant provisions. Removing retained EU law that is both deficient and no longer relevant from UK statute books avoids any possible confusion about whether state aid laws must be complied with or not. The instrument also makes consequential amendments to other retained EU law and UK domestic legislation that refer to state aid rules, ensuring that this legislation can continue to operate appropriately beyond the transition period, when EU state aid rules will not form part of domestic law.
Hon. Members will recall that I mentioned that the regulations do not prejudice the Northern Ireland protocol. Article 10 of the Northern Ireland protocol will apply at the end of the transition period. The protocol will apply the EU state aid rules for measures relating to goods and wholesale electricity, affecting trade between Northern Ireland and the EU. The protocol is given effect in the UK by the withdrawal Act. The regulations will not affect the application of the Northern Ireland protocol. The regulations only make amendments to UK domestic law. The Government seek powers through the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill to ensure, if necessary, that there is no confusion or ambiguity in UK law about the interpretation of the state aid elements of the Northern Ireland protocol.
In conclusion, it is a fact that, from 1 January, EU state aid rules will no longer apply to the UK. The purpose of this statutory instrument is simply to revoke retained EU law on state aid from the UK statute book, and to fix any technical deficiencies in other retained EU law and UK domestic legislation that refers to state aid rules. I think we agree that clarity on the UK statute books about which rules do and do not apply after the transition period comes to an end is in the best interests of all. The instrument will ensure legal certainty for businesses, aid-granting authorities and courts. I therefore commend the regulations to the Committee.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Davies. I am glad to be on the Committee considering the regulations.
I am particularly pleased that a Conservative Government recognise the role that state aid can play in the development of key sectors in a nation’s economy. If deployed as part of a robust industrial strategy, it can help to create decent jobs, kick-start businesses and rebalance regional inequalities. State aid, public ownership and workers’ rights are important building blocks of our nation’s economic model, and getting them right will be crucial to our future prosperity and the nature of any post-Brexit settlement. EU state aid rules on innovation clusters, broadband, culture and heritage, as well as on small and medium-sized enterprises, general economic interest and local infrastructure projects, have allowed member states lots of room to invest in and pursue their domestic priorities.
I should declare an interest here. When I worked for Ofcom I worked on state aid rules with particular regard to investment in broadband—for many years and in quite a lot of detail, although I shall not indulge myself by going into that during this debate, Members will be glad to know. However, I can say that state aid rules allow for support for industries of general economic interest. It is true that they prohibit heavy-handed state aid when it distorts competition, but there have always been ways to strengthen and support industries without falling foul of EU guidance.
State aid rules are a critical concern in providing the right level of financial and other support, but even within the EU different countries have interpreted state aid rules in different ways. Other countries within the European Union have always, shall we say, been far more innovative, creative and supportive with their strategic industrial capacity than the UK, despite the same state aid rules environment. The UK did not keep up with strategic investments. For example, the Government provided just 0.38% of GDP in state aid in 2018, compared with France’s 0.79%, Germany’s 1.45% and Denmark’s 1.55%.
I give those figures to emphasise to the Minister that the Government cannot continue to hide behind the false excuse that it was the EU regime that was the reason for the lack of strategic investment. Further, it is strange that the state aid regulations should cause such an impasse in the negotiations, given the lack of support from the Conservative Government over many years for strategic investment and subsidy. While the Minister says that state aid is an EU concept, it is certainly recognised in the WTO subsidy regimes, which are essentially the same thing. When I asked the Secretary of State for International Trade in the House on 14 September, at column 35, what the difference was between the European Union state aid rules, which had been rejected, and the Japan trade deal state aid rules, which were being accepted, I did not get an answer. I hope that the Minister will perhaps give us some clarity on that.
Kevin Hollinrake
Is not the difference the fact that we would be able to make our own rules unilaterally; but if we remained part of the jurisdiction of EU state aid we would have to go to the European Court of Justice, potentially, or to the European Commission, to determine what support we might offer to business? Does the hon. Lady propose that should still be the case once we have left the European Union?
Chi Onwurah
I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has entirely misunderstood me. We are leaving the European Union, as I said. In fact, we have left the European Union and the transition period is coming to an end. My question, like my question to the International Trade Secretary, was very specific. It was about the difference between state aid rules. In the case of what was agreed with Japan it is not something unilateral. In the Japanese trade deal state aid rules were agreed—as they are in all trade deals; it is difficult to agree them unilaterally with another country. My question was about the difference between those rules and those that were rejected as part of the European Union trade negotiations.
Kevin Hollinrake
The European Union position in the negotiations is that it wants us to be accountable to the European Union. That is exactly what it is saying, and that is what is different. Whereas in the Japan deal that was not the case, with the EU it is. There would be a requirement for us to agree our measures with the European Union. Is that what the hon. Lady wants? That is what the EU wants. That is its position.
Chi Onwurah
What I wanted to understand was the difference—comparing the rules agreed with Japan and the existing rules within the European Union state aid agreement. The way in which they are managed in the future is obviously part of the negotiations, but I wanted to understand the difference. I still do not understand what the difference is, and am not sure whether it has been set out clearly anyway; but I am sure the Minister will explain it to me.
As has been said, we have left the European Union, and the end of the transition period is fast approaching, so we call on the Government to protect British jobs and support regional communities that have been held back after 10 years of austerity. State aid can and should play an important role in that. Labour does not want a return to top-down subsidies and command-and-control intervention in the economy. Instead, we want to build an economy where public bodies work with the private sector to promote innovation and drive economic growth. The Government have had over four years to put together a replacement state aid regime. We were promised a framework way back in March 2020 and we are still waiting to see it. We agree with the need for this statutory instrument and will not be opposing it, but we believe it important for businesses and, indeed, for all of us, to have greater clarity.
With less than two months to go, there is regrettably no time left to carry out a meaningful consultation on a new, ambitious plan for state aid before the end of the transition period. Businesses that I am talking to are understandably frustrated. As we have discussed, negotiations with the European Union broke down earlier this month and Lord Frost confirmed that the UK would be operating under WTO rules from January 2021. While this gives a modicum of clarity to stakeholders—which is to be welcomed—we know that WTO rules are suboptimal, lacking in important detail on state aid. They also do not include provisions on services, which is a critical part of the UK economy.
On 11 March, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster told the Committee on the Future Relationship with the European Union that Great Britain-based businesses trading with Northern Ireland would categorically not be subject to European Union state aid rules come January 2021. Many experts say that WTO do not operate effectively as a subsidy control regime, and that a reliance on WTO rules should only be a stopgap. Does the Minister agree? Will he give an indication of what a future state aid regime built on the proposed WTO framework would look like?
We hope the Government will improve on the WTO baseline quickly and get this implemented, not only because that would that give further clarity to UK businesses, but because it would improve free trade negotiations with the EU and other countries.
Businesses have raised concerns that under the Government’s current proposals, subsidies made outside of Northern Ireland might still be regarded to have a potential effect on trade between the European Union and Northern Ireland. The Minister talked about the impact of these rules on Northern Ireland, but these outside subsidies could necessitate a European Union state aid assessment. What is the Minister’s view and can he allay those concerns by confirming that the Government will prevent EU state aid rules from reaching back into the UK for trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which is covered by the Northern Ireland protocol?
Before I conclude, I wish to say that we have long been concerned about how the Government’s flagship shared prosperity fund might interact with a UK state aid regime. The Government have promised that details regarding would come with a comprehensive spending review, but the CSR has been curtailed to just one year and the consultation has not even started yet. Can the Minister assure us that we will have some details of the framework before the end of the transition period? Will that framework ensure that regional leaders and devolved Administrations are consulted and included in decision making?
We should remember that the structural funds received from the European Union were always allocated based on where they were most needed according to relative deprivation. Will a future state aid regime reflect that? Given the controversy around allocations from the towns fund, how can the Government assure us that the appropriate safeguards will be in place to prevent cronyism arising from Ministers’ own “qualitative analysis”? Finally, I would like to hear from the Minister the ways in which the Government intend to allocate state aid funding other than via the shared prosperity fund.
Paul Scully
I am grateful to the Committee for its consideration of the regulations and the valuable contribution of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central to this important debate.
I have talked about the fact that the EU state aid rules were created to meet the needs of the EU, but, with us leaving the EU and the single market, as we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton, whether for the Japan deal or for our future deals, we want to have a system, controls and regulations that fit the UK economy and our objectives, which can be enforced and administered by the UK as an independent sovereign nation.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central talked about certainty for businesses and I totally agree with her. This is a specific, technical statutory instrument that does not look at our future subsidy control regime beyond the WTO. Clearly, we will want to build on that and work out where we need to go with businesses. It is important that we involve businesses to develop any future additions, should we choose to build on the WTO. In terms of the certainty that businesses require now, we will publish guidance as soon as possible on the international commitments that will apply in the UK on 1 January 2021. That will cover WTO rules and subsidies and any commitments that we have made in the free trade agreement to date.
Our approach will have implications for businesses and all public authorities that grant subsidies with taxpayers’ money, including the devolved Administrations. It will take time to listen closely to those voices and design a system beyond 1 January that promotes a competitive and dynamic economy throughout the whole UK.
Chi Onwurah
Can the Minister give more clarity about the timescale he envisages to develop the state aid regime, given that we will have left the European Union and the existing state aid regime will no longer be applicable?
Paul Scully
Clearly the timescale will involve two things: our negotiations with the EU and other countries in terms of free trade agreements, and our discussions with businesses and government at every level, including the devolved Administrations, to ensure that we get it absolutely right.
We can be sure that on 1 January 2021 we will be leaving with the subsidy control, as outlined by the WTO. The guidance for businesses at that point will be there for them to see. We need to ensure that with anything to do with the transition—whether it is changes to company administration, organisation supply chains or subsidy control of state aid—it is important that businesses look at gov.uk/transition website. Whether we have a deal with the EU or not, companies will have changes to make. It is important that they are on top of that, especially small businesses that do not necessarily have available the big resources to work on those matters at such extraordinary times, as they work on a day-to-day basis.
The objective today is to revoke the retained EU state aid law, rather than looking forward beyond that—that is appropriate and necessary—and to ensure that consequential amendments to other retained EU law and UK domestic legislation that refers to state aid rules continue to operate appropriately for businesses and Government after the end of the transition period.
In conclusion, I confirm that we are revoking the retained rules that have been preserved through the withdrawal Act. The regulations will provide the legal certainty for businesses and aid-granting authorities. I therefore hope that the Committee will approve the regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Education
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gavin Williamson
As my hon. Friend will know, we have invested a considerable amount of money in the opportunity areas, which are looking at some of the real long-term challenges that we have in Blackpool as well as in 12 other areas right around the country.
[Official Report, 21 October 2020, Vol. 682, c. 1135.]
Letter of correction from the Secretary of State for Education, the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson):
An error has been identified in the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard).
The correct answer should have been:
Gavin Williamson
As my hon. Friend will know, we have invested a considerable amount of money in the opportunity areas, which are looking at some of the real long-term challenges that we have in Blackpool as well as in 11 other areas right around the country.
Environment Bill (Eighth sitting)
Tuesday 3rd November 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Environment Act 2021 View all Environment Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 3 November 2020 - (3 Nov 2020)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
May I start by welcoming the Committee back to the interrupted consideration of the Environment Bill and give you a few little parish notices? First, I start from the position of being a very traditional chairman. Chairmen come in different shapes and sizes, and I am at the traditional end of things and, therefore, try to use the procedures and practices we have in the main Chamber, although there may be some variations.
Secondly, we should be extremely careful about social distancing. The idea is to sit at the chairs with a blue tick, so the central row is not used, by and large. I think that is a matter for Members’ discretion, but perhaps people can make a point of keeping their distance throughout the process of the Bill. On social distancing, instead of passing notes to Hansard, which we would normally do, would Members kindly send by email any speeches they might make. I know that the Hansard Reporters would appreciate that.
Most members of the Committee are very experienced, but for those who might not be that experienced, the principle of what we are doing is that, having agreed the principle behind the Bill on Second Reading, we now consider the detail of the wording of the Bill, to make it a good Bill, no matter what we thought of the principle behind it. We can do that by considering the Bill line by line. The means by which that happens is that members of the Committee, whether Opposition or Government—or indeed people who are not members of the Committee, by means that I will describe in a moment—put down amendments to the Bill. Those amendments are then grouped for debate in a convenient way, bringing together topics that are similar.
Only members of the Committee may argue for amendments. However, hon. Members who are not members of the Committee may lay amendments if they can persuade a member of the Committee to move them, and I think one or two examples of that may occur during the Bill. Amendments must be laid by the rise of the House on Thursday for discussion on Tuesday and by the rise of the House on Monday for discussion on the Thursday. That is all I have to say by way of introductory remarks.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Gray. I welcome you back to the Committee after our long break. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I also welcome Committee members back to our proceedings.
Because of the particularly long break we have had, a number of events have occurred since the last sitting in the earlier part of the year, which those with a long memory will dimly recall. Those events are twofold. First, the Government decided during the period in which the Committee was in abeyance to table a large number of new amendments, particularly concerning the operation of the Office for Environmental Protection, which, certainly in the Opposition’s view, considerably alter how that office works.
Secondly, in the period between our original deliberations and now, the Government also brought forward a planning White Paper, which looks as though it will cut across many of the provisions of the Bill relating to environmental improvement and action areas, which depend on planning zones for their operation.
Both those developments fundamentally alter some structures of the Bill. Through the usual channels, we made representations that we should have new evidence sessions at the beginning of this Committee period so that the Committee is informed of those new developments, which would help to ensure that our deliberations are carried out in the best way possible. Unfortunately, that has not found favour, and we begin our proceedings this morning without the benefit of any new information that might allow the Committee to consider those developments.
Would it be possible, Mr Gray, to accommodate a statement from the Minister on those two issues, on which she could be questioned, so that the Committee can have some elucidation before it continues its proceedings? Whether that statement should be made immediately upon the resumption of the Committee this morning, or could be accommodated as early as possible in the Committee’s proceedings, is clearly a matter for discussion, but we strongly hope that such a statement could be agreed.
The Chair
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point of order, which is more of a point of information than anything else. The changes that have occurred since the Committee last sat will be considered via amendments submitted by Opposition and other Members during our proceedings. There is no facility for making a ministerial statement to the Committee, but the Minister will have ample opportunity to answer the points that the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise during the debates that we will have between now and 1 December, which is the agreed out date. If there were extra evidence sessions, that would delay the out date. Although it cannot be done, the hon. Gentleman has made a valid point and the Committee has heard it. I know that the Minister will seek to answer those points during the debates that lie ahead of us.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Gray. As it is fairly warm in the room, would you mind if Members removed their jackets?
The Chair
It goes completely against my natural instincts and my absolute principles, but of course, gentlemen may remove their jackets if they wish during our proceedings. There is no need for a new point of order on every occasion. I assure the Committee that I will not be taking my jacket off.
Ordered,
That the order of the Committee of 10 March be varied as follows—
(1) In paragraph (1)(d), leave out “and 2.00pm”.
(2) In paragraph (1), leave out sub-paragraphs (e) to (l).
(3) After paragraph (1), insert—
“(1A) the Committee shall (in addition to its meeting at 9.25am on Tuesday 3 November) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 3 November;
(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 5 November;
(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 10 November;
(d) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 12 November;
(e) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 17 November;
(f) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 19 November;
(g) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 24 November;
(h) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 26 November;
(i) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 1 December;”.
(4) In paragraph (4), leave out “5 May” and insert “1 December”.—(Rebecca Pow.)
The Chair
We now move to line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list of amendments arrived in the Committee Room a few moments ago. I hope that everyone has a copy. It shows how the amendments have been grouped, starting with clause 7.
One point that I omitted to make during my earlier remarks is that amendments are grouped for convenience of debate. However, if a decision has to be made on them, that decision comes at the point in the Bill to which the amendment refers. In other words, we may have an amendment to clause 7 and an amendment to clause 25 considered together, but the amendment to clause 25 will be moved formally at the time when we discuss clause 25.
Clause 7
Environmental improvement plans
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 88, in clause 7, page 5, line 7, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
“(4) The environmental improvement plan must include, as a minimum—
(a) measures which, taken together, are likely to achieve any targets set under sections 1 or 2 and will ensure that the next interim targets included in the plan are met;
(b) measures that each relevant central government department must carry out;
(c) measures to protect sensitive and vulnerable population groups (including children, older people, people with chronic illnesses and outdoor and transport workers) from the health impacts of pollution;
(d) a timetable for adoption, implementation and review of the chosen measures, and the authorities responsible for their delivery;
(e) an analysis of the options considered and their estimated impact on delivering progress against the relevant targets; and
(f) measures to minimise, or where possible eliminate, the harmful impacts of pollution on human health and the environment.”
This amendment looks to strengthen Environmental Improvement Plans by connecting them to; measures which are proportionate to targets set out in the bill, departmental action, vulnerable people, a timetable and analysis.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 112, in clause 7, page 5, line 7, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
“(4) An environmental improvement plan must set out the steps Her Majesty’s Government intends to take in the period to which the plan relates, which the Secretary of State considers will—
(a) enable targets set under section 1(1) and that meet the conditions at section 6(8) to be met, and
(b) make a significant contribution to meeting the environmental objectives irrespective of whether targets are in place to cover all matters relating to the environmental objectives.”
Dr Whitehead
This is potentially an important amendment. What we would expect to happen in a Bill is that as the legislation moves through its narrative, one part of the narrative connects to the next one in a coherent way. One of our criticisms of this Bill, although we have said that it is a good Bill in its own right in what it seeks to achieve, is that it fails to add to its coherence as the narrative of the Bill proceeds. What I mean by that is that the Bill tends to set itself out in a number of chunks, a little like an early picaresque novel, rather than a more recent novel that includes the present, the past and the future. I am not suggesting that the Bill itself is a novel, but others may have views on that.
The amendment seeks to bridge the narrative gap in the Bill by ensuring that the measures in this clause relate back to the targets at the beginning of the Bill, which we discussed, as hon. Members with long memories will recall, when our proceedings started earlier this year. Those targets, which we agreed—indeed, we agreed not only the targets, but the mechanism by which they would be decided on—are very important in relation to the environmental improvement plan that will arise from the Bill. If we have an environmental improvement plan that does not relate to those targets and, indeed, has a narrative on environmental improvement that is actually a descriptive arrangement rather than an action arrangement, it is vital that the connection is properly made in the Bill itself and that the environmental improvement plan, essentially, is instructed to organise itself along lines that do relate to those targets in the first place.
As we discover when we go through this clause, an environmental improvement plan is, in effect, already in existence—or rather, this Bill will bring that environmental improvement plan into existence. The Bill describes the process by which an environmental improvement plan can be developed and put in place, and then the Bill says, “Oh and by the way, it so happens that there is an environmental improvement plan already in existence that we can adopt for the purpose of the Bill”—and that is “A Green Future: Our 25 Year Plan to Improve the Environment”. People will see that, in the legislation, it is specifically referred to as being the present environmental improvement plan, the one in front of us.
However, that improvement plan—as, again, I am sure hon. Members will know—was actually adopted in 2018. To show people how far back that goes, I point out that it has a “Foreword from the Prime Minister”, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), and a “Foreword from the Secretary of State”, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove). Neither of them is in the same role at the moment, so it is quite an old document. Among other things, it does not address itself to the structure of the Environment Bill; it says a lot of very interesting things, but it certainly does not address itself to how those things should take place. I want to talk later in the debate about some of the issues in the environment plan, “A Green Future: Our 25 Year Plan to Improve the Environment”.
For the time being, suffice it to say that there appears to be a problem of connection, as far as the Bill is concerned. The amendment seeks to rectify that by clearly stating on the face of the Bill:
“The environmental improvement plan must include... measures which, taken together, are likely to achieve any targets set under sections 1 or 2 and will ensure that the next interim targets included in the plan are met”.
It therefore makes a direct connection between this part of the Bill and the first part. It states that the environmental improvement plan must include
“measures that each relevant central government department must carry out… measures to protect sensitive and vulnerable population groups… a timetable for adoption, implementation and review of the chosen measures… analysis of the options considered and their estimated impact on delivering progress… and measures to minimise, or where possible eliminate, the harmful impacts of pollution on human health and the environment”.
The amendment therefore comprehensively makes those connections.
I am sure the Minister will say that none of that is necessary, because everything is okay—it all works all right. However, I hope, at the very least, that, in explaining why that is the case, she will also explain why it is not necessary to make that link between this part of the Bill, the environmental improvement plan and the targets that we set out and agreed in previous sittings.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his opening words. It is an absolute privilege to be back with the Committee. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] It is more than seven months since we had to adjourn, very unusually, and we all know why that occurred. Sadly, we are still in a tricky situation with the coronavirus pandemic, but I am pleased that we are able to carry on with this hugely important piece of legislation, which will change the way we think about our environment forever. We are all involved in a very significant piece of work, and it is a delight to have you in the chair, Mr Gray.
Despite the fact that we are in these very tricky times with the pandemic, we need to look ahead as a Government and as a country. As we build back, as the Prime Minister has said, we want to base the recovery on solid foundations, including a fairer, greener and more resilient global economy. I want to touch on a few of these issues before we carry on, because it has been such a long time since we reconvened.
On the points made by the shadow Minister, we took expert evidence before. Everyone is entitled to take their own evidence as we go along to inform anything that we do. Written evidence is also submitted to back up the Bill, and that is always welcomed. The hon. Gentleman mentioned planning issues, and I absolutely assure him that we will address those when we get to the right part of the Bill and particularly the nature chapter. I think the Chair covered the issue of a statement comprehensively, and I fully support your words, Chair.
The Chair
Order. I think “Mr Gray” is the right thing; otherwise, we will get mixed up between Chair and Chairman. Also, in passing, I know you are all pleased to serve under my chairmanship, but you do not need to say so—[Laughter.]
Rebecca Pow
But we love saying that, Mr Gray. Okay, I will try not to say it again.
The Chair
Order. Sorry to interrupt the Minister, who is speaking extremely well, but I intend to be very tough with the Committee to make sure that we address the amendments in this group. I think it is right to offer a reasonable reply to the hon. Member for Southampton, Test and the point of order he made regarding things that have occurred since we last met. However, I think the Minister is tending towards a Second Reading speech, and perhaps she could address more particularly the amendment in front of us.
Rebecca Pow
Thank you Chair, I get your point and I beg your forgiveness. I will not include everything, but I wanted to update the Committee because so much has happened since we stopped our consideration of the Bill. People think we have gone on hold, but absolutely we have not.
We will be doing much more work, and we will discuss our statutory EIPs, which will drive up environmental improvement, in the next few days alone, as well as how we will continue to protect the environment from damage by embedding environmental principles at the heart of Government policy.
Turning to the amendments, which is what you really want me to do, Mr Gray, I appreciate the desire of the hon. Member for Southampton, Test to strengthen the EIPs—that is what clause 7 is all about. I am delighted that he has raised the 25-year environment plan because I was at the launch of that plan. Although colleagues who filled those important posts are in different roles now, I was there as Parliamentary Private Secretary in this Department.
I am utterly delighted to introduce this—perhaps the shadow Minister failed to address this—as the 25-year environment plan is actually the first EIP. That is what this is all about. What we are doing with the EIPs is triggering what is set out in the excellent plan. The Bill’s statutory cycle of monitoring, reporting and planning is designed to ensure that the Government take early, regular steps to achieve long-term targets and are held to account through regular scrutiny by the Office for Environmental Protection and by Parliament.
The Bill creates a statutory triple lock, which we will hear about a great deal as the Bill progresses, to drive short-term progress. First, the Government must have an environmental improvement plan setting out the steps they intend to take to improve the environment and to review it every five years. When reviewing it, they must consider whether further or different measures should be adopted to achieve interim—five yearly—targets and long-term targets. When we review the EIP in 2023 we will update it as necessary to include the steps that we intend to take to achieve the targets that we set. That will be five years after the launch of the first plan in 2018.
Secondly, the Government must report on progress towards achieving targets every year. Thirdly, the Office for Environmental Protection will hold us to account on progress towards achieving targets. Each year it will comment on the progress towards targets reported in the Government’s EIP annual report and can flag early on whether it believes there is a risk of the Government not meeting their long-term targets. It may make recommendations on how progress could be improved, and the Government have to respond. Ultimately, the OEP has the power to bring legal proceedings if the Government breach their environmental law duties, including the duty to achieve long-term targets.
In requiring that EIPs set measures to deal with pollution, amendment 88 would single out aspects of the environment ahead of others. EIPs are defined as plans significantly to increase the natural environment. Measures on air quality, with corresponding benefits to human health, are already within the scope of EIP, so it is not necessary to place duties on particular matters in the EIP, which could undermine consideration of other important environmental goals.
The Bill includes a duty to set a legally binding target for PM2.5, the air pollutant with the greatest impact on human health, in addition to a further long-term air quality target. The introduction of measures to meet the air quality target will reduce exposure to harmful pollutants and deliver significant improvements to human health. Other targets that meet the criteria set out in clause 6(8) already have their own statutory regimes, including any appropriate requirements to set out plans and measures to achieve them. It is therefore unnecessary to require that EIPs include measures to achieve them.
Amendment 112 would explicitly link the measures in the EIP to “meeting the environmental objectives”, and I address this with the assumption that the environmental objectives are to achieve and maintain a healthy and natural environment, as set out in new clause 1. The Bill’s provisions already ensure the delivery of the significant environmental improvements that the hon. Member for Southampton, Test seeks through the amendment and ensure that the Government can be held to account. Targets and EIPs have the objective under clauses 6 and 7 of delivering significant improvements to the natural environment, so I urge the hon. Gentleman not to press the amendment.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
As you suggest, Mr Gray, I will not go through all the formalities. It is a pleasure to be on this Committee, although it is a little like the philosopher’s axe: which part of this Committee is still part of the preceding Committee? Many of us are new to this, and it has been a long-running process.
The Minister is notorious for her optimism—[Interruption]—or has a reputation for optimism. When she talks about the 25-year improvement plan, I wonder whether that is 25 years forward or whether it is taking us 25 years back, because it is about filling the gaps left by our leaving the European Union and the protections that came from that membership. I fear, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test explained earlier, that the heart has been ripped out of the Bill.
To turn to the amendment, as you directed Mr Gray, I listened closely to the Minister’s observations and I do not quite understand why she is not sympathetic to some of the amendment’s proposals. I particularly query her attitude to the natural environment. She will have seen the representations from the National Trust about including heritage within the ambit of natural environment, and that prompts a big question. There is no natural environment; we have been part of the environment as human beings for many, many years and we have had huge impact on it. I suspect we will pursue this matter in further discussions, but I would welcome her observations on why heritage is not included among the proposed protections.
In particular, I do not understand why the Minister does not favour the inclusion in the environmental improvement plans of proposed paragraph (b) in amendment 88, which calls for the reporting of
“measures that each relevant central government department must carry out”.
All of us involved in rural policy know that it is an endless issue, and that virtually every part of government touches on the environment of rural areas. Those policies must be included as an essential safeguard to ensure that the environmental improvement plans work properly.
Rebecca Pow
The hon. Gentleman has hit the nail on the head: the natural environment is very complicated and complex. We have set out the Bill as it appears so that it takes an holistic approach to the environment, as I believe he will see as we proceed in our deliberations.
I believe that the hon. Gentleman was referring to rurality in particular, but the Bill covers everything about the environment, and not just one thing or another. It takes an holistic approach, and is a great deal more holistic than anything that the European Union has done. The environmental improvement plans are significant because there are no equivalents to them under EU law: member states were not required to maintain a comprehensive long-term plan to improve the environment significantly, but that is a key issue of the Bill. Nor was there any requirement on member states to report annually on progress towards any kind of significant improvement. EU law tends to require member states to prepare or publish plans to achieve particular targets, for example on air quality or water quality, but it does not offer the holistic approach of the Bill. By leaving the EU, we have an enormous opportunity to look at the environment in the round. I hope that helps Members.
Dr Whitehead
I am sorry, but I am just not convinced. I will consider clause 7 in further detail later, but the gap that we have identified in terms of the connection between this part of the Bill and the first six clauses is egregious, and does not appear to relate at all to what is in the 25-year environment plan, interesting though that plan may be in its own right.
The amendment is important because it addresses those shortcomings and it should not be set aside on the grounds that everything will be all right, and that the Bill is quite an holistic Bill after all. For that reason, I am afraid that we will seek to divide the Committee.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 201, in clause 7, page 5, line 10, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment would require the Government to include steps to improve people’s enjoyment of the natural environment in its Environmental Plan.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 202, in schedule 2, page 127, line 11, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment would require the Government to include steps to improve people’s enjoyment of the natural environment in its Environmental Plan and is consequential on Amendment 201.
Richard Graham
This is likely to be the shortest amendment proposed to the Bill. It simply substitutes the word “must” for “may” in clause 7, which would in turn require the Government to include steps to improve people’s enjoyment of the natural environment in their environmental plan. Why does this one-word change, which amounts to a net increase of one letter to the Bill, matter so much? The clue is in clause 7(5) and its clear intent to improve people’s enjoyment of the natural environment. The Government explicitly recognise the importance of that in the environmental improvement plan, which will set interim targets for each five-year period, and the amendment would ensure that the Bill includes people’s enjoyment in the five-year targets.
Many of us would argue that people’s enjoyment of the natural environment is always important, but it is especially so now, during the period of this pandemic. Many more of us have been enjoying green spaces during lockdown, and park visits in the UK were up 195% in the six weeks to 25 May compared with February. The amendment would put a greater legal burden on the Government to enhance access to such spaces as they set out new environmental policies in their environmental improvement plan.
The amendment acknowledges the value of parks and green spaces to all of us and all our constituents. This is a chance to appropriately fund our parks and green spaces, including the organisations that maintain them. Some of us will be aware of the Government scheme for pocket parks, which was announced by the Communities Secretary in March 2020. It was a £1.35 million fund—a very small fund by comparison with many of those that have had to be launched to support businesses, culture and many other organisations—and it created 68 new pocket parks around the country in order to transform urban spaces into green havens. They were hugely helpful, and I believe that further rounds would be both welcome and possible. They would help fund the priorities identified in the five-year targets for people’s enjoyment that should be created.
At this stage, I would like to bring as a remote witness the Ramblers organisation, which has made the point that access to, and enjoyment of, the natural environment has multiple benefits that are relevant to the aims of the Bill and to wider Government objectives. They include encouraging pro-environmental behaviours. There is evidence to suggest that people who spend more recreational time in natural settings are more likely to report engaging in a range of pro-environmental behaviours. In simple speech, that can often amount to volunteers joining litter-picking groups to ensure that our parks and green space are kept clean and are attractive to more visitors.
A survey shows that 85% of adults in England and Wales believe that being able to experience the countryside is important for children’s understanding of the environment. I think that is true in all our constituencies. In my constituency of Gloucester, we have the joy of the Robinswood Hill country park right in the middle of our small city. I believe that every child should have the experience of sitting on their mother’s or father’s shoulders for their first visit up the hill to watch the sunset over the River Severn in the summer. It is one of the most beautiful things that anyone can do, and it stimulates enjoyment and healthy behaviours.
There is also the issue of physical and mental health. More than eight out of 10 adults believe that visiting the countryside is good for their physical fitness and mental wellbeing. In a sense, we do not really need surveys to confirm that; we know it is true. People who live within 500 metres of accessible green space are 24% more likely to achieve the 30 minutes of daily physical activity that doctors constantly recommend. Access to green space is associated with reductions in long-term conditions such as heart disease and cancer, and close connections to green space are also associated with significantly less income-related health inequality, weakening the effects of deprivation on health. During the pandemic, there has been a huge increase in mental health problems, and during a lockdown period green spaces are in many ways people’s one chance of restoring some balance to their mental health.
In the current 25-year environment plan, which will be given statutory footing on Royal Assent, there are broad aspirations on engagement with the natural environment, but there are opportunities to improve them. I will turn briefly to some of the aspects that could be addressed. Evidence shows that access to nature and the outdoors is not entirely equal: for example, children in lower income areas and people from black, Asian and other minority ethnic backgrounds have the poorest access to green spaces and the natural environment. That is not always the case—in my constituency of Gloucester, the ward that is closest to Gloucester park, Barton and Tredworth, is also the area with the highest concentration of ethnic background diversity—but in general, access to the outdoors is unequal in our larger cities compared with towns or countryside.
The amendment would make a substantial difference by requiring the Government to take a strategic and coherent approach to issues of access to and enjoyment of the natural environment. Some non-governmental organisations have suggested that the amendment might put people’s enjoyment over the value of the natural environment to wildlife—that, for example, people and the environment are in competition and their goals are necessarily incompatible—but I reject that suggestion, because I believe that there are very clear examples of how people and the environment go well together.
The easiest way to shine a light on that is by talking about sensory gardens, which, as many of us know, are a frequent feature in schools that handle people with the greatest physical disabilities. Years ago, my family helped to raise funds for a sensory garden that was full of biodiversity. Not only was it a wonderful environmental joy, but it brought great joy to those with disabilities who attended the school. It is important therefore that the amendment be seen not as pro-people and anti-environment, but as pro-people and pro-environment.
Nor is the amendment intended purely to benefit urban dwellers—far from it. Aspects of it will hugely benefit the countryside as well. Research commissioned by the National Trust estimates that people across Great Britain are missing out on 500 million park visits a year because of poorly equipped facilities. Basic facility upgrades, from toilets and income-generating cafés to play areas, can help accessibility; litter collection, which I have already mentioned, is also incredibly important. Natural England has reported that insufficient footpaths in the presence of busy or dangerous roads can prevent easy access and deter their use. One in eight households has no access to a private or shared garden, a figure that rises to 21% of households in London, which highlights the importance of enjoyment of our green spaces.
Overall, parks in England deliver an estimated £6.5 billion of health, climate change and environmental benefits every year, including £2.2 billion in avoided health costs alone. It is not for me to challenge those figures; I think we can all intuitively relate to them, and I hope that as guesstimates, which are inevitably imprecise, those are as accurate as they can be. For every £1 spent on parks in England, an estimated £7 in additional wealth is generated for health and wellbeing and the environment.
These anecdotal examples of evidence, surveys and research make a strong case for making sure that the people’s enjoyment of our public spaces is included in the Bill as a “must”, rather than a “may”. In a sense, the Environment Secretary showed his support for such concepts in July 2020 in a speech announcing £4 million for a two-year pilot project to bring green prescribing to four areas hit hardest by coronavirus, saying:
“Studies across the spectrum, from health to financial risk, remind us that it is in our best interests to look after nature. We know that a connection with nature contributes to wellbeing and improved mental health.”
I could not agree more. I know that the Minister who is taking the Bill through the House, and whose whole career in the House of Commons has been dedicated to working on the environment, shares those feelings.
I draw attention to two other aspects. First, in September 2019, Julian Glover published his independent “Landscapes Review”, sometimes known as the Glover review, into whether protections for national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty are fit for purpose. The Government have not yet formally responded to that review, but I believe they are broadly supportive. Its proposals include:
“A stronger mission to connect all people with our national landscapes, supported and held to account by the new National Landscapes Service”,
and,
“A night under the stars in a national landscape for every child”.
What a wonderful idea. Millions of children in this country have never had the chance to do that, and if this could stimulate that experience, what could be better? Also proposed is:
“New long-term programmes to increase the ethnic diversity of visitors”.
That has to be the right way forward. Different ethnic communities in my city have not had the same experiences in enjoying our national parks. We need to encourage them, and to make sure that national parks are seen as open, accessible and to be enjoyed by everyone. The proposals continue:
“Expanding volunteering in our national landscapes”,
and,
“A ranger service in all our national landscapes, part of a national family”.
All those recommendations, alongside the nature recovery network that is part of the Bill and that aims to join up green spaces and landscapes, only emphasise the value of replacing “may” with “must” in the Bill, which will help to achieve some of the recommendations.
My one-word amendment has the backing of the Conservative Environment Network, which my hon. Friend the Minister and I were founder members of. It has the support of the Ramblers, as well as the support of all the heritage organisations that come together in a group chaired by a former colleague of ours. Some of those aspects are reflected in amendment 202, which no doubt somebody else will talk to. It highlights the importance of archaeological, architectural, artistic, cultural and historical interest in our parks.
I particularly draw the attention of those listening from my constituency to the great Jurassic landscape in Robinswood Hill country park; stones that are millions of years old are sitting there on our doorstep. Having been a civil servant in another life, I recognise that no Department welcomes changes to its Bills, and that “must” implies additional responsibilities and work that is unlikely to be welcomed; however, I believe that this one-word change is a worthwhile measure. My hon. Friend the Minister is likely to have only one chance to lead a major new environmental Bill through the House. She will want it to be as strong and successful as possible. All Members on the Government Benches and, I suspect, on both sides of the House, share her ambition. I move this probing amendment in the hope that she will see this one written word as an entirely positive contribution to the spirit and intent of the environmental plan and the Bill.
Dr Whitehead
I commend the hon. Member for Gloucester on bringing the amendment forward. It is an important amendment in its own right. It is also important in terms of something we did at the beginning of the Bill and which was briefly discussed during the earlier stages in the spring. The Bill is littered with “mays” where there ought to be “musts” and we drew attention to about 25 instances where there are “mays” in place and they should be “musts”.
Dr Whitehead
I am putting that to the Committee for its comfort and security. However, there is a continuing real issue in the Bill with the way in which it has been drafted with those “mays” and “musts”. While we have done part of our job by drawing attention to that and putting those amendments down, even though we are not going to pursue them in detail, it is within the powers of other members of the Committee—as happened this morning—to draw attention to the effect that a “may” instead of a “must” has on a passage as we go through the Bill. I fear that that will be, even without my intervention, a recurring leitmotif as we go through the Bill, and that hon. Members will be particularly concerned about that formation as it relates to a thing they are concerned with as the Bill goes through. They may raise that concern independent of our portmanteau amendments on “mays” and “musts”.
I hope the Minister will reflect on that. I observe that she has been assiduous in tabling amendments. It is unfortunate, that those amendments do not include any recognition that this is a particular problem with the Bill. There are amendments that could be put forward that would rectify that.
I hope the Minister will take from this exchange that there is a real concern about how that particular formulation works through the Bill, and especially in this instance. I hope she will consider, at least in some of the instances where those “mays” and “musts” collide, tabling some amendments later in the Bill’s passage to rectify or ameliorate those parts of the Bill. That piece of sunny optimism on my part perhaps goes with the Minister’s sunny optimism on many things. Let us see whose optimism gets the upper hand in this instance.
Finally, it might have been a little mischievous of us to seek to draw the hon. Member for Gloucester into supporting a vote on this clause. Out of sensitivity to his general circumstances in life, we will not seek to do that, because I think the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment. I think it illustrates, however, that this concern is held not only on this side, but across the Committee, so there is an additional onus on the Minister to think about whether there are instances where those “mays” and “musts” can cease colliding and can be amended for the better purposes of the Bill as a whole.
Rebecca Pow
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester for his excellent speech. He knows that I hold him in great respect and I always listen to what he says. He collars me many a time. I have given this a huge amount of thought and talked to a great many people about it, because it has been preying on my mind—he can be absolutely sure of that. He has explained a bit about my background, so he will know that I am not making that up.
My hon. Friend painted a lovely picture of life in the countryside, especially in his lovely constituency, including in the Robinswood Hill park, which I know because I briefly worked on rural and countryside issues in Gloucester many years ago. That was one of the places people revered even then.
I am dealing with the “may” as it relates to this amendment, which I think is the right thing to do.
Rebecca Pow
It is cheeky of the shadow Minister to try to widen out the “mays” and “musts” at this juncture.
Connecting people with the environment is really important to our health and wellbeing. It is a core objective of the Government’s 25-year plan, which we can all have a look at later to remind ourselves. It is written in there, I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester, that connecting more people from all backgrounds with the natural environment for their health and wellbeing is a key part of the 25-year environment plan, which is our first environmental improvement plan. When reviewing the environmental improvement plan, the Government must consider whether further measures are needed to achieve the targets. Under the Bill, long-term targets can be set out for any aspects of the natural environment or people’s enjoyment of it. As he will know, the Bill requires the Government to set out at least one target in four priority areas—air quality, biodiversity, water waste and resource efficiency—as well as the fine particulate matter target. Other targets can be set later, as we go along. There is huge scope for that.
We are already implementing many projects and schemes to connect people with nature. My hon. Friend has named a number of them already. For example, there is the children in nature programme, on which I, as the Environment Minister, link up with the Department for Education. There is the green social prescribing shared outcomes fund; he touched on the funding that has just been given. I was at the launch of the National Academy for Social Prescribing last year, when I was briefly a Minister in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. I went with that hat on, although I had done a lot of work as a Back Bencher on green social prescribing; my hon. Friend is absolutely right about how important it is and what a difference it makes to people’s lives.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester touched on pocket parks. That fund was launched last year by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, to the tune of £1.35 million, and community groups can still bid for that now. If my hon. Friend or other hon. Members know any groups that would like to bid for that money, please encourage them to do so, as that would be worthwhile. We have also launched a £40 million green recovery challenge fund, supporting projects across the country to connect people with nature and generate jobs at the same time. So, there are a lot of ongoing projects, which will not stop. We expect public authorities to consider how to help to tackle the issue of health and wellbeing, through actions to comply with the strengthened biodiversity duty introduced later in the Bill, in clause 93.
I know my hon. Friend knows that the environmental improvement plan can set out the steps that the Government intend to take to improve people’s enjoyment of the natural environment. I have touched on that already, but that is engrained in the Bill. As my hon. Friend said, people’s enjoyment of the natural environment can, in some instances, have a negative impact on the natural environment. For example, if too many visitors go to a beach, it can negatively impact the wildlife and habitats, including through litter left behind. I am really conscious of that, because we have had some significant incidences of it over the summer. I had to engage with local authorities about it, including those in Cornwall, where it was raised as being a terribly difficult issue to deal with.
Our enjoyment of nature cannot take precedence over our stewardship of that environment for the future. That is why we do not necessarily want to give equal prominence to environmental improvement and people’s enjoyment in EIPs, as would result from these amendments. I understand that Greener UK agrees that the focus should be on improving the whole, holistic natural environment, not diverting it from its primary status. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester touched on that.
I highlight the link between the Environment Bill and the new environmental land management scheme, which is being brought through under the Agriculture Bill. ELMS will be one of the tools for delivery in the 25-year environment plan and one of the measures in the Environment Bill. It will pay for delivery of public goods. Listed among those public goods are beauty and heritage, as touched on earlier by the hon. Member for Cambridge, as well as engagement with the environment. That is actually listed as something that can be delivered as a public good through the Ag Bill and the new ELM system. There is a direct link with what my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester touched on, and I hope that gives him some assurance.
Richard Graham
I am very grateful to the Minister for doing detailed research to anticipate most of the points that I was likely to raise. I am also grateful for the comments of the hon. Member for Southampton, Test.
The Minister is quite right that it is appropriate at this stage to tackle the one-word change to the clause only, rather than the wider principle, which the hon. Member for Southampton, Test tempted her to pursue. I am absolutely sure that she not only understands exactly where I am coming from but is entirely with me. The question is whether she can bring me with her in the direction that we want this Bill to go, rather than come from. Everything she said only emphasised the value of bringing something more concrete to the clause. We are in wide agreement on almost every single issue, except the important net increase of one letter that I am hoping for.
I hope the Minister will reflect on some of the thoughts that I offered, particularly on the vital notion that nature and humans do not need to be in conflict. I was brought up partly in east Africa, and I have seen over my lifetime how the occasional obsession with trying to separate the role and the perfection of the environment from the role and desires of the humans living in and beside it can cause conflict unless people work hard to realise that the two can go together very well. We have seen in the most successful environmental schemes around the world how effective that can be; whether in the marshlands to the north of Hong Kong, or in the wildlife protected in India and Africa. The same can be done here, in our own country. There are opportunities to pursue, and in that spirit I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will look at this closely for the Report stage of the Bill—she is nodding. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
Order. Before we move on to the next group, I would like to say that I have been very relaxed so far. We have had some very discursive contributions to the two groups we have had in the past hour and 10 minutes. We should all collectively seek to address our remarks particularly to the absolute detail of the amendments in front of us and not stray into other areas, however interesting.
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 87, in clause 7, page 5, line 13, at end insert—
“(5A) It may also set out the steps Her Majesty’s Government intends to take to improve the conservation of land environments of archaeological, architectural, artistic, cultural or historic interest, including improving people’s enjoyment of them (and if it does so references in this Part to improving the natural environment, in relation to that plan, include conservation of land environments of archaeological, architectural, artistic, cultural or historic interest, including improving people’s enjoyment of them).”
This amendment invites the government to consider the historic environment in environmental improvement plans.
We are enjoined to concentrate on the amendment in front of us and how it affects the Bill as a whole. It would be useful to put to the Committee where we stand on clause 7. The clause states that the Secretary of State must prepare an environmental improvement plan. The beginning of the clause appears to suggest that the Secretary of State must sit down—presumably with a towel round his head—and work out an environmental improvement plan and present it to the House.
The clause then sets out what an environmental improvement plan is—significantly improving the natural environment in the period to which the plan relates—and that that period must not be shorter than 15 years. As the hon. Member for Gloucester mentioned, an earlier clause provides that the EIP should include
“steps Her Majesty’s Government intends to take to improve people’s enjoyment of the natural environment in that period.”
Clause 7 then takes an abrupt handbrake turn. It says that is all very well, and all those things must be done by the Secretary of State. However, in the great tradition of “Blue Peter”, here is one I prepared earlier. It states in subsection (7):
“The document entitled ‘A green future: our 25 year plan to improve the environment’…is to be treated as an environmental improvement plan”.
That is, it has already been done before the Secretary of State has to put pen to paper as provided earlier in the clause, to produce an environmental improvement plan. It then specifically states in subsection (8) of this clause:
“References in this Part…(a) to the first environmental improvement plan, are to that document; (b) to the current environmental improvement plan, are to the environmental improvement plan for the time being in effect.”
That is the 25-year environment plan—
The Chair
Order. We have a very long Bill to consider, with a great deal of amendments. I therefore intend to be tough on both sides of the Committee. I know that that may upset every member of the Committee equally, but we need to make some progress. I therefore suggest that the hon. Gentleman should speak not to the whole of clause 7—he will have an opportunity to do that, if he chooses, in a stand part debate shortly—but specifically to his amendment, which refers to the conservation of land environments. Broader discussion of the clause may wait for later.
Dr Whitehead
Thank you, Mr Gray. I will, of course, follow your guidance closely, but I feel it is necessary to set out what part of the clause we seek to amend, and why, in order to explain the status quo ante. By tabling the amendment, we seek to set out steps for Her Majesty’s Government to take to improve the conservation of land environments of, among other things, archaeological, architectural, artistic, cultural or historical interest, including improving people’s enjoyment of them. The clause as it stands mentions people’s enjoyment of the natural environment. The amendment would place one of the definitions of the natural environment into the context of what has happened to it over a very long period of history.
One little example of that, close to my constituency in Southampton, is the New Forest. The New Forest is not new and it is not, by and large, a forest. It is a very large and precious part of our natural environment, but it is not the natural environment it was originally. Actually, it is a spectacularly complex and superbly varied environment that has been worked on substantially by humans over 10 centuries. Substantial sections of the New Forest that were originally forest are heathland, for example, with their own habitats and precious areas of rare species within them. Those habitats have come about only as a result of human activity in the original area of the New Forest, clearing what was forest and working on, draining, changing, enriching and variegating the land. As a result, those species have colonised those areas and are now, to the human eye, indistinguishable from the natural environment as part of that forest.
Daniel Zeichner
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. In the east of England, the Broads landscape is a similarly excellent example. It was long thought to be an example of the natural environment, but it now turns out to be a consequence of human intervention. The definition of what is natural is extremely important.
Dr Whitehead
My hon. Friend is right. The Broads came about as a result of peat extraction by Saxon and early medieval inhabitants of the area, and an amazing interlinked lakeland and wetland environment has developed as a result. Landscapes of archaeological, environmental, artistic, cultural or historic interest are an important part of the natural environment. They should be conserved and preserved, and loved and looked after for that reason, and not because they are a variation from the original landscape that was in place once upon a time.
Rebecca Pow
I want to assure the shadow Minister that the Government were elected on a manifesto that promised to protect and restore our natural environment after leaving the EU, and that is why the environment improvement plans and targets share an objective of significantly improving the natural environment.
I will whizz through my response as briefly as I can. The hon. Member touched on the fact that the natural world does not exist in a vacuum. We are in complete agreement. It is a very complicated scene. We interact with it; we use it and rely on it; and we change it, as the hon. Member referred to in many examples. It becomes part of our life, our history, our values and it is a natural heritage and inheritance that we should all be proud of. That is why the 25-year environment plan has at its heart that we will improve the natural environment and recognises that we cannot manage it in isolation.
The plan committed us to
“Safeguarding and enhancing the beauty of our natural scenery and improving its environmental value while being sensitive to considerations of its heritage.”
That is what the plan mentions, so I want to give absolute assurances. I believe the shadow Minister is not aware that this point is all part and parcel of the Environment Bill already.
I understand that those outside this House who have been calling for the amendment feel that greater confidence would be given by an explicit reference in the Bill to these particular heritage features of land. I know that lots of people have been concerned about this, so I want to reassure them that the Bill ensures that our 25-year environment plan, including its stated recognition of the connection between the natural environment and heritage, will be adopted as the first environmental improvement plan. It will set the benchmark for future plans, including how to balance environmental and heritage considerations.
The approach we took in our 25-year environment plan on heritage was welcomed by stakeholders and is expected to be mirrored in future environmental plans by the future Government. I hope that give assurances. The shadow Minister raises some serious points about heritage, but I think we are actually in agreement, so I would ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Dr Whitehead
I am not sure that the Minister can point to the exact part of the Bill where those things take place in the way that she has suggested they do, although I am a little reassured by the fact that she clearly has a good understanding of the problem that we have set out today and is alive to the issue. I hope the Minister will follow up this debate with some equally assiduous work as previously, to ensure that it is a substantial feature of the next, or revised, environmental improvement plan. I hope it will give great reassurance not just to people in this House, but to those concerned with our natural heritage and the way that our heritage as a whole impacts on the natural environment and the changes that have been made within it over time. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 8
Annual reports on environmental improvement plans
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 89, in clause 8, page 5, line 32, at end insert—
“and,
(c) consider biodiversity reports published by authorities under section 40A of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (as amended by section 94 of this Act).”
Clause 8 is concerned with the preparation of annual reports on the implementation of the current environmental improvement plan. The amendment would additionally require the consideration of annual reports on the plan’s implementation and operation. The clause sets out a number of ways in which that should be done. By the way, I cannot resist stating that, as hon. Members will observe, subsection (1) says:
“The Secretary of State must prepare annual reports”.
The Secretary of State has no option but to do this. It is not a question of the Secretary of State “may”; rather, he “must prepare annual reports”. There is obviously some careful writing going on here.
Subsection (1) says:
“An annual report must...describe what has been done, in the period to which the report relates”
and
“consider...whether the natural environment has, or particular aspects of it have, improved during that period.”
Later in the Bill, clause 94 amends the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 to require the Secretary of State to look at biodiversity reports, which
“must contain...a summary of the action which the authority has taken over the period covered by the report...a summary of the authority’s plans for complying with those duties... any quantitative data required to be included in the report”,
and
“any other information that the authority considers it appropriate to include in the report.”
I will not read out the entire clause—as you will be delighted to hear, Mr Gray—but it sets out a number of other things that the biodiversity report should include. Nevertheless, in terms of biodiversity reports, that appears to be fairly central to the idea of reporting, on an annual basis, what has happened to that environmental improvement plan. That is, those biodiversity reports, which are coming out on a regular basis, should inevitably be included in the annual changes that have happened, which are required to be reported on by the Secretary of State as far as the improvement plan is concerned.
However, as hon. Members can observe, there is no linkage in clause 8 with clause 94 as far as biodiversity plans are concerned. We are concerned that, without something on the face of the Bill to link those biodiversity reports and the progress of the environmental improvement plan, those reports will be set aside, not taken into account and not included in the Secretary of State’s progress reports, and will have much less effect as a result. The amendment would therefore require the Secretary of State to
“consider biodiversity reports published by authorities under section 40A of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (as amended by section 94 of this Act).”
That is the important part. We are considering an amendment to the 2006 Act later in the Bill specifically to do with biodiversity reports, yet we leave them hanging elsewhere in the legislation. The amendment introduce create an important linking passage between those two issues. The Committee ought to think carefully about whether it wishes that link to be explicit on the face of the Bill, or whether the inclusion of those biodiversity reports in the Secretary of State’s update on the environmental improvement plan should be left to chance.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Member for his consideration of the Bill and the amendment. However, I assure him that the amendment is not needed. Clause 8 places a duty on the Secretary of State to produce annual reports on progress in implementing the environmental improvement plan. As the current 25-year environment plan shows, EIPs have a very broad scope. We have already touched on that. The reporting requirements that the Government have proposed are equally broad in scope, describing what action has been taken to implement the plan, and considering whether aspects of the natural environment are improving. This consideration should draw upon relevant existing data. Specifying that particular reports must be considered is not necessary.
The Bill will introduce a requirement to produce biodiversity reports as part of a strengthened biodiversity duty on public authorities. These reports will provide valuable data, but are already in the scope of the existing reporting duty of the annual EIP reports. To ensure that the annual EIP reports are as robust and comprehensive as possible, we want them to be based on the best evidence. We also want to retain the flexibility to consider the most relevant evidence for a particular context.
Daniel Zeichner
I suspect that we will be discussing the same points on a number of different amendments, but this amendment raises the whole issue of those biodiversity plans. It also raises the issue referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Test at the beginning of today’s sitting, which is that we have seen significant changes over the summer in terms of the Government’s stated intent for the planning White Paper.
When we look at the information that goes into the environmental improvement plans, my concern is that, as my hon. Friend has suggested, the data needs to be there to make any kind of sensible judgment. It is suggested, through the links to clause 94, that local planning authorities will be providing much of that information, yet the Government now propose to create a planning system that makes that nearly impossible. We will return to that, but it points to the great difficulty for the Opposition, in that, without an evidence session to explore these points, it is difficult to have a rational discussion at this point in our proceedings. My hon. Friend’s suggested amendment very much strengthens the Government’s ability to draw up a coherent plan. If we do not have that, we will end up with a nice-looking document that is not based on any real information.
This debates also touches on a more fundamental issue: the relationship between this Bill and the Agriculture Bill. I had the pleasure of leading on the Agriculture Bill in this very room some months ago, and we raised the point then. The interaction between the two is complicated and sophisticated, particularly in relation to environmental land management schemes. The Minister mentioned that earlier. Without the relevant information, we will not be able to have the planning strength we would all like to see.
Dr Whitehead
The points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge are important in the wider context of the Bill. They explain why we are finding it difficult to easily track what the various parts of the Bill are against each other. As my hon. Friend says, we will return to that in the next amendment. It is beholden on the Minister to explain a bit better how these things fit together—or indeed do not—than she has this morning. We legislate today not just for those who might be well-disposed towards the Bill and have its architecture well-embedded in their heads, and would therefore hopefully be able to move about within the Bill to put its bits together in terms of future directions. I refer to Ministers and those who are well-disposed towards its ideas—in this instance biodiversity reports. We are legislating for future circumstances where those required to carry out the terms of the Bill might not have the same enthusiasm, dedication and support for the issues as the Minister does. I am sure she will have a long reign as Minister, but she is nevertheless the present Minister.
It is important that we ensure as best we can that the legislation is malevolence-proof and that what we decide in respect of future Governments’ duties, both in this Committee and when the Bill goes through the House, really happens. The amendment is an example of something that could be included in the Bill. I accept what the Minister said about there being some measures that, with some good will, can ensure that those things happen, but they are far from the sort of long-term assurances we want. Although I will not press the amendment to a vote, I am afraid that what the Minister has said laid out this morning is very much dependent on her good will towards the Bill.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
The shadow Minister is making a powerful point—we are future-proofing for generations to come. To my mind, it is important that legislation is easy to read and understand, and it must be secure and tight. Future generations will be looking to us to set an example, which is why that is so important. A year ago, nobody knew about covid, so we cannot always read the future, but we must set things down tightly in legislation. That is why amendment 201, which was withdrawn, focused on the use of “may” and “must”—wording is so important. I agree with my hon. Friend that we must make the legislation as future-proof as possible.
Dr Whitehead
That is precisely my view of what we should be doing in Committee and throughout the passage of the Bill. I hope that the Minister will reflect on whether the clause is really tight enough to ensure that the provisions work, not just for her purposes but for the purposes of people in the future, and that she will look over the legislation at her leisure—there is plenty of time on Report—to see whether anything more needs to be done to ensure that that point is properly taken on board. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 90, in clause 8, page 5, line 32, at end insert
“and,
(c) include an analysis of whether the policies and measures set out in the environmental improvement plan will ensure that any targets set under sections 1 and 2 and any interim targets set under sections 10 and 13 are likely to be met.”
This amendment is another example of the theme that we have been developing, first on the extent to which the later parts of the Bill link properly to the earlier parts, and secondly on whether provisions should be included in the Bill to ensure that those links are made when the Bill becomes law and are not just in the minds of the Minister and well-disposed civil servants.
The amendment, which also relates to clause 7(5), proposes that the environmental improvement plan should include
“an analysis of whether the policies and measures set out in the environmental improvement plan will ensure that any targets set under sections 1 and 2”,
which we have agreed to,
“and any interim targets set under sections 10 and 13”,
which we will talk about later,
“are likely to be met.”
It is important to the proper functioning of any environmental improvement plan that it is drawn up on the basis of the targets. The Minister has mentioned that this is not just a question of the targets that are in the Bill; other targets can be set on the basis of the framework in clause 1. It seems to me that if that is one of our prime mechanisms for ensuring that what happens under the Bill as a whole works, it has to be a prime function of an environmental improvement plan. The idea of setting up an environmental improvement plan to miss, subvert or undermine those targets would be anathema to us, but there is nothing in the Bill to prevent that from happening. The two clauses are just not linked together. We therefore think, as I have mentioned before, that the amendment is important to rectify architectural defects in the Bill.
Under the amendment, the analysis would be one of the things the Secretary of State was required to include when preparing an environmental improvement plan. Of course, when the environmental improvement plan that we have at present was produced, no targets were in place, no targets had been set and no targets had been considered. This is therefore an entirely new thing that would have to go into the revision of the environmental improvement plan that the Secretary of State is required to do in 2023.
I hope that the Minister will be fairly generous in considering whether to put this provision in the Bill. I think that it is an important change that needs to be made and, given that we have thought about it for a while, we will consider dividing the Committee if there is not a reasonable response to what is a serious and considerable lack of joining up between this clause and the earlier clauses.
Rebecca Pow
I thank shadow Minister for his proposal that the Government annually assess the sufficiency of environmental improvement plan measures for achieving our targets. He is clearly aware, as are we and, indeed, all the people who have put so much work into the structure of the targets and the EIPs, that it is very important to keep the EIPs on track. With that in mind, I assure him that the whole system that has been set up—the Bill’s statutory cycle of monitoring, planning and reporting—is designed to ensure that the Government regularly assess the sufficiency of their actions, while allowing some flexibility in how they do so.
The EIP annual reports are intended to be a retrospective assessment of what has happened in the preceding 12 months. The five-yearly EIP review is a more comprehensive assessment in which the Government must look not only backwards but forwards and consider whether the EIP should include additional measures. If so, the EIP may be updated and a new version laid before Parliament.
The Office for Environmental Protection will comment yearly on the progress reported in each EIP annual report, providing it with the opportunity to flag early on where it believes there is a risk that the Government might not meet their legally binding, long-term targets. It may also make recommendations on how progress towards meeting targets can be improved, to which the Government must respond.
The Chair
Order. The Minister has finished her remarks; the hon. Gentleman is replying to the debate.
Dr Whitehead
Indeed. I am wondering in a non-specific way, Mr Gray, what the Minister might think about this issue, having responded to the debate so far.
The provision that we wish to place in clause 8(2) appears in subsection (3), so will the Minister consider including it in subsection (2), which states what an annual report must consist of, whereas subsection (3) states that the report might consider these matters. Surely those targets and interim targets are central to any annual report and are not a consideration that might arise in the report.
I do not know whether the wording is slack or whether there is a reason why the consideration of relevant targets under clauses 1 and 2 are in subsection (3) and not in subsection (2). Our amendment expresses the centrality of targets to annual reports.
Daniel Zeichner
I have to say that I am finding this a slightly dry discussion, Mr Gray.
I listened to the Minister carefully and I am trying to understand the amendment’s effect in the real world. For those that influence the environment—I think of water companies and transport authorities—the extra clarity offered by the amendment would make it far more likely that they would amend their planning and investment decisions at the right time, which seems to be key to what we are trying to achieve.
Dr Whitehead
I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend, although it is perhaps going a little too far for an hon. Friend to say that I am involved in dry discussions. On his suggestion, I will try to make my discussions a little damper in future.
To be honest, I do not think the Minister has given us a good reply. I do not want to press the amendment to a vote, but I want to put it on the record that we think it is important that these issues should be gathered together centrally in the annual reports and not put in the considerations about the annual reports. Again, I would hope—it is not a general reflection on this occasion, but an actual reflection—that the Minister might look at the fact that the wording applies to the documentation of the report and consider whether a drafting amendment to put subsection (3) into subsection (2) might not be a wise course of action at a future date.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 9 to 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 16
Policy statement on environmental principles
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 91, in clause 16, page 10, line 6, leave out “proportionately”.
This amendment removes ministerial estimates of proportionality as a limitation on the policy statement on environmental principles.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 92, in clause 18, page 11, line 13, leave out subsection (2).
This amendment removes the proportionality limitation on the requirement to consider the policy statement on environmental principles.
Dr Whitehead
I am afraid that we might be here discussing slightly dry propositions for a little while. Amendments 91 and 92 look at the wording in the Bill that relates to the proportionality of the interpretation by Ministers of the Crown when making policy. Clause 16(2) defines what a policy statement on environmental principles is. It explains that it
“is a statement explaining how the environmental principles should be interpreted and proportionately applied by Ministers of the Crown when making policy.”
Although that appears to be an innocuous point, our view is that it is not remotely as innocuous as it looks, because it is not just talking about the statement on how the environmental principles should be interpreted. It is stating that, even after that interpretation, there is a second course of action that may be taken: Ministers of the Crown may decide to apply them proportionately. As far as I can see, there is no definition of the word “proportionately” in clause 16 or in the Bill as a whole, even though it is quite usual to place an interpretation of particular words in a Bill.
My understanding is that the word “proportionately” has to be attached to something—it is proportionate to something, or proportionately a part of something. When it is stated in the—
Pension Schemes Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)
Tuesday 3rd November 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Pension Schemes Act 2021 View all Pension Schemes Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 3 November 2020 - (3 Nov 2020)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Before we begin scrutiny, I have a few preliminary announcements. I will stop the sitting if Members do not respect the social distancing guidance. I remind Members to switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. If drinks have been brought in, please remove them from the desk. I know that most speeches are spontaneous, but if Members have speaking notes, please email them to our Hansard colleagues at hansardnotes@parliament.uk. That would be helpful. We will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper. We will then consider a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication. Given the time available, I am sure we can do both of those without debate.
Ordered,
That—
(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 3 November) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 3 November;
(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 5 November;
(2) the proceedings shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 6; Schedule 1; Clauses 7 to 44; Schedule 2; Clauses 45 to 48; Schedule 3; Clauses 49 to 57; Schedule 4; Clauses 58 to 95; Schedule 5; Clauses 96 to 99; Schedule 6; Clauses 100 to 116; Schedule 7; Clause 117; Schedule 8; Clauses 118 to 120; Schedule 9; Clauses 121 to 123; Schedule 10; Clauses 124 to 129; Schedule 11; Clauses 130 to 132; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
(3) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Thursday 5 November. —(Guy Opperman.)
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House.—(Guy Opperman.)
The Chair
Copies of written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the room. We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room. It shows how the selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or similar issues. Please note that decisions on amendments do not take place in the order they are debated, but in the order they appear on the amendment paper. The selection and grouping list shows the order of debates. Decisions on each amendment are taken when we come to the clause to which the amendment relates.
Clause 1
Collective money purchase benefits and schemes
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 2 to 6 stand part.
That schedule 1 be the First schedule to the Bill.
Clauses 7 to 25 stand part.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank colleagues for attending today’s debate. I hope to proceed with cross-party agreement on those matters that are relatively uncontested, so that we can make progress and then focus on and debate properly those matters that are genuinely contested.
I stand to introduce clause 1 and the associated clauses up to clause 25 and to speak in support of the new form of occupational pension that we are introducing, commonly called collective defined contributions. In CDC schemes, members and employers make fixed-rate contributions to the pension fund. At retirement, members receive their regular pension income paid out of the fund each year until death. The rate or amount of the pension is not guaranteed and will be adjusted annually depending on how much money is in the fund and the projected cost of providing benefits under the scheme. CDC schemes offer the security of an income in retirement, which we know many people value, without individuals having to purchase an annuity on retirement. However, CDC schemes do not require the employer to make additional financial contributions to the scheme if the scheme’s financial position weakens. CDCs have been introduced under a cross-party approach, with great support from all parts of the House. The pioneers of the scheme are the Communication Workers Union and the Royal Mail, which have proposed a way forward.
The Bill allows us to extend CDC provision to master trusts or non-connected multiple employers through further secondary legislation when appropriate, and we look forward to working with such employers in the industry on how such provision should operate and be regulated. It is a brave man who cites Tony Blair in aid of his proposals, but I genuinely believe that this is a third way in terms of pensions, as an alternative to defined-benefit and defined-contribution schemes. It is unquestionably something that huge numbers of people have sought to bring forward, so that we can address things in the main.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
The Minister talks about the third way. Will he also take a little time in his opening remarks to recognise that pensions policy is best if it is done cross-party? We are dealing with changes to the Pensions Act 2004, which was cross-party legislation that introduced opting in. Changes and tweaks to the system are far more likely to last across different Governments and across time if we have some form of cross-party consensus. It is not only a third way. The only way we will end up with a workable pensions scheme is by building in sustainability across Governments and across time. As a former Pensions Minister who put the auto-enrolment regulations on to the statute book prior to our loss of office in 2010, I am committed to cross-party working and I hope that the Minister is, too.
The Chair
This is an ideal opportunity to say that I do not think that members of the Committee will have any difficulty in catching my eye, but interventions should be brief and to the point.
Guy Opperman
I endorse that approach, Mr Stringer, but I also take the opportunity to welcome the cross-party approach to so much of pensions. I am conscious that two former Ministers of the Department for Work and Pensions are sitting on the Back Benches and that they will correct me and intervene regularly. I accept entirely that pensions policy works on a cross-party basis, whether it be automatic enrolment—which was introduced by the Labour Government through the Turner commission, brought forward by way of statute under the coalition, and expanded under this Conservative Government—or such successes as the Pension Protection Fund, which was one of the great successes of Blair’s Labour Administration, and the variety of reforms that we have introduced. There are some cross-party matters, such as the increase in the state pension age, that some parties do not necessarily wish to continue to own and embrace after they have left office, but such is the way of life.
As I tweeted yesterday, this Bill has, effectively, 98% cross-party agreement and, although there may be legitimate debates on how we progress, we have worked on that basis. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) and I have worked together on a tremendous cross-party basis. My wife often comments that I text him way too much. The practical reality is that I have also engaged repeatedly with the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts, who represents the Scottish National party. We have exchanged emails, trying to work out where we disagreed and where we agreed, and there is a great deal of common ground. Both SNP spokesmen made that clear on Second Reading, though there is legitimate debate regarding the best way forward on other matters. I look forward to those debates.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
I concur with the Minister’s remarks on cross-party working. He said that CDC schemes, which we support, would become a third way, but can he clarify whether he sees CDC schemes as replacing good DB schemes? Clearly, we would not see them as an alternative but as a fall-back for when schemes run into trouble in other areas.
Guy Opperman
We will debate DB schemes, which I think have a great future. We have gone to great efforts to support the future of DB schemes. This is an alternative way forward that some organisations—Royal Mail is the classic example, but there are others who are looking at this—will welcome. Under no circumstances should it be implied or in any way taken that the Government will do anything other than support DB schemes on an ongoing basis.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Mr Stringer. May I thank the Minister for the collegiate way in which he has undertaken debate during the progress of the Bill and, indeed, prior to that, on the issues and decisions we are making?
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey for her comments on the importance of a continuing cross-party dialogue on the issue of pensions. I was involved in some of the Labour’s Government’s work on addressing pensions inequality for women and the Turner commission. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts for his contribution to the collegiate way in which we have all been working together and for raising important issues for debate.
I speak on behalf of the Opposition, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North. We also speak on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), who is unable to be with us this week. Before I begin, I want to thank the Committee Clerks, who are ever helpful, professional and a true credit to the House.
As the Minister well knows, we have always been clear that we support the Bill, but, as hon. Members can see, we have identified some ways in which we believe it could be made better. We will discuss those areas in detail as we progress.
I turn to the general provisions in parts 1 and 2 of the Bill, on collective money purchase schemes, which is the legislative term for collective defined contribution or CDC schemes. The provisions mark a welcome innovation. I join colleagues in congratulating the CWU and the Royal Mail on their groundbreaking agreement to pursue the creation of a CDC scheme. They have forged an exciting pathway to a better pension for around 141,500 Royal Mail employees. Members will be aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington was closely involved in that process.
CDC schemes offer many potential benefits, as the Select Committee on Work and Pensions concluded in a 2018 report:
“Through the pooling of risk between scheme members, CDC may well…provide more generous pensions on average than standard DC saving…To offer more good choices is entirely consistent with both pension freedoms and promoting retirement saving.”
There could hardly be a more important time to focus on reducing risks to people’s pension savings. As we have seen, the coronavirus crisis poses a serious and significant risk to pension funds. Sadly, many members of defined-contribution schemes have suffered pension reductions of around 8% to 10%, due to the financial market reaction to the pandemic. In many cases, that has led to individuals deferring their retirement.
In that context, it is massively encouraging that the modelling conducted by Willis Towers Watson shows that the Royal Mail CDC scheme would have provided better outcomes for savers through this crisis than traditional DC schemes. According to the modelling, even with the severe level of market shock experienced earlier this year, there would have been no effect on current pension levels for CDC schemes. Future pension increases would have been affected, but only by 0.25% a year. That is in stark contrast to the losses that I have outlined for DC pension savers and is to be welcomed in the light of the turbulent economic circumstances we face for the foreseeable future. It is welcome, too, that supporters of CDC schemes make a wide and varied coalition, including the CBI and the TUC.
In summary, Labour supports part 1 of the Bill and the move to create CDC schemes provided, of course, that they are not used as a means of downgrading good DB schemes, a point that has already been made.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I am very pleased to be serving under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. Like others, I very warmly welcome this proposed legislation for CDC pensions, and congratulate Royal Mail, the CWU and everyone involved on the success of their joint efforts to achieve the statutory framework that is needed to deliver them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston referred to the previous Select Committee on Work and Pensions report on CDC schemes, published in July 2018. That report said that CDC schemes had the potential to “transform the pensions landscape”, and it also commended Royal Mail and the CWU on the “ground-breaking agreement” they reached at that time. It added:
“To offer more good choices is entirely consistent with both pension freedoms and promoting retirement saving.”
The Royal Society of Arts has long supported CDC provision, and I want to bring to bear on our discussion some of the points it has made in welcoming this proposed legislation. It points out, as my hon. Friend has just said, that CDC schemes are likely to provide a much higher income in retirement—at least 30% higher, it says—than the alternative of individual saving and then buying an annuity, and that that improvement is achieved by sharing longevity risk and targeting higher asset returns than an annuity provider. The RSA believes that the Bill provides a good framework for introducing CDC schemes, noting in particular that the regulator will act as a gatekeeper to ensure that only well-designed CDC schemes can open. It suggests that authorisation requirements for opening a CDC scheme and the process to verify continuing viability should not be unduly cumbersome, and that there should be a proper balance of prescription in scheme rules and trustee, actuarial and regulatory oversight.
Unlike DB schemes, a CDC scheme cannot go back to the employer and ask for more funding, so CDC pensions do need to vary if things prove better or worse than predicted. Those variations in other countries where CDC schemes are in place can generally be accommodated by raising pensions by more or less than inflation, but after the 2008 crisis the Dutch reduced their CDC pensions by 2% on average, and in one of the Dutch schemes the level of pensions being paid was reduced by 6%. Understandably, that caused a furore, so people in a CDC pension need to know what might have to be done depending on what happens in financial markets in the future.
Does the Minister agree that this places a premium on effective communications with members of CDC schemes? During stable times, CDC payments may seem pretty reliable, as had been the experience in the Netherlands, where they were uprated each year in the expected way. For many years, the Dutch system had experienced no problems with that, nor had the potential for reductions been clearly explained to pensioners, so when the reduction came—2% on average, 6% in one case—it caused a lot of anger, for understandable reasons.
My hon. Friend referred to the model put together by Willis Towers Watson, I think at the request of the RSA, to model how a CDC pension would respond to the drop in capital values over the first quarter of this year. As she said, that model showed that the Royal Mail scheme would have been pretty robust. The Bill will allow the Royal Mail proposal to proceed, and other private sector organisations to create similar arrangements, but it does not allow for unrelated companies to work together to create a single CDC pension plan. Since effective pensions require economies of scale, that in effect excludes smaller companies from the legislation’s provisions, and from the option of a CDC—at least for now.
The Chair
Before I call Neil Gray, let me make it clear that we are not discussing clauses 27 and 47 now. I allowed what the right hon. Member for East Ham said to pass, because he referred to earlier clauses, too.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to take part in this Bill Committee with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. Like the Labour spokesperson, I pay tribute to the Minister, and to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington, for the cross-party work that brought the Bill to this point. We welcome the Bill as it has arrived from the Lords, though we have concerns about some of the amendments put forward. It is an important piece of legislation, and the part that brings about CDC schemes has arrived in a good state, which is why there are so few amendments to these clauses. The Minister has obviously done a good job on the drafting from that point of view.
I thank the Clerks for their time and patience in working with me, my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and our staff in putting forward our amendments and priorities. We greatly appreciate all their help and support.
Following on neatly from where the Chair of the Select Committee left off, we very much support the creation of CDC schemes. We pay tribute to Royal Mail and the CWU for the work that they have done with the Government to get the Bill to this stage. As I intimated in my intervention on the Minister, and as the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, the right hon. Member for East Ham, also intimated, the CDC schemes cannot be seen as a panacea or the right solution for everybody. It is important—I think this will be a theme of our discussions—that people are given access to as much impartial information about their pensions as possible, giving them confidence to make informed decisions about their savings.
For the reasons that the right hon. Gentleman outlined, I wish to put on the record again that although the SNP feels that CDC schemes have major benefits—certainly for some scheme members in DC schemes—we would not wish them to be seen as a replacement for good DB schemes or for people to feel that they are necessary. I look forward to the rest of the debate, which I feel may well be rather more contentious than the issues that we are discussing at this early stage of the Committee.
Guy Opperman
I echo the support for the Clerks from this side of the Committee. We had a very helpful session yesterday, and they have been very helpful throughout. I will address the four or five points that have been raised.
On communications, I utterly endorse the point made by the Chair of the Select Committee. He will, I hope, appreciate that over the last three years, one of the major things that I have tried to drive forward in the Department is communications across the level. We are using simpler statements, by taking the 10 to 43-page pension statements that very few people read—putting them in a kitchen drawer and not necessarily taking them on board—and providing a simpler two-page statement and a written version. Our pensions dashboards create an amenable version of the online version, with great, ongoing communication.
On CDCs, I totally endorse the points that the right hon. Gentleman made: it is vital that we learn the lessons from the Netherlands, and that we ensure good communication. The possibility of fluctuations in benefits will be made clear and transparent in key member communications at points throughout their pension journey, including by providing details of fluctuation risks at the point of joining, by emphasising benefit changes in both active and deferred members’ annual benefit statements, and by making clear in retirement information packs that benefits can change during retirement.
Quite simply, that point was not made clear to members in the Dutch example. Some may not have taken it on board at the start, while others perhaps did not quite understand the situation as well as they would have had it been explained to them. We hope that we have learned that particular lesson and have very much taken that on board. I know that the two organisations that are looking at CDCs are very conscious of that and, to their great credit, have held multiple roadshows around the country, talking about this and engaging with people long before the legislation was introduced.
The reality of the situation for the CWU and Royal Mail was that their endorsement of the approach would not have been possible without member engagement from the very start. They have probably engaged more with a pension scheme than anyone has ever done before, prior even to the drafting of the legislation. They very much wanted that engagement to take place.
Ms Eagle
Clearly, the changes that the Bill would make allow for pioneering in the CDCs that Royal Mail and the CWU have introduced to be put into effect. Will the Minister say a little about how other organisations —smaller employers, perhaps—might try to get into the CDC space? Clearly, Royal Mail and the CWU are an unusual combination, both in the size of the industry and their buy-ins—very few employers are of the same size as the CWU, which represents its members, and Royal Mail, which wishes to offer this particular CDC.
Guy Opperman
I agree that large employers, such as Royal Mail, which employ nearly one out of every 200 full-time working employees in this country, will look at that and say it is a potential way forward.
Before I come to the hon. Lady’s point, I want to address DB briefly and make it clear that CDC is intended to offer a further pension-saving option for employers and their workers, should they wish to make use of it: it is for the employers and the workers to decide the type of benefit they wish to have via their occupational pension scheme. That has always been the right of the employer fundamentally, but also engaging with the employee. We specifically amended the subsisting rights provisions via clause 24 to prevent existing DB benefits in the scheme from being converted into CDC benefits. I hope that I have addressed in full the DB issue, which was also raised separately by the right hon. Member for East Ham.
Stephen Timms
I am grateful for the Minister’s reassurance on communications. Will good communications be a consideration for the regulator in determining whether a proposed CDC scheme should go ahead?
Neil Gray
To build on that, does the Minister see the engagement, which he has rightly described as one of the most extensive from an employer and an employee-representative organisation in terms of changes to pension provisions, as being the gold standard going forward, if an employer seeks to switch from a DC to a CDC scheme in the future? Is that the bar that needs to be met?
Guy Opperman
I am now straying into industrial relations and how best to manage a company to take someone’s employees with them in a complex negotiation about future pension rights. All I can say is that I have worked and sat down regularly with the leading individuals in the Communication Workers Union and the individuals who have been running Royal Mail—that has changed slightly as it has gone along. I have seen the way in which they have engaged with their workforce and had a proper conversation up and down the country in a series of roadshows. With a large unionised workforce in the modern era, that is the right way in any event. I would certainly endorse that approach. It is clear that the company and the employees have been able to work together—working with the union, working with representatives—and it seems to me that, while I would not say the phrase is “gold standard”, it is an advisable way to proceed and it is good company relations to have a proper dialogue and engagement with individual employees.
The short answer I gave to the Chair of the Select Committee was yes, but the longer answer is that there is a whole supervisory regime, which we will discuss later, under clause 27 and thereafter, which must be submitted to the regulator in order to qualify to be accepted as a CDC. The practical reality of that is that I cannot see a way in which the regulator endorses and allows a company to go down the route of a CDC without all aspects of that communication being considered. Clearly, there are secondary regulations that follow. It is not in the specifics of the Bill, as I understand it. I make the point, when I am answering questions, that I am doing this utterly blind, so it has to be from my memory because I cannot take any notes from anybody. That is the fun of a covid Committee, as the right hon. Member for East Ham will know from chairing a Select Committee.
Guy Opperman
The practical reality is that there is a supervisory regime that must be embraced as part of the application to the regulator to become a CDC. I believe that that will be comprehensively addressed and it is my intention that that should be so in the relationships that we have.
The right hon. Member for East Ham asked about clause 47 in ballpark terms and the speed and expedition. I take the point that we are not debating those matters but yes, I accept that we need to press ahead with that. I wish to do so. I have been working on the Bill for the best part of two and a half years. It has not been for lack of trying. We started it prior to the general election and had to pause and start again afterwards, so it is not for the lack of trying to progress it. Both Royal Mail and the CWU are very keen to expedite it.
Stephen Timms
Can the Minister raise our hopes that perhaps in the next 12 months or so, there might be regulations that allow multi-employer CDCs to be set up?
The Chair
Could the Minster be brief, as that moves us into a debate on clause 47, which comes later in the agenda?
Guy Opperman
The final question that I was asked was about extensions on DCs, and the answer to that is yes.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2 to 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clauses 7 to 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 26
List of authorised schemes
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 6.
Clauses 27 to 44 stand part.
That schedule 2 be the Second schedule to the Bill.
Clause 45 stand part.
Amendment 25, in clause 46, page 36, line 41, at end insert—
“(e) require information to be made available to The Pensions Regulator relating to actions taken by the scheme to ensure diversity considerations are taken into account in the recruitment of the trustee board with regard to—
(i) age;
(ii) gender; and
(iii) ethnicity.”
This amendment is to require pension schemes to send information on the diversity of the trustee board to TPR.
Clauses 46 to 48 stand part.
That schedule 3 be the Third schedule to the Bill.
Clauses 49 to 51 stand part.
Guy Opperman
Clauses 26 to 51 complete the parts of the Bill that apply to Great Britain, but not to Northern Ireland. I will briefly address the two amendments. Government amendment 6 removes the provision put in primarily by Liberal Democrat peers in the House of Lords to incorporate a specific requirement of fairness. Unquestionably, as with much of the debate that we will have in Committee over the next two days, it is about the ways in which we proceed where the objective is agreed, and the objective is clearly one of fairness. The Government do not feel that clause 27(3) is appropriate, however, and we will seek to overturn it.
Requiring trustees to make such an assessment is likely to generate confusion unless further clarity is provided, and it may result in legal disputes. We have specifically and intentionally avoided referencing fairness in such a way in any of the CDC provisions, but I make clear to the Committee that we intend to use regulations to set out clear principles and processes that schemes must follow to ensure that different types of members are treated the same where justified.
Those requirements would form part of the authorisation process for the CDC schemes, overseen by the Pensions Regulator. Regulations under clause 18, for example, will require CDC schemes to ensure that there is no difference in treatment between different scheme member cohorts or age groups when calculating or adjusting benefits. That is a clearer, better and more effective approach to delivering fairness in practice, and it is supported by the Institute of Faculty of Actuaries.
I also pray in aid—as we have all cited our support for them—the note submitted by the Communication Workers Union and Royal Mail in written evidence to the Bill. They jointly addressed this specific point, saying:
“We welcome discussions on how to ensure the fairness of future CDC schemes. Royal Mail’s scheme is designed to address the possibility of intergenerational unfairness by not using capital buffers and explicitly preventing the trustees from favouring one group over another. The DWP acknowledged this in its 2019 consultation response. When it comes to Lord Sharkey’s amendment, we agree with Government that we should give careful consideration to how reporting on fairness might work in practice and share their concerns with the additional reporting requirements the amendment introduces. We therefore support the Government amendment which removes Lord Sharkey’s amendment from the Bill.”
I suggest that that statement is telling, and I invite the Committee to support the Government amendment.
Neil Gray
Before we decide what to do on this amendment, I am keen to hear from the Minister. He suggested that if the clause was allowed to stay as it is— as it was amended by the Lords—it could garner legal challenge. Could he clarify where he sees that legal challenge coming from and why he thinks that is a concern?
Guy Opperman
If clause 27(3) provides specifically for fairness, it may be open to interpretation and mean different things to different people. The legal advice we have received is that it would be inappropriate to include that in the Bill, and that it is far better to address the matter in detailed regulation rather than through a single word in the confines of the Bill.
Ms Eagle
The Minister is trying to achieve fairness across cohorts, and different people will have different interpretations of that. Such schemes are reliant on the general performance of the stock market, investment and what is going on in the world economy. Does he agree that fairness is subject to all those swings and roundabouts?
Will the Minister give the Committee some idea of what he would regard as fair, given that annuities were grossly unfair for those who happened to retire at a time when the market was taking a dip? What would he regard as “fairness” in the requirement that he will put in regulations?
Guy Opperman
Having been a 20-year lawyer, whose last client was a very famous Mr Ed Balls—I had to represent him when he was Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, five weeks before the 2010 general election—I am loth to start defining fairness, as a Government Minister, specifically because of the problem that has been identified.
I can say that we are attempting to ensure that members are treated fairly, and that has been part of the central thrust of our work on CDCs from the outset. We have learned from the problems experienced by the Dutch model, which allows schemes to make different benefit adjustments to different groups of members. That transferred contributions from savers to pensioners. The UK system will not work in that way. We intend that regulations under clause 18 will require CDC schemes rules to contain provisions so that there is no difference in treatment between different cohorts or age groups of scheme members when calculating and adjusting benefits. If the scheme design does not do that, it will not be authorised. That goes to the whole proposal under the supervisory regime and the submission.
Further—we will come to the word “bespoke” later in our consideration of the Bill—this is an opportunity for individual schemes. The examples have been given of a small care home scheme coming together, and of the vast might of Royal Mail. Clearly, those are very different organisations. I hope that the regulator will look at them in slightly different ways with an overarching code of principles that allows it to permit such a scheme to go ahead. I will resist the hon. Lady’s kind invitation to provide the exact definition that, we submit, would be one of the problems with clause 27(3).
Ms Eagle
We are here to tease out what the Government mean in the Bill, ahead of the unamendable regulations that have not yet been written. I hope that the Minister will indulge our temerity in using the Bill Committee to ask some relevant questions.
What the Minister said earlier about the Dutch schemes is correct. By reducing the available pensions, some choices were made between existing pensioners and those who were saving. His tone suggested that he judged that to be unfair. He states that he wants to achieve fairness between cohorts in CDCs, but how will that be done in reality?
Guy Opperman
I am invited to give a view on the future consultations on the points that the hon. Lady raises. The term “fairness” can be open to interpretation and can mean different things to different people. We envisage that regulations will clearly set out the principles and processes that schemes should follow to ensure that all types of members in CDC schemes are treated the same, where appropriate. Setting the requirement in regulations will give us the opportunity to consult on the approach that is to be taken. I respectfully suggest that rather than defining that in the Bill, the appropriate way forward is to consult, and to use all the opportunities that consultation entails for submissions on what that should look like, so that detailed regulations can then be taken forward.
Guy Opperman
I will give way once more, but I am not sure I can improve on the answer I have already given.
Guy Opperman
No; I can merely repeat the answer I have just given, which is that the regulations under clause 18 will require schemes to contain provisions so that there is no difference in treatment between different cohorts or age groups of scheme members when calculating and adjusting benefits. If the scheme design does not do that, it will not be authorised.
I will try to expand on that and give a better answer. There is a two-phase process. In the first phase, a company must come forward to the regulator and seek permission to go down the CDC route; that goes back to the way in which the company and the employees work. A separate set of regulations will then be the framework on which that is judged. I suggest that this is specific to individual companies, because fairness will be different for different organisations and they will be treated in different ways. There is a supervisory regime that must be gone through, and there will be a consultation on regulations regarding how it will be administered. For the present purposes, that is the best I can give to the hon. Lady.
I will now address amendment 25, which is about the actions of the regulator in relation to diversity considerations, taking into account the recruitment of the trustee board. This issue was raised in the other place as a point of debate. The Pensions Regulator is part of an ongoing discussion, and in February this year it launched an assessment of the appropriate way forward, looking at trustee board diversity across all schemes. It plans to set up an industry working group to bring together the wealth of available material and experience to help pension schemes to improve the diversity of scheme boards. I suggest it would be premature to pre-empt the outcome of the regulator’s work in this area. It has indicated to me, unofficially, that it will respond by Christmas. It is certainly the case that this Government has brought forward, on a cross-party supported basis, environmental, social and governance regulations in respect of investment. We would certainly hope that organisations that treat their investments with due account to social and governance matters would also take an appropriate way forward in that respect.
Seema Malhotra
It is a pleasure to respond to the Minister’s comments. I thank him for laying out the Government’s thinking on the clauses and amendments in this group. I will speak to Government amendment 6 and briefly to amendment 25, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham.
I thank the Minister again for his speech and the arguments that he has laid out for seeking to remove the amendment tabled by the noble Lord Sharkey and cross-party colleagues in the other place, which was agreed by peers in June. The Minister commented that, in his view, some of the concerns could be addressed by the implementation of clause 18. I want to come back to why I am concerned that may not go far enough; perhaps this will be an issue of ongoing debate as the Bill proceeds, and in regulations.
The amendment included by those in the other place was very considered. It spoke about
“the requirement that trustees make an assessment of the extent to which the scheme is operating in a manner fair to all members”.
I believe that is the additional wording in the Bill. It is a very considered amendment, which could only be useful in keeping on the agenda of trustees the important analysis that should take place in relation to decision-making—to be sure about the best possible input and considerations in relation to the performance of the scheme for all its members.
I alluded in my opening remarks to the considerable insecurity that we face as a nation, exacerbated by the impact of covid-19 and its disproportionate impact on different groups and different generations, in terms of the economy and levels of employment and therefore saving into pension schemes. People’s personal finances are likely to be under great strain in the coming years. Not only is there that insecurity, but it is increasingly difficult to encourage young people to save for retirement, with all the other cost pressures in life—paying off debts, for example, or the fact that, at the moment, the average age at which they will purchase their own home is around 34. There are considerable pressures on the personal finances of the next generations, as they plan ahead for their lives.
Thinking about our institutions and how we continue to consider and embed intergenerational fairness should be on Parliament’s radar in all our work. In that context, we see unprecedented public policy challenges in ensuring fairness between different groups in society—from those in hard-hit industries, such as aviation and hospitality, to those affected by the way education is being delivered in the times in which we are living, which could continue beyond the next few months into the next few years, with all that uncertainty. We have also seen that black, Asian and minority ethnic communities have been hit harder by the health and economic impacts of this terrible virus. We can look at income today, but we are really talking about income tomorrow, and the impact on tomorrow of savings today.
It is incumbent on the Government to think about fairness between generations, and how we can stop young people bearing the brunt of the uncertainty and hardship caused by the economic havoc that we are experiencing right now. The impact on them could go unchecked in the medium and longer term. Concern about intergenerational fairness was raised by many respondents to the Government’s consultation on the Bill’s provisions.
Clause 27, as amended in the other place, sought to deal with some of those concerns. It effectively acknowledges that there may be a divergence in interests between different cohorts or sets of members in CDC schemes. Importantly, it does not compel any particular kind of action, but requires trustees to consider fairness and assess the extent to which the scheme is fair to all members. To Opposition Members, that is a very sensible suggestion, and we struggle to understand why it should be controversial for the Government.
I appreciate that the Minister outlined some comments from the CWU and others about the interpretation. He also mentioned treating people in the same way and his interpretation of the current wording of clause 18, which I was just reviewing. If there are different considerations in relation to levels of savings, other ways of joining a scheme or different circumstances, it may be necessary to look differently at different cohorts. Treating people fairly may not always mean thinking of them as the same. When we are thinking about fairness, we may need to be a bit more nuanced in our consideration of different needs and circumstances, and the potential impact of a decision on all cohorts.
Perhaps a different way of interpreting the amendment that was made in the other place would be to see it as enhancing the intention behind clause 18. I repeat that the amendment did not compel any particular kind of action, but made it more explicit what trustees should consider. Baroness Stedman-Scott, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, said in the other place:
“I welcome the sentiment behind the proposed amendment; it is something to which we want to give further consideration. We need to give careful thought to how such reporting might work in practice and would want to work with trustees, administrators and the regulator to ensure that any such requirement is proportionate, appropriate and clear. We would also want to consult on any such approach to make sure that it is effective. I reassure all noble Lords that we will give this matter careful consideration. Should we need to bring forward such a requirement in regulations, we already have sufficient powers in existing legislation to require schemes to report on fairness in CDC schemes if warranted.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 June 2020; Vol. 804, c. 605.]
I hope that the Minister will continue to keep this issue under review, because we think it is very important for the sustainability of fairness and confidence in schemes. The very considered wording that was proposed and passed in the other place could help the Government in securing the intended outcomes that he described as being behind clause 18. Perhaps he can provide more detail on his plans to incentivise trustees to assess and report on the extent to which CDC schemes are operating in a manner that is fair to all.
My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham may make a few comments on amendment 25, which is intended to require pension schemes to send information on the diversity of the trustee board to the pensions regulator. We believe in the value of this amendment, which is also supported by other colleagues—the SNP in particular. It is important to ensure that there is a diversity of voices in decision making. The debate about diversity on public and private boards comes in cycles. Diversity on public boards was considered under the last Labour Government, with quotas for diversity in recruitment. This is not a party political matter; a lot of research shows that diversity in decision making leads to better and safer sustained outcomes.
When looking at public funds, for example, the diversity of needs should be understood at the decision-making table. We do not need to rehearse the arguments for ensuring that different voices are represented at decision-making tables, whether that relates to gender, those with disabilities or those from particular minority communities.
The same is true of boards in the private sector. Research undertaken by business schools shows that diversity on decision-making boards has often led to considerably better returns on investment, and indeed shareholder returns. There is no sustained, credible argument that not having diversity on boards leads to better business outcomes.
I do not understand why this would not be an important consideration. Amendment 25 simply says that pension schemes should send information on the diversity of the trustee board to the Pensions Regulator. I am sure my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham will share more information about how trustee boards are less diverse than other boards. That cannot be right for boards that have an increasingly important role in decisions about funds and investments, and about inclusivity and fairness.
This is not only an important consideration in terms of social justice; it is about the performance of the schemes. It is about recognising the importance of having diverse voices and voices that are representative of those within the schemes and those who may benefit from the schemes in the future. This is a matter of obvious importance that should not raise concerns, and it should be included in the Bill.
Stephen Timms
I apologise for raising clause 47 in the previous debate; I probably should have waited until now. I am glad we had that debate and I welcome the Minister’s assurance that regulations to enable multi-employer CDCs will come forward within the next year.
I will confine myself in this debate to clause 46 and amendment 25, which stands in my name on the amendment paper. I am grateful to the hon. Members for Airdrie and Shotts and for Gordon for adding their names to it, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston for the important points she has just made in favour of it. I thank ShareAction for its work on this topic and for the briefing it has provided.
We are all familiar, as my hon. Friend has just reminded us, with the criticism that there is insufficient diversity among directors of FTSE 100 companies. There has been progress, but the Government targets are going to be missed and there is still a long way to go among major company boards. Some 68% of board members are male and only 7.4% are from black, Asian or minority ethnic backgrounds. That proportion falls to 3.3% in the most senior board positions: chair, chief executive and finance director. Only just over half of boards have any ethnic minority members at all.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
I ask my right hon. Friend to confirm my understanding, which is that when we talk about diversity, we are not simply talking about it being a good thing to have a range of different experiences and backgrounds; all the evidence from across the commercial sector is that diversity increases performance because of the range of perspectives that it brings to bear.
Stephen Timms
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She and I took part in a debate on a similar issue around 10 years ago, on the Welfare Reform Bill. She is right on this point, and that is an argument that I want to come to in a moment.
I hope the approach that I am advocating will be applied to other pension trustee boards in the UK in due course, because according to a report on diversity published in March by the Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association, which we used to call the National Association of Pension Funds, 83% of pension scheme trustees are male; 50% of chairs of trustee boards are over 60; a third of all trustees are over 60, while only 2.5% are under 30; 25% of pension schemes have trustee boards that are entirely male; and only 5% of schemes have a majority of female trustees. This is a particularly stark picture if we look at the make-up of pension scheme trustee boards at the moment.
As the Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association comments:
“It seems clear that occupational pension scheme trustee boards have generally not implemented robust diversity policies as effectively as FTSE 100 boards”.
Stephen Timms
My hon. Friend makes an important and interesting point. If we are to be confident that these new scheme trustees will make decisions that are fair to both the working members of the schemes and to pensioners, it is important that the voices of working age members should be taken fully into account in the trustee board’s decisions. She makes a good argument about why diversity, specifically in respect of age, is important in this context.
It is not as though there is no evidence that diverse trustee boards do a better job. My hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North has just reminded the Committee that there is a substantial, growing body of evidence that diverse company boards make more effective decisions than homogeneous boards. We have talked about age, but we should not forget that the gender pensions gap, which is nearly 40%, is almost twice the size of the gender pay gap. The issues here are stark.
The Pensions Regulator commented on diversity in trustee boards for the first time last year:
“Our view is that pension boards benefit from having access to a range of diverse skills, points of view and expertise as it helps to mitigate against the risk of significant knowledge gaps or the board becoming over-reliant on a particular trustee or adviser. It also supports robust discussion and effective decision making.”
Amendment 25 would require those who put boards together to report to the Pensions Regulator on steps to ensure diversity considerations are taken into account in the recruitment of the trustee board, with regard to age, gender and ethnicity. I know that the Pensions Regulator has set up an industry working group to consider this issue, as part of the consultation that the Minister referred to, and to raise the profile of it. However, to be effective, that group needs data, and this amendment would help to provide it. I think the result of the amendment would be not only greater fairness but better trustee decisions. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer.
I will confine my brief remarks to amendments 6 and 25. I listened carefully and with interest to what the Minister said about the rationale for trying to withdraw clause 27 from the Bill. I agree that with him that in trying to come up with a legal definition of fairness, it will always be nebulous. There are clear difficulties around that, which is why I do not think the initial intention behind the clause was to provide absolute legal clarity.
I was reassured to a large extent by what the Minister said about the steps that would be taken to set up CDC schemes—by definition, schemes that are obviously unfair will not pass approval. The difficulty I have with that argument is that all that is being asked in clause 27 is that there is a requirement for trustees to make an assessment and nothing further. It is useful to have a process of self-challenge and continuous improvement, looking at aspects of the schemes that are directly under their control and that they can directly influence and alter. It is good to always have that consideration of whether the scheme is operating as fairly as possible for all present and future members and those taking benefits from it. My question to the Minister is, very simply, where is the harm? Even after taking on board all that he says, I still do not see the harm that lies in the Bill as it stands.
Moving on to amendment 25, I hear exactly what the Minister says about the requirement that already exists on trustees to be fit and proper people. My observation is that there are many potentially very fit and proper people who do not currently find themselves on boards, advisory committees or any of the governance structures around pensions, and who could nevertheless make a very good contribution to the running of those schemes.
Speaking from personal experience, prior to being elected as the Member for Gordon, I was a councillor in Aberdeenshire. Through that role, I was one of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities nominees to the Scottish local government pension scheme advisory board, whose representation was equally split between employers’ representatives, of which I was one, and trade union representatives. The trade union representatives were all extraordinarily capable and represented quite accurately the diversity of the scheme members whose interests they were there to represent. In all honesty, the employers’ representatives perhaps did not represent that quite so well. I played my own part in skewing that representation.
The requirement to report back on the membership characteristics is a very useful tool in trying to understand whether all that is reasonable is being done to ensure that trustees and those in positions of governance on pension schemes are as representative as possible not just of the membership, but of the interests of the membership, and that we are giving as many people as possible the opportunity to fully skill up, participate and play the role that they can do. As things stand, we are missing out on the talents of many fit and proper people. Again, I do not see the difficulty in simply recording and reporting that information as part of the cycle of continuous improvement and self-reflection on whether we are achieving all that we seek to do.
Ms Eagle
I want to support, or enhance, the comments that have just been made by Opposition Members about the two issues that we are discussing in this group of amendments: amendment 25 on diversity, which was tabled my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, and the issue of intergenerational fairness and how it can be properly guaranteed in CDC schemes.
I hope the Minister will reaffirm on the record, in no uncertain terms, his agreement with the principles behind the amendment on intergenerational fairness that was made in the other place, even if he has issues with how one defines fairness in law. I have to say that, in social justice terms, we would have made very little progress in the whole of our society if we quibbled about the meaning of fairness in law. Just because it is difficult to define, it does not mean that we should not assert it or seek to bring it about.
The Minister’s response is a rather a technical answer to the principle that has been asserted by the change that their lordships made to this part of the Bill. His responses to my questions earlier did not fill me with confidence that he knew how the principle would be brought about if the amendment that their lordships put in the Bill was taken out. He simply seemed to say that it was a good thing to assert, and that it would be brought about by regulations that have not yet been written. He could not really give us any thoughts about how it might be guaranteed in the future, although he is asking us to take out an amendment that has actually been made to the Bill. He is asking us to exchange something that is really quite good and not damaging for something that is very nebulous and does not exist yet—it might do at some point in the future—in regulations that will be unamendable. We will have to take them or leave them when they come to the House, so I am slightly worried about that.
As is his wont, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham has zeroed in on the issue of diversity on boards and given us some shocking figures about what is happening on pension trustee boards. That ought to raise many alarm bells about potential group-think and about how the decisions made by trustee boards are not representing the interests of the many people who have pension savings in a way that we would find modern or appropriate.
Amendment 25 is a modest amendment. My right hon. Friend is asking only for the publication of information. He is not doing what I might do, which would be much more radical and would probably include all sorts of things, such as quotas and positive action, in order to make a real difference quite quickly. It is a modest amendment. If the Minister cannot accept that it is and does not have the good grace to support it, I will be rather disappointed.
Guy Opperman
I will try to address some of the issues raised. In respect of the approach of the regulator, the regulations for CDC schemes will require schemes to provide information to enable members to understand the unique risk-sharing features of CDC schemes. That will be underpinned by clause 15, which we have already debated. It requires the regulator to be satisfied that a CDC scheme has adequate systems and processes for communicating with members and others. Regulations will also require that scheme information is made available more widely to other interested parties, including employers, on a publicly available website. The practical reality is that we have learned from the Dutch model, which some argue had intergenerational fairness issues, and are producing a considerably fairer approach.
The Chair
Before I ask the Committee to reach a decision on clause 46, does the right hon. Member for East Ham wish to press amendment 25 to a vote?
Stephen Timms
I am very grateful for the support that has been expressed and for the points that the Minister has made. I take his point that there is a consultation under way. I very much hope that the regulator will decide to require information on diversity from the schemes that are set up, and that it will continue to do so as the trustee board develops. However, at this stage I will not press the amendment to a vote.
Clause 46 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 47 and 48 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clauses 49 to 51 ordered to stand part of the Bill
Clause 52
Collective money purchase benefits and schemes
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 53 to 57 stand part.
That schedule 4 be the Fourth schedule to the Bill.
Clauses 58 to 95 stand part.
That schedule 5 be the Fifth schedule to the Bill.
Clauses 96 to 99 stand part.
That schedule 6 be the Sixth schedule to the Bill.
Clauses 100 to 102 stand part.
Guy Opperman
With respect, Mr Stringer, I propose to address all these matters together. Clauses 52 to 102 replicate the measures outlined in clauses 1 to 51 and apply them to Northern Ireland, which has a different system. This required us to replicate the measures in their entirety. In discussing clauses 1 to 51, I outlined why CDCs are the appropriate measure, and I ask the Committee to imagine that I made the same speech, at great length, in respect of clauses 52 to 102.
Seema Malhotra
I will not make any further comments. I agree with the Minister.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 52 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
I propose to put as a single question that clauses 53 to 57 stand part, that schedule 4 be the Fourth schedule to the Bill, that clauses 58 to 95 stand part, that schedule 5 be the Fifth schedule to the Bill, that clauses 96 to 99 stand part, that schedule 6 be the Sixth schedule to the Bill, and that clauses 100 to 102 stand part.
Stephen Timms
Would it be in order, Mr Stringer, for me to ask about clause 98 in this part of our discussion? It is the counterpart to an earlier clause and will introduce regulations to enable CDC schemes in Northern Ireland to be extended to include multi-employer schemes. Can the Minister reassure us that in Northern Ireland, as in the UK, the plan will be to introduce regulations to enable that within the coming year?
Guy Opperman
It is very hard to turn down such a great man as the right hon. Member for East Ham, and I fully understand why you have given him some latitude, Mr Stringer. The answer is that I cannot be precise. Clearly, it is a matter for the Northern Ireland Government and the various civil servants who will take the legislation forward, but we expect them to take a similar approach. If I am wrong, I will write to the right hon. Gentleman to correct the record, but that is my expectation.
Clauses 53 to 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clauses 58 to 95 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clauses 96 to 99 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Clauses 100 to 102 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 103
Grounds for issuing a section 38 contribution notice
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Guy Opperman
I am grateful to you, Mr Stringer, and to colleagues for the progress we have made in respect of collective defined contributions. We now turn to part three of the Bill, on regulatory powers. The powers are, in broad terms, agreed, as I understand it, subject to debate on clause 107. It is entirely right that we have set those out in defined benefit and regulator consultations over many years and in the preparations for White Papers and Green Papers, and that enhanced powers will be given to the regulator on an ongoing basis. I recommend the regulations to the Committee.
Seema Malhotra
We will not be making any further comments. We support the Minister on these clauses.
Stephen Timms
This part of the Bill gives new powers to the regulator, so it is worth recapping the problems that gave rise to the need for them. Most of the thinking here came from the joint work of the former Work and Pensions Committee—I pay tribute to my predecessor as its Chair, Frank Field—and the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills, after the awful problems at two firms: BHS and Carillion.
BHS had two defined-benefit pension schemes. They were in a combined surplus of £43 million when Sir Philip Green bought the company in 2000. The surplus gradually declined and the schemes fell into a combined deficit in 2006, following the period when large dividends had been paid to members of the Green family. By the time of the sale of BHS in 2015, the value of the schemes’ assets was almost £350 million short of their liabilities. As the schemes fell into deficit, the BHS board repeatedly resisted requests from the scheme trustees for increased contributions.
In 2012-13, there were negotiations over a deficit recovery plan and they concluded with a 23-year recovery plan. At the time, eight years was the median rate for a recovery plan and 95% of comparable schemes had a recovery plan of less than 17 years. The plan we got in the case of BHS was for 23 years. The payments under that plan barely covered the interest on the scheme’s deficit and so the deficit continued to grow even while that plan was being followed.
The two Select Committees concluded that the Pensions Regulator had acted too slowly. Having received the 23-year plan in September 2013, it did not send the first information request to the trustees until January 2014. The Committee added, however, that the onus for resolving problems was on Sir Philip Green.
In the case of Carillion, it left a pension liability of around £2.6 billion. The 27,000 members of Carillion’s defined-benefit pension schemes will now be paid reduced pensions by the Pension Protection Fund—one of the biggest calls ever on that fund. I agree with what the Minister said earlier about the success of the fund, which was introduced by the previous Labour Government.
Ms Eagle
I support my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, who has crystallised some of the dangers in private sector schemes. I do not want to add to the excoriating verdict of his predecessor Committee in the two cases mentioned, except to say that this does have an effect on the willingness of individuals to save into pension schemes. Although people might not know the detail of this behaviour and the losses it has caused to retirement income, some out there in the ether will use the lack of effective protection that has resulted from the failure both of regulation and in pursuing effectively those who engage in this kind of larceny. Individuals who may otherwise be pension savers choose not to save into a pension and regard it as a bit of a mug’s game because their money is not properly protected. They know that there are scams and that a range of people out there—from the great killer sharks who loot pension schemes, to those who do dodgy things at the margins—are causing people who were saving into pension schemes, in good faith, to lose benefits in retirement.
How will the Minister drive the Pensions Regulator to be far more proactive and effective? Later, we will come to the Bill’s measures on scamming and the even worse end of bad behaviour, but that is for a future part of the Bill. I hope the Minister can reassure us that he will insist that the regulator transforms its passive attitude into a much more aggressive one that not only actively deters but drives this appalling behaviour out of the whole of the pension scene.
Guy Opperman
I utterly endorse the speech of the right hon. Member for East Ham. I did not disagree with a single word of it. I could wax lyrical about why the Government, with the support of the Work and Pensions Committee and the special joint inquiry it set up with the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee to address BHS, have introduced this overdue legislation, which is linked to a much-enhanced regulator with a strong direction from Select Committees and the Government that there should be a much more robust approach. The new chief executive of the Pensions Regulator was appointed by the Secretary of State and me with a specific exhortation that they take a different approach.
The actions of Philip Green at BHS and the Carillion case, with which the right hon. Gentleman is extraordinarily familiar, scarred all Members of Parliament. No matter what our political party, we have all seen the impact that those cases have had on individual members of our communities. I take the point that the hon. Member for Wallasey made: these scandals involving organisations and companies that have not been sufficiently regulated, and for which the regulator has not, to be blunt, had the power, to intervene and take a different approach, have affected people’s perceptions of the sanctity and safety of their pension.
We have gone to great effort to ensure, on a cross-party basis and taking on board the various Select Committee recommendations, that we give the regulator enhanced powers. We will come to the significant reality of the criminal sanctions that clause 107 outlines. Without a shadow of a doubt, we are in the business of ensuring that callous crooks who put a pension scheme at risk are not able to function as they did in the past. I most definitely endorse every comment that was made.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 103 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 104 to 106 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 107
Sanctions for avoidance of employer debt etc
Neil Gray
I beg to move amendment 19, in clause 107, page 90, leave out lines 5 and 6 and insert—
“(c) The person neglected to act in accordance with their duties and responsibilities.”
This amendment and amendment 20 are intended to avoid the risk that routine behaviour by parties involved with pension schemes and others would be judged criminal, and thereby to protect professional advisers from criminal liability for carrying out their role.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 20, in clause 107, page 91, leave out lines 3 and 4 and insert—
“(c) The person neglected to act in accordance with their duties and responsibilities.”
This amendment and amendment 19 are intended to avoid the risk that routine behaviour by parties involved with pension schemes and others would be judged criminal, and thereby to protect professional advisers from criminal liability for carrying out their role.
Clause stand part.
Clauses 108 to 116 stand part.
That schedule 7 be the Seventh schedule to the Bill.
Clause 117 stand part.
That schedule 8 be the Eighth schedule to the Bill.
Neil Gray
Amendments 19 and 20 are in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon, and for the reasons that other members of the Committee have outlined we support part 3 of the Bill. We are also incredibly supportive of the principles of clause 107, which introduces new criminal offences aimed at deterring occupational pension schemes, sponsoring employers or scheme trustees from engaging in wrongdoing in relation to their pension scheme. We would not table the amendments if we were not concerned, and if serious concerns had not been raised about the clause.
We think the clause will act as a strong deterrent against those who would wilfully run a scheme down, as we have seen happen in the not too distant past, and as was outlined earlier by the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, the right hon. Member for East Ham. However, the new criminal powers are wide-ranging and have the potential—I am sure it is unintentional—to criminalise routine behaviour by parties involved with pension schemes and those who are not directly involved at all, such as lenders and those doing business with a pension scheme’s employers. That could have damaging knock-on effects for the viability of the pension scheme, if those who dealt with it, or employers, deemed that that legal risk was intolerable.
We have been working with the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries, which the Minister previously quoted in his favour in relation to part 3 of the Bill, as it has serious misgivings about the impact that the clause could have. It suggests that a wide range of conduct has the potential to have a detrimental effect on the likelihood of scheme benefits being met, in which case schemes might fall foul of the proposed current wording of clause 107.
The Institute and Faculty of Actuaries says, for example, that such conduct might include a Government entity terminating an outsourcing contract, where the contractor has a pension scheme; an employer giving employees a pay increase; a Government increasing corporation tax or business rates; a landlord increasing rents, where the tenant has a pension scheme; trustees or a scheme actuary granting an augmentation or increase to members without additional employer contributions; or a bank refusing to lend to an employer. That view is also supported by the Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association.
Our amendments would protect professional advisers from criminal liability for carrying out their role. That could be achieved in the Bill if the duties and responsibilities of an individual were considered when determining whether a person intended to commit an offence. The amendments would clarify matters in adding the question of negligence, which we feel is the intention behind the clause, but which is not explicit. They would also make it clear that a person’s role and responsibility should be considered.
The intended effect is not to change the policy aims of the legislation—far from it—but to clarify the extent of the powers and, in doing so, protect professional advisers from criminal liability for legitimately carrying out their roles. We therefore hope that the Government will accept the amendments.
Stephen Timms
I have listened with great interest to the case that the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts has been making. I have also been contacted by a reputable industry body, the Pensions Management Institute, as well as the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries, which has been mentioned. They expressed alarm about the consequences of clause 107, which the hon. Gentleman has raised concerns about.
I have seen, for example, letters to the Minister from the Joint Industry Forum, which is a genuinely cross-industry group. One is dated 11 December last year, and the other is dated 9 September this year. They suggest possible changes and discussions with officials about how the difficulties could be overcome. I hope the Minister will tell us what discussions there have been since those letters, to try to resolve the problem, and what his conclusion was.
Guy Opperman
I would like to provide some reassurance on that particular point. I am acutely aware of it and have engaged at length with many different organisations. It is certainly not the intention to frustrate legitimate business activities where they are conducted in good faith. It is important, however, that where the elements of offences are met, no matter who has committed it, the Pensions Regulator should be able to respond appropriately. Any restriction of the persons would create a loophole for these people to potentially act in such a way.
The new criminal offences proposed in the Bill make it clear that an offence is committed only if the person did not have a reasonable excuse for doing the act or engaging in the course of conduct. Crucially, what is reasonable will depend, obviously, on the particular circumstances of the act, but the burden will be on the regulator to prove that the excuse was not reasonable. The regulator will be publishing specific guidance on these powers after consulting industry, but ultimately it is for the courts to decide that an offence has taken place, and, if so, the appropriate punishment.
The amendments also seek to remove the reasonable excuse defence—as set out in sections 58A and 58B—and replace it with a narrower concept of negligence. The existing defence of reasonable excuse is wider in definition than that proposed by the amendments. Therefore, the current defence provides more protection and a greater safeguard to potential targets. What is considered negligent is, in fact, specific and relies on case law—the law of tort, as I am sure the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts is aware—therefore introducing the concept of negligence would not help individuals to determine if what they were doing would be deemed negligent.
Stephen Timms
I have a real worry about this. Is the Minster saying that, for example, if a trade union successfully called for a higher pay rise than was initially offered, the company subsequently failed and there was a problem with the pension scheme, that the trade union would have to say that it had a reasonable excuse for pressing its pay demand? That seems a strange arrangement for us to be entering into.
Guy Opperman
It is for the regulator to show that that was not a reasonable approach. The burden is on the regulator to bring the offence and to prove it. I will choose my words carefully because this is subject to further regulation and consultation by the regulator, but it is certainly not the case that this is to catch everybody in how they conduct their normal business. However, there has to be a capability to identify and then prosecute and bring action against all persons, if they are found to have committed an offence without reasonable excuse. The ask is to narrow down the scope of the offence. We have just had a debate about circumstances where people have potentially committed things in the past.
Neil Gray
I understand the Minister’s riposte, but there are two points here. First, the amendment covers reasonable excuse by allowing consideration to be given to the person’s role in the trust. For instance, in a trade union, to take the argument of the Chair of the Select Committee, consideration would be given to the person’s role.
Secondly, the Minister is asking us to wait until the Pensions Regulator has consulted and says how it thinks it should deal with the matter, but by that point it will be too late to ensure that we have got this measure right. I hope that the Minister looks again at this point and provides better comfort to the likes of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries, which has a very broad base of professional expertise, and which suggested the amendments. I hope for a more favourable response from the Minister.
Guy Opperman
I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman and set out the position in more detail. I come back to the simple point. If a trade union has a reasonable excuse for asking for a pay rise for its members, given their circumstances in an organisation, there is no reason why it should have any concern whatsoever. The starting point is whether someone has a reasonable excuse to progress a particular thing. If it is clearly part of normal business activities, I would not anticipate a problem.
Stephen Timms
I wonder whether the Minister would agree that it does seem very odd that a trade union making a legitimate pay claim might have to worry about whether it is committing a criminal offence because of some future damage to the pension scheme. I am very surprised that the Minister is putting in place measures that would have that effect.
Guy Opperman
This is in the context of the offence of avoidance of employer debt. We start with the very eloquent exposition that the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts gave on where employer debt arises and contributions are not made to pension schemes. One has to then look at the individuals and their approach. I do not believe that including a reasonable excuse defence will in any way hold back normal, traditional business activity. I can give that reassurance: traditional business activity would clearly include union work. This is clearly an issue that the regulator is very conscious of. On the one hand, we want a more robust approach. On the other hand, we want to ensure that normal business activity goes ahead. I believe that this is the appropriate way forward.
Neil Gray
I cannot say that I am wholly satisfied with the Minister’s explanation. The two amendments would narrow and focus the intention of the clause and ensure that protection is given to people who are legitimately carrying out their duties to the pension scheme and who have related business or commercial interests, and, indeed, Government bodies that interact with employers or a scheme. I therefore intend to divide the Committee.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Pension Schemes Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)
Tuesday 3rd November 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Pension Schemes Act 2021 View all Pension Schemes Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 3 November 2020 - (3 Nov 2020)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
Before we resume our scrutiny, I remind Members to maintain social distancing. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
I understand that there was some uncertainty about the effect of the grouping of amendments with clauses 107 to 117 stand part. I have therefore decided to exercise the Chair’s right to amend groupings, and I am grateful to the Minister for his flexibility. Once we have disposed of amendment 20, I will allow a debate on clause 107 stand part, with which it will be convenient to debate clauses 108 to 116, schedule 7, clause 117 and schedule 8. Mr Gray, do you wish to move amendment 20?
The Chair
The amendment is not moved.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 108 to 116 stand part.
That schedule 7 be the Seventh schedule to the Bill.
Clause 117 stand part.
That schedule 8 be the Eighth schedule to the Bill.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to be able to make some comments about clause 107. This morning’s debate gave us the opportunity to put on the record some of our thoughts and to acknowledge our support for part 3 of the Bill. There has been some debate, and I seek some further assurances from the Minister.
On the role of the Pensions Regulator, we support strengthening the existing sanctions regime with the introduction of new criminal offences and higher penalties for wrongdoing. The pensions landscape has been troubled in recent years by scandals, including the BHS and Carillion scandals, which have had catastrophic consequences for the scheme members involved. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham and my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey also made that point. The Minister made the important remark that callous crooks who put at risk other people’s pensions cannot be allowed to get away with it.
It is right that those who intentionally or knowingly mishandle pension schemes or endanger workers’ pensions face severe penalties, which is why we wholeheartedly support the relevant provisions in the Bill. The only note of concern is the scope of the provisions, and I refer to the very helpful and instructive debates in the other place on that issue. We are firm in the view that the offence must apply to unscrupulous employers or directors of companies, but there is fear that it is so wide in scope that pretty much anyone involved in the management of a pension scheme could be exposed to sanctions, including third parties such as advisers, banks and even trade unions. Colleagues from the SNP have made some of those points effectively.
Government representatives have assured us that the courts will have the necessary discretion to ensure that only those who have genuinely been involved in wrongdoing will be caught by the new offences, but I note that pensions lawyers have realised similar concerns to those that we are raising today. It would be helpful to have further confirmation, following the Minister’s comments this morning, of whether there are further plans to review whether the offences work as intended or whether there are any other unforeseen consequences.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
Welcome to the Committee, Mr Robertson. We hope that we will be well behaved under your chairmanship.
I take the hon. Lady’s points on board, and I will repeat, as if I said them all, the comments that I made in respect of amendment 20. I stress that subsection (2)(c) sets out a complete defence to any particular assertion of wrongdoing, namely the
“reasonable excuse for doing the act or engaging in the course of conduct”.
The hon. Lady talks about the future. The regulator, who has rightly been much talked about today, is very mindful of the debates in Parliament and of what is said in this place and the other place. I have discussed the ongoing regulation, and the fact that we are going to have to introduce further regulation on these particular clauses and set out the guidance in more detail. I hope that will reassure her that the comments have been taken onboard and that we are not using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
We all accept that there are grave and serious incidents, such as those that happened with BHS, Carillion and others, but we also want to ensure that the pensions system functions in a fair way. The hon. Lady will also be aware that, as always, all powers are kept under review. It is certainly my hope that we will introduce another pensions Bill before too long. As with any matter, were there to be any disagreement about the implementation, we can always revisit that.
Neil Gray
Obviously we have missed out on the amendments tabled alongside the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries. Between now and Report, will the Minister commit to discussing with some of those stakeholders, such as the IFoA, and with us, to lay out how he can allay the fears of stakeholders, if he cannot allay ours?
Guy Opperman
As always, I am delighted to discuss with anybody. There is no doubt that we have done huge amounts of discussion and engagement already. My approach would normally be to set out in writing, as a preliminary, what I feel the position is and how we can provide the assurances, and discuss them off the back of that. At any stage, any parliamentarian is perfectly entitled to engage with the regulator and discuss their concerns, because it will be for the regulator to issue the guidance following Parliament passing the Act. I am sure that we can address the point being made.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 107 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 108 to 116 agreed to.
Schedule 7 agreed to.
Clause 117 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 8 agreed to.
Clause 118
Qualifying pensions dashboard service
Guy Opperman
I beg to move amendment 7, in clause 118, page 104, leave out lines 20 to 22.
This amendment would remove a subsection which requires regulations under inserted section 238A of the Pensions Act 2004 to include a requirement excluding facilities for engaging in financial transaction activities from a qualifying pensions dashboard service.
Mr Robertson, may I address Opposition amendments 1, 2, 15, 14, 4 and 5 at the same time, on the strict understanding that, of course, individual votes will occur as and when needed?
The Chair
Is that agreed? Yes. Therefore, with this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 1, in clause 118, page 104, line 41, at end insert—
“(5A) In subsection (5)(b), the “state pension information” to be prescribed must include—
(a) a forecast of the individual’s future state pension entitlement,
(b) information relating to the individual’s forecasted total income through the State Pension in the ten years following their 60th birthday,
(c) information relating to the individual’s estimated total income through the State Pension in the ten years following their 60th birthday, had the pensionable age for men and women not been amended under the Pensions Act 2011,
(d) a statement of the difference between the forecasts in (5A)(b) and (5A)(c).”
This amendment seeks to require the provision through the pensions dashboard service of information relating to the effect on the state pension income expected by those affected by changes to the timetable for equalisation of the state pension age made by the Pensions Act 2011.
Amendment 2, in clause 118, page 104, line 41, at end insert—
“(5A) In subsection (5)(b), the “state pension information” to be prescribed must include——
(a) a forecast of the individual’s future state pension entitlement,
(b) an estimate of what the individual’s future state pension entitlement would have been if the “triple lock” had not been implemented in 2011/2012 and that entitlement had instead increased in line with the minimum amount which could have been provided for each year in draft orders laid before Parliament under section 150A of the Social Security Administration Act 1992,
(c) a statement of the difference between the forecasts in (5A)(a) and (5A)(b).
(5B) In subsection (5A), “triple lock” means the policy of uprating the basic State Pension, the additional State Pension and the new State Pension by the highest of—
(a) the increase in average earnings,
(b) the Consumer Prices Index (CPI), or
(c) 2.5%.”
This amendment seeks to require the provision through the pensions dashboard service of information relating to the effect of the “triple lock” on state pension forecasts.
Amendment 15, in clause 118, page 104, line 41, at end insert—
“(5A) In subsection (5)(b), the “state pension information” to be prescribed must include the individual’s State Pension age and any changes to State Pension age affecting that person made under the Pension Act 1995 or any subsequent legislation.”
This amendment would ensure that an individual’s State Pension age (and any recent changes to that age) are clearly displayed on the dashboard.
Amendment 14, in clause 118, page 104, line 41, at end insert—
“(5A) Requirements prescribed under subsection (2) must include a requirement to provide information relating to the performance of pension schemes against environmental, social and corporate governance targets.”
This amendment would add information on environmental, social and corporate governance targets to the list of information displayed on the dashboard.
Amendment 4, in clause 118, page 105, line 20, at end insert—
“(6A) A requirement under subsection (6)(d) may require the provider of a pensions dashboard service to ensure that the needs of people in vulnerable circumstances, including but not exclusively—
(a) persons who suffer long-term sickness or disability,
(b) carers,
(c) persons on low incomes, and
(d) recipients of benefits,
are met and that resources are allocated in such a way as to allow specially trained advisers and guidance to be made available to them.”
This amendment would require that specially trained advisers and guidance are made available to people in vulnerable circumstances and would provide an indicative list of what vulnerable circumstances should include.
Amendment 5, in clause 118, page 105, line 20, at end insert—
“(6A) A requirement under subsection (6)(d) may require the provider of a pensions dashboard service to communicate to an individual using the dashboard the difference between—
(a) provision of information,
(b) provision of guidance, and
(c) provision of advice.”
This amendment would require the provider of a pensions dashboard service to ensure that users are made aware of the differences between “information”, “guidance” and “advice”.
Guy Opperman
I am delighted to speak to clause 118, which I accept is a matter for debate. It relates to the pensions dashboard, which has been the product of a huge amount of work thus far to get it to this stage. The clause gives the Secretary of State legislative powers in relation to England, Wales and Scotland to create a set of requirements that pensions dashboard providers must meet in order to be considered a qualifying pensions dashboard service.
Only qualifying pensions dashboard services will be allowed access the approved infrastructure, providing pensions information to consumers. These requirements may include what information is provided and the circumstances in which it must be provided. They may also include requirements relating to data security, identity verification and standards, ensuring that the information shown to the individual is accurate, secure and consistent across all dashboard providers. This information may cover state, occupational and personal pensions. The pensions dashboard will bring together an individual’s savings from multiple pensions, including their state pension, online and in one place. Clause 118 defines the service itself and provides powers to set the standards required of a qualifying dashboard service.
The provisions are complicated and extensive, but I will try to explain how data flows will be dealt with, because we have frequently been asked, particularly on Second Reading, how data will move through the pensions dashboard infrastructure and how an individual can access that data. The first step will be an individual logging on to their choice of dashboard. If that is the first time they have used the dashboard, the next step will be to verify their identity. Once their identity has been verified, information will pass from the pension finder service to connected pension schemes, asking them to match the individual’s information. If the pension scheme finds a match, it will confirm that to the pension finder service and then respond to the individual via their chosen dashboard that it holds some data for them. When the individual next logs on to their dashboard, the information from the pension scheme will be viewable by the individual.
The best analogy for how that information becomes viewable on a dashboard is probably the cashpoint idea. Whatever cashpoint individuals use, they can view the current balance of their account on the screen. However, the operator of the cashpoint is not able to see that information, as it is encrypted and only unlocked in combination with one’s cash card and a personal identification number. Dashboards will operate in a similar way. The information will be shown on screen but will not be viewable or collected by the organisation delivering the dashboard. The decryption of the data will happen only after an individual has logged in and asked to have the data presented. I should note that an individual can give delegated access to their information to an independent financial adviser or under Money and Pensions Service guidelines. This delegated access is time-limited and can be revoked at any point.
That is a broad outline of the provisions and what we are trying to do with the dashboard. Self-evidently, this project has been many years in the making. It is supported by industry and by consumer groups across the country. It is also a logistical challenge on an epic level, with nearly 40,000 schemes having to operate and provide data in a suitable format so that it can all be accessed. It is with regret that the Government are having to legislate to force providers to provide the data. I would have preferred the industry to have done this itself, but it is unquestionably the case that we now have to compel it to provide the data. It is quite clear that we also have to regulate this process.
Progress of this particular part of the legislation includes the amendment to clause 118, inserted by their lordships, in respect of financial transactions. The Government resist this amendment and will seek to overturn it. There are many reasons why this is not an appropriate way forward, but we strongly believe that the fundamental reason is that prescribing and preventing financial transactions both misunderstands what a dashboard is intended to be and would place undue restrictions on what it can do. While a dashboard will initially provide a simple find-and-view service, we expect dashboard functionality to evolve over time. We want to allow for innovations that could give members more control over their pension savings, which is why it is vital that we do not, at this stage, limit the future capabilities of the system. That applies to a number of different amendments that we will deal with.
New regulations on activity will ensure that dashboard providers will be subject to a robust regime, including Financial Conduct Authority authorisation and supervision. We want to make dashboards easily accessible for members of different ages and with different priorities and preferences for viewing their pension savings.
The practical reality is that if financial transactions were prevented, the idea of consolidation, for example, would be exceptionally hard to progress with. All aspects of greater understanding of a larger or lower contribution, and any aspect that required any financial aspect to it, would be prevented. It is certainly not something that we would support at this stage.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
The Minster is making a powerful case for rejecting the approach that was taken in the other place. Could he elaborate on the costs of this platform, and who ultimately will pay for building a pensions dashboard?
Guy Opperman
The costs are substantial. There are a variety of ways in which this is being paid for, but first and foremost, it will not be paid for by the individual. Our constituents will be able to access the dashboard, and the facility that we are creating, for free. My hon. Friend will have to forgive me for giving a generalised answer, because I cannot give the pounds, shillings and pence now, but I will be happy to do so in writing before Report.
The cost is fundamentally met in respect of the work on state pension; there was a budget announcement many years ago for the expensive work that is required by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to provide the state pension provision as part of the dashboard, as it is our intention that state pensions will be part of this from day one. I believe that £5 million was set aside to pay for that part.
There is ongoing payment for the Money and Pensions Service, which is through a variety of means. Some is from Treasury funding, but it is paid for primarily through the pension levy, which pays for a variety of things in the usual way, from the regulator to the Pension Protection Fund and the Money and Pensions Service. Ultimately, the cost is borne by individual schemes and members, but not by the individual constituent accessing the dashboard—it is not expected in any way that there should be a cost for doing that.
It is clearly our intention and desire that a commercial dashboard should be available. That leads me to a point that I will come back to in more detail: do we go to where the customer is, or do we make the customer come to us? In this particular example, we strongly believe that we should go to where the customer is.
It is entirely right that we design a system with a data portal that could in no way be utilised for bad purposes, but that could be accessed by an individual, whether they are presently with Aviva, PensionBee or another organisation. They can then work with a particular independent financial advisor—whether my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn in a former life or other independent financial advisors—who would have to be specifically approved to do this work. They already have a relationship with those people and they are already in the position of having an understanding. If we do not have that commercial capability, we will lose out on a significant chunk of the market and there will be a significant deficit in the ability of what we all believe is a great idea to have a practical effect. That is the fundamental point in respect of costs. I am happy to give my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire a detailed breakdown before Report and Third Reading.
I may return to Government amendment 7 but I shall first try to address amendments 1, 2 and 15 on the state pension. I am certain that I will be invited to comment on a variety of matters relating to the women’s state pension increase, but my only comment at the outset is that it is not the Government’s intention to amend the Pensions Acts of 1995, 2007, 2008 or 2011. We intend that the state pension will be part of the original provision of the dashboard. We are working with HMRC, which is responsible for that information, so that we can identify the date of state pension age and the amount that people might be expected to receive at the present stage. We do not intend to take into account what their entitlement would have been with or without the amendments to the 2011Act, as proposed in amendment 1, or what it would have been with or without the benefit of the triple lock, as proposed in amendment 2, or in respect of the 1995 Act, as proposed in amendment 15. I am sure that I will be tempted to cast a view on the future of the triple lock, but I am delighted to say that that is a matter for the Chancellor. As we discussed in the Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill, the decision has been made in respect of the upcoming year of 2021-22, and that is the extent of the matter at present.
Amendment 14 concerns the extent to which the dashboard should add information on environmental, social and corporate governance matters. I am delighted to have been the Minister who brought ESG into part of this country’s pensions system and drove forward change in the pension and asset management systems, with due credit to Chris Woolard and the Financial Conduct Authority for changing their original views and coming on board with our timetable. I am utterly in support of the principle of ESG and of ensuring that individuals have as much information, on a long-term basis, about what their pension fund is being invested in. However, I shall resist the amendment for several reasons.
First, we intend that the dashboard should start with simple information. We want to ensure that the information available in the dashboard service is easily understood by consumers and that the impact on user behaviour is considered. Trustees must have a policy on ESG and must disclose it in any event, but we do not think that the provision of that information should be prescribed in the Bill, and nor do I want to prejudice the pensions dashboard programme consultation, which began earlier this year, about what information could be shown. The consultation specifically includes signposting users to schemes’ statements of investment principles and implementation documentation, including information on schemes’ ESG policies and work. The programme will publish an initial version of a proposal for data standards by the end of the year, and we will respond in respect of what specific information will flow from that at a later stage.
Amendments 4 and 5 in the name of the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts deal with people in vulnerable circumstances. Although I applaud the principles behind them, the matter is slightly more complicated than the amendments necessarily make it appear. I am happy to explain in more detail at a later stage, but it starts with the fundamental principle that the Money and Pensions Service, which oversees the dashboard programme, has a statutory objective to ensure that information and guidance is available to those most in need of it, bearing in mind in particular the needs of people in vulnerable circumstances. It must have regard to that in the development of pensions dashboards.
The pensions dashboard programme usability working group—a catchy title, I accept—will explore how best to help users to understand the information being presented to them and where they can get more help, including those who are most vulnerable. That could include making recommendations about mandatory signposting to guidance and/or advice. Money and Pensions Service guiders are trained to recognise that some customers may need additional or different types of help.
The Financial Conduct Authority will seek to introduce a new regulated activity and amend the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) Order 2001, consulting on rules relating to that activity. That may also include a requirement to signpost users to guidance and to provide information about how to find regulated financial advice. We believe that the best way to do that is through the FCA rules and not in the Bill.
I will make two other points on the vulnerability issue. The Department for Work and Pensions, the FCA and the Money and Pensions Service all have a duty to comply with the public sector equality duty in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. Although dashboard providers will be regulated, there has also been a recent consultation on guidance on the fair treatment of vulnerable consumers, and that will be responded to in guidance published by the FCA either later this year or in early 2021.
My final comment on the proposals on vulnerable individuals would be on the potential difficulty where, as I explained a dashboard is merely a find-and-view service. Were the amendments taken to their ultimate conclusion, they would require a pension scheme to make further inquiry of the individual themselves before the release of the information. I fear that the practical reality of that in a find-and-view service of this nature is neither appropriate nor in the best interests of all parties. I entirely accept the principle behind the amendments, but I believe that we may be able to navigate the problem in an alternative way.
Seema Malhotra
I am grateful to have the opportunity to respond to the Minister, and I thank him for those detailed remarks. I wish to speak against amendment 7, and I will lay out my arguments, and to speak to our amendments 15 and 14 and the reasons why we tabled them. I do not intend to push them to a vote, but we will listen to what the Minister has to say.
It is disappointing to see the Government row back on the positive progress on commercial transactions that was made in the Lords. A serious concern of ours, which was raised in the other place, is that the introduction of commercial dashboards paired with the ability to engage in commercial transaction activities would make it easier for savers to be encouraged into detrimental pensions decisions and inappropriate products.
Guy Opperman
I am certain that the hon. Lady does not want to make an issue of this, but does she not accept that it was the Conservative Government who sat down over Christmas and amended the Bill specifically to address TCFD recommendations and to include climate change in the Bill? We added a new clause on climate change. I totally accept that Labour colleagues worked on a cross-party basis to do that, but it would be wrong to say anything other than that the Government started the process to ensure that climate change was in the Bill and that the TCFD was part of it, and we are doing a consultation on the implications of it. I am sure she does not want to mislead the Committee on that.
Seema Malhotra
Indeed, I acknowledged in my opening remarks the Minister’s commitment to this agenda. He has also acknowledged Labour’s working with the Government on this agenda, but also helping to secure the amendments that have led to the new subsections in the Bill. The amendments require trustees and managers to take into account the Paris agreement and domestic climate targets in the overall governance, and disclosure of climate change risk and opportunities. It is a credit to the way in which we have proceeded on this agenda that for the first time climate change has featured in domestic pensions legislation.
The amendment would build on the commitments by providing information relating to the scheme’s performance against environmental, social, and corporate governance targets, adding to the list of information on the dashboard and empowering individuals to better understand the role their savings play in tackling climate change and achieving other social and environmental goals. We are aware that the Government intend to keep the dashboard simple at first—indeed, the Minister commented on that in his opening remarks—but we note that Baroness Stedman-Scott said in the other place:
“We are very interested in how dashboards can support and increase engagement, including whether information on areas such as ESG, which trustees are required to cover as part of their disclosure obligations, may be incorporated into the dashboards. This is to be informed by user testing and may evolve over time.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 February 2020; Vol. 802, c. GC163.]
I know that the Minister has had further conversations on this issue. He also referred to the ongoing consultation about what could be on the dashboard. However, I hope that he will be able to confirm that that is something he hopes to implement as the dashboard is developed further.
Neil Gray
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson, during this important part of the Committee’s deliberations. Like the shadow Minister, Scottish National party Members are concerned about Government amendment 7. We strongly support the premise of a pensions dashboard and hope that allowing people greater access to information about their pensions will encourage informed choices that ensure long-term savings and investments that provide dignity in retirement. However, we are concerned that the Government amendments to this section of the Bill will mean that the creation of the MaPS dashboard could be a missed opportunity.
Amendment 7 is a case in point. It would allow commercial dashboards to facilitate financial transactions, which we feel is a mistake and is a big reason why we want a lead-in period before commercial dashboards become operational. We feel that the impartial information that we want the MaPS dashboard to provide should be entirely separate from transactions, at least to begin with. That position is supported by the Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association, for all the reasons outlined by the shadow Minister.
Providing digital platforms to bring together a person’s savings landscape is a huge step forward, but exposing that information to marketing and commercialisation will remove the power of the saver to access information that is presented impartially and without commercial motive and hand it to organisations that will encourage individuals to take big decisions about potentially their largest financial asset. As the shadow Minister said, it could also make people vulnerable to scammers.
The UK Government appear not to have learned from the oft-worn problems associated with pension freedoms. Customer satisfaction in Pension Wise is high, and its evaluation score published last month makes for good reading, yet only 14% of all pension pots accessed—not people who access their pots, but pots accessed—were accessed after receiving guidance from Pension Wise. The House of Commons Library report earlier this summer highlighted that, as a result of pension freedoms, more people were choosing to shift their savings from secure defined-benefit schemes to riskier defined-contribution schemes, and a large proportion of those drawing down their pension were doing so without seeking advice or guidance. That is likely to be exacerbated if commercial dashboards are allowed to contain financial transactions. We think that is really risky. Allowing financial transactions to take place on the dashboard without having first assessed and accounted for the risks is clearly a recipe for trouble, and I urge the Government to reconsider.
We want the dashboard to provide as much information as possible for savers, which is why we tabled amendments 1, 2, 4 and 5 and support amendments 14 and 15, tabled by the Labour Front Benchers. These amendments seek to add information relating to a person’s state pension to the dashboard, ensuring that the impact of policy changes can be tracked by savers. Amendment 1 would show the detriment suffered by 1950s-born women. The Bill’s scope to provide more meaningful help and support to women born in the 1950s, who have seen their state pension age increase with little or, in some cases, no notice, is extremely limited. We have been clear and consistent in our support for women born in the 1950s. We want the Government to carry out a full impact assessment of the detriment suffered by them from various changes, and to use that to inform payments to be made to them. However, these amendments are as far as the Bill’s scope allows us to go. They would give these women more information about how the state pension changes have affected them. They would also act as a strong deterrent against this type of mishandled policy change happening again.
Public dashboards should be as clever as possible, to account for complexity in individual circumstances and to more accurately project lifetime savings. That view is shared by some of those who have provided evidence to the Committee, including the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries and the Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association. Therefore, the SNP has tabled amendments to mandate specific information on the dashboard.
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con)
It is a pleasure to be able to speak to clause 118 and discuss the related amendments. I am delighted finally to be here. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will not thank me for pointing out that it was the Budget speech in 2016 that said that we would have a fully functioning dashboard by 2019. We got there in the end, or we are getting there in the end. I am delighted that we are making progress.
It is very important for everyone to remember—I failed to do so and have caused a lot of hair pulling for the Minister and his team over the last few weeks—that the Bill seeks to lay out the foundation, the framework, for the data standards that will be adopted and is not necessarily about getting bogged down in the minutiae of what the dashboard will look like in the end and the final functionality of it. We live in an information age. The watchwords of both the Pensions Regulator and the Financial Conduct Authority for at least the last decade have been all about informed decisions. Pensions are a vital part of anyone’s life and they need to catch up with the rest of the world. We risk non-engagement from this and future generations if we cannot give them the information that they want in the manner in which they want it.
Auto-enrolment has been an amazing thing and has seen millions more people saving in pensions. We have a complacency risk coming down the line; people think that where we are with auto-enrolment is going to be sufficient to get them the retirement they dream of. We run the risk of that not necessarily always being the case, but that is another story for another day.
Auto-enrolment has led to multiple pots over many people’s working lives. How do we track those? How do we service them? How do we maximise their value? How difficult is it now for consumers to be able to look at all of those different pots and understand how they relate to each other and what that is going to mean for them at the end of the day?
I was delighted that about six weeks ago the Minister put in place a small pots working group, which will be very useful in understanding where to go in relation to small pots. There are currently 8 million or so in the UK, with the expectation that by 2035 that will have gone up to around 27 million. It is a huge issue that needs addressing. The biggest problem with small pots is their erosion over time due to the effect of charges. We definitely need to address that issue in some way.
On the amendments, I start with Government amendment 7. The ability to conduct transactions is not inherently bad and there are already safeguards in regulations. To rule out every type of transaction in primary legislation feels heavy-handed.
In Committee in the Lords, Earl Howe said:
“It is of course very important that individuals access advice and guidance before making decisions on undertaking significant pensions transactions.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 March 2020; Vol. 802, c. GC207.]
I completely agree with the noble Earl. The regulations are in place around what is significant; it is the word “significant” that is key. There is no need to rule out everything in primary legislation. Why go to all the trouble of informing people about what they have got, if we do not give them any means of interacting with it?
Financial transactions could be to increase or decrease a contribution level or make a one-off lump sum payment. How empowering it would be for the consumer to be able to do that and look, in real time, at the impact of those changes on the end result. We must not restrict the ability to make any transactions; regulations around what transactions should be allowed are already there and will undoubtedly be strengthened in further regulations down the line.
Talk about people losing the safeguards around DB schemes or being moved into DC are wildly off the mark. That cannot be done now, so why on earth would anyone be able to do it just because we change from paper transactions to making transactions through the dashboard? We do not allow it now; why would we allow it in future? It is a ludicrous and scaremongering suggestion, and I do not like it.
Amendments 1, 2 and 15 are not relevant. The dashboard should show what people are going to get, not what they would have got if the rules were different or they had not changed or the Government had not changed this or that policy. It is supposed to be an accurate picture of what someone is actually going to get, at that time. Seeing multiple sets of figures, only one of which is correct and actually relevant to what they are going to get, would just cause confusion for the consumer.
Unfortunately, as many people have let out of the bag, the amendment on the state pension age and the WASPI women in particular was tabled specifically to highlight a campaign issue and the unfairness of a Government policy decision. It cannot be good law and it will create a horrible precedent, however well-meaning the amendment might be, to put such provisions in primary legislation. I hesitate to say it, but it feels a little like tabling amendments to incite dissatisfaction in previous Government policy, but I am sure that hon. Members would never seek to do that.
The Minister said in his opening remarks everything that I had written down on amendments 4 and 5. I found amendment 14 very interesting. People who are concerned with environmental, social and corporate governance targets will always seek them out, and always have done. We do not need to force that information on people who do not want it. Believe it or not, plenty of people think that their pension is something to provide them with an income in retirement, not necessarily a tool to solve the ills of society.
There are consumers who want that level of detail, and they will undoubtedly be able to select the dashboard provider that meets their needs and gives them all the information that they want, but there is no need to make that happen in primary legislation because the market will work itself out and the people who want that information will be able to access it via other providers.
Seema Malhotra
I understand that the hon. Member is concerned about the provision of information, but can he see a downside to it being there?
Rob Roberts
No, but I also do not see a downside to lots of other types of information being there, so why this type and not others? The purpose of primary legislation should not necessarily be to say all the things that should be there. Lots of things potentially should be there, but that does not mean that they have to be there, and prescribing that they must be there does not really fit in.
Seema Malhotra
I understand that, but the information is designed to assist in decision making, and may be helpful for those who are reviewing their pensions. In the context of much change across society and concern about such issues, does the hon. Member agree that that information may be helpful to those who want to base decisions on ESG information, and has no downside for those who do not?
Rob Roberts
That may be, but as I mentioned earlier, it muddies the waters. If people want to access that information, there is a slew of providers out there. If they want the one that provides the most ESG information, they will gravitate towards it. We do not need to override the general public’s ability to make an informed choice by legislating to make it happen. As I mentioned earlier, “informed choices” are the big words. The ability to go that way should be entirely left in the hands of the consumer.
As I said, the Minister mentioned everything that I wanted to on amendments 4 and 5, but I reiterate that I am very happy to see the pensions dashboard finally taking a few steps closer towards completion. Hopefully the clause will stand part of the Bill.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Robertson, after the dynamic chairing from your colleague this morning; we made a lot of progress. I will make some observations about dashboards, and talk particularly about Government amendment 7, which, as colleagues know, removes the Drake amendment that was added in the other place. However, I will first comment on how potentially beneficial a good working pensions dashboard coming into existence would be for many millions of pensioners looking to plan for their retirement.
Many of us who have been involved in pensions policy making—in Opposition, in Government or both—know that the holy grails in this area are: first, to get people to think about pension saving in the first place; secondly, to get people, especially when they are younger, to think that they may ever reach retirement age, and to start planning for what their income might be when they get there; and thirdly, having established from a young age that interest in considering what their income will be when they are older and in setting money aside to ensure that they have a secure income, to ask them to navigate the current pensions landscape in the UK, which is asking an awful lot of most of our citizens, because it is extremely complicated and changes over time. We have the confluence of many different sorts of pension availability, from the much more effective DB schemes, which used to be more common but in which 10 million people still have savings, it has to be pointed out, to the evolving and developing DC and individual savings schemes.
Guy Opperman
It has been a while since I have been compared to a duck, but I know there was a compliment buried in the comments about the depth of the swimming I am doing to try to persuade the Committee. Let me be blunt about the Herculean nature of the task: there are 40,000-plus schemes to be created, with a common dataset to be agreed and then made capable, plus all of the information from state pensions. While I revere everything that the former Chancellor George Osborne did—clearly, there were many great qualities that the great man had— it was a little optimistic of him, by anybody’s interpretation, to say in 2016 that this would be produced by 2019. He also anticipated greater engagement by industry and that it would lead the way. I do not wish to have a dig at industry, but the only reason we are mandating this process is that, while we always have to add regulatory guidance, the industry did not take the opportunity it had to embrace it.
I repeat the point I have made on many occasions, both in this House and outside it, to various industry organisations: it is for the industry to prepare—this relates to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire—its data appropriately, in such a way that it is dashboard compliant on an ongoing basis. I make the strong point that failure to do so will have consequences for the individual organisations, and will clearly have consequences for our constituents, who would not be able to access that particular data.
My hon. Friend the Member for Delyn made a fair point about the small pots problem, which the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee and I have discussed in private and also debated in broad terms in public. Both of us remain concerned that there is a proliferation of pots, that costs and charges implications apply, as the hon. Member for Wallasey outlined, and that solutions need to be found. We are coming together—including the Work and Pensions Committee—to try to find those solutions. Clearly, one solution would involve consolidation, whether on the basis of ability to take small pots that have been eaten up by costs and charges, or on the basis that one is absolutely passionate about a particular ESG issue and wishes to consolidate around an ESG provider. All of those things would be prevented if I were to allow this amendment to continue. I have great respect for the guru of all pensions matters, Baroness Drake, who I have engaged with at length over the last couple of years. However, I believe she is mistaken in her approach to this, and I do not wish to rule out the capability for financial transactions.
If I have not been clear previously, I make it clear now—as the hon. Member for Wallasey invited me to do—that the original product of the pensions dashboard will be simple. It will be a simple find and view service that will then be built on and overlaid as time goes on, not least because not all particular providers will be on board from the word go. I could wait and wait, and then have a big bang moment whereby every single provider was ready and everything was done. Alternatively, the MaPS can start and other organisations slowly but surely come on board and the process is rolled out as it goes forward. I certainly do not believe that we should rule out the issue of financial transaction.
Guy Opperman
Let me finish the point and then I will give way. On the specific amendment inserted by their lordships, it is unclear what activities would be considered financial transactions. The advice I have been given is that the amendment is very widely drawn and would require new primary legislation before such activities could be commenced in the future. Obviously, while pension Bills are like buses—we wait for ages for one to come along and then do two in a month—I do not anticipate one coming along in a great hurry, though I hope there is another one before the close of this Parliament. However, we definitely assume that this would cover consolidation of pots, transfers between providers, and potentially the raising or lowering of one’s contributions to an individual pension. In those circumstances, it would be utterly illogical, given all the other comments that we are making about the desirability of such an approach, to rule out financial transactions.
Neil Gray
Even if I leave to one side what the Minister says about the need for amendment 7, why is he not dealing with this incrementally? Why take the risk not just of allowing commercial dashboards to happen straightaway but of allowing them to be transactional straightaway? Why not build confidence in the system among consumers with the MaPS dashboard, allow a bit of a buffer before commercial dashboards come onstream to ensure that consumers understand what they are entering into, and then, when the regulator and the Government can assess the risks of the transactional ability of the commercial dashboards, come to a point where that is allowed? Why all at the same time? It seems far too risky to me.
Guy Opperman
That is an outstanding point, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will make in respect of clauses 119 and 122 on delay to the onset of the dashboard. Many of the points that the hon. Member for Wallasey made relate to costs and charges, which we will come to later, and to the one-year delay argument. I do not believe that it is appropriate for something that is allowable at present—any one of us could go to our individual provider—
Neil Gray
The Minister must understand the greater risk from digitisation when the full suite of people’s financial savings—their biggest financial assets—are sat there. For some people who are perhaps not as digitally savvy as others, and who might be taken in by scams, that is a huge risk. At the moment, the paper-based system is rather different.
Guy Opperman
We will come to scams and the work that the Work and Pensions Committee and the Government are trying to do to enhance the protections on an ongoing basis. It is clear that the Financial Conduct Authority regards this as a regulated activity. There will be an authorisation process for individual providers that wish to be able to do it. It will not be automatic by any stretch of the imagination. We are very mindful of this, as are the pensions dashboard working group, various other user groups and the consumer protection organisations that are part of it—from Citizens Advice, to Which? and others. They are utterly committed to ensuring that this will be a safe process. Going back to the fundamentals of the Lords amendment, I do not believe that it is in the consumer’s interests to rule out financial transactions. I certainly would not support that.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that if we look around the world at where commercial transactions have been incorporated into dashboards—for example, in Israel and Denmark—we see that there have been no cases of mis-selling, so any risks spoken about in this debate are somewhat overblown, given that there is no precedent?
Guy Opperman
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. That does not mean to say that we do not have a regulatory system that ensures that there are protections, but the nature of a dashboard and international examples definitely suggest that this is an empowerment and an assistance to individual consumers.
Guy Opperman
I will press on, because I am going to answer some of the points that the hon. Lady made. I am mindful that we have spent some time on this particular point and we have a lot to get through.
On matters related to the state pension and triple lock, I leave the triple lock to the Chancellor with good blessing and understanding. I will not get into a rehash of many arguments over the state pension changes made from 1995 and which continued over 13 years of Labour Government. The policy was supported by certain Labour Ministers, including in the DWP. Then, obviously, there was a change of Government and the policy was not necessarily supported. When the hon. Lady talks of the way that people have been treated by the Government, that means all Governments since 1995.
I have persistently defended the actions and the civil servants of the DWP throughout the period between 1997 and 2010. Interestingly enough, so have the courts, because we have recently had the Court of Appeal decision in the BackTo60 claim, which found comprehensively in favour of the Government—not just this Government, but previous Governments—in respect of all matters that apply, including notice.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
It is worth putting on the record that the worst problem was what happened with the Pensions Act 2011, as I think the then Pensions Minister, Steve Webb, has since recognised.
Guy Opperman
I am not going to comment on his capabilities. The bottom line is that that was a persistent level of policy making made by successive Governments from 1993 onwards and utterly continued by the Labour Government, who, to the best of my recollection, proceeded to raise the state pension age to 65 by 2020 in the 2007 or 2008 Act. It was then clearly increased in the 2011 Act. One can argue about why that was done. Perhaps it was a consequence of the great former Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s efforts at manhandling the economy, or perhaps there were other reasons for taking that approach. However, I make the point that I have consistently defended individual Ministers and the Department for their consistent approach to addressing something that all other western countries have done in respect of state pensions. They have all approached it in broadly the same way.
We want the dashboard, and I accept that there is a desire to have many other things on it. We want it to be a simple interface that is accessible to all and that is not overlaid by many different things. With user testing over time, it is possible that more information will be outlined, but the comparable example I give—namely, simpler statements—is appropriate and right.
Seema Malhotra
I seek clarification on the Minister’s position on ruling out and ruling in. He has said that he does not want to rule out financial transactions on the dashboard in the future, but did he also say that they would not be ruled in without primary legislation?
Secondly, the Minister said that some pension schemes may not participate. What will and what will not be compulsory? For those that might not share all the information, will there be an obligation to share some, so that somebody could look at the dashboard and have a complete scan, even if they do not have all the information, in order to know that they have pots out there?
Guy Opperman
I will deal with the first point about financial transactions. If we accepted the amendment as drafted by the House of Lords, we would not be able to proceed with financial transactions without future primary legislation. I passionately believe that, with the suitable guidance and protections that we all want, consolidation is appropriate, and that would be a financial transaction. It should definitely be permissible on an ongoing basis, arising out of information proceeded and obtained by a dashboard. It is absolutely that sort of empowerment that the dashboard will offer, and it is entirely the right thing.
Clearly, that is my view. There is a dashboard delivery organisation and the Money and Pensions Service, and a whole host of user groups are also involved. I have communicated my strong view. I certainly do not want to rule it out in the future, which is the desired effect of the amendment. The reality is that if I allow Baroness Drake’s amendment to go ahead, it would restrict the capability of the dashboard massively in the future. That is not something I am prepared to do.
I have addressed many different points. Given the time, I will pause there and let others reflect.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Seema Malhotra
I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 119, page 108, line 20, after “scheme,” insert—
“(iva) the total cost of charges incurred for the administration of the scheme”
This amendment would add information about the total cost of charges incurred for the administration and management of occupational pension schemes to the list of information displayed on the dashboard.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss
Clause stand part.
Clause 120 stand part.
Amendment 13, in schedule 9, page 179, line 14, after “scheme,” insert—
“(iva) the total cost of charges incurred for the administration of the scheme”
This amendment would add information about the total cost of charges incurred for the administration and management of occupational pension schemes in Northern Ireland to the list of information displayed on the dashboard.
That schedule 9 be the Ninth schedule to the Bill.
Amendment 12, in clause 121, page 112, line 45, after “scheme,” insert—
“(iva) the total cost of charges incurred for the administration of the scheme”
This amendment would add information about the total cost of charges incurred for the administration and management of personal and stakeholder pension schemes to the list of information displayed on the dashboard.
Clause 121 stand part.
Seema Malhotra
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to amendments 11, 12 and 13, all of which make the same point: that the total cost of charges incurred for the administration of the scheme should be displayed on the dashboard. We believe that this issue is important because the creation of a pensions dashboard creates a real opportunity to introduce much-needed transparency on pensions costs and charges.
Pensions charges can be very difficult to understand or to compare and the lack of transparency can lead to people paying excessive charges without realising it, eroding their hard-earned savings. Improving disclosure in this way is essential for consumers, who need to understand the risks attached to their investments. In a study by Which? carried out in 2019, 300 people were asked for their thoughts on a pensions dashboard. Some 77% said they would be likely to use one. State pension entitlement was the information that 74% of people most wanted to be included. That was followed by projections of total retirement income, 62%; current pension value, 55%; and charges, 54%. Clearly the inclusion of that type of information would be popular with dashboard users and would help people to use their pensions freedoms to protect their savings rather than fall victim to disproportionate charges.
Information about costs and charges is vital if consumers are to use dashboards to understand which pensions they could use to make additional contributions, whether any of their pensions have excessive charges and when making decisions about how to access their pensions using pensions freedoms. Research by PensionBee found that more than 70% of non-advised drawdown customers accessing their pensions paid more than 0.75% in charges, costing them £40 million to £50 million a year extra – more than £175 million since pensions freedoms were introduced. The long-term impact of high costs and charges for income drawdown can be significant and result in people being able to take less income out of their pensions or running out of money more quickly.
Transparency of charges is a particular concern because the DWP appears to have agreed with the arguments of some in the industry that putting costs and charges on the simpler annual statement would confuse people. The result is that instead of being provided with specific information about how they are paid, people would be signposted towards what could be pages and pages of information on charges. Which? has noted that an approach that believes that consumers are best served by not knowing how much they pay for pension scheme services is irreconcilable with the objectives of the pensions freedoms and the expectations placed on consumers in retirement.
It clearly may not be in the interests of commercial providers to make that information transparent, so I end with a question to the Minister. If the Government do not intend to support Labour’s amendment, which at this stage we plan to press to a vote, how will they ensure that people have the information that they need to avoid excessive charges and avoid making decisions that they may come to regret because they did not know about those charges in the first place?
Ms Eagle
I want to briefly add some emphasis to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston from the Front Bench. This is really a battle between those who like to add horrendously high charges, in very small print, and transparency so that people can make decisions in possession of the right kind of information. Surely enabling that transparency is at the heart of what the pensions dashboard is all about. Financial services, particularly things like pensions, have always featured a uniquely complex, difficult and opaque pricing system, which can often eat away significantly at the money that people who are investing can expect to live on when they retire.
Thankfully, trail commission has now been abolished, at least to my knowledge, but it has been replaced with other opaque pricing systems that take people’s money away. The hon. Member for Delyn was right to say that pots that are very small are being eaten away by charges. Most people who put money into pots would have had no real knowledge or understanding of the price of keeping that money there, because it would not have been up front in the information; it would have been hidden away in hundreds or perhaps thousands of pages of tiny print.
The amendments, which I fully support, are all about getting price and cost transparency on the dashboard, which was clearly created to include such information. I will not understand it at all if the Minister has reasons for not doing so.
Rob Roberts
I rise to speak briefly to amendments 11, 12 and 13. I did not mention it earlier, but the general problem with small pots being eroded away by charges, especially in the auto-enrolment phase, is that many of them have set charges in pounds rather than percentage-based charges. If someone has 10 pots of £1,000 and they all have the same percentage charging structure, the charges will be exactly the same as one scheme with £10,000 in it; what causes the problem is that some schemes have a set charge in pounds per year.
Unfortunately, an awful lot of the time we focus too much on the cost of plans and the impact of charges: the principal-based tail is wagging the outcome-based dog. It is the outcome that is most important, because people cannot spend the principal; they spend the outcome. That is easily illustrated: if scheme A has a 0.5% charge and a return of 5% a year, and scheme B has a 1% charge and a return of 7% a year, scheme B is a better scheme despite having a higher charge. It is not the charging that is important.
The hon. Member for Wallasey mentioned people who will be put off from investing in schemes that are looted and abused in such ways. She was 100% correct; there were many nods on both sides of the Committee Room at the idea that that would put people off. Focusing too much on charges also potentially puts people off. It is worrying and scary, and potentially angers the consumer, who would not understand the figure for the total charges if it is expressed in a significant way. If we say, “Over the lifetime of your plan, you will incur £30,000-worth of charges,” without some kind of explanation or context showing what that relates to, people will see that as excessive and ridiculous.
Neil Gray
I do not think it is fair to characterise this as a focus just on charges. New clause 11 contains an idea for how small pots can be managed, in terms of the unintended consequences of automatic enrolment. I struggle to understand the rationale of the hon. Gentlemen’s argument about the lack of transparency being provided to consumers and enabling them to take informed decisions about the plans they enter into. I do not see the logic of suggesting that hiding that or allowing schemes to continue putting it in the small print is beneficial to consumers.
Rob Roberts
I am not necessarily advocating a lack of transparency; I am advocating a focus on the outcome, rather than on every element of the journey along the way. There are lots of things that we currently do not talk about, in terms of the costs and charges. We look at the costs and charges of the scheme in general, and it is not necessarily a requirement for the costs and charges of the individual funds that make up the scheme to be included in those calculations. There are lots of things that could be included in there, but it is the outcome that is important, not necessarily the minute detail of every element along the way.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
I do not think anyone would disagree that overall it is the outcome that is important, but historically the trouble is that consumers have often been encouraged to look at outcomes that may or may not have been realistic over an extended period of investment, and have not had the full awareness that they ought to have had of the charges. Surely as part of educating the consumer we should be drawing their attention to the charges and helping them to understand them in the context of everything that is important. If we want engaged, informed consumers, surely we should not be telling them not to worry their little heads about the charges; we should be making it transparent and open.
Rob Roberts
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but it is for the regulator to determine how projections are shown and what information the individual requires to make an informed decision. It does not necessarily belong in primary legislation. It should come later, and the regulator should implement it. I understand that point, but amendments 11, 12 and 13 would all do exactly the same thing: they all focus on the wrong things, when I believe we should be focusing on the outcomes.
Guy Opperman
I hope to be able to bring some agreed consensus on this. Colleagues will be aware, because they have read the Bill in great detail, that subsection (2)(a)(iii) on page 108 sets out what pensions information should be provided. It includes
“the rights and obligations that arise or may arise under the scheme”.
It is very much the case that individual costs are already envisaged as being part of the clause and the scheme.
I will explain why I will resist this amendment. First, the context is that it is already in the Bill. Secondly, if I have not made it sufficiently clear in the past, I am happy to make it clear today that we anticipate that costs and charges should be a part of dashboards in the future, but the question is when and how? There is common ground that in the longer term, there should be an understanding of what individuals are being charged for the service they are being provided. There is a much wider debate, which we have tried to have to the best of our ability, about how it is that a pension is run and then the individual is burdened with individual costs, depending on the nature of the different schemes.
I am very clear that, first, I consider the provision otiose because it is already within the confines of the Bill. Secondly, it is the Government’s intention that costs and charges should be part of dashboards in the future. Thirdly, we value transparency. Lord knows I started this morning with the point that simpler statements are being introduced. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Wallasey said, simpler statements will include costs and charges.
Ms Eagle
I thank the Minister for his full explanation of some of the work that is ongoing, and I appreciate that it is a difficult issue. First, will he give the Committee some idea of the timescale for when we could get that important information into the dashboards? Could he be a bit more specific? Secondly, does he not accept that if standardisation is mandated by the Government, people will adjust and change in order to standardise and be in competition with other providers? It will bring some coherence to what is at the moment an extremely complex and confusing area.
Guy Opperman
To answer the second point first, there is already standardisation. There is already the charge cap, which allows a certain limit above which an individual cannot charge any more. That charge cap provides a certain percentage that can be incurred for the work provided. There is an ongoing discussion regarding automatic enrolment. If I have a tiny pot of £100 and that has been eaten away on an ongoing basis, then clearly the charges on an annual basis will slowly eat away into that small pot. If I have a much larger pot and I have a small standardised charged capped price that I am being charged, then it is clearly much easier for the pot to be preserved. How one approaches that going forward is extraordinarily difficult.
There is also the diversity of the products being provided—the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn—and ensuring that there is that diversity is appropriate. How does one try to balance those two things? That is what we are trying to do, with due respect. When will we do this? It seems to me that there are two answers. It is hoped—I use the word “hoped” given that we are now on 3 November—that by the end of this year, or the beginning of next year, these various pieces of work will come together and the Government will publish their views on them. I have been a little preoccupied with this and there are other things that are going on. The small pots review does not report back to the Department until 23 November.
In addition, the dashboard delivery group is at the same stage looking at this precise point about how it will provide this on an ongoing basis. It published its updated programme a week ago—I will have to do this off the top of my head, and if I have got it wrong I will correct it at a later stage—and its expectation is that it will provide more detail at the beginning of next year as part of what the dashboard will look like.
I come back to one final point. The original dashboard was proposed to be a simple find and view system; it is not proposed that this will have complex overlay at the start.
Neil Gray
That is all the more reason why allowing these amendments to be made is so important, to ensure that eventually it is mandatory to provide information and transparency about fees and charges. I do not think that anything the Minister has just said would preclude the amendments being accepted. It is a competitive market, there will be different elements within the market that will offer administrations and charges for different products, and that is their whim and their right. I go back to the point I made to the hon. Member for Delyn. I do not see how we are benefiting the consumer by denying them access to that information at that point of access, which is going to be crucial, and I am yet to hear from the Minister why that cannot happen.
Guy Opperman
I should have pointed out that we already have legislation within the occupational pension scheme regulations 2018, which already require trustees to publish detailed information on costs and charges on a publicly available website. Members are told where this information can be found on their annual benefit statements. Obviously, we are doing it on simpler statements as well.
On the specific point raised, the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts keeps coming back to different charging structures that exist across the pensions landscape, and information about costs and charges are not often directly comparable between schemes. There is a risk that we fail to engage people with their pensions by presenting too much information of a differing nature, or worse, that misunderstanding of costs and charges presented without proper explanations of value for money results in poor financial decisions. It seems to me that the way it is drafted as well, speaking specifically to the administration of the scheme, hides a much wider problem: how does one address the individual nature of differing schemes and the individual costs that apply? With respect, although I have great sympathy for the amendment, I invite the hon. Gentleman not to press it.
Ms Eagle
Before we leave this point, what the Minister has described is a pensions landscape that is so complex that he is saying it is almost impossible to make proper price comparisons across the piece. If a consumer wants to make a decision on where to invest their money, what the Minister is saying is that at the moment we have a system that is so complex, and where comparisons are so hard to make, that it is impossible. What does that say about the landscape we are presiding over, and what have we got wrong? I have some ideas of my own, but now is not the time to talk about them, Mr Robertson. I appreciate that. It is an astonishing admission from the Minister that that is the situation we are in.
Guy Opperman
I had ended my speech, but I do not think that is a fair characterisation. There is a charge cap that applies already. It is a standardised charge cap. The difficulty is that there are different types of schemes charging different things and that is perfectly permissible. The flip side of the argument made by the hon. Member for Wallasey would be to have only one type of pension scheme—which, by the way, is what the Labour Government introduced. Automatic enrolment is one type of pension scheme. Yet, within the one type of pension scheme, which we all adore and agree is the greatest thing, there are problems on the charging of the individual, which is exactly why we are trying to improve the matter by doing the small pots review.
I take the point that the hon. Lady is passionate to try to improve the situation. My door is always open to hear her views but, with great respect, this is a simplified system that can get better, which is why we are doing the dashboard and why we are doing simpler statements.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Seema Malhotra
I beg to move amendment 16, in clause 122, page 116, line 37, at end insert—
“(2A) Before any other pension dashboard services can qualify under section 238A of the Pensions Act 2004 (qualifying pensions dashboard service) the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on the operation and effectiveness of the pensions dashboard service, including the adequacy of consumer protections.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to report on the operation and effectiveness of the public dashboard service (including consumer protections) before allowing commercial dashboards to operate.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 8.
Amendment 3, in clause 122, page 116, line 42, leave out “one year” and insert “five years”.
This amendment would extend to five years the period for which the Money and Pensions Service dashboard would have to have been running before commercial operators could enter the market for the provision of pensions dashboards.
Seema Malhotra
We hugely regret that the Government are seeking to remove the amendment, introduced by Baroness Drake, that would have required the Money and Pensions Service dashboard to be up and running for a year before other commercial dashboards could be launched. It has always been Labour’s firm position that just one publicly run dashboard would be the best way to ensure that people receive trusted information about their pensions.
The Work and Pensions Committee produced a report on pension freedoms in 2018, in which it recommended a single public dashboard, to ensure that it would be free from commercial pressures and could provide individuals with a reliable source of information about their pensions. As that Committee noted, this would be in line with the examples of Australia, where a single dashboard is hosted by the Australian Taxation Office, and Sweden, where the only dashboard is run by a public-private partnership.
As the report stated, dashboards should first and foremost provide consumers with accurate and impartial information about all their pensions in one place. In a multiple dashboard system, providers would have incentives to use their dashboards to promote their own products or otherwise discourage switching away. There is also a danger that dashboard providers could use different underlying assumptions, producing rival income projections from the same raw data.
The pensions dashboard was conceived as a means of empowering consumers, to promote competition in the product market. There is a risk that in a multiple-dashboard system, providers could instead compete on the information provided. Which? and the Association of British Insurers have argued that regulation would be necessary to ensure that the dashboards were consistent. There is a simpler solution. By providing information on all pension entitlements in one place, the pensions dashboard would be a vital tool in informing and engaging customers, and empowering them to exercise pension freedoms in their own interest. A single, publicly hosted dashboard would be the best way of providing savers with simple, impartial and trustworthy information. However, the Government have said their intention is to progress plans for multiple dashboards.
Rather than preventing the introduction of commercial dashboards for a set period of time, our compromise amendment would merely compel the Government to review the operation of the public dashboard, including the adequacy of consumer protections, before allowing for commercial rivals to operate. If commercial dashboards are to be allowed, there must be strong and proactive regulation of all pensions dashboards and any other organisations involved in the storage, processing and presenting of pensions data. Organisations such as The People’s Pension and Which? have said that clear legal duties need to be placed on the operators of dashboards to act in the best interests of consumers.
The Government also envisage a role for what they call integrated service providers, which will store vast quantities of pensions data. It is not clear whether the Government intend for them to be regulated, or for the Money and Pensions Service, the TPR or the FCA to be able to authorise them and set regulatory standards. Unless the regulators have the ability to set standards and intervene in the operation of ISPs, any problems in the ISPs market will have to be tackled by contacting the individual pension schemes. That would be time-consuming and could lead to long periods of time when individuals’ pensions data is unavailable on pensions dashboards. Any scandals or data breaches that occurred in unregulated ISPs could also have a significant detrimental impact on the reputation of pensions dashboards and the overall framework for people to access their pensions data securely and safely.
The common-sense step proposed in the amendment would allow proper consideration to be given to the risks proposed by private providers. In many ways, the concerns underpinning the amendment are similar to those associated with Government amendment 7—that the introduction of commercial dashboards, paired with the ability to engage in commercial transaction activities, would impact on the reliability of the information presented to savers and open up the risk of people being persuaded into disadvantageous pensions positions.
I would be grateful for the Minister’s views on this matter, which I understand he is keen to share. If he still intends to progress with commercial dashboards, will he announce concrete steps and detail on how and when they will be regulated by the FCA? I am sure he will say a few words about integrated service providers. Will they store vast quantities of pensions data, and will they be subject to regulation and standards that are set by the TPR, MaPS and the FCA?
Neil Gray
To follow on from the shadow Minister’s comments about amendments 8, 16 and 3, this debate takes us to probably the greatest area of contention in the Bill, which is contentious because of the Government’s intention to remove the Lords amendments that require a year’s buffer before commercial dashboards can enter the market.
It is not just the SNP, Labour or other Oppositions parties that have concerns, but a great number of stakeholders. The Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association says that
“the Government should ensure the first pensions dashboard will be a single, non-commercial product hosted by the Money and Pensions Service (MAPS) and that no other dashboard should go live until a full consumer protection regime is in place.”
In addition, rushing to introduce transactional capabilities is likely to put savers at greater risk of scams and mis-selling. It would be better to wait a year or two, rather than undermine consumer protection.
The PLSA does not support Government amendments 7 and 8, which would allow dashboards to be used to provide transactional services and remove the requirement for the non-commercial pensions dashboard service run by MaPS to have been established for one year before other dashboards services can provide services. The PLSA supports amendment 16, which would require the Secretary of State to report on the operation of the public dashboard service, including consumer protections, before allowing commercial dashboards to operate. It also supports amendment 3, which would extend to five years the period for which the MaPS dashboard would have to have been running before commercial operators could enter the market for the provision of pensions dashboards.
Similarly, the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries says: “The first dashboard must be a single, non-commercial platform. We think it is important that the first dashboard be non-commercial and hosted by the Money and Pensions Service. Initial non-commercial dashboards will to provide greater clarity for consumers and build confidence and trust in the dashboard ecosystem. It will also make it easier for regulators to learn more about how savers use such platforms, and enable them to adjust consumer protection regulation accordingly. In the medium term, multiple commercial dashboards could be permitted to facilitate innovation and choice. However, these platforms and the communications with savers need to be properly regulated to ensure strong consumer protection. We do not support new Government amendments 7 and 8, which would allow the dashboards to be used to provide transactional services and remove the requirement that the non-commercial pensions dashboard service, run by MaPS, must have been established for one year, before other dashboard services can provide services.”
We are clear that commercial dashboards should not be opened to the market for at least a year and we strongly oppose UK Government attempts to undermine that. We feel that a year’s buffer was a compromise position, as there are many people concerned about having commercial dashboards at all, especially when the Government intend them to be transactional. We tabled amendment 3 to underline our opposition to any watering down of the Bill as it stands.
The Lords amendment was a compromise. The UK Government are now unilaterally forging their own path, breaking the cross-party consensus that otherwise would have existed. As the hon. Member for Wallasey rightly said, it is crucial for good governance and good pensions legislation. It seems the Government are looking to implement both commercial and financial transactions on dashboards, before assessing the risk, before assessing consumer behaviour and interaction with the MaPS dashboard, and before taking full cognisance of the risks of pension freedoms, which we are only just starting to understand. Time is the wisest counsellor of all, Mr Robertson.
We want to empower people to make informed choices about their lifetime savings. The public service pensions dashboard is a welcome step towards that and will transform consumer engagement with pensions over the long term, and reunite individuals with lost pension pots. Pensions dashboards run by commercial operators should not be opened to the market until the publicly run MaPS dashboard has been running for a least a year.
We have a long-standing additional commitment to the establishment of a standing independent pensions and savings commission. The scope of the Bill does not allow us to stretch to that on this occasion, but later in deliberations we will consider whether a commission looking at the terms of this Bill should be established. Such an organisation would first be tasked with looking at when commercial operators should be able to enter the market for the pension dashboards.
In our view, the MaPS dashboard, or public dashboard, is a wasted opportunity unless it is properly marketed and promoted by the Government as a safe, independent and impartial space for people seeking information about their pensions. We feel that it would get swamped by commercial operators seeking to promote their own dashboards and their own commercial interests.
We caution the Government to be canny, to take their time and to learn from the implementation, first of all, of the public dashboard, before they move too hastily and have to play catch-up in the regulatory format, because people fall foul by making poor decisions about what is their greatest financial asset.
Guy Opperman
I accept that the issue is complex. On the one hand the Government are being urged to proceed with the dashboard and it has been rightly pointed out that we have displayed slowness, in some respects. On the other hand, we are being urged to delay in respect of this particular matter. We do not believe that this is the appropriate way forward, as the Lords indicated, and there are a multitude of reasons why that is the case.
I start with the initial 2018 consultation. The principle behind that was that consumers should always have access to a publicly backed service, which we have legislated for, but should also have the freedom to choose to access the information in the way they feel most comfortable. I go back to the point I made to my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire: do we build a service and make the consumer come to us, or do we build a service where the consumer is already comfortable, in circumstances where there are sufficient protections around that?
Consumers have clearly stated that they expect to be able to access a dashboard through a variety of channels. The pensions industry holds an in-depth knowledge of its customer base, and this represents an opportunity for consumer-focused innovation to create platforms that individuals can engage with. We believe that allowing multiple dashboards is the most effective way to drive consumer engagement and really begin to put people in control of their savings.
Seema Malhotra
The Minister is right that there will be no storage of data on the dashboard––in a sense, it is drawing in that data dynamically––but could he explain the role of the integrated service providers?
Guy Opperman
I explained this at great length earlier, but I will attempt to repeat what I said. I will jump through the verification hoops. The reality is that an individual gets verification and the information passes from the pension finder service to the connected pension schemes asking them to match the individual’s information. The pension scheme finds a match and confirms it to the pension finder service, which responds to the individual via their chosen dashboard saying that it holds the data. When the individual next logs on to their dashboard, the information from the pension scheme will be viewable by the individual. I drew the analogy of the cashpoint, which, I suggest, is the appropriate analogy, whereby if I bank with Barclays and I withdraw from an HSBC account, Barclays does not know what is in my account. That is the process by which we are trying to proceed.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
On a slightly parallel point, with the advent of open banking, we had similar discussions on sharing data and the fears around how it might be used commercially. What we have seen is that, with a robust regime and buy-in from many of the stakeholders, it seems to have worked. Many of the fears that were advanced then and that have been articulated today have not really come to fruition. Does my hon. Friend agree that while we can talk about the legislation, it is the buy-in from stakeholders that will ensure that this succeeds?
Guy Opperman
There is no question: we are deliberately learning the lessons from open banking and the process whereby we took all our various bank accounts and made them accessible under a strict regulatory regime so that our rights were not infringed. There is now a massively enhanced consumer programme that empowers the consumer, drives down costs and does all the other things that we know open banking does. With great respect, I suggest that that is a very good example.
The big difference is that in open banking we are dealing with a relatively small number of banks in this country, unlike in, say, America, whereas with pensions we are dealing with 40,000 different schemes. But the principles are exactly the same. We have learned from the regulatory process and I have met the chief executive of Open Banking. My officials and the dashboard delivery team are engaging with them. No disrespect, but the problems that the Committee has rightly identified today are exactly the same sort of problems that were identified with open banking. These are the same consumer protection organisations, and I shall come to the approach of Which?, which is probably the No. 1 consumer protection organisation in the country. It is firmly on the side of the Government and disagrees with the amendment. My hon. Friend drew me to that.
Neil Gray
I draw the Minister back to points that he made earlier, when he said that the information provided on the dashboard will be taken sequentially so that it will be added to over time as we test and learn. Why then in this case are we not operating sequentially? Start with the MaPS, the public dashboard, and bed that in as the point of contact where people have the confidence to go for impartial information about what they are getting, without having to be exposed to marketisation. Learn from that, and then move to the position where commercial dashboards can operate. Learn from that experience, and then bring about transactionality through the dashboard in that process.
Guy Opperman
I will delay the introduction of the Which? elements for a moment. Amendment 16, for example, would delay the introduction of other dashboards, which would stifle innovation that could benefit consumers. We feel strongly that the potential exists for the production of a game-changing new system that would enable something that is not possible at the present stage, but that would suddenly be second-guessed and denied, and we will lose much momentum behind the project.
The Committee should not take just my word for it. I will briefly share the comments of Which?, from its submission on Second Reading on this proposal. It addressed this amendment, saying: “This amendment ensures that the publicly owned dashboard will have to be operational for at least a year before commercial dashboard services can operate if the Bill becomes legislation in its current form. Which? agrees with concerns that lessons will have to be learnt on the application of the dashboard, especially with regards to the use of data.
However, we do not believe that this amendment is the answer. It is a precautionary approach, and the risk is that by stymieing the development in this way, the industry will take away its innovation, drive and investment —all of which could benefit consumers. By enabling an individual to access their pensions data safely and securely via non-government providers, this can help to support take-up and engagement with dashboards by increasing the number of channels that individuals can access this information and increasing awareness. It can also help drive innovation to enable individuals to make the most of the information available via dashboards. This will only be possible if dashboard providers are permitted to provide tools and services using this data.
Furthermore, this amendment risks us being left with a dashboard that does not do as much as initially anticipated, resulting in consumers not being as engaged. This could represent a huge missed opportunity. It is crucial to ensure that dashboards are both safe and fully functional to give consumers the most choice and the most exposure to innovation.”
The hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts will be aware that there is already the Pension Tracing Service and “Check your State Pension”, both existing organisations that address these particular points. There is no question but that the words expressed by Which? adequately address the point that it would be utterly wrong of us to promote and push forward the dashboard in circumstances where, upon its launch, even in its primitive format, we said, “You cannot access the dashboard through the provider or financial adviser you’ve been with for 30 years. You may only go through the Money and Pensions Service.” I therefore respectfully say that this is not the right approach and not something the Government support.
In respect of the delay and the parliamentary scrutiny, I would like to make two points. Parliamentary scrutiny is already taking place through the introduction of secondary legislation, which will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. The Money and Pensions Service is already legally required, according to the 2018 Act on this issue, to report annually to the Secretary of State on its objectives and functions. This includes the operation of the dashboard, and that report is laid before Parliament, which can debate it if it wishes.
The development of the pension dashboard does not end at the launch. The pension dashboard programme will continue user testing and research on an ongoing basis. That is the whole point of incremental delivery. The amendments, if passed, would no doubt have the consequence of delaying the production of commercial dashboards for some considerable time—the note on which escapes me, but I will try to remember—by requiring a report to the House of Commons and then a further consultation on user testing, which would effectively put back commercial dashboards, certainly by a year, and potentially by two years.
The five-year proposal that the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts has put forward would clearly sound the death knell for any commercial dashboard on a long-term basis. With no disrespect, I think that would be a massive missed opportunity.
Neil Gray
Amendment 3 is a probing amendment so that we can set out the fact that our feeling was that the Lords amendment was compromised. By quoting Which?, as the Minister rightly has, he seems to be suggesting that we are arguing against commercial dashboards altogether. We want a reasonable buffer in place, and we do not feel that that year would be lost for innovation or for developing a dashboard. Commercial organisations would be perfectly capable of catching up when the time came. That year would allow the Government to ensure that the MaPS dashboard is properly promoted and utilised by people and used for its intention, which is to inform good decision making for long-term savings and investments for a good return on income.
Guy Opperman
I am not sure that I can amplify or improve upon the comments that I have already made, save to make the point—again, I believe—that commercial dashboards will have to be part of the accessibility of this particular programme, and I genuinely believe it entirely right that they should be part of it from the word go, so that we can go forward together with those two particular products. Quite frankly, we keep coming back to the point that we should go to where the customer is already, rather than forcing the customer to go to some other place.
Guy Opperman
Other countries have done things in different ways—they do not necessarily have the pension system that we have. We have a very substantial private pension system; some other countries will not have such private pension systems—the hon. Lady will have to ask them. It is argued that the right way forward—having looked at what countries such as Israel and Denmark have done—is to have a parallel system and two systems, commercial and public, working together. We already have a public system, whether it is “Check your state pension” or the pension tracing service, that exists with commercial providers. What we do not have is the great capability of dashboard and I believe, with respect, that we are doing the appropriate thing to drive that forward.
Seema Malhotra
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 8, in clause 122, page 116, leave out lines 38 to 45.—(Guy Opperman.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Environment Bill (Ninth sitting)
Tuesday 3rd November 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Environment Act 2021 View all Environment Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 3 November 2020 - (3 Nov 2020)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 1 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing amendment 92, in clause 18, page 11, line 13, leave out subsection (2).
This amendment removes the proportionality limitation on the requirement to consider the policy statement on environmental principles.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
I was in the middle of a brief exposition of the word “proportionately”, as found in clause 16, which we were discussing this morning. As I mentioned, the clause requires that a policy statement on environmental principles must be prepared in accordance with clauses 16 and 17. Subsection (2) defines the policy statement on environmental principles as
“a statement explaining how the environmental principles should be interpreted and proportionately applied by Ministers of the Crown when making policy.”
The word “proportionately” very much concerns Opposition Members, because the clause not only deals with the statement itself and how the environmental principles should be interpreted, but adds that Ministers of the Crown will be assumed to be proportionately applying those principles. It goes beyond the environmental principles themselves and gives Ministers of the Crown the leeway to apply those principles “proportionately”.
“Proportionately” is a strange word. The Cambridge philosopher of ordinary language J. L. Austin defined it, among others, as a “trouser-word”—a word that does not function properly without a pair of trousers on.
Dr Whitehead
I think J. L. Austin is very interesting, but others disagree. Indeed, the dictionary definition of “proportionately”, which underlines his point, is:
“In a way that corresponds in size or amount to something else.”
It has no consequence in its own right, and that is the problem that we have with this particular formulation. If there are no trousers on “proportionately”, it can mean whatever anybody wants it to mean. In this instance, it appears to mean what Ministers of the Crown may want it to mean. It is possible—not in terms of the intentions or anything else of present company—that the definition of “proportionately” is entirely what Ministers of the Crown may want to make of it. A much more straightforward example of that particular action is Lewis Carroll’s Humpty Dumpty deciding that words mean exactly what he wanted them to mean.
We may come on to this later, but the Bill should define what “proportionately” might mean, what its limits are and what Ministers may do when deciding, proportionately, what environmental principles should be. I accept that it may well be the case that Ministers have a view on environmental principles and how that policy statement may be put into place. This is not an appropriate way to bring Ministers into that particular discussion. For the sake of clarity, we would like the to see the word removed from the clause, so that it reads, “a policy statement is a statement explaining how the environmental principles should be interpreted.” That offers enough leeway as far as policy statements are concerned. I welcome the Minister’s explanation as to why that additional line should be necessary in the clause, and what it adds rather than what it takes away, in terms of making quite meaningless some of the things that I have outlined in the first part of the clause with regard to Ministers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for these amendments, and welcome the opportunity to clarify why the provisions are needed. The amendments would remove the need for the policy statement to set out how the environmental principles should be proportionately applied by Ministers when making policy. They also remove important proportionality considerations associated with the legal duty to have due regard to the policy statement on environmental principles. Proportionate application is a key aspect of use of the principles, and it ensures that Government policy is reasoned and based on sensible decision making. It is vital that this policy statement provides current and future Ministers with clarity on how the principles should be applied proportionately, so that they are used in a balanced and sensible way. Setting out how these principles need to be applied in a proportionate manner does not weaken their effect, nor does ensuring that action on the basis of the policy statement is only taken where there is an environmental benefit. It simply means that in the policy statement, we will be clear that Ministers need to think through environmental, social and economic considerations in the round, and ensure that the environment is properly factored into policy made across Government from the very start of the process.
When the policy statement is then used, Ministers of the Crown will take action when it is sensible to do so. This approach is consistent with the objective in relation to the policy statement of embedding sustainable development, aimed at ensuring environmental, social, and economic factors are all considered when making policy. Not balancing those factors could have consequences that halt progress. For example, a disproportionate application of the “polluter pays” principle could result in anyone being asked to pay for any negligible harm on the environment, when in reality, many actions taken by humans cause some environmental harm, such as going for a walk in the country. It is essential to ensure that the principles are applied in an appropriate and balanced way, and proportionality is absolutely key to this. Since this amendment removes vital proportionality considerations, I ask the hon. Member not to press amendments 91 and 92.
The Chair
Before I call Daniel Zeichner, who caught my eye, can I explain a small point about procedure? It would be helpful if anybody who wishes to speak while the person who has moved the amendment is speaking would catch my eye one way or another—standing up in their place is the clearest way to do so. Those people speak, and the Minister speaks afterwards. That means the Minister is replying to the points that are made. For now, it is fine, but in future, Members should catch my eye while the mover of the amendment is speaking. They can speak, and the Minister can reply to what hon. Members have to say.
Daniel Zeichner
Thank you, Mr Gray. My apologies for muddling up the procedure. I am grateful for the opportunity to make a few points on what seems to be one of the most important parts of the Bill. For many of us, the precautionary principle has been a key part of our environmental protections.
It is fair to say that there is a difference of view internationally about how one approaches these things. Without trying to trivialise it in any way, there is a difference between the American approach and the European approach. Of course, we have been part of the European approach for a long time, and the precautionary principle has been absolutely key. The introduction of proportionality will seriously weaken our environmental protections. Although we have reams of paper to go through, that is the key distinction. I fear that the application of proportionality will water down our environmental protections.
I found the explanatory notes very helpful, as I always do. Paragraph 173 says:
“Proportionate application means ensuring that action taken on the basis of the principles balances the potential for environmental benefit against other benefits and costs associated with the action.”
Of course, as soon as we introduce that balancing side, those essential precautionary environmental protection are at risk. I am afraid, despite the Minister’s optimism about the Bill, that this is the crunch issue. If this amendment is not carried, there is no doubt that our environmental protections will be weakened.
Dr Whitehead
My hon. Friend makes a key point about the importance of the amendment. It is not just that many things pivot on it; one could almost go so far as to say that the whole thrust of the Bill pivots on it.
The understanding has always been that the Bill really will put the environment on the map and will provide not only good environmental protection in the long term, but no regression and enhanced environmental protection in the future. If that word is at the heart of it, things could be traded off against considerations that are completely outwith the intentions and purposes of the Bill, and it could be subverted entirely at ministerial discretion. That is surely not something that we should easily countenance.
In a moment, we will come on to an amendment that attempts to get a definition of proportionality on to the statute book. Although we do not want to divide the Committee on this amendment, if we do not secure substantial progress with the next amendment, we may seek to divide the Committee at that point. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 18
Policy statement on environmental principles: effect
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 114, in clause 18, page 11, line 19, leave out paragraph (a).
This amendment removes the exceptions for armed forces, defence and national security policy from the requirement to have due regard to the policy statement on environmental principles.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 93, in clause 18, page 11, line 19, leave out
“the armed forces, defence or”.
This amendment removes the exceptions for armed forces and defence policy from the requirement to have due regard to the policy statement on environmental principles.
Deidre Brock
It is important to establish a principle that no area of Government should be exempted from its responsibilities to the environment. The amendment brings the activities of the Ministry of Defence, the armed forces, defence and national security into the scope of the Bill. I have been talking at length on this subject for some time now, and have submitted numerous parliamentary questions on it. Some of those questions actually received answers, but sadly I am still awaiting a letter from the Minister for Defence People and Veterans outlining the environmental impact assessment of the MOD’s operations at Cape Wrath, which he promised me in February of this year. Perhaps mentioning that today will jog his memory a little.
We have swathes of munitions dumps up and down the UK coast, still imperilling our fishers and others on our waters. There are also large chunks of land in the UK currently outside the scope of the Bill. Yes, hundreds of nuclear safety incidents on the Clyde were acknowledged by the MOD, but only because of written questions I had submitted. We have no idea what impact military fuels are having. Scientists for Global Responsibility estimates that 6% of global greenhouse gas emissions result from military-related activities.
I understand that the percentage share of the UK’s emissions total is lower for defence here, but our omissions from the military are still higher than those of some entire countries. By taking this action, the UK really could act as a world leader and role model. We have no idea what impact weapons testing or training efforts have. I know because of my parliamentary questions that assessments are made, but they are not published. It must be possible to make such assessments transparent without compromising the safety of our forces and their interests.
A number of witnesses to the Committee, when I asked them about the issue, seemed to agree that it was something of an anomaly. Lloyd Austin of Scottish Environment LINK, while accepting that exceptions will exist, said that they
“should be based…on a degree of justification for why…the environmental issue has to be overwritten. Nobody thinks the environment will always trump everything but, on the other hand, where the environment is trumped, there should be a good reason, and that reason should be transparent to citizens.”
John Bynorth of Environmental Protection Scotland said:
“It is a bit arbitrary and unjustified that the military…should not be subject to the same conditions as everyone else.”––[Official Report, Environment Public Bill Committee, 12 March 2020; c. 143, Q202.]
Ruth Chambers, from Greener UK, speaking about the fact that this duty will not apply to the Ministry of Defence, said:
“Already, we seem to be absolving quite a large part of Government from the principles.”––[Official Report, Environment Public Bill Committee, 10 March 2020; c. 71, Q112.]
The environmental principles, that is.
I am not going to speak for long—we have many amendments to get through—but I have been raising this issue for a long time. I was delighted to see Labour come on board too, although disappointed to see that they still want to keep the exemption for national security. We have to ask what kind of national security will be left to us if the environment goes belly up.
From answers received from the House of Commons Library, I know that there are so many pieces of primary legislation containing exemptions relating to the armed forces that it is not possible to list them all. If we are going to start stopping these exemptions for the military, the place to start should be in the Environment Bill. I am interested to hear the Minister’s response, but I am going to press the amendment to a vote.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
Clause 18 makes the armed forces, defence or national security exempt from due regard to the policy statement on environmental principles. It is detrimental to leave this whole section of Government out of the Bill’s provisions. If we want this Bill to be a legal framework for environmental governance and to have all the correct people in one room, why leave out one of the biggest polluters, the biggest spenders and the biggest landowners? It just does not make sense in terms of achieving ambitious net zero targets.
Were the exemption to be confined and constricted to decisions relating to urgent military matters and those of national security, it is of course entirely reasonable. I fully accept that there will be occasions when national security has to take precedence over environmental concerns. We do not want to impede the work of our armed forces or compromise our safety and security in any way. However, the clause is not drafted as tightly, cleverly and smartly as that. Rather, it is a blanket exclusion for the Ministry of Defence, the Defence Infrastructure Organisation and the armed forces from complying with the environmental principles set out in the Bill.
The carbon footprint of UK military spending was approximately 11 million tonnes of CO2 in 2018—very significant. Some £38 billion was spent on defence last year alone—more than 2% of our GDP. Bringing how that is spent in line with our environmental aims is essential to achieving our overall national environmental targets. If it is not in the Bill, it is just going to be left to goodwill and to hoping that it will work.
I hope that the Minister will shortly argue that the principle is important and, if it is, the armed forces and defence must not be exempt—that is how we show it is important. The Ministry of Defence is one of the largest landowners in the country, with an estate that is nearly equal to 2% of the UK landmass. Last week I was on Salisbury plain, which is the size of the Isle of Wight. It is where significant military work is carried out, but it is also where a significant environmental advantage could be held.
The Defence Infrastructure Organisation manages 431,400 hectares of land within the UK. The sites are used for training, accommodation and large bases and the organisation has a remit to ensure the safety, sustainability and rationalisation of the estate. It states that:
“MOD has a major role to play in the conservation of the UK’s natural resources. Stewardship of the estate means that the MOD has responsibility for some of the most unspoilt and remote areas in Britain; with statutory obligations to protect the protected habitats and species that they support.”
I am not arguing that the Ministry of Defence does not care about the environment. I am saying that, if we all care about the environment, the MOD should come within the legal framework of guidance. We can have an amendment specifically tailored for the armed forces. Much of the land used by the MOD for training and operations is in highly sensitive environments and many parts are located in areas of outstanding natural beauty, including Dartmoor, Lulworth, Warcop and the Kent downs. They are subject to a number of associated policy processes, such as bylaw reviews, planning applications and so on, which means that they are subject to environmental protection. They should be joined up and come within the remit of the Bill as well.
A reason for adding this matter to the Bill is that the Ministry of Defence is already deeply committed to environmental protection and to tackling climate change, but a major rethink of defence policy is needed to achieve our ambitious environmental aims. New approaches to procurement are needed in particular. The Air Force, for example, is looking at different types of aircraft fuel. That should come within the Environment Bill, not without.
It prompts the question of why there is a blanket exemption, as it does not give credit to the armed forces and to the newly formed strategic command for all the work they are doing to achieve our environmental goals. The clause should be tightened up considerably. Rather than separating them, here is an opportunity to link the Bill’s environmental principles to the armed forces’ environmental objectives. We are in a climate emergency. There is no time to wait around for the goodwill of enormous Departments to get in line—certainly not one with such significant spending, carbon emissions and land ownership. I urge the Minister to support the amendment, or to come back with a smarter amendment that enshrines our national security at the same time as enforcing the speed of environmental action that we need and expect the armed forces to be able to deliver.
Dr Whitehead
What the Committee needs to understand is that the inclusion in the Bill of the application of policy as set out in subsection (1) does not apply to the armed forces. Subsection (1) states:
“A Minister of the Crown must, when making policy, have due regard to the policy statement on environmental principles currently in effect.”
The Minister must, therefore, have “due regard” to policies on environmental principles except where it relates to anything to do with the “armed forces”, as my hon. Friend the Member for Putney said. She mentioned that it is particularly important when the land that the MOD has under its control is considered, which we indeed know from the handy “National Statistics” publication which states what land is owned by the MOD. The issue, however, is not only the land owned by the MOD but also the further 207,400 hectares over which it has rights in addition to its freehold and leasehold-owned land. A reasonable interpretation of that is to consider what is controlled by the MOD and the armed forces. Is that a total of 431,000 hectares, as mentioned by my hon. Friend? That is the size of Essex plus half of Greater London, to put it into context. That is the amount of land that is under no jurisdiction at all as far as environmental principles are concerned.
There may be good reasons for that huge amount of national land resource being exempt from these environmental protections, but none are immediately apparent to me. Not only are they not apparent to me, what is apparent to me is that an organisation that undertakes actions that prejudice the environmental quality or environmental protection of UK land is often required to mitigate those actions elsewhere in any other sector. If a new port berth is being decided upon, then one of the first things to happen is that a consideration of environmental mitigation takes place for the land that has been despoiled by the new port, even if the berth is regarded as necessary. Even that principle does not appear to apply as far as the MOD is concerned.
As my hon. Friend said, I accept that when a person drives across Salisbury plain, for example, they occasionally see great big tracks on the plain where tanks have driven around it, and that on the Lulworth ranges there is weaponry practice that has environmental impacts. Of course, that is a part of MOD defence activity, and it may be necessary for that activity to be carried out. However, it does not seem beyond our imagination to consider that the MOD and defence should be in a different position as far as environmental mitigation is concerned. It would be quite reasonable to suggest that within the necessary undertakings that the MOD has to go about doing, environmental mitigation should be part of that process, if necessary. To just give the armed forces a blanket let-off as far as any environmental principles are concerned seems, to me, a bridge too far.
Daniel Zeichner
We just had a discussion about proportionality, and it strikes me as perfectly possible to say to the MOD that it could react proportionately to these kinds of judgments. In our previous discussion, we introduced a notion that I would say will be used to the detriment of the environment; why could we not ask the MOD to act proportionately when it comes to its environmental obligations?
Dr Whitehead
Indeed, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. It would not be difficult to draft something that would both protect the activities that I think we all agree the MOD and the Army need to do on occasions, and ask them to act proportionately in respect of their environmental obligations when undertaking those activities.
An amendment to this clause has been tabled by the hon. Member for Edinburgh North—[Hon. Members: “And Leith.”] And Leith as well, yes; I have been to both Edinburgh North and Leith, so I should remember the connection between the two. The Labour party has also put forward amendments, which take out two sections of this clause and, as it were, challenge their inclusion and these exemptions separately. We do not see any substantive difference between what we are saying through those two particular challenges and, as it were, the overall challenge that the hon. Lady has put forward through her amendment: it is essentially a big question about why these particular exemptions are in place. We do not just have exemptions for the MOD; we have exemptions as far as
“taxation, spending or the allocation of resources within government”.
I am not exactly sure what land that controls, as we cannot put that in place in the same way as we can with the MOD, but it is also not apparent to me why those areas should also be treated differently.
Dr Whitehead
I stand corrected. So we are discussing amendments 93 and 114 in this group and discussing amendment 94 in the next group. I will remove my remarks on amendment 94 and save them for the next group. I have to say that I do not think there is much between the formulation put forward by the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith and the one put forward by us, as we will come to in the next amendment. Therefore, we support the hon. Lady in her endeavours to try and get some clarity as far as this section is concerned.
Rebecca Pow
I thank hon. Members for the amendments. Clearly, we have sparked some quite strong feelings here about this particular issue. I want to make it clear, Chair, that I am just going to focus on defence, to which the amendment relates.
While we recognise the intention behind these amendments, it is fundamental to the protection of our country that the exemptions for armed forces, defence and national security are maintained. The exemptions that would be removed by the amendments relate to highly sensitive matters that are vital for the protection of our realm, so it is appropriate for them to be omitted from the duty to have due regard to the environmental policy statement. A critical part of the role of Defence and Home Office Ministers is to make decisions about the use of UK forces to prevent harm, save lives, protect UK interests or deal with a threat. We have several colleagues in the Room who have strong armed forces links, and I think they will agree with that summary. It would not be appropriate for Ministers to have to go through the process of considering the set of environmental principles before implementing any vital and urgent policies related to the issues I have just mentioned.
Furthermore, the Ministry of Defence has its own environmental policies in place, as well as a commitment that its policies protect the environment, with a strong record on delivering on those commitments, which we had reference to from both sides, particularly from the hon. Members for Southampton, Test and for Cambridge. For example, the MOD require that all new infrastructure programmes, projects and activities have to include sustainability and environmental appraisals. Those appraisals cover a similar spectrum of analysis to the environmental principles.
I also want to highlight that the MOD takes the environment extremely seriously. It is adapting to mitigate defence’s impact on climate, which was touched on by the hon. Member for Putney, to build resilience and support the Government’s commitment to net-zero emissions and a review is underway to develop its response to net zero and climate change, with a new strategy planned to add to the existing sustainable development policy. That is a clear indication that the MOD means business where the environment is concerned.
As was touched on by a couple of Members, and particularly the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith, the Ministry of Defence owns or otherwise controls approximately 1% of the UK’s landmass—
Rebecca Pow
My facts say 1%, but shall we agree, Chair, that it is nearly 2%?
Rebecca Pow
It is a significant amount. Actually, I think the shadow Minister is right and it is nearer 2%. More than a third—38%—of that area is designated as sites of special scientific interest. SSSIs have a statutory duty that they will be managed and protected and that duty is not removed—it is not exempted. As such, that work carries on. The MOD’s record on getting those sites into favourable condition is good, with 48% of the sites in that condition. The MOD works very hard with Natural England on those plans and projects; it has a dedicated environmental team, working on the environment through the MOD.
When I was a news reporter, I had a wonderful day with the MOD up on Salisbury Plain, looking at its tremendous stone curlew project. Even though the tanks rattle across, the stone curlews can still thrive. The Whip is looking at his phone, but I am sure that he lives near there; I would like someone to report back to me on how the stone curlews are doing now, because that is a fantastic project.
To go back to my point, because of the particular sensitivities of this policy area as well as existing environmental commitments, I hope that I am giving some clarity as to why the MOD is exempted. It might be helpful for the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith to note that there are exemptions in the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Bill, and they are in categories that are quite similar to those in this Bill, if not a little bit wider. They are listed in clause 10(3) of that Bill as
“(a) national defence or civil emergency,
(b) finance or budgets.”
I thought that it might be interesting to put that on the record.
I hope that I have provided some clarity on this issue. I think we are covering a lot of the same ground here, so I ask the hon. Member to withdraw her amendment.
Deidre Brock
The Minister talks about the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Bill, but unfortunately defence is still reserved to Westminster, so I am afraid that the Scottish Government would not have any control over that issue anyway.
The issue for me here is transparency for our citizens, so that they know exactly what impact the armed forces are having on our environment. The Minister talks about the highly sensitive nature of the armed forces’ activities, but not all their activities are sensitive. For example, what are their recycling rates and what are their targets towards the reduction of emissions? Regarding the environmental impact of the armed forces, just today we heard on the radio from the actor Joanna Lumley about the impact of underwater explosions on marine mammals, and the hearing loss that results when munitions that have been on the seabed for many years are detonated. Such issues will become more and more important. I have pursued the question of munitions dumps for a while, as I mentioned; it is not going away. There is an increasing clamour about it from around the world, and it is important for the Minister to remember that because it will return as an issue in the near future.
It is simply no longer acceptable for the armed forces to be exempt from reporting their progress towards climate change targets, or their compliance with environmental targets or any of the other targets that other parts of Government are required to report on. I am disappointed that the Government cannot support this amendment. As I have said, the number of exemptions for the armed forces in primary legislation across Government is extraordinary; in fact, there are so many that the Commons Library felt that it could not list them in their entirety in its briefing.
It is important to hold to the principle that we all have a part to play in trying to save the planet. There should be no exemptions for any Government Department. I accept that there are sensitivities around national security, but I think there are ways of addressing them and taking them into account. I am delighted that Labour Members are with me on this issue, and I will press the matter to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 94, in clause 18, page 11, line 20, leave out paragraph (b).
This amendment removes the exceptions for tax, spending and resources from the requirement to have due regard to the policy statement on environmental principles.
Bearing in mind that we have had something of a debate on this subsection overall, I need not detain the Committee long on this amendment, other than to say that it is a mystery to me that taxation, spending or the allocation of resources should be exempted in the same way that the armed forces should be exempted. The Minister defined why the armed forces should be exempted: they are doing things in the national interest and pursuing our defence. But taxation, spending and the allocation of resources are not doing that. They are doing things that are important to the country but do not come under that definition at all. I cannot understand the justification for exempting them from the provisions on the policy statements on environmental principles or what the exemption’s effect will be. I look forward to hearing from the Minister what her justification for this particular exemption is. I presume that it does not relate to national security or defence manoeuvres or activities that we should be pleased happen but do not need to know too much about. It would seem that this falls outside all those categories. There must therefore be some other reason and I am sure that we are about to hear about it.
Deidre Brock
The amendment would bring tax and spend into the scope of the Bill. I am glad that Labour is also addressing this because when I mentioned this on Second Reading, few Members seemed to have grasped it. It is a really important point. If we are not considering the big issues of politics and the spending on them, we are not putting the environment high on the list of priorities. Likewise, if environmental considerations do not play a part in taxation decisions, we are missing a great chance to influence people’s behaviour and help save our planet.
Rebecca Pow
I thank hon. Members for tabling the amendment. While we recognise the intention behind it, it is important to maintain the exemption to ensure sound economic and fiscal decision making. It is important to be clear that this exemption only refers to central spending decisions, because at fiscal events and spending reviews such decisions must be taken with consideration to a wide range of public priorities. These include public spending on individual areas such as health, defence, education and the environment, as well as sustainable economic growth and development, financial stability and sustainable levels of debt.
There is no exemption for individual policy interventions simply because they require spending. Ministers should still have due regard to the policy statement when developing and implementing all policies to which the statement is applicable. This means that while the policy statement will not need to be used when the Treasury is allocating budgets to Departments, it will be used when Departments develop policies that draw upon that budget. This is the best place for the use of the policy statement to effectively deliver environmental protection.
With regard to the exemption for taxation, let me reassure hon. Members that the Government are committed to encouraging positive environmental outcomes through the tax system, as demonstrated already by our commitment to introducing a new tax on plastic packaging, to encourage greater use of recycled plastic. We also have examples such as the woodland carbon guarantee and commitments to biodiversity net gain, with the Treasury commissioning the Dasgupta report. A raft of measures demonstrate this. However, we need to ensure the Treasury Minister’s ability to alter the UK’s fiscal position is not undermined, since taxation raises the revenue that allows us to deliver essential public services, such as the NHS, police and schools.
Although I recognise the purpose of the amendment, it is beneficial for the country that the Treasury can make economic and financial decisions with regard to a wide range of considerations, which will, of course, include the environment and climate. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw this amendment.
Dr Whitehead
As I always am, I will be polite. The Minister, with great aplomb, read out words from a piece of paper that was placed in front of her to explain what the clause means, but she must realise, as we all do, that that is total nonsense. It makes no sense at all.
Let us look at actions in various other areas of Government. The imperatives on net zero and climate change that we just passed through the House effectively apply to decision making in all Departments. Departments are not supposed to make decisions about their activities and spending without reference to those imperatives. Yet what we have on this piece of paper—I am sure it was assiduously drafted by someone seeking to defend this particular exemption—appears to drive a coach and horses through that consideration, let alone other considerations. Apparently, in taking its decisions on larger matters, the Treasury does not have to be bound by considerations on environmental protection.
I think that is a shock to all of us, because it means that the Bill is completely useless. The Treasury considers a large number of things in its policies, covering every area of practical Government activity, one way or another. If the situation is as the Minister has described, where do environmental protections stand? With any environmental protection, if it is part of the consideration of Treasury policy development, there is a door for the Treasury to run out of. As I understand it, that is what it says on the piece of paper.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
Just for clarification, is the hon. Gentleman effectively saying that the Bill should provide the Treasury with an opportunity to give a blank cheque for whatever the Office for Environmental Protection requires?
Dr Whitehead
The phrase “due regard” comes in here, importantly. The truth is that clause 18 is a blank cheque in the opposite direction—a blank cheque for Ministers to invoke if they decide under certain circumstances not to be bound by environmental protection, as the Bill appears to suggest that we all should be. That is unconscionable; it should not be in the Bill.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
Could the hon. Gentleman clarify what would happen in the situation that we have faced this year, in which the Treasury has had to make very fast decisions and give billions to businesses because of covid? Some of those businesses might not be of an environmental nature—in fact, some might be what we would regard as non-environmental or actually detrimental to the environment —but because of the social impact of that money, the Treasury has had to do it. It is my understanding that if the law were as the hon. Gentleman would like it, the Treasury would not have had that leeway. Could he clarify that?
Dr Whitehead
The Treasury would have had that leeway, because of the phrase “have due regard”. There are clearly circumstances in which emergencies or other issues mean that Ministers may at particular stages have to draw away from their environmental or climate change imperatives and responsibilities. However, the important thing about having due regard is that if they do so, they have to explain why and under what circumstances they are taking the decision. Clause 18 will do exactly the opposite: Ministers will not have to explain anything—they can just not do anything that they do not feel like doing. I hope that Conservative Members will join us in saying that that is not good enough and is not what the Bill should be doing.
There could be another formulation. The hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth has pointed the way; with the right formulation, we could encompass the sort of circumstances she mentions. Of course we would be happy to support that, because there are indeed considerations that need to be undertaken at certain stages of emergency and difficulty, and which may cause some difficulty with the imperatives. That is what due regard protects us from, to a considerable extent. However, the principle that someone who does something other than what we think the imperative should point towards should justify what they are doing and be accountable for it is a very important part of our processes, and that is not the case here.
Rebecca Pow
I just want to clarify a few points. As I am sure the shadow Minister knows, HMT takes environmental impact extremely seriously already; in fact, it is referred to in the Green Book, which guides policy making, that it has to be taken into account including consideration of natural capital. The environmental principles will be referred to in the Green Book, so we already have very strong measures that HMT is obviously being guided by.
Dr Whitehead
Forgive me, but I think the Minister has elided “is” and “ought”. Yes, the Treasury may do those things and put them in the Green Book, but under clause 18 it does not have to, just as the Ministry of Defence is doing things that we might say are laudable—we heard about curlews coexisting alongside tanks—but it does not have to, and if for any reason it did not do them, it would not have to say anything about it. It is entirely lucky that the Treasury and the Ministry of Defence are doing what they are doing, but that need not be the case. The Minister illustrated in what she read out a little while ago that that is not the case. They do not have to do those things under the Bill. In defence of the fact that they do not have do them, she has highlighted examples of where, despite that and because of their good nature and good will, they are doing them anyway. I would expect that to happen, but it does not mean that in legislation we should allow good luck to rule the things that we think are imperative as far as environmental protection is concerned.
Daniel Zeichner
This is a fascinating discussion. As the debate has unfolded, I have found myself looking at the clause and thinking, “What would have been in anyone’s mind when drafting that extra line?”. What do they think needs to be excluded, and for what purpose? If the clause existed without that line in the first place, then unless people are seeking something rather extraordinary, I would not have thought they would try to open a huge opportunity to drive a coach and horses through an environmental protection Bill. What was the thinking, I wonder?
Dr Whitehead
Indeed; my hon. Friend shines a light on it. If one were of a suspicious character, one might say, “Why is this line here anyway?”. As the Minister said, the Treasury and the MOD do quite a lot of work in this respect. One might say, “Good. They do quite a lot of work in this respect, and that needs to be encouraged, so let’s have a pretty strong starting point to bolster the work that they do already, and let’s have some limited exceptions, driven by absolute necessity, with accountability over what they consist of and how they are undertaken.” Instead, we have drafting that does the opposite. If hon. Members were suspicious, they might question why that drafting is in there, and not another form of drafting that is much closer to what we all want to see: environmental protections being respected as far as possible.
Frankly, the Minister has given us no explanation of why it is there. She has given us a very able and clear exposition of who does what through their good nature. I applaud her for that, because it is part of her Department’s remit to make sure other Departments do that. However, her Department’s remit would be strengthened if the clause was strengthened or if it was not there at all. On that basis, I am afraid that we will seek to divide the Committee on this amendment.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 195, in clause 20, page 12, line 16, at end insert—
“(1A) The Secretary of State must—
(a) consult on the criteria and thresholds to be applied in determining significance for the purposes of subsection (1), and
(b) publish guidance on those matters reflecting the results of the consultation.”
This amendment would require the Government to consult on what counts as “significant” for the purposes of this Clause.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 196, in clause 20, page 12, line 19, at end insert—
“(2A) The report must include—
(a) the results of an independent assessment of developments in international environmental protection legislation, and
(b) the Government’s proposed response to those developments.”
This amendment would require the report to include an independent assessment and the Government’s response to it.
Amendment 197, in clause 20, page 12, line 32, at end insert—
“(7) The Secretary of State must make an oral statement to Parliament about the report as soon as reasonably practicable following the laying of the report.”
This amendment would require an oral statement to accompany the written report.
Dr Whitehead
I am afraid that we come to another discussion about the definition of a word in the Bill, which I know will cause some Members to groan. Nevertheless, as we saw in the last discussion, just a couple of words, or three, can have enormous significance in terms of a Bill’s wider consequences, so it is important that we look at them, what they mean, and their place in the Bill.
Amendment 195 seeks to define what is meant by “significant” where the clause states:
“The Secretary of State must report on developments in international environmental protection legislation which appear to the Secretary of State to be significant.”
The clause therefore provides for reports on what is happening around the world in terms of environmental protection legislation. What are the good and bad points, what can we learn from, and what things can we co-operate on? The clause kindly defines international environmental protection legislation as
“legislation of countries and territories outside the United Kingdom, and international organisations, that is mainly concerned with environmental protection.”
The clause also states:
“The Secretary of State must report under this section in relation to each reporting period.”
It then states what those reporting periods are to be. International environmental protection legislation is therefore defined, but the Secretary of State apparently has a completely free hand to decide which of those developments are significant, without any accompanying definition in the legislation of what that word means.
One might say that that is quite significant, because clearly there can be an enormous range of judgments on what, subjectively, a particular Secretary of State might think are significant international developments. For one Secretary of State, it might be that a particular state has adopted legislation similar to our own in their Parliament. Another might think it significant that another jurisdiction has decided that its army should be exempt from land holdings coming under its own environmental legislation, and that such an omission has produced riots and street clashes in that country as a result of the population deciding that it was a bad idea. A range of things might be regarded as significant or not.
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
This point is fundamental. As drafted, the Bill has it as a subjective judgment by the Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman’s amendment seeks to make it objective. In our system—this goes to the heart of the amendment, and many others—the Secretary of State and Ministers representing the Department are responsible to Parliament for their actions and whether any judgment they make is correct. The Bill deliberately leaves it in the hands of the Secretary of State to make that subjective judgment, and if the House disagrees at the time the debate will happen at the time.
Dr Whitehead
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, but that is not quite right, really. The Secretary of State must report on developments and on international environmental protection legislation that appears to him or her to be significant, and after he or she has taken a judgment, he or she produces a report that must be laid before Parliament. What comes before Parliament is not what is before the Secretary of State. It is not a gazetteer of international environmental protection action. It is a report after the Secretary of State has decided what is significant and what is not significant. Those things that the Secretary of State defines as not significant are left out of the report.
Parliament could conceivably say, “Aha! We have done a great deal of separate assiduous research and we have decided that the Secretary of State has left this and this and this out—why has the Secretary of State left these things out?”, but that requires a separate series of actions from Parliament that are outwith the report, not about the report itself. The amendment seeks to define what the Secretary of State should reasonably put into a report for Parliament to look at. We have also tabled an amendment on what should be done in addition to the report being published, which we will come to in a moment.
The central point of the amendment is that the Secretary of State should
“consult on the criteria and thresholds to be applied in determining significance”
and then
“publish guidance on those matters”.
That still gives the Secretary of State some leeway in determining what is in the report, but it means that there is a body of guidance by which the Secretary of State should be guided in terms of what he or she puts in the report for the subsequent perusal of Parliament. At present, because there is no definition of “significant” in the Bill, that guidance is completely lacking.
I hope that now I have given that explanation, the hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden can support the amendment, as I think what he seeks to ensure is that Parliament gets a report and the chance to discuss what the Secretary of State has done. I would suggest that a much better way of doing that is by agreeing to the amendment, rather than the word standing unexplained, as it does at the moment.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Member for the amendment. I recognise the intention behind requiring further guidance on what counts as “significant”. However, this is a horizon-scanning provision. As such, it would be counterproductive for the Government to try to anticipate in advance the kinds of significant developments that might be identified.
There is no single overarching metric for the environment. Many of us touched on the complex landscape that is the environment earlier today. Creating an objective test is impossible. It is important that there is flexibility to take account of the full range of developments in the period, in order to produce a report that is useful in informing domestic legislation. The amendment would reduce the flexibility, potentially limiting the scope and use of the report.
The review will cover other countries’ legislation that aims to protect, maintain, restore or enhance the natural environment or that involves the monitoring, assessing, considering or reporting of anything in relation to the above that is significant. What is significant will depend on the period being assessed. Something significant today might not be significant next year and different things might be significant next year.
On the proposals for an independent assessment and an oral statement, I assure the hon. Member that there are already effective measures in place to allow Parliament to scrutinise the report. That point was ably raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden. When the report is laid before Parliament, Members can highlight any areas where they believe the Government have missed important developments. It is obviously really important that they do this, and it will ensure independent scrutiny. It is crucial that this is carried out and that we look at what is going on internationally. If we want to call ourselves global leaders, we have to be aware of what is being done elsewhere. If there are good examples, we need to copy them.
Daniel Zeichner
As I listen to the Minister, I think there is so much subjectivity involved in this. Just thinking back through the glorious array of Secretaries of State who we have had in the Conservative Government over the past decade—
Daniel Zeichner
There has been a glorious range of opinions, including those of one or two notorious climate change deniers, so there would have been a completely different view on things that were happening internationally, depending on which part of the spectrum of opinion was held by the office holder at the time. Clearly, there can be a change of Governments in the future when this legislation is in place. Surely having an objective set of criteria for how this is done is far better than just having a subjective view, with it depending on whether something is deemed to be significant by the office holder and Government at the time.
Rebecca Pow
I think the hon. Gentleman has stepped right into my trap, because that is why it is really important that the report goes before both Houses so that they can both comment. The whole purpose of it is that it will be well scrutinised, so that the right measures are introduced. There will be many measures, and we will not want all of them to be introduced, so we need to choose the very best ones. The whole idea of the Secretary of State’s report is that it will be open and transparent—I honestly hope that I have made that clear.
The clause is about ensuring that the Government take active steps to identify significant improvements and are accountable to Parliament for the actions that they will take in response. It is therefore right that the Government take full responsibility for producing the report. I do not think that requiring the Secretary of State to outsource the responsibility is the right approach. Additionally, independent consideration can already be provided by the Office for Environmental Protection—for example, clause 27 provides Ministers with the power to require the OEP to advise on any other matters relating to the natural environment, which could include developments in international environmental protection legislation that it sees as important, positive or progressive, so we have that extra layer there as well.
I hope that I have given some clarity, and I ask hon. Members not to press amendments 195 to 197.
The Chair
Amendments 195 to 197 are grouped together. We have debated them, but we will not be deciding on amendments 196 and 197.
The Chair
They are one group: amendments 195, 196 and 197. That is the group we are currently discussing.
The Chair
Well, it is too late. I asked you to discuss it in the first place, and you did not. You can now wind up on the group of amendments.
Dr Whitehead
Thank you, Chair. Following your advice, I will wind up on this group of amendments. In so doing, it is conceivable that I might refer to some of the amendments during the course of my discussion.
Dr Whitehead
We have the Minister’s explanation of how the word “significant” is to be defined: it is not to be defined, effectively. We also have what I would kindly say is a descriptive, rather than an objective, passage about what Secretaries of State do about significance. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge is really important, and it underlines what I said previously. We do not impugn the motives or the commitment of either the present Secretary of State or the present Minister in this respect. I am sure they will do everything they can to ensure that such reports are open and transparent, are put before the House and are properly discussed and that they include everything that most people would consider significant, as far as international environmental protection events are concerned.
However, that is not the point. The point is that different people could occupy those offices. They might have significantly different views and might produce virtually nothing for the House regarding environmental protection events. There would be nothing in the Bill to stop them doing that, except, possibly, if we were to pass amendment 197. That amendment would add to this part of the Bill by saying:
“The Secretary of State must make an oral statement to Parliament about the report as soon as reasonably practicable following the laying of the report.”
As the hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden envisaged, the Secretary of State would have to come before the House and make an oral statement, on which he or she could be questioned. There would therefore be a clear line of transparency at that time as far as whatever the Secretary of State decided to do concerning the report. If the Minister went as far as to accept amendment 197, that would make a difference concerning this test of significance. As matters stand, we feel that the protections are woefully inadequate in terms of the way in which the report must be compiled and presented. Therefore, we seek to divide the Committee.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 95, in clause 20, page 12, line 32, at end insert—
“(7) The Secretary of State must—
(a) keep under consideration whether there are any steps which they could take which would or might secure better or further effect full compliance with the Aarhus Convention, and
(b) if they consider it appropriate to do so, take any of the steps identified by that consideration.
(8) A report under this section must set out what steps have been taken during the reporting period to secure better or further effect full compliance with the Aarhus Convention and what steps the Secretary of State intends to take during the next reporting period to that effect.”
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to consider what steps may be taken to improve compliance with the UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters and, if they consider it appropriate to do so, to take those steps.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 97, in clause 22, page 13, line 8, at end insert—
“(c) respect, protect and fulfil the rights contained in the UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters.”
This amendment requires the OEP to oversee implementation of the UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters.
Dr Whitehead
The explanatory statement for this particular amendment relates to the question of securing better or further effecting full compliance with the Aarhus convention, which is a wide-ranging convention relating to environmental protection and activities.
The amendment suggests that the Secretary of State should keep under consideration how the UK Government might secure better or further effect full compliance with the Aarhus convention. We are signatories to it, so one would have thought that we should try to fully comply with it, in general terms. The amendment is really asking the Secretary of State to do something that we ought to do anyway. If the Secretary of State considers it appropriate, the amendment also suggests that they take the steps identified in that consideration and produce a report setting out what steps are being taken to secure full compliance and what steps they intend to take over the next reporting period.
The Aarhus convention is important, but it has been, in some people’s eyes, somewhat overtaken by other events. Nevertheless, it remains important in international environmental considerations, and it important that it should be put into the Bill as one of the Secretary of State’s considerations to undertake.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Gentleman for drawing the Committee’s attention to the Aarhus convention, which is of course an international agreement. I do not deny its importance, so he and I agree on that.
The UK ratified the convention in 2005, and we remain a party to it in our own right. Our exit from the EU does not change our commitment to respect, protect and fulfil the rights contained in this important international agreement. Implementation of the Aarhus convention is overseen by the Aarhus convention compliance committee, and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs co-ordinates the UK’s ongoing engagement with the committee on our implementation and on findings pertaining to the UK on specific issues. The committee has welcomed the willingness of the United Kingdom to discuss compliance issues in a constructive manner.
Clause 20 requires the Government to review significant developments in international environmental protection legislation, as we discussed. The findings of that review will then be used to inform Government policy on environmental protections, enabling the UK to stay at the forefront of international best practice on environmental protection. The amendment would require that report to include material about existing obligations under the Aarhus convention, not new, innovative developments in environmental protection legislation. That would dilute the purpose of the clause. We independently meet our convention obligations, and there is no need to amend clause 20 to ensure that we continue to do so.
Amendment 97 is unnecessary, as the provisions of the Aarhus convention already fall within the remit of the OEP, where they have been given effect in UK law and meet the definition of environmental law. The OEP will improve access to justice: it will receive complaints free of charge to complainants and will have powers to investigate and enforce compliance with environmental law by public authorities. The OEP will be legally required to keep complainants informed about the handling of their complaints, and it will also have to produce public statements when it takes enforcement action, unless it would not be in the public interest to do so. In addition, public authorities that have been subject to legal proceedings by the OEP will be required to publish a statement setting out the steps they intend to take in the light of the outcome of the proceedings.
Given that we are already engaged with the convention committee on our obligations, the amendments are unnecessary. I ask the hon. Gentlemen not to press them.
Dr Whitehead
I appreciate that the Minister has already replied, but I wonder whether she could—
Dr Whitehead
Has the Minister thought about the extent to which the Aarhus convention is fully implemented in the UK, either via retained EU law or the existing domestic system? In terms of her response to this debate, was she saying that it is the case that the Aarhus convention is now fully implemented in UK law?
Rebecca Pow
I know I am not able to speak again, but perhaps the shadow Minister will allow me to intervene on him—I think I will have to put this in the form of a question, which makes it quite tricky, Mr Gray. Does the shadow Minister agree that the UK’s commitment to the Aarhus convention is unaffected by EU exit, because the UK is a party to the convention in its own right?
Dr Whitehead
That is true, but nevertheless there is the question of the extent to which that commitment itself is a freestanding commitment or additional, via EU retained law. I think the Minister will agree that there is EU retained law in respect of the Aarhus convention. While it is true that we are an individual signatory to it, we were also effectively a joint signatory to it through the EU joint law arrangement. Therefore, we were actually twofold signatories, as far as the Aarhus convention is concerned. Does the fact that we are now a onefold signatory to the Aarhus convention fully replace what it was that we were originally as a twofold signatory to the Aarhus convention? I think the Minister was saying yes, but I am not absolutely certain that that is the case.
Richard Graham
I am slightly confused that the shadow Minister appears to be suggesting that if we are a signatory to any convention in our own right, we are somehow a stronger signatory if we are also a signatory as part of the EU, which we have already left. Are we not straying into areas of semantics way beyond the Environment Bill today?
Dr Whitehead
I can understand the hon. Member indicating that this may be semantics, and indeed, it may be. I was attempting to elucidate the question of whether our being an original signatory to the Aarhus convention—when the convention took place—is identical to what has happened in terms of our being a joint signatory to the Aarhus convention, which took place through our EU membership. There are instances where something that the UK originally signed up for was signed up for jointly through the EU at a different stage. A lot of the conventions on atomic materials transfers and various similar things, which have gone through Euratom or the International Atomic Energy Agency are subject to that sort of progression, where what we signed with the IAEA and what the European Community signed up to subsequently, are a progression in terms of those original signatories. They therefore mean slightly different things, even though it appears that there are two signatories.
It may be the case that the hon. Member is right, and I am seeking to get the Minister to elucidate whether, indeed, the hon. Member is absolutely right. Is the fact that we are a signatory to the Aarhus convention exactly the same as what was the case when we were previously—in addition—a joint signatory with the European Union? Are there any particular matters relating to that signatory which should be converted into UK law to ensure that we are actually in the right place, as far as that signatory issue is concerned? The Minister may well stand up and say yes, that is the case—in which case, I will be a very happy Member of Parliament.
The Chair
That question must hang in the air, because the Minister has already spoken. Does the hon. Gentleman wish to withdraw the amendment?
Dr Whitehead
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1
The Office for Environmental Protection
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 179, page 121, line 16, at end insert
“with the consent of the Environmental Audit and Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committees of the House of Commons”.
The amendment would require the appointment of the Chair and other non-executive members of the Office for Environmental Protection to be made with the consent of the relevant select committees.
We have now moved from chapter 1 of the Bill, which is about environmental governance and improving the natural environment, to the very important topic of the Office for Environmental Protection, which I think will detain the Committee for a little while, as we will discuss not only its formation and operation, but the amendments that the Government made while the Bill was not before us, changing what the Opposition think are substantial elements of the OEP’s operation.
Clause 21 states:
“A body corporate called the Office for Environmental Protection is established.”
So before anybody worries too much about where we have got to, that is all we have done so far. We have just established the Office for Environmental Protection. As with all good Bills, however, the meaning is often contained at the end, in the schedules. That is the next bit we are dealing with this afternoon—the schedule that sets up what the Office for Environmental Protection is about. I assume that we will get stuck into the substance of the Office for Environmental Protection’s objectives, independence and general function in our next sitting, but this afternoon we are concentrating on some details about the OEP’s membership, non-executive directors, interim chief executive and so on. Some people may say that those are not particularly central or important to the OEP, but they nevertheless have quite considerable repercussions in terms of its independence or otherwise.
Amendment 179 looks at the first appointment of the chair and non-executive members, and at how they are appointed and with what agreement. I am sure hon. Members will agree that, in addition to what the Office for Environmental Protection does, a key part of its independence lies in who its chair is, who the non-executive directors are, how they act in their role and the extent to which they ensure and guarantee that the office carries out an independent function in terms of that protection role. Paragraph 1(1) of schedule 1 defines what the OEP consists of: a chair, at least two but not more than five other non-executive members, a chief executive, and
“at least one, but not more than three, executive members.”
Paragraph 1(2) states:
“The members are to be appointed by the Secretary of State”.
Under paragraph 2, the non-executive members are also to be appointed by the Secretary of State, but
“The Secretary of State must consult the Chair before appointing any other non-executive member.”
The key is that a lot of the appointments effectively flow from the appointment of the chair. The Secretary of State must consult the chair on how other members are appointed having appointed the chair in the first place. The question then is whether it is right that the chair of the OEP is appointed simply because the Secretary of State decides that he or she should be appointed and has an untrammelled ability to do that. We think that that could create a cascading lack of independence in the whole OEP, depending on how the process is carried out. If it is carried out without any scrutiny or accountability, it is quite possible that the Secretary of State could appoint someone whom he/she particularly favours or thinks will give him or her an easy time with the appointment of other members of the office, and shape the office to be entirely subservient to what the Secretary of State wants to do.
Daniel Zeichner
My hon. Friend is making an important point. A theme runs through the debates today: an extraordinary concentration of power in the hands of the Secretary of State. In the discussion on the Aarhus convention, we saw the move away from supranational bodies. It is a basic principle that if power is spread, there is far more chance of it being exercised properly, particularly with something as important as environmental protection. Does he agree that this is just the latest example of a theme that has developed all the way through?
Dr Whitehead
That is indeed a concern. We have raised, and will repeatedly raise, the difference between the Bill’s aspirations and many of the practicalities. The difference between the Bill’s lofty aspirations and its often severely lacking practicalities is apparent throughout its construction. This is one instance where that is the case. The chair of the OEP is, in the first instance, to be a non-executive member of the office. I would be interested to hear whether the Minister shares my understanding, but it looks to be the case that the chair will be appointed from among the non-executive members whom the Secretary of State has appointed in the first place. The key at that point is who the non-executive members are and how they are appointed. In this instance, they appointed just by the Secretary of State. We suggest a procedure that grounds those appointments within parliamentary procedures.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
Does the hon. Member recognise that the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and the Environmental Audit Committee have the opportunity in the appointment process to scrutinise the Secretary of State’s preferred candidate?
Dr Whitehead
The hon. Member has put his finger exactly on the problem, because according to this piece of legislation, in practice, they do not. There is no requirement to do that in the Bill. The amendment is designed to do exactly what he suggests should be done, which is that the appointment should take place with the scrutiny and consent of the Environmental Audit Committee and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.
Rebecca Pow
I will keep my comments to what the amendment refers to, which is the involvement of the Environmental Audit Committee and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that Parliament should have a role in the process of making significant public appointments. To scrutinise key appointments made by Ministers is a proper role for Parliament. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and the Environmental Audit Committee—I am proud to have been a member of both, and many hon. Members here are members of those Committees—will jointly carry out a pre-appointment hearing with the Secretary of State’s preferred candidate for the OEP chair.
As the shadow Minister knows, there has already been a lot of discussion about this. This is a commitment. The Secretary of State will duly consider any recommendation made by the Committees.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
The Minister says that the preferred candidate can be scrutinised. Is that not a bit of a Hobson’s choice?
Rebecca Pow
This is an open and fair process, and other appointments are duly scrutinised in that way. The considerations and views of both Committees will be taken extremely seriously because the work they do is very pertinent to the work in this sphere of Government. The OEP chair is then consulted by the Secretary of State on the appointments of the non-executive members. We do not believe it necessary or desirable for Parliament to scrutinise all those individual appointments in the way that has been suggested.
Ministers are accountable and responsible to Parliament for public appointments, and they should therefore retain the ability to make the final determinations. Ultimately, Ministers are accountable to Parliament and the public for the overall performance of the public body and of public money. The OEP will be added to the schedule of the Public Appointments Order in Council and so will be independently regulated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. The Secretary of State will be required to act in accordance with the governance code, including with the principles of public appointments, which would ensure that members are appointed through a fair and open process.
The chair of the OEP will be classed as a significant appointment, requiring a senior independent panel member, approved by the commissioner, to sit on the advisory assessment panel, which can report back to the commissioner on any breaches of process. We have also introduced, in paragraph 17, a duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the need to the need to protect the OEP’s independence in exercising functions in respect of the OEP, including on public appointments.
Those arrangements, and the requirements in the Bill, provide the appropriate balance between parliamentary oversight and ministerial accountability, while ensuring that appointments to the OEP are made fairly and on merit. I therefore request that the hon. Member for Southampton, Test withdraw his amendment.
The Chair
Order. The Minister sat down before you asked, Mr Graham, but I dare say you may intervene on the shadow Minister. I call Dr Alan Whitehead.
Dr Whitehead
The Minister has yet again provided us with a description of things that happen, as opposed to what ought to happen as far as this House is concerned. On the second category of events, she appears to be saying that Select Committees may well take it upon themselves to interview and discuss candidates for posts—with the agreement of that candidate—and report back their thoughts, and that Ministers may then decide that they like or do not like what the Select Committee has said, but are pleased, in any event, that the Select Committee did that piece of work.
I do not think the Minister can show me anything in the Bill that requires that process to be cemented, so that the Secretary of State could not go ahead with an appointment without Select Committees having done that work. Let us say, for example, that the Select Committees decided that they did not want to do the work or were too busy with other matters, and the Secretary of State appointed the chair and the non-executive members of the board, there would be nothing that anyone could do about it, because nothing in the legislation says that that scrutiny has to happen. The Minister should be able to confirm that there is nothing in the legislation for that.
Richard Graham
I think I understand the position of the Opposition, which is to undermine slightly the independence of the new Office for Environmental Protection before it has even got under way by suggesting that the appointments process for the chair will somehow be rigged, with some crony of the Minister or the Secretary of State comfortably slotted into position. Shock, horror! That never happened under the Government of which he was a member.
In fact, what has taken place is rather remarkable. It is much closer to an American appointments hearing than almost anything that has ever happened in relation to senior appointments to new independent offices. The idea that two—not just one but two—Select Committees would be so disinterested in their unusual and new power to scrutinise and hold to account someone who is being put forward as the first chairman of a new independent body and would completely overlook their responsibilities is surely bizarre. The hon. Member is a reasonable man. Can he not agree that this is a very good process?
Dr Whitehead
A very good one, if I may say, but nevertheless a speech. You are right, Mr Gray.
The point the hon. Gentleman was making is that a process of scrutiny will, in this instance, be undertaken by the Select Committees in question. However, we need to look at the circumstances whereby that scrutiny comes about. The Committee and, indeed, members of the Select Committee, may say “Actually, this particular piece of formulation in the schedule relates to the appointment of the initial chair of the Office for Environmental Protection” but I think it probably applies to the appointment of chairs as they go forward.
Rebecca Pow
I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Select Committees pressed for that scrutiny and they have welcomed the fact that they will be able to scrutinise the potential chair. They did some prelegislative scrutiny of the Bill; that was one of their recommendations and we accepted it. It has gone down extremely well. I want to back up the comments from my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester in terms of what is being put in place. I am sure the shadow Minister, when he fully understands the process, will agree with me that the purpose is that non-exec members in particular are appointed on a fair and open basis, regulated through our public appointments process.
Dr Whitehead
I am not suggesting that anything is other than that, and I am not suggesting that the Select Committees are anything other than pleased with what they have undertaken to do and the welcome their work has received from the Government. However, the Minister, in a sense, answered her own question by stating that the Select Committees pushed for that. That is what Select Committees do, and they have the power to summon all sorts of people. In this instance, as far as I understand—I may not have fully understood the process—the Select Committees in their power as Select Committees in general pushed for the hearing and Ministers thought that was a good idea and they went ahead with it. To that extent, yes, things have gone well, but it is still not in the Bill that that should ever happen. It is entirely down to the Select Committees. We should not do it that way round.
Rebecca Pow
Does the hon. Gentleman not agree with me that the very fact that that has happened demonstrates that Select Committees are taken seriously? As such, the measure in the Bill is sensible, serious and fair.
Dr Whitehead
As it happens, yes. However, again, we are in “as it happens” territory, which we seem to be in rather a lot this afternoon. As it happens, yes, that appears to be working quite well. I do not know, should there be a future reconstitution of the Office for Environmental Protection or future appointments of non-exec members and the chair, whether that procedure would necessarily be replicated. It might be; it might not. We are lucky we have Select Committees that are as strong as they are.
Cherilyn Mackrory
As a new Member, I am just understanding the mechanisms here. From what I am hearing, the process that has just taken place to ensure that we are where we are is due to good parliamentary mechanisms. It seems that the hon. Member is asking Ministers to put more parliamentary mechanisms in the Bill when those checks and balances are already in place and work very well.
Dr Whitehead
The hon. Member is quite right to draw attention to good parliamentary mechanisms. I do not want us to be diverted into a long discussion about the Executive and the unwritten UK constitution, but Parliament is not putting a provision on the Executive by passing this Bill—that does not exist. Instead, Parliament has used parliamentary procedures outside of that to have an effect on the Executive, and the Executive have agreed for that effect to be placed upon them. That is a good thing—I do not in any way want to undermine that. As the hon. Member says, that has worked well.
Cherilyn Mackrory
The hon. Gentleman is illustrating the point perfectly. Secretaries of State come and go at the mercy of the electorate, whereas the parliamentary checks and balances are always here. That is what should govern the procedure.
Dr Whitehead
Yes, indeed—Secretaries of State come and go, just as Presidents of the USA come and go. Nevertheless, while they are there, Presidents can appoint justices of the Supreme Court who are always there. Although the member of the Executive has gone, the effect of their actions remains—in this example, with the judiciary branch in the US. In principle, that is what could happen as far as this construction is concerned in the Bill. A Secretary of State who comes and goes could appoint, without involving the parliamentary process, somebody who will outlast the Secretary of State in that position.
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I am a member of the Treasury Committee. We do a lot of selection hearings and most of them are agreed through parliamentary processes. We find we end up doing an awful lot of selection hearings, and we have spent a huge amount of time doing them, on the board of the Bank of England, the Prudential Regulation Authority, the Financial Policy Committee and so on. We end up having discussions about whether we want to do all these hearings. Do we do them in this way or that way? Do we do reappointment hearings? We retain flexibility around that, because it is done through the parliamentary procedure.
It seems to me that the danger of setting down in legislation that all non-executive members should be appointed on the consent of the two Committees is that we bind their hands into the future. They may decide that they want to do it in some other way. We retain more flexibility for the Committees if they do it through parliamentary means.
Dr Whitehead
Well, yes is the answer. We are trying to bind those Committees to some extent to do the right thing, as far as those appointments are concerned. The hon. Gentleman who has experience on the Treasury Committee and other hon. Members who have experience on Committees will know that Committees take their responsibilities seriously. I have been party to that sort of discussion in Select Committees that I have served on in the past. They take their responsibilities very seriously. They take the issue seriously. They do it very carefully and make sure that the result of their deliberations is as good as it can be. That is something that I am absolutely fine with; I do not wish to fetter that in any way.
However, the hon. Gentleman and other Members also know that that has not always been the case with Select Committees. Indeed, in my time in Parliament, is has largely not been the case. The process of deciding upon the appointment of members of various organisations via a Select Committee hearing is a relatively recent innovation. That came about not as a result of legislation but as a result of Select Committees pushing their own authority within the parliamentary system.
In one sense, that is perfectly acceptable, but I am seeking to draw a distinction between that process, which has by and large resulted in a good outcome as far as these appointments are concerned, and the fact that it says in a piece of legislation, “That is what is supposed to be done.” There are other pieces of legislation in existence that specify what is supposed to be done, but this piece of legislation does not. I wonder to myself why those pieces of legislation specify those things whereas this piece of legislation does not.
It would not be difficult—on the contrary, it would be very straightforward—to specify in this piece of legislation what is to be done, while agreeing that that is largely what happens in practice in this Parliament. That is a good thing, and it is a sign of our changing unwritten constitution—I emphasise the word “unwritten”. That is why, in a piece of legislation, it is probably necessary to write down what our intentions are and how they are to be carried out in practice by the House in its interpretation of the unwritten constitution of this country.
Daniel Zeichner
I had the privilege of serving on the Transport Committee for a couple of years. Like the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire—my near neighbour—I went to a number of hearings and found them very useful. It strikes me that there is a range of levels of significance. This appointment is hugely significant. It takes back from a supranational body, the European Union, responsibility for one of the most important oversights. We all agree that it would be good to go through this process, so I do not understand why the Government do not want to codify in law what will in fact happen. I do not quite see what they are frightened of. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Dr Whitehead
Yes, indeed, Mr Gray. I agree with my hon. Friend. It would be a good idea for the Government to put this in the Bill, notwithstanding the fact that, in practice, the creaking oak of the British constitution does things in sometimes surprising ways in order to develop itself. It is always useful to have something on the face of a piece of legislation to fix how the unwritten constitution works in respect of a particular function of Government. There is nothing to lose and everything to gain from putting this in the legislation.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 15, in schedule 1, page 122, line 5, leave out “may” and insert “must”.”
The amendment asks for “may” to be left out and “must” to be inserted. As I recall, we have had previous discussions about that in this Committee, so I do not think I need to add anything further.
Dr Whitehead
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 154, in schedule 1, page 122, line 11, leave out sub-paragraph (3).
This amendment prevents the Government from giving directions to the interim chief executive of the OEP.
The amendment concerns the directions that the Secretary of State may give an interim chief executive of the Office for Environmental Protection. As hon. Members will see, paragraph 4(3) of schedule 1 refers to an interim chief executive
“exercising the power in sub-paragraph (2)”,
which states:
“Where the OEP has fewer members than are needed to hold a meeting that is quorate…an interim chief executive may incur expenditure and do other things in the name and on behalf of the OEP.”
The key point is that the interim chief executive may do “other things” in the name of and on behalf of the OEP, even though the OEP does not have sufficient members to be quorate and take a decision.
What appears to be envisaged is that in those circumstances,
“an interim chief executive must act in accordance with any directions given by the Secretary of State.”
Quite simply, if an interim chief executive is in post without those other members of the OEP being appointed—depending on the speed with which that is done, it could be quite a while—the independence of the OEP will not be compromised just a little bit; it will be compromised completely, in that the interim chief executive is completely the creature of the Secretary of State.
The Chair
Order. I think the hon. Gentleman is addressing himself to the wrong amendment, because this amendment requires that sub-paragraph (3) be deleted from paragraph 4. You are referring to sub-paragraph (2), I think.
Dr Whitehead
Mr Gray, if I gave that impression then I am sorry, but I thought I was speaking to sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 4, which is that the chief executive
“must act in accordance with any directions given by the Secretary of State.”
As far as I can tell, amendment 154 leaves out sub-paragraph (3), which is the sub-paragraph to which I was referring.
That is, in essence, the case that we want to make this afternoon. As hon. Members have already asked, why is this particular provision in place? What is the problem here? If this is an interim chief executive of a body that is going to be independent, why the lack of independence when the OEP is still forming itself? Is it because the Secretary of State thinks that the interim chief executive might go rogue and do all sorts of odd things in the absence of other non-executive directors to hold them in place? In that case, the appointment process for the interim chief executive must be pretty lacking. Is it that the Secretary of State might be tempted to mould the OEP and its operations before it is fully functional as an independent office and can therefore, as it were, hit back?
I would not like to think that either of those are correct interpretations of this sub-paragraph, but as it is written, that is what it appears to say: that the interim chief executive does as the Secretary of State says. That seems to fly in the face of everything I have understood about the OEP and how it is supposed to work, how it is supposed to be set up and how it is supposed to start operating. As the amendment states, we would therefore like to see the sub-paragraph excised from this Bill, so that the interim chief executive has the beginnings of the independence in his or her actions in the OEP that we would expect the OEP to have when it is fully formed.
Anthony Browne
I have set up lots of organisations and it is completely standard to go through a process where there is a shadow or interim chief executive and an interim board. There is a critical difference between that position and a substantive chief executive, which is that they are setting up the way the whole system works—the operations, the modus operandi—and making significant decisions that will last for many years or decades. They are doing it in a position where there is not full governance around it, such as a fully established board, an established chair and everything else. It is right that there is some oversight of what an interim chief executive is doing in setting up the organisation, because the rest of the governance infrastructure will not be there yet.
Daniel Zeichner
There has not been any comment yet on the extraordinary situation we find ourselves in. We are just 55 days away from the end of the year and the new situation that we are about to embark upon, and there is nothing in place. That is part of the problem. It is a shambles, quite frankly, that we are leaving the European Union and entering a period where it is unclear how our environmental protections will work. I suggest much more will be said about that as we go through our debates.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test and the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire have said, this is a key moment in setting the path ahead for this new organisation. This provision feeds into this general sense that, far from having a much more sophisticated and wider way of approaching these issues, it all comes down to centralising power in the hands of the Secretary of State to determine the way forward. That cannot be right and I think there is genuine outrage among many who are looking at how this process is unfolding.
We have gone from helping to establish strong environmental principles as a leading player in the European Union to the extraordinary position we find ourselves in. We have no idea how long this is going to take. Is it going to be in place? Perhaps the Minister could tell us. Perhaps things are in train and we are waiting for announcements. Perhaps it will happen next week or in January, or perhaps it will not happen for months and months. In the meantime, many of our own protections are in limbo, effectively.
The schedule gives us no confidence that the Government even have a plan for where we are going with this. I hope the Minister can give us some reassurances, because many of my constituents—and, I suspect, many constituents of other Members—are really worried about these issues. At a time of climate crisis and biodiversity emergency, how can we possibly be setting an example to the rest of the world as we approach COP26 when we are in this shambolic position, with the suggestion that this so-called independent agency should effectively be run by the Secretary of State?
Rebecca Pow
There have been some fiery comments about this particular amendment, Chair.
I welcome the support of the hon. Member for Southampton, Test for our inclusion in the Bill of a mechanism to appoint an interim chief executive of the OEP. I want to give some reassurances that establishing this independent body that can hold future Governments to account is of crucial importance. That remains very much in focus when considering this power for the Secretary of State to appoint an interim chief executive.
The initial role of the interim chief executive would be to take urgent administrative decisions to ensure that the OEP is up and running as soon as possible, which I know is a key concern of Members. I want to say a little about that role and why it is necessary. Such decisions would include staff recruitment and other matters related to setting up the new body. I welcome the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire, who has a lot of experience in setting up these bodies. It is a fully practical step to help with the interim period. By way of background information for the hon. Member for Cambridge—he raised some pertinent points—we intend that the permanent chief executive will be in place no later than autumn 2021, and the proposed timeline then allows for the OEP chair to lead the appointment of that chief executive.
By way of more background, the Secretary of State has asked officials to assemble a team of staff within the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs group, to be funded from the Department’s budget, to receive and validate any complaints against the criteria for complaining to the OEP; so there will be a team in place in the interim. A lot of work has gone on behind the scenes but we had a lull because of the coronavirus, so it is nobody’s fault that this has happened. Obviously, other structures and plans are being put in place, but that is why details of an interim chief executive have had to be considered. That power will be required for the interim chief executive only in the event that a quorate board is not in place in time to make the decisions. If the board is quorate in time, it will be able to make its own arrangements. During any period when they are making administrative decisions on behalf of the OEP before the board is quorate, the interim chief executive must be capable of being held to account. That is essential good governance and oversight of public funds. That is why we are giving the Secretary of State, as the accountable Minister, the power to direct the interim chief executive during that period.
The shadow Minister was, if I may say so, making some slightly malign intimations about what he potentially thought the Secretary of State had in mind in controlling the interim chief executive. I would like to set all those thoughts and views aside—that is not the purpose; it is a practical arrangement. I would like to give more reassurance on two point. First, the Bill provides for the interim chief executive to report to the OEP’s board, not the Secretary of State, as soon as the board is quorate. Secondly, the Government will not commence the OEP’s statutory functions before the OEP is quorate. Therefore, the interim chief executive will only be able to make decisions relating to the OEP’s statutory functions when they report to a quorate board, not to the Secretary of State. Therefore, the Secretary of State will not have any power of direction over the OEP’s statutory functions. It is important to make that clear. Amendment 154 is, consequently, unnecessary and I ask the hon. Member to withdraw it.
Dr Whitehead
I wonder whether the Minister has considered at what point the interim chief executive of the OEP must be in place, bearing in mind that the actual chief executive is not to be appointed until next August. The OEP, which is essential, should be operational from 1 January—indeed, we have had assurances on that—because of the differences in environmental protection that may result from our leaving the EU, and so not having areas of EU law available for environmental protection purposes, which are supposed to be replaced by, among other things, the independence of the OEP, to ensure that those areas of law are fully upheld.
The Minister appears to be telling us that there will be something like an OEP in existence from 1 January, and that it will have something like an interim chief executive to run it—indeed, I understand that a lot of work on that has already been done—but that during that entire period the OEP will not be independent, because effectively it will be run by the Secretary of State. That may be a function of the fact that the process is dragging on in a way that we did not anticipate, and that the Minister probably did not anticipate, overlapping the period when lots of work should have been under way to get this system going, to ensure a seamless change on 1 January. Instead we will have a raggedy process that is a very, very long way from any of the aspirations that were expressed for the OEP—the way it will operate, what it will do in terms of environmental protection, and its independence of the Secretary of State.
I accept that when a new organisation is set up—as the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire said, and he has experience of these matters—there can be issues. If someone is setting up, say, a new subsidiary company, the board of the company that is setting up the new company will appoint a chief executive of that subsidiary company, and while that chief executive is getting in place it is quite reasonable for the board of the superior or parent company to expect that person to be responsible to the superior or parent company as the new company is being set up. Only if, for example, at a later date Chinese walls are inserted between the operation of the subsidiary and that of the superior or parent company does that reporting go adrift; but that is only when things are properly set up.
We are not in that situation here. We said from the word go that we would set up an independent body that would be responsible for all the environmental legislation that has come over to us from the EU, which is now bedding down in UK law, and that that responsibility needed to be exercised from day one of that transfer.
Rebecca Pow
Does the shadow Minister not agree that an unprecedented and unexpected incident has occurred? We have had the coronavirus pandemic. In the light of that, does he not agree that arrangements are well under way for setting up the OEP, and that the Government fully intend—I have given more details today—to introduce the OEP by 2021? Because of the pause in consideration of the Bill and because of the coronavirus, we cannot confirm the exact date, but we will implement—indeed, are implementing—bona fide transitional arrangements, with a secretariat that will support the OEP chair. The chair is currently being sought, through a public appointments campaign. The whole system is in process. We will have an interim chief executive and my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire understands exactly the role of that person. There is nothing malignant about it, and the Secretary of State will certainly not control him. Does the hon. Member agree that I made that quite clear in my speech just now?
Dr Whitehead
Well, I hope the Secretary of State will not be controlling him. [Interruption.] Or her. I hope the Secretary of State will scrupulously keep his or her hands out of controlling that person. I am pleased to hear assurances from the Minister that that may well be the case—in terms of the Minister’s bona fides, I would expect nothing less. That is what the Minister should be saying, because that has always been her commitment on the OEP in the past; but that does not in any way excuse the fact that it says something opposite on the face of the Bill. That is the issue that, as legislators, we need to look at.
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 155, in schedule 1, page 122, line 15, after sub-paragraph (4) insert
“;but an appointment may be made in reliance on this sub-paragraph only with the approval of the Chair.”.
This amendment requires the Chair’s approval for civil servants or other external persons as interim chief executive of the OEP.
Although it is late afternoon and I do not want to go on the record as being excessively shirty for a long period, I am afraid that discussion of the amendment is part of that shirtiness process. Paragraph 4(4) of schedule 1, which was written as part of the Bill and was not part of the suite of amendments we saw when the Bill reconvened from the Government side, suggests that rules that the chief executive may not be an employee or a civil servant do not apply to the appointment and operation of an interim chief executive.
The constraints on the appointment of an interim chief executive are not there. They could be an employee of the Department, a civil servant, or someone placed by the Secretary of State in that position, when the requirement to underpin the independence of the OEP means that should not be the case for the chief executive proper. That underlines the theme of determined non-independence of the OEP in its early stages, and the Secretary of State’s ability to mould and shape how the OEP works, before it is properly formed.
Amendment 155
“requires the Chair’s approval for civil servants or other external persons as interim chief executive of the OEP.”
Having been appointed, the real chair—not the interim chair—would have the authority to act as a guardian of the independence of the OEP. We have already been through the process of appointing the chair, so at the point at which the interim chief executive might be appointed from within the civil service or the Department, or that might be proposed, the chair of the OEP would not necessarily say that was bad or impossible, but would at least have the authority to decide whether the Secretary of State was doing the right thing. That seems to me to be the least of the requirements that should be placed on this sub-paragraph.
We have discussed the independence of the OEP as it is set up. Having got to the position of having a reasonably independent chair in place, to then not involve the chair in the appointment of the interim chief executive seems perverse. The amendment does nothing except try to ensure that the OEP is visibly independent; Members from all parties can agree to that.
Anthony Browne
I used to be the chair of the Regulatory Policy Committee, a non-departmental public body linked to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy; I appointed its entire new board. In a previous life, as I have mentioned, I was involved in setting up various other bodies, such as TheCityUK and the HomeOwners Alliance, and I have been involved tangentially in setting up independent bodies as part of the civil service.
I completely salute the support expressed by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test and the Opposition for the independence of the OEP. They are doggedly making sure that it is fully independent, and I totally support that; it will function properly only if it is fully independent. However, on the issue of the interim chief executive, I think—to follow the dogged analogy—that they are slightly barking up the wrong tree.
The whole point about the interim chief executive of any organisation is that they are setting it up. They are designing the org chart, saying “Right: this committee will do this, we need to hire these personnel to do that, these are the finances, this is the first draft budget,” and everything else—they are not actually fulfilling the substantive end function of the public body. The Opposition are worried about the timing, and I am worried about the timing too.
What normally, or very often, happens is that an organisation does not go through a recruitment process for an external interim chief executive. The chief executive is normally banned from being a civil servant, which is absolutely right, but we are talking about getting somebody to set the body up and get it going before the recruitment process for the end chief executive, the appointment of the entire board and everything else, which will take a long, long time—I think it took me about eight months to recruit a new board for the Regulatory Policy Committee.
The thing to do is get a civil servant who has experience of setting up bodies. Because of employment rules in the civil service, they can basically just be reassigned and put in place immediately. They can start setting up the organisation and doing all the stuff that needs doing, and in the meantime we can recruit the full, substantive, independent chief executive, which takes longer. When the independent chief executive is recruited, they will then have an organisation that they can work with and can retune and rejig if they want. That is a far better and more efficient way of setting up an organisation than taking the completely purist approach that the first chief executive has to be a fully independent person who is not a civil servant and will not take directions from the civil service.
Anthony Browne
I have finished, but the hon. Gentleman is welcome to succeed me.
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful; I am sure that the hon. Gentleman can unfinish briefly.
This is not just about setting up another body; it is an extraordinarily delicate issue. The complaint out there is concern about independence. Because of the substantial shift away from a supranational body, surely it is much more important to make sure that everybody sees that that the new body is independent from the outset. This is exactly the wrong way of going about giving people that confidence.
Anthony Browne
I will just make one observation, speaking as somebody who has hired various chief executives for other organisations. On the boards that I have been on, the recruitment processes for external chief executives has taken at least three months just to identify the candidate. The sort of people we are looking for are often on notice periods of three or six months, so we are really talking about a minimum of six months, maybe nine months—quite probably a year—to hire the substantive chief executive.
Do we want to sit around doing nothing, with no organisation and no one doing anything for a year or nine months, while we hire the substantive chief executive? I agree with the principle, but what is more important is getting the machinery up and running, the cog wheels going and the pieces in place, and doing the recruitment of the substantive chief executive in the meantime. When we finally appoint them, which might well be six or nine months later, they will then have a skeletal organisation to run.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Member for Southampton, Test for his interest in the interim chief executive’s role and the Secretary of State’s power to appoint them. I reiterate what I mentioned in our debate on amendment 154: that the role of the interim chief executive is to take the urgent administrative decisions required to ensure that the OEP is up and running on time. That power will be required only in the event that a quorate board is not in place soon enough to make those decisions; that is the crucial point. If the Secretary of State is required to consult the chair on the appointment, the power may not be worth exercising, because we expect the board to become quorate soon after the chair starts in post.
Amendment 155 actually has the potential to delay the appointment of the interim chief executive, which I think is what my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire was alluding to. That would actually defeat the point of appointing one. He or she might be there for just a couple of days.
Richard Graham
The only disappointing aspect of this debate has been a relatively determined approach by some Opposition hon. Members in trying to demonstrate that the independence of this new Office for Environmental Protection will be somehow compromised from the start. Does my hon. Friend agree that, actually, what is being put in place is a pragmatic approach to try to get something up and running as fast as possible, given the extraordinary circumstances of this year, and that to do anything else would only delay things and be counterproductive? We all want the same end; this is the best way to do it.
Rebecca Pow
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention; I could not have put it better myself. I feel that I am under a certain amount of attack here. This is all being put into place so that we can get things up and running. As everyone knows, we are in an extraordinary time. I know the shadow Minister said that the provision was in there anyway as a failsafe, in case we needed this interim set-up. It could well have never been needed to be used, but it is there in case we need it.
We want the OEP to get off to a good start. When the chair is appointed—as I said, that process is well under way—we want them to be the person to appoint what I would call the first real chief executive. That is the right process. I think we would all agree with that. The requirement in the amendment would be disproportionate to how long the interim post might be there, because we expect this chief executive to be fully in place during 2021.
I must clarify another separate point. Although it would be a short-term role, the interim chief would be able to make decisions on behalf of the OEP, but they would be just set-up decisions. That is also why—I allude again to my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire—we need to get the right person in place, because they have a lot of work to do to put the tools in place. Allowing for the successful candidate not to be an employee of the OEP, such as a civil servant on secondment, helps to widen the field of candidates. We need to ensure that the person has the right skills to swing into action very quickly and get this whole system set up.
I remind the shadow Minister that the Secretary of State is subject to parliamentary scrutiny—there is a long process by which that will happen—concerning all the decisions taken in respect of the OEP. I have a page I could read about how the OEP will be independent, but I am sure we will get into that in discussing other clauses. The Secretary of State would be legally required to have regard for the need to protect the OEP’s independence in making this appointment, as required by paragraph 17 of schedule 1 to the Bill. The amendment is unnecessary and I ask the hon. Member for Southampton, Test to withdraw it.
Dr Whitehead
The Minister spoke of the importance of getting things done now. After all the problems we have had, I cannot for the life of me see how that is in any way impacted by the idea that the chair of the OEP, who will shortly be in place, should have a say in deciding—guidance has properly been put in for the independence of the OEP—whether long-term recruits should not be from the civil service or any other external persons. Why should the chair not have that say in an appointment?
I assume that the chair of the OEP would be equally concerned to ensure that things are up and running as quickly as possible, that a proper and good appointment is made of an interim chief executive, and that, if a good case is put forward, that appointment might be of someone in the civil service or another person in the Department.
The amendment does not stop any of those things from happening; it merely says, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge mentioned, that if it is the intention that the OEP will be truly independent it is the look of the thing from the beginning that will convince people of that.
I do not think that we can duck the issue. There are a lot of people out there who are profoundly suspicious and concerned that the OEP will not have its independence and will not be able to act as an environmental watchdog in the way that is claimed. Indeed, they will have suspicions, many of which we do not share, that a lot of what is being done is to undermine that independence, and—I would not go so far as to say to strangle the OEP at birth—to clutch the OEP much more closely to the bosom of Government than might have otherwise been the intention.
I hear what the Minister says about the fact that it was extremely fortunate that the provisions in the Bill were there anyway, which sort of came to the rescue when we were in the position of having to do these things very much at the last minute, rather than in a more considered way over a longer period. The fact that they have always been here, and always allowed that to happen, increases some of the suspicions out there. It is our duty, and would at least be good sense, for us to dispel those suspicions as early as we can in the life of the OEP.
Accepting the amendment would not, therefore, be a big deal. I do not intend to divide the Committee yet again, because we have made our point by dividing the Committee on other amendments, but this one is entirely on the same theme. I enjoin the Minister to think again about whether she wants to introduce something at a later date in proceedings that at least waves a flag in the direction of proper independence for the OEP as it gets under way, in addition to when it is fully under way. That would be very helpful for all of us who are concerned, in terms of what we will try to do to ensure that the OEP does its job properly.
Cherilyn Mackrory
Paragraph 17 of schedule 1 explicitly says:
“In exercising functions in respect of the OEP, the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to protect its independence.”
I notice that the Opposition have not tabled an amendment to that, because they are obviously happy with it.
Dr Whitehead
That is right, but that is the OEP as it is up and running; this is about the OEP as it is formed. Our point on a number of things this afternoon has been that if we undermine the independence of the OEP as it is being formed it is rather difficult to carry out paragraph 17 later on, when the OEP is fully functioning. I thank the hon. Member for drawing attention to that point, but it is not entirely what we are discussing this afternoon—although I fully agree that the Secretary of State should, of course, have regard to the independence of the OEP when it is up and running and functioning. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Deidre Brock
I beg to move amendment 188, in schedule 1, page 124, line 26, at end insert—
“10A Where the function is being exercised in relation to Scotland or in Scotland the OEP must—
(a) delegate the function to an environmental governance body designated by the Scottish Ministers, and
(b) provide the resources for that function to be exercised.”
This amendment aims to introduce the geographical imperative to ensure clear lines of reporting and response in Scotland and to clarify that the body acting in Scotland will be acting with consent of Scottish Ministers, thus respecting the devolution settlement.
Clearly, the Bill before us is applicable largely to this place because, as I have already referenced, environmental policy is, in the main, devolved. There are, however, still areas here and there within the Bill that require a little tidying to ensure that there is no danger of devolved regulatory powers being affected or even overridden inadvertently.
The amendment ensures that on the rare occasions when the OEP acts in Scotland, it will do so only with the consent of Scottish Ministers. In fact, amendments 190 and 191 also seek to respect the devolved Administration in Scotland.
Amendment 188 is about respecting the devolved Administration in Scotland, ensuring that the regulatory functions remain with the Scottish regulator, as is currently the case. It is about the Scottish Parliament and Government forging a different kind of future that will keep driving forward improvements in environmental policy. It means, too, that the Scottish regulator—currently the Scottish Environment Protection Agency—would maintain a holistic view of environmental policy in Scotland. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith. The amendment gives me a good opportunity to demonstrate that the Government’s new environmental governance framework respects the devolved settlements. She will be aware that the environment is largely a devolved matter and, as such, it is for each Administration to develop and deliver their own environmental governance proposal in relation to the devolved functions.
The Bill therefore makes a clear distinction between devolved and non-devolved functions, and we have ensured that the OEP can cover England and any matters across the wider UK that have not been devolved. That is necessary, as non-devolved matters cannot be addressed by the devolved Administration’s own governance arrangements once these ones are in place.
We expect that all the remaining devolved matters that fall outside the remit of the OEP will be addressed by the devolved Administration’s governance proposals in due course. Indeed, we welcome the steps that Scotland has taken to establish its own environmental body. The Bill is drafted in such a way as to ensure that the OEP can exercise its functions only on matters that are not devolved in respect of Scotland, so it would be inappropriate to delegate such functions to Environmental Standards Scotland, the intended equivalent Scottish body, to deliver those functions.
We do, none the less—and I did want to be at pains to say this—expect that the OEP will work harmoniously and productively with equivalent bodies in the devolved Administrations. That is obviously really important, since we cannot control the air, water or lots of things like that: in many cases, we will be working in tandem. That is why in clause 40(2)(f) we have made provision for the OEP to share information with its devolved equivalents and why in clause 24(4) we have placed a duty on it to consult them on any relevant matters.
Beyond the provisions already in the Bill, the OEP and its equivalent bodies will also have discretion to jointly decide how best to co-ordinate these activities. The OEP has been carefully designed to respect the devolution settlements by limiting its scope to environmental law, the definition of which specifically excludes matters falling within the devolved competence in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.
The Government consider it inappropriate and contrary to the delineation of legislative responsibilities under the devolution settlements to delegate the OEP’s functions in this context. I thank the hon. Member for raising this issue, because I want to be at pains to be clear about how we are working with the devolved Administrations, but I believe the amendment is unnecessary. I ask her to kindly withdraw it.
Deidre Brock
I have great respect for the Minister and for her sincerity—I genuinely do. I think she absolutely means what she says and she absolutely thinks that the way things are at the moment under her ministerial leadership will remain the same forever.
I am afraid that, ultimately, her suggestions do not cut the mustard with me, because environmental policy is devolved to Scotland. The amendment simply requires that, rather than Scottish Ministers just being consulted, they are actually required to give some sort of consent. As the amendment says in sub-paragraph (a), whatever the environmental issue is, the function should be put to a
“body designated by the Scottish Ministers”.
Without that agreement from the Government, I am afraid that I will have to ask that the amendment be put to a vote. Things are either devolved or they are not. I do not think that whether the Government at the time feel that they have a greater locus in an area than the devolved Government in place at the time should be part of the consideration. It is important that the responsibility for environmental policy that rests with devolved Governments is fully respected and that the agreement of the Scottish Government is sought in all instances to do with environmental policy.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Westminster Hall
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Rohingya Humanitarian Crisis: Covid-19
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Rohingya humanitarian crisis and the effects of the covid-19 pandemic.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am delighted to serve as you chair this morning’s discussion of the Rohingya crisis. I thank the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) for supporting the application for this debate and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting us time for it.
Before I say anything more, I think we should all reflect for a moment on the terrible events in Vienna last night—the shooting and killing of people in an event based on horror and hatred, which have no place anywhere in the world.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
As chair of the all-party group on British-Austrian relations, I have sent a message to His Excellency the Ambassador, Michael Zimmermann, saying that we extend our sympathy to all those who are affected. Perhaps I could add that no one should judge Muslims by what one or two people do, in the same way that we should not judge Christians by what was done in Bosnia and Herzegovina or Catholics by what the IRA has done.
Jeremy Corbyn
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. I absolutely agree with him and I am pleased that, as chair of the all-party group on British-Austrian relations, he has sent that message; indeed, I sent a message to the same effect last night to the Socialists, Democrats and Greens group of the Council of Europe. He is also quite right that we should never judge people by their faith; we should judge people by what they do. And what was done last night in Vienna is absolutely disgraceful—whether it is done against Jewish people, against Muslim people, or against anybody else, such action is wrong, wherever it happens. I am sure that we are all agreed on that.
Today, 65 million people across the world are either refugees or internally displaced persons, which is the largest ever number in recorded history, and the situation is getting worse as global inequality becomes greater and the climate emergency leads to more climate refugees.
When we see what is happening in north Africa, in particular Mali and Burkina Faso, we know that the number of refugees is likely to increase in the future. We also have refugee crises in many countries, including Venezuela, Lebanon, Syria, Libya, South Sudan and Palestine. There is also the situation in Colombia, which has the second largest number of internally displaced people in the world.
We are an advanced democratic society, and we have a duty to acknowledge and highlight the plight of refugees, wherever they are. We must reach out the hand of humanity towards those who have gone through trauma in their lives that we hope we never have to go through ourselves. It should be a source of deep shame that many vulnerable people who flee from their home country experience further breaches of their human rights, either as a consequence of having to live indefinitely in refugee camps that are in very poor condition or as a consequence of being turned away at borders, which often is in contravention of international refugee law.
Human rights debates carry a danger of assuming that everything that we do is okay and that everything that everybody else does might not be. We need to be careful and at times quite self-critical. Last month, it came to light that a number of asylum seekers are being housed in an Army barracks in west Wales and that the search was on for a possible location for asylum processing centres elsewhere, off the shores of this country.
We need to reflect for a moment on what it is like to be a refugee. Indeed, I raised these matters in a letter to the Home Secretary, saying that we did not want to see a repeat of the horrors of the Windrush scandal. So, it is also worth reflecting on the number of people in our country and in our communities who started out in this country as refugees but have gone on to make the most amazing contribution to our society—in science, engineering, education, transport and so many other areas—in the same way that many black and minority ethnic workers have made an incredible contribution to our national health service, particularly during the current crisis.
I say that because I think we should set this debate about the Rohingya crisis in the context of the refugee crisis around the world. There are many refugee crises, some of which we hear more about than others. Despite their being one of the largest and fastest growing groups of refugees in the world today, the Rohingya crisis does not get the coverage or publicity that it deserves. More than 1 million Rohingya refugees have been forced to leave their country.
Myanmar, formerly known as Burma, was colonised by Britain in 1885 and finally achieved its independence in 1948, after the second world war and slightly after India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka had achieved their independence. It had to deal with the disastrous repercussions of colonialism, including extreme nationalist tendencies, which had been exacerbated and, indeed, exploited during the second world war. There were deep-rooted fears in the country that it would once again fall under non-Burmese control. As a result, foreigners residing in Myanmar today are often seen, sadly, as remnants and reminders of a colonial period. That is one of the issues that must be addressed.
In Myanmar, it is claimed that the Rohingya migrated to Rakhine state from Bengal during and after the British colonial era of 1824 to 1948. However, many experts believe that the Rohingya people have been living in Rakhine state since at least the 15th century and possibly as early as the 7th century. Claims that the Rohingya are recent immigrants from Bangladesh are simply untrue. I say that because, when we talk about the plight of the Rohingya, it is important to draw attention to two major Acts introduced by the Myanmar Government that have infringed their rights. The first is the Emergency Immigration Act 1947, which required all citizens to carry an identity card. The Rohingya were ineligible for those cards; they were eligible only for the foreign registration card, which provided limited rights and was meant for foreigners. Even then, few Rohingya were able to secure a foreign registration card. Therefore, the process of their exclusion from normal civil society speeded up.
Secondly, in 2014, the Government conducted their first census in 30 years. On the census form, there was no option to register as Rohingya. Therefore, the Rohingya had to register as Bengali, effectively forcing them to admit what the Government had claimed all along—that they were immigrants to the country, not citizens of the country. They were then allowed to register as temporary citizens and receive a white card, which provided them with very limited rights. However, the Government revoked that limited status in February 2015, which meant that the Rohingya were not able to vote in the elections in November of that year and have not been able to vote or stand for election ever since.
We have a number of very serious issues relating to the role of the military in society. After independence, there was a series of elected Governments, but in 1962 a coup placed the military in control of the Government. Although reforms have lessened their influence, the military continue to play a very prominent role in politics and life in the whole country.
Early in the morning of 25 August 2017, the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army, known as ARSA—these are a minority Muslim people from Myanmar—attacked a security post in northern Rakhine state. Nobody is condoning that attack. Following the attack, the Myanmar security forces, led by the army, attacked the Rohingya population across the whole of northern Rakhine state, driving more than 700,000 people—80% of the Rohingya who lived in the northern part of the state—into neighbouring Bangladesh. Let us just reflect on the figure there. As I said, there was an attack on a security post and nobody is condoning that. The army responded by driving the entire population out of the country.
According to Amnesty International, the military-led operations in the wake of 25 August 2017 were far from necessary or proportionate in response to the threat posed by ARSA. They amounted to an orchestrated campaign of murder, rape, torture and destruction of villages and homes that was aimed at punishing the Rohingya population in northern Rakhine state and driving them out of their country. Collective punishment is illegal in all forms of international law, but that is exactly what the Rohingya people have had to suffer.
Four years after the Myanmar military unleashed a wave of violence against the Rohingya civilians, killing thousands and burning entire villages to the ground, millions of Rohingya are still displaced across the region. Anyone who has met anyone who has been in their village at night will have heard that when the army arrive, it drives people out, kills the men, rapes the women, drives those who have survived or managed to escape out of the country and then burns the village behind them.
It is now estimated that 1.2 million refugees are in Bangladesh, 100,000 in Malaysia, 200,000 in Pakistan and—the figures are disputed—between 100,000 and 200,000 in India. The scale of this humanitarian crisis is unprecedented in that part of the world. While Bangladesh is hosting 1 million refugees, sadly, the Governments of Thailand and Malaysia have been extremely hostile towards Rohingya refugees trying to find somewhere safe to survive. Every day, more vulnerable people arrive in Bangladesh with very little, if anything, and settle in overcrowded camps or extremely congested makeshift sites. It is a very difficult situation for all of them.
The Government of Bangladesh, local charities and volunteers from the UN and many non-governmental organisations, to which I pay enormous tribute, are working in overdrive to provide assistance. The UK Government have provided significant amounts of aid, which is very welcome, and I look forward to the Minister telling us what future aid and guarantees for the future will be available for the refugee camps and organisations that are helping them. However, much more is urgently needed. The efforts must be scaled up and expanded to receive and protect refugees and ensure they are provided with basic shelter and acceptable living conditions.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
The UN is seeking permission to conduct comprehensive technical and protection assessments to evaluate the safety and sustainability of Bhasan Char. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the UN must be allowed to inspect Bhasan Char and that until then no relocations should take place?
Jeremy Corbyn
My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I hope she will get an opportunity to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, to make a longer contribution.
According to UNICEF, an estimated 30% of children living in the camps suffer from chronic malnutrition—one third of children suffering from malnutrition—and 11% from acute malnutrition. A whole generation of children are growing up in their most important, formative years without enough to eat, which will lead to stunted growth and development and probably a much shorter life expectancy. There is not an overall food shortage in the world; there is a problem of distributing food across the world. Again, while I am not critical of the UN or aid agencies and what they are trying to achieve, resources are needed to feed those children. Imagine being in a refugee camp and unable to get enough food. Also, sadly, there are reports of sexual abuse, human trafficking, exploitation of children and violence against women within these very overcrowded camps. Funding for education, food and to deal with gender-based violence is very important. I hope that Britain will continue to work closely with the UN to ensure an effective implementation of the joint response plan for the Rohingya humanitarian crisis.
All long-term problems are exacerbated by the threat of covid-19. Cases have been confirmed among the Rohingya and the International Rescue Committee has advised that the camp is particularly vulnerable to virus transmission due to an exceptionally high density—40,000 people per square kilometre are trying to survive in those refugee camps. There is very poor sanitation, limited access to health care services and a high level of malnutrition. In the monsoon season, the heavy rainfall leads to flooding and further danger of terrible diseases such as cholera breaking out as a result of inadequate sanitation.
I am sad to say that there are serious concerns about the fencing erected around the camps, as it restricts the Rohingya’s legitimate freedom of movement and access to services. The UK must urge the Bangladesh authorities to review urgently their approach to security. The issue will not be solved by putting fences around civilians or removing deported Rohingya from the camps along the border to an island in the Bay of Bengal—an island just above sea level with prison-type accommodation. The island places them further from Myanmar with no access to a regular ferry service. It would be a place they would go to and possibly never return, which is an unacceptable step. The international community must do all it can to ensure that that does not materialise.
In looking at any refugee crisis, we must look first at the humanitarian needs of desperate people, and I have tried to outline those needs, but we must also look at why they sought refuge in the first place and were forced to make the desperate and dangerous step of at least trying to get away from being murdered or raped and having their villages destroyed. The Myanmar Government must take immediate steps to address the chronic situation, including the 1982 citizenship law, and restore the Rohingya right to citizenship, a measure that was supported at the 44th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council. The President of Myanmar, Aung San Suu Kyi, has issued a number of decrees following the provisional measure to prevent genocide, from the International Court of Justice. The Court said that the Rohingya remained at serious risk of that. Just get that: the International Court of Justice said that the Rohingya remained at serious risk of having genocide committed against them.
It is time to translate those decrees fully into concrete actions. The fighting in Rakhine must end. Civilians must be protected. Evidence of serious violations must be preserved. I must say I find the actions and attitudes of Aung San Suu Kyi perplexing. I am one of many people who marched around London in support of her, asking that her house arrest be ended and that she be given the freedom to return to political open life, which she did. She was elected and eventually became President. So I should be grateful if the Minister would help us and say what pressure is being put on Aung San Suu Kyi, and whether the Government will consider their relationship with her in the future. It is extraordinary that someone who came to office on the basis that she was a victim of human rights abuses seems to have a blind spot where the rights of the Rohingya people are concerned, and is happy to promote a sort of supremacist attitude over them. Unless that changes, their right of return becomes a bit of a pipe dream.
I do not know how long the crisis will go on, but I do not want to say that children now being born, or living, in those refugee camps in Bangladesh have no future other than to be refugees in a camp in Bangladesh for decades to come. Therein lie illness, mental health problems and anger—and a breeding ground for the terrorists of the future because they are so angry. I hope that our Government will do all they can to bring about a peaceful solution to their plight and engage with the UN and the Governments of Bangladesh and Myanmar, to stress the importance of including the Rohingya in all discussions for the future.
The Foreign Secretary said recently:
“The Rohingya people have faced horrific brutality and were forced to flee their homes in the worst circumstances imaginable. We have taken action against the architects of this systemic violence, including through sanctions and we will continue to hold those responsible to account.”
I look forward to the Minister telling us how many other people may be subject to sanctions in the future, depending on what happens to the Rohingya people.
Sir Peter Bottomley
I shall not be making a speech in the debate, but I hope that those who are watching it will understand that we are concerned not just about the Rohingya and Myanmar. Yesterday in the House of Lords Jammu and Kashmir was raised, as China and the Uighur have been raised. It is not targeted: we have an aim to try to have justice for people. I refer those watching the debate to the report by the United Nations fact-finding mission on Myanmar that came out a year ago, and the campaign material from the Burmese Rohingya Organisation, the Burma Campaign UK and Justice for the Rohingya, all of which illustrate some of the points that the right hon. Gentleman makes.
Jeremy Corbyn
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. My speech is concentrating on the plight of the Rohingya people, but any other refugees should be included in the issue, because if a country is to be at peace with itself it has to be at peace with recognising the diversity—the linguistic and ethnic diversity—of all its people. If the army of the country, in this case Myanmar, attacks and drives one particular ethnic group out of the country, who is next and what happens after that? There has to be a process of reconciliation, as well as support for the right of return and for people to be able to live safely and securely in Rakhine state.
The UK Government recently imposed sanctions against two Myanmar military generals, which is an important symbolic measure, especially for the victims, but further and more meaningful action must be taken. The UK Government should, for instance, prevent British companies from trading with companies in Myanmar connected with the military in any way. I look forward to the Minister explaining what the process is on that.
If we focus on just mineral rights exploration, such as gas and oil offshore, we will find that many foreign investors are competing to stay friendly with the Myanmar Government and that the UK is among the top investors. We have to be careful here. If British companies are investing in exploiting oil, gas or any other natural resources found there, they will find, not very far away, the influence of the Myanmar military, which will be making a great deal of money out of that. They are the ones who stand accused of the attacks and of killing so many Rohingya people in Rakhine state. We should have nothing to do with that. We should be strong enough to say, “We are not prepared to be involved with a military, a Government or companies that have paid for or supported those attacks in any way.” When the Minister replies, can he explain what exactly the relationship with Myanmar’s military is at present? We need to know that we are not supplying any weapons to it or providing any training facilities for it, and that we are resolute in our determination to protect the Rohingya and other minorities from future attacks, as the hon. Member for Worthing West correctly pointed out.
It is extremely concerning and unethical that the UK has apparently obtained large quantities of personal protective equipment from Myanmar, a country where the Government are accused of ethnic cleansing by the UN and genocide by other human rights organisations. It is simply unacceptable that we purchase equipment to save lives in the UK from a country that has taken so many. We can and should find other sources of PPE. We are going to enter a second lockdown now. Can the Minister guarantee that the Government will not purchase any more PPE from Myanmar?
I close by saying that the Rohingya people were discriminated against and manipulated during the colonial era, have been brutally treated by the Myanmar military for many decades and are now desperate in refugee camps with unsanitary, unsafe and dangerous conditions. The world has to wake up. We cannot allow a million people to be forgotten in that way. The world needs to do two things: first, to provide the support necessary for those people to survive and, secondly, to apply political pressure to the Government of Myanmar so that they will allow people to return safely and to live safely and securely in the country and place of their birth.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) on securing this important debate and drawing attention to the plight of Rohingya refugees. He eloquently made the case today that all of us must do more to support the Rohingya people.
People forced by wars and persecution to flee their homes frequently embark on risky journeys in many parts of the world. They should find safety and support and not be exposed to more danger and hardship. However, there are approximately 1 million Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh, a country already facing significant challenges, not least during this world pandemic. Many people are still living below the poverty line and feel that they have no other choice but to go out and earn their living despite the risk of getting infected by the virus. Covid-19 has exacerbated existing problems for the Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh, including by increasing gender-based violence, and the lack of adequate sanitation and healthcare and the crowded conditions make distancing impossible.
Bangladesh should not be left alone with the humanitarian crisis of the Rohingya refugees, and the international community should increase its economic support accordingly. What steps is the Minister taking to work with the Government of Bangladesh to encourage efforts to designate critical gender-based violence services as essential and to ensure that there is a continuity of gender-based violence service provision for the Rohingya throughout the covid-19 response? Given the inescapable reality that many refugees will remain in Bangladesh for years to come, what steps are the Government taking to support the expansion of educational training and support in refugee camps?
My right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North is correct in arguing that it is critical to address the root of the problem. Three years ago a military operation in Myanmar destroyed entire Rohingya Muslim villages. UN investigators say that as many as 10,000 people were killed, and more than 730,000 Rohingya fled the massacre for Bangladesh. The UN called it “a textbook …ethnic cleansing.” According to Médecins Sans Frontières, at least 6,700 Rohingya, including at least 730 children under the age of five, were killed in the month after the violence broke out. About 288 villages were partially or totally destroyed by fire in the north of Rakhine state after August 2017, according to analysis of state imagery by Human Rights Watch.
Just today, an independent human rights expert called on the Government and the military in Myanmar to stop persecuting Opposition supporters, including journalists and student protestors, ahead of the elections next week. Thomas Andrews, UN special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, said:
“But this cannot happen as long as it is enforcing laws that undermine the very lifeblood of democracy, and the right to vote is denied based on race, ethnicity of religion as it is with the Rohingya.”
Canada and the Netherlands have supported the case brought to the International Court of Justice by Gambia, alleging that Myanmar’s atrocities against the Rohingya in Rakhine state violate various provisions of the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide. Can the Minister tell us any more about that and about the role that the UK could play in that regard?
In conclusion, I express my solidarity with all people around the world who are victims of political human rights abuses. Ultimately, it is the duty of all of us to do everything we can to uphold fundamental human rights, as laid out by the universal declaration of human rights.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to see you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was surprised when I walked through the door. I had to screw up my eyes and say, “My goodness, you have come back to us.” Thank you very much. It is lovely to see you.
I thank the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) for setting the scene, which was admirably done. One of the first debates the right hon. Gentleman and I had in Westminster Hall was on human rights, although not the Rohingya. He introduced the debate, and I was there to support him. It is good that we are on the same page on this issue, as we often have been and probably always will be when it comes to human rights across the world.
The suffering that the Rohingya refugees have had to endure is scarcely imaginable. Everything that right hon. and hon. Members have said, and will say after me, encapsulates the fact that the Rohingya have survived horrifying violence, been driven from their homes and been forced to live in squalid conditions in refugee camps. People could be forgiven for thinking that things could not get any worse, and yet here we are with a global pandemic, adding still more to their burden.
Our duty in this House is to speak up for those who do not have a voice. Maybe we will never meet them, but we can familiarise ourselves with their circumstances and conditions and try to help them. I look forward to the Minister’s response, as we often do, and today we have three things to ask of him.
I am pleased to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill), in her place. She and I are good friends, and I look forward to her contribution, as well as that of the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald), the spokesperson for the Scottish National party.
Fortunately, data for the Rohingya refugee camps currently shows that the number of cases of covid-19 is lower than anticipated, although I question where that data came from. The restrictions put in place on humanitarian agencies by the Bangladeshi Government to isolate Rohingya refugees are having a devastating effect, and I would suggest that the data is not available, primarily because of the restrictions in place. The restrictions placed on organisations permit them to do only certain types of work or to do it only in a certain way, and they are allowed into the camps only for a set number of hours—in some cases, they are not allowed in at all. If the data cannot be collected, any data will be suspect and will not be correct.
The report by the ACAPS and the International Organisation for Migration stated that the “drastic reduction” in humanitarian access and the
“decreased ability to implement critical services has led to an increase in unmet needs. Many Rohingya have been unable to fortify their homes against rain and windstorms because shelter-related service restrictions meant that monsoon preparedness activities were not completed… Additionally, common coping mechanisms, such as increasing debt, borrowing assistance from family or neighbours… were reported as less effective than in previous periods, more difficult to access, or unavailable because of the changes due to COVID-19. As a result, many families feel desperate and uncertain about their future.”
The impact of these restrictions has been so great that, in July, many Rohingya perceived the impact of covid-19 containment measures as being a greater threat to their overall wellbeing than covid-19 itself. We cannot ignore that. Hopefully, the Minister will be able to alleviate some of our fears for the Rohingya people at this time and tell us where they stand.
Many acknowledge the risk of covid-19, but it is secondary to more immediate risks, such as shelters collapsing. People must also have safe and accessible toilets and be able to feed their families. These myriad issues come upon people quickly, and they are bread-and-butter issues. Those of us that have a comparatively good life here, with access to such things, may take them for granted, but these people do not, and we want to see what is happening. The Government have taken steps, and I always acknowledge that, because it is fair to give them credit for that, but perhaps the Minister can give us an idea of what, specifically, has been done for the Rohingya, in the precarious conditions and circumstances they face.
Sir Peter Bottomley
I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman says. I am reminded that the problems of Burma, or Myanmar, did not start with the Rohingya. When John Bercow was chair of the all-party parliamentary group on democracy in Burma, he and Baroness Cox went to see what was happening to the Chin people, who faced appalling behaviour in 2007. On the point the hon. Gentleman makes about covid, others may want to look at the report by ActionAid UK on its work with women, who are carrying the major burden of the covid crisis in Myanmar and in the Cox’s Bazar refugee camps.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I thank him for his fantastic, wise words, for the debate and for his significant contribution to it. Hopefully, the Minister can take that into account as well.
The Rohingya refugees have experienced even more suffering due to covid-19, and they remain in an extremely precarious position. Yet, despite their harrowing plight, the international community and the UK Government have not done anywhere near everything in their power to support these persecuted people. I say that kindly and respectfully, because I understand that the Government are doing their best, but I urge them to perhaps do more.
I welcome the sanctions that Her Majesty’s Government have put on Burmese military leaders responsible for violence against the Rohingya, but much more needs to be done. I have three asks of the Minister. First, the British Government should immediately take action to prevent British companies from doing any form of business with the Burmese military and with companies owned and controlled by the military. I say that because, according to Burma Campaign UK, the Burmese military earns hundreds of millions of dollars a year through its vast range of military-owned companies. I always think that the best way to hurt someone is to hurt them in their pocket, because that seems to have the desired effect. I am sure the Minister will agree that no British company should be involved in business that funds genocide. I urge him and our Government to take action to prevent that.
Secondly, I acknowledge that the Bangladeshi Government have done much, but I say again that there must be careful diplomatic engagement with them about the restrictions on humanitarian assistance to refugees. Clearly, there are obstructions that should not be there. An urgent revision of the restrictions is required to allow humanitarian agencies to increase the assistance they provide, especially shelter assistance, and much-needed maintenance and repair of public facilities such as toilets must be carried out. Those are the basics, but they are really important. If we want to address covid-19, we have to do that as well. Health and safety is of course of the utmost concern, but the Bangladeshi authorities must be convinced that it is not in their interest to abandon the Rohingya refugees to the virus, because that will lead to a hotspot from which the virus can spread to other parts of the country, so, again, diplomatic engagement is needed.
Thirdly and finally, I urge Her Majesty’s Government to join the genocide case at the International Court of Justice. Gambia has brought a case at the ICJ claiming that Burma is in breach of the genocide convention. It is supported by 56 other members of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, and by the Maldives, Canada and the Netherlands. We cannot ignore the volume of voices from those 59 countries from across the world, which are speaking up and which see a breach of the genocide convention. Why have the British Government thus far refused to join? I ask the Minister to look at that and to perhaps give us an answer today. I hope he will push for the UK to join that case, or at least explain to this House why they have refused to do so. We see the genocide against the Rohingya, and it hurts our hearts to think of these things—the powerful violence and brutality, and the conditions that those people are living in.
We cannot allow such unspeakable persecution to go unchallenged. A failure to take the actions I have outlined will only enhance the sense of impunity enjoyed by the military and will encourage it to commit further human rights abuses. If we do not do something hard about this issue, it will continue. I say this very gently: how can we, and I say “we” collectively, sleep at night knowing that we have made a few speeches—yes, it is great to make speeches—but have not done everything we could when crimes against humanity, if not genocide, have arisen during our lifetime? I urge Her Majesty’s Government to take the three actions I have outlined, and I hope the Minister will be so kind as to keep me and others informed about progress on them.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Madam Deputy Speaker. The previous speakers have been crystal clear about the urgent nature of the situation. If it was not clear to us or pressing enough previously—obviously, it should have been—the covid-19 pandemic and the terrible price that it has wrought, especially among the most vulnerable, has confirmed once and for all that life in a refugee camp should never be considered an acceptable long-term plan.
Nobody would argue that the Rohingya community is not suffering disproportionately from this terrible virus. In fact, as far as we know—the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made a sensible point about data—the death rate from covid-19 among the Rohingya refugees is 8%, compared with 2% for the Bangladeshi host community. Their situation, even on the basis of those figures, means a huge difference in outcome, in terms of life and death.
Amnesty International has spoken about a dangerous lack of access to even basic information. Mobile and internet services for the Rohingya were restored only in late August, and blackouts remain in Rakhine state. This is a hard time for those of us who are able to communicate and seek out potentially life-saving information, but what about people who cannot?
A huge issue is the inability to practise preventive measures such as frequent hand-washing in overcrowded and unsanitary conditions. We rightly place much emphasis on the importance of hand-washing, but when we do so we are supposing that it is even an option. We all keep ourselves socially distant wherever we can, but with the population density in Cox’s Bazar refugee camp, for instance, social distancing is almost impossible. In fact, Relief International Cox’s Bazar programme director has described the situation there as a “ticking time bomb”.
Existing healthcare facilities are woefully inadequate to handle a severe crisis such as this: in the whole of Cox’s Bazar, there are only two ventilators. We already know that Bangladesh has one doctor for every 2,000 people, compared with one doctor for every 350 people in the UK. There is a woeful shortage of PPE, even before the other critical issues in purchasing PPE that we heard about from other Members.
Jim Shannon
Yesterday, the Prime Minister—I think; it may have been someone else—referred to 90,000 ventilators being secured for the United Kingdom, although we have used only 4,000. Does the hon. Lady think it might be a good idea to send some of those surplus ventilators to help the Rohingya?
Kirsten Oswald
Thinking broadly about the needs of the people in this perilous situation is vital, so I am interested in hearing the Minister’s thoughts about the practicality of the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees reports that covid-19 is deepening the marginalisation and exclusion of the Rohingya, who are already in such a perilous situation. That seems self-evident to us, but it bears reflecting upon. Once the Bangladeshi Government announced a nationwide lockdown on 25 March, every aid agency worker was required to vacate Cox’s Bazar, which has had far-reaching impacts, further reducing access to education, safeguarding and mental health support. We have already heard about the vulnerability of children to exploitation, trafficking and abuse increasing because of this. Save the Children reports that almost 45% of the refugee population are not getting enough daily nutrition, which of course puts children at higher risk of worse outcomes from covid-19.
Worryingly, aid groups in Bangladesh have reported a rise in anti-Rohingya hate speech and racism, and rapidly deteriorating dynamics between the two communities—a particularly difficult situation. A recent report on the gendered impact of covid-19 on Rohingya communities also reports increases in forced marriages, child marriages, gender-based violence, transphobic violence, violence against people with disabilities and violence against female sex workers as the presence of camp authorities has fallen away, so the people on the margins already are increasingly and dangerously further marginalised.
Human Rights Watch also reported that, in Rakhine state camps and villages, 70% of children are not attending school at all. To compound that—if things were not difficult enough—in May this year, more than 100,000 refugees were affected by heavy rains, monsoons and landslides because of Cyclone Amphan, which destroyed shelters, washed away crops and further increased disease. Those multifaceted threats faced by the Rohingya are not going away during the pandemic, they are getting worse. It is vital that the UK Government are aware of and focused on that and continue to provide sustained financial support. With that in mind, it is deeply concerning that the UK Government confirmed on 23 July this year that they will slash international aid spending by £2.9 billion across the board, reportedly reallocating fund towards countries with which we have future trading prospects.
There is absolutely no doubt that 2020 has seen violence against the remaining Rohingya in Myanmar escalate once again. The situation has taken on an increased complexity. While the international community remains understandably hyper-focused on addressing the virus domestically and on their economic situations, the violence and persecution that the Rohingya people face has not stopped, despite the International Court of Justice ordering Myanmar’s leadership to take all measures within their power to stop the killing or harming of the Rohingya people, as set out under article 2 of the genocide convention.
More children were maimed in the first three months of this year in Myanmar than in the whole of 2019, according to Save the Children, while 19,000 Rohingya people fled their homes in the Kyauktaw township in Myanmar between the end of August and the beginning of September. Despite the International Court of Justice’s ordering the Tatmadaw not to destroy evidence of crimes, new UN satellite images show that the military has bulldozed the ruins of Kan Kya—just one example of the almost 400 Rohingya villages destroyed by the Myanmar military in 2017 as part of a wider cover-up. Overall it could not be a more dangerous situation and of course, if continued violence in Rakhine state makes repatriation less viable as time goes on, it grows more perilous.
International Rescue Committee figures show that only 4% of the Rohingya in Cox’s Bazar have actually been granted refugee status and that means for almost all of them that services and employment cannot be sought in Bangladesh. It is important that in the long run, the international community makes an active and focused effort to help resettle Rohingya people permanently in Bangladesh or in third countries, as seen with other refugee groups such as the Lhotshampa refugees in Nepal.
It has been evident since the covid crisis began that there has been an increase in the number of Rohingya people moving from both Bangladesh and Myanmar to Malaysia and other countries in south-east Asia, largely on boats that are not fit for that purpose. Myanmar must undoubtedly address the root cause of the issue of statelessness of the Rohingya if the plight of those boat people is to be resolved.
Amnesty International has warned that,
“Regional governments cannot let their seas become graveyards.”
The SNP stands by calls from Amnesty International to allow safe disembarkation and for the Association of Southeast Asian Nations members to urgently agree emergency measures to prevent further humanitarian crisis.
Bangladesh has built housing for 100,000 people—we have heard about this from the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum)—on the remote silt island of Bhasan Char, with plans to relocate some of the Cox’s Bazar residents there. There are concerning reports emerging of Bangladeshi military officers beating refugees, including children, who are protesting their detention on the island. An Amnesty International report alleges that sexual assaults have taken place against Rohingya women on the island. It is critical that the UK Government increase international pressure to allow UN experts to conduct an independent assessment of the island to ensure that any relocation there is voluntary and that it is truly habitable, which has been questioned by the former UN special rapporteur for Myanmar, Yanghee Lee. Our global mechanisms for accountability and the protection of human rights have clearly failed the Rohingya people so far, and it is essential that we have a renewed focus on not allowing that to continue.
It is disappointing that the UK Government have still not heeded the repeated calls that my colleagues have made about adopting a national strategy of atrocity prevention; that is a gaping hole in UK foreign policy that should be urgently filled. My hon. Friends the Members for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) and for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) have been focused on keeping this issue on the agenda. My hon. Friend the Member for Lanark and Hamilton East specifically pressed on this matter just weeks ago, and that echoed calls from my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith). That is critical because if these cross-Whitehall prediction and prevention frameworks are left out of the upcoming integrated review, that will represent a body blow to all those who wish to see the UK Government play a greater role in ensuring that all possible steps are taken at each stage to prevent mass atrocities from happening, which is surely what we all want.
To conclude, as the Myanmar genocide against the Rohingya shows few signs of relenting, surely such a strategy could not be more pressing. I would encourage the Minister to give some thought to that as part of the bigger picture in how we support and deal with the perilous and terrible situation facing the Rohingya people.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a honour to serve with you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to thank the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) for securing this important debate. I also want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) and her staff who have been leading on this work in the shadow development team. I am sure that I echo the thoughts of the whole House when I say that we hope she is able to return to Parliament as soon as possible.
The contributions today have been thoughtful and well informed, and I thank all those who have taken part and especially the organisations who work on these issues on a daily basis and have provided vital briefings. I also want to welcome the return of debates in Westminster Hall as a vital means for us as Members of Parliament in the UK to raise issues of global importance, and I hope we find safe ways to continue them during the upcoming restrictions.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North made a powerful speech reminding us of those fleeing their homes, those internally displaced, and those living in refugee camps, which have become a long-term placement for so many. He rightly says that the plight of refugees seldom gets the coverage it deserves.
[Derek Twigg in the Chair]
My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) talked about gender-based violence, which is so important and something that I will touch on in my speech, and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) reminded us of the impact of covid on refugees, who are already facing very difficult and, in some cases, inhumane situations. I thank him for his contribution, for raising the ICJ case on genocide brought by The Gambia, and for challenging us all to speak out on crimes against humanity.
Since the eruption of violence in 2017, the Rohingya have faced a series of life-threatening situations; covid-19 is just the most recent. Many have faced a lifetime of discrimination, ethnic cleansing, enforced migration and years in unsanitary and overcrowded camps. I commend the UK Government for the work that they have done to provide some immediate humanitarian aid, but we all know that there is much more that could be done in both the short and long term to provide sustainable solutions.
It is a tragedy that despite its being more than three years since the mass exodus of the Rohingya, fleeing persecution and oppression in 2017, the international community is still having to provide them with immediate life-saving humanitarian support. That is the situation that we need to take a long, hard look at, to learn from mistakes and rectify them so that we are not here next year and the year after having the same debate. It is estimated that there are still 600,000 Rohingya people in Rakhine state. Of those, around 130,000 are confined to arbitrary and indefinite detention in heavily restrictive camps, the inhabitants of which face significant constraints on healthcare, food and shelter, and growing restrictions on humanitarian aid and freedom of movement.
A recently published report by Human Rights Watch documented Rohingya being killed simply for breaking curfew, and where they are not in detention they face discrimination and segregation. As the covid-19 pandemic has further increased restrictions, the impact on minorities, and upcoming elections in which most Rohingya are prevented from voting or running for office, are likely to further increase tensions. Can the Minister tell us what progress he has made in lobbying the Myanmar Government to end the arbitrary detention of various ethnic minorities in what are, in effect, mass prison camps, and what steps have the Government taken to ensure that those living in the camps have access to humanitarian assistance?
For the hundreds of thousands who have fled that oppression to Bangladesh, the situation that they face is also of grave concern. Some 860,000 of those million refugees currently reside in the Cox’s Bazar district in some of the most densely inhabited land in the world. The Kutupalong refugee settlement is the largest of its kind, with more than 600,000 people living in an area of just 13 sq km. That number of refugees would be a struggle for most countries, and for Bangladesh it has been no different. The proposals to relocate the Rohingya to Bhasan Char, a flood-prone island several hundred miles to the north in the Bay of Bengal, should be a wake-up call for the international community.
After being taken from a distressed vessel in May, 306 refugees were transferred to Bhasan Char, which at the time was described as a temporary measure in the light of covid-19 restrictions on the mainland. Those refugees are yet to be reunited with their families, and there have been numerous reports of maltreatment, ranging from beatings to sexual violence. I welcome the Minister’s comments in support of UN assessments, but can he confirm that it is his position that no further relocation should take place until full assessments have taken place, and will the Secretary of State push for that with his Bangladeshi counterparts?
Although temporarily lifted over the past few months, it appears that internet and communications around Cox’s Bazar remain limited and restricted. That drastically limits the ability of Rohingya and Bangladeshis to obtain crucial information about the spread of covid-19. That is combined with inadequate sanitation, which makes even basic preventative measures such as hand washing inaccessible to so many. We have also received reports that a number of humanitarian organisations are experiencing growing problems in acquiring visas and work permits for international staff. Can the Minister explain why that is the case, and what representations he has made to ensure that organisations with the relevant skills and experience are able to access the area and provide necessary support and assistance?
In such cramped conditions the spread of any virus is extremely likely and concerns have been raised about the accessibility of tests and the reliability of the covid-19 data. With community transmission clearly apparent in the refugee population, the World Health Organisation has emphasised that the highest priority must be increasing the rate of testing. What steps are the Government taking to encourage the end of internet restrictions and to support aid agencies and the Government of Bangladesh to increase the availability of tests across the region? Is UK aid funding to support the Rohingya in Bangladesh protected from any cuts to the Official Development Assistance budget both this year and next?
Looking at the wider picture and moving beyond humanitarian assistance, it is vital to ensure that we do not have a lost generation in these camps. Over 326,000 Rohingya refugee children are in dire need of education. Earlier this year UNICEF was co-ordinating work by humanitarian agencies to introduce a pilot and a new curriculum to 10,000 students. That pilot was placed on hold when education was categorised as non-life saving by the Government of Bangladesh’s refugee relief and repatriation commissioner. That allowed learning centres to be closed to prevent the spread of the virus. More than 6,000 learning spaces in Rohingya refugee camps were closed, depriving 325,000 children of the already woefully limited learning opportunities available to them. Failing to provide children with educational rights traps them in a cycle of poverty and massively reduces any hope they may have of leading independent, fulfilled lives. What steps are the Government taking to improve educational access and quality in the refugee camps?
Trafficking, child marriage and unpaid work that women and girls are forced to take have all increased during the pandemic. Vital services, including sexual and reproductive healthcare, have been cut, with gender-based violence services deemed non-essential and either stopped or reduced at a time when the need for them is acute and growing. Intimate partners perpetrate 81% of gender-based violence in the Rohingya camps and 56% of incidents are physical. As lockdowns have left refugees confined to their homes, women have been afflicted by what the International Rescue Committee has termed “a shadow pandemic” of gender-based violence.
What progress has been made in pushing the Government of Bangladesh to provide support to those suffering from gender-based violence and to empower women to take the key choices about how their communities move forward and receive aid? What specific actions is the Minister taking to ensure that tackling gender inequality remains a key priority of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and in particular can he explain what steps he is taking with regard to the Rohingya to ensure that no one is left behind?
All those issues need to be tackled now. Supporting efforts to slow the spread of covid-19 and overcome it must be only the tip of the iceberg of the support that the Government must provide to tackle the wider social and economic damage that the virus is causing and exacerbating. While a safe, secure and voluntary return to Myanmar must remain the objective, even if repatriation were to begin immediately, analysis by the United Nations Development Programme indicates that it could take between five and 13 years to achieve full repatriation.
Our Government are in a unique position to display the moral duty and global leadership required to support the Rohingya and to find ways to reach the solution of a return on the Rohingya’s terms. But that cannot be done until the Myanmar Government end the arbitrary detention of the Rohingya in camps and recognise them as full citizens. Will the Minister update us on what steps he has taken to place diplomatic pressure on the Myanmar Government on both fronts? It also requires the United Kingdom to make sure that it is not supporting actors who have supported, deliberately or otherwise, the oppression of minority groups. Earlier this year, a journalist discovered that UK aid, through the CDC, had been funding a telecoms company that censored websites under the orders of the Myanmar Government. Does the Minister believe that that is a good investment and, since then, what steps has he taken to ensure that any and all investments made with UK taxpayers’ money achieve the highest standards in protecting human rights?
Until a safe return is possible, our Government need to support local actors to mitigate the social and economic impact of covid-19. These are difficult problems, but they are not intractable and I hope to continue to work with the Minister to make real and concrete progress for the Rohingya people.
The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)
I will start, Mr Twigg, by thanking your predecessor in the Chair this morning for filling in. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) for securing this important debate on what is a critical issue. I am also grateful to the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill), for the way in which we have collaborated on many issues previously. Her concluding remarks were testament to that work. I think we are all on the same page on this issue, and my door at the FCDO is very much open to right hon. and hon. Members to discuss this issue in more detail. We do not get a lot of time to dig into all the issues and respond to all the questions, but I will do my best in the time available.
Sir Peter Bottomley
In thanking the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to the debate—it had originally suggested that we might be able to have it in the Chamber, but needs must in the circumstances—I would like to put on the record that there would have been more participation had my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) not been due to take part in a Westminster Hall debate later today, which I think is why he is not speaking now.
Nigel Adams
That is absolutely right. We did get advance notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) would not be able to participate in this morning’s debate.
On 25 August, we marked three years of the Rohingya crisis. The scale of the violence and discrimination against the Rohingya is shocking. I pay tribute to the resilience, courage and tenacity of the Rohingya people in the face of extreme adversity, violence and oppression. I also pay tribute to the generosity of the Government and people of Bangladesh for hosting the refugees in Cox’s Bazar, a point already referred to by hon. Members today.
The UK will not sit, and has not sat, idly by. Very recently, on 22 October, the United Kingdom co-hosted a donor conference on the Rohingya refugee crisis, alongside the US, the EU and the UNHCR. The conference brought together leading donors, Rohingya-hosting countries, international organisations and Rohingya representatives to keep attention on the crisis and demonstrate global commitment to the Rohingya people.
A total of $600 million in new and existing funding was announced at the conference. The United Kingdom announced a further £37.5 million for the Rohingya refugees and local communities in Bangladesh. That brings the total UK commitment to the Rohingya in Bangladesh thus far close to £300 million since 2017, when they had to flee their homes in Myanmar. That makes us the second largest single donor globally in assistance for the Rohingya people in Bangladesh.
Jim Shannon
That has been very helpful and underlines the commitment of Her Majesty’s Government, which we appreciate. Is there any follow-up to monitor and regulate where that money is going, to make sure that it actually goes where it should, which is to help the people? If people are living in dilapidated shelters and do not have toilet facilities, it makes me wonder where the money is going.
Nigel Adams
It is absolutely crucial that we keep a trail and manage to do due diligence before the money is handed over. We work with third parties—non-governmental organisations—to make sure that the money does get to the correct place, where it is needed most. That is absolutely crucial when we are talking about such huge sums and we need to monitor that constantly as we deliver the cash. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise that point.
The new funding announced last week will provide improved education for more than 50,000 children and young people from the refugee and surrounding local Bangladeshi community, something I know is close to the heart of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston and was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum). It will also provide food for 290,000 refugees for four months, and provide cash and food assistance for 10,000 of the most vulnerable members of the local economy to cope with the economic impact of the covid-19 crisis.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) rightly asked about humanitarian support and access to those services. Since March, we have committed £11 million to help prepare the refugees for the impact of covid-19. We have backed major deployments to Cox’s Bazar by the UK emergency medical team to offer clinical expertise and set up isolation and treatment centres. United Kingdom aid has created capacity for more than 600 beds for treating refugees and locals alike suffering from severe respiratory infections. More than 2,400 hand-washing facilities have been added to the camps and public health information has been widely shared across communities.
I had the pleasure of a virtual day visit to Myanmar, where I saw at first hand—albeit over the internet—the work that our aid is delivering. If hon. Members would like to see what the UK is doing on the ground in these camps in Myanmar and Bangladesh, I would be more than happy to facilitate access to some of that information and perhaps give a presentation. Meanwhile, we have continued to fund critical services, such as food, regular medical services, clean water, sanitation and protection.
Thankfully, the number of confirmed covid cases in the Bangladeshi camps is much lower than anticipated. The WHO and health agencies are seeking a better understanding of transmission levels and expanding the reach of community health workers in the camps.
Jim Shannon
The Minister is being generous and most gracious in giving way. My question is on the data. There is some concern among many hon. Members and non-governmental organisations that the data was perhaps not as accurate as it could be, simply because they had no access to it. Has he had a chance to look at that?
Nigel Adams
It is important that the data is accurate and I will follow that up with my team. I know that more work is being done on the ground to assess the data and ensure that the information gathered on transmission rates is as accurate as possible. Thus far, thankfully, we are seeing a relatively low infection rate. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that point—collecting information and getting an in-depth, detailed analysis is crucial.
We have also continued to support local Bangladeshi communities, for example by bolstering the local economy and giving 50,000 local Bangladeshi people access to safe water. However, we know that, three years on, this is a protracted crisis and the Rohingya and local communities will need long-term support—I know that one or two colleagues have asked about that this morning. We are working with the Bangladeshi Government, the United Nations and the World Bank on a development strategy for the Cox’s Bazar district. As hon. Members will know, this was an incredibly poor area even before the influx of refugees, so we continue to encourage the Bangladeshi Government to help the Rohingya lead safe and full lives by improving education and offering access to jobs. That is crucial if we are to prevent despair setting in.
The Bangladeshi Government agreed earlier this year that Rohingya children could have access to the Myanmar curriculum. On the other side of the border, in conflict-afflicted Rakhine state in Myanmar, the UK has provided over £44 million to all communities since 2017—the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston raised this point. This includes over £25 million for Rohingya communities for education, nutrition, water, health, sanitation and general livelihood support. As I saw on my virtual visit in June, our partners are doing some life-saving work. There are 128,000 Rohingya and 88,000 ethnic Rakhine in internally displaced person camps. Our priority is to reach those IDPs and the conflict-affected populations.
Covid has only exacerbated the problems. The number of covid cases is increasing across Rakhine state and testing is not widespread in those camps or villages. The Myanmar Government have implemented lockdowns and curfews, the impact of which we are closely monitoring.
We are also working closely with the Myanmar Ministry of Health on equipping facilities, protecting health workers, and reducing the cost of accessing healthcare for the most vulnerable patients. We are enabling the life-saving work that the crisis threatens to end. The importance of childhood immunisation and ensuring safe, high-quality maternal health services are also crucial, and our assistance is helping to deliver that. We are the largest donor of water, hygiene and sanitation in IDP camps and displacement sites, which also supports work on protection and livelihoods. Most of the IDP camps are based in central Rakhine, and the UK funds all of those camps. We also provide significant food support in northern Rakhine and have reached 200,000 people.
Turning to the points raised by right hon. and hon. Members, we heard a thoughtful speech from the right hon. Member for Islington North, who talked about the history of the Rohingya in Myanmar. We are clear that the Rohingya who have lived in Myanmar for generations should be granted full citizenship and the associated rights. We continue to call for the reform of the 1982 citizenship law, which is deeply flawed. The Rohingya should not be excluded from Myanmar elections. On 23 June I spoke to the Myanmar Government and raised my concerns in the strongest terms about how the Rohingya are denied citizenship and have been stripped of the right to vote.
The right hon. Member for Islington North also talked about sanctions and raised the point about companies owned by the military. The hon. Member for Strangford also mentioned sanctions. It is clear that the Myanmar military has vast and complex interests across the economy, on both an institutional and an individual level. The military economic institutions grew up under sanctions and are opaque. Thankfully, they have limited exposure to the UK economy. However, we encourage UK companies to conduct thorough due diligence, but it will not be possible for credible investors to ensure that investments have no exposure whatever to the holding companies. We have applied direct sanctions to the perpetrators of the atrocities against the Rohingya people. In total, 16 people in Myanmar have been sanctioned. We will continue to use this tool as a force for good in Myanmar. We will also continue—one or two Members have raised this—to review options for targeted actions that impact on the military but do not harm poor people in Myanmar.
The right hon. Member for Islington North mentioned Aung San Suu Kyi. We are clear that the military are responsible for the atrocities against the Rohingya. The President is the elected leader of Myanmar, and it is vital that we continue to engage with her to help Myanmar make progress on the very serious challenges that it faces. We also had a thoughtful speech from the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse. In an intervention on the right hon. Member for Islington North, she mentioned the UN inspections at Bhasan Char in the Bay of Bengal, which was also mentioned by the hon. Members for Birmingham, Edgbaston and for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald). The inspection should happen urgently. There are 306 refugees on the island. Full and detailed assessments are urgently needed to evaluate the situation on that island, which is something we will continually support and call for. We continue to work with the Bangladeshi Government on that issue.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston also mentioned, as did other Members, the ICJ case brought by The Gambia. We have publicly welcomed the case and the ICJ’s provisional measures, and we continue to call on the Myanmar Government to abide by this ruling.
The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse mentioned education, as did the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire, and I agree that education and skills training are absolutely fundamental. Our latest funding of £37.5 million will support a safe return to quality education for those people. She also mentioned gender-based violence, as did the hon. Members for East Renfrewshire and for Birmingham, Edgbaston, and she was absolutely right to do so. This is a priority area, and we are prioritising the protection and safeguarding of women and girls in our humanitarian response to this crisis. The latest funding I referred to will help improve support and protection, especially for women and girls. Our aid will prevent, mitigate and respond to violence, exploitation and abuse, including gender-based violence, and will also help child survivors of abduction and trafficking, as was referred to by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston. Our aid has already provided lighting and padlocks for home shelters, and sanitation and infrastructure to improve women’s safety.
I appreciate that I have to allow some time for the right hon. Member for Islington North to conclude this debate, so in the time available I will say that we must work to create the conditions that will allow the Rohingya to return safely, voluntarily and with dignity to Myanmar,. The conflict between the Arakan army and the Myanmar military has made this so much harder. A commitment to civilian protection will be key to any bilateral ceasefire, and we continue to call for de-escalation and for dialogue, including at the UN Security Council. We convened the Council in September and called for a cessation of hostilities in Rakhine and Chin states.
However, this is not just about providing humanitarian assistance, essential though that is; accountability is also vital, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston said. The Myanmar military has committed atrocities against the Rohingya and other minorities, yet there has been no tangible progress on accountability. We support the ICJ process and those provisional measures, and we are putting pressure on Myanmar to protect the Rohingya. The Foreign Secretary has raised the issue of impunity in the Myanmar military with Myanmar’s Minister for International Cooperation. We will not pass by on the other side. This terrible crisis demands our full attention. We will build on the recent donor conference and do everything we can to help the Rohingya, and I know the whole House and the constituents we represent want nothing less.
Jeremy Corbyn
Welcome to the Chair, Mr Twigg. I do not know whether you can give us a little latitude because we lost 10 minutes at the beginning of the debate, but we shall see what happens.
I thank all Members for their contributions to this incredibly well-informed, serious and intelligent debate. I think that we have managed to send out a message from this House around the world that we are concerned about and in solidarity with the Rohingya people in the plight they are facing. The Minister said that his door is open. I welcome that statement and look forward to going through that open door to discuss further what we can do to support the Rohingya people. In particular, I hope that he will be able to write to me on two of the questions I raised that he was unable to answer today, concerning the purchase of PPE and the relationship with the military. I will await a letter from him on those issues.
I was very pleased that the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) mentioned the good work done by John Bercow, the former Speaker of this House, who did a great deal to promote democratic development in Myanmar, and indeed he went there. I think he should be thanked and applauded for that, because he showed real courage and determination to spread democracy there.
The hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) used a word in her speech that we never want to hear, but we have to. The word is “genocide”. We should thank the Government of The Gambia for being prepared to take that case to the International Court of Justice. The provisional judgments made are very serious indeed, and I think that they have to be given a wide circulation. I thank all those who have managed to get the word out. In particular, the very good report on al-Jazeera last night—
Royal Mail: South-east London
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Royal Mail service in south-east London.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I start by paying tribute to our postal workers. During the coronavirus pandemic, they have been a lifeline for people across the country who have been unable to leave their homes; they have been delivering parcels to people unable to get to the shops and letters from loved ones who are unable to visit. As we enter a second phase of lockdown, the importance of their role is set only to continue. Postal workers have also been a vital source of human contact for people living alone at this time. They are spotting people who are struggling physically or emotionally, and often going the extra mile to offer support or raise concerns.
As frontline workers, our postal workers have faced additional risks. Many have contracted coronavirus. Some have, tragically, lost their lives. All have had to live with the additional anxiety experienced in a line of work that involves handling many thousands of individual items every day. While touching post boxes, knocking on doors and handing items across a threshold, they may come into contact with a deadly disease. I pay tribute to all of them. I know how hard they have worked to maintain collections and deliveries and serve our communities.
There is no doubt that, despite the best efforts of postal workers, coronavirus has brought challenges for Royal Mail, particularly in terms of staff sickness, and there has been a great deal of forbearance among members of the public for frontline workers doing their very best to keep going at an extraordinarily difficult time. However, in the East Dulwich part of my constituency, covered by the SE22 postcode, patience has run out.
In 2017, Royal Mail announced its intention to close the East Dulwich delivery office on Silvester Road in SE22 and merge it with the already busy SE15 delivery office in Peckham. The East Dulwich delivery office was clearly not fit for purpose at the time. Specifically, it was not big enough for the volume of mail being processed there at busy times of the year. But moving that workload to an already busy office in Peckham made no sense then and has continued to make no sense ever since.
I worked with local councillors and the community at the time of Royal Mail’s announcement in order to warn that the closure would result in a failure of service to my constituents in East Dulwich. Specifically, we warned that parts of East Dulwich were a very long way from the Peckham delivery office, which would make it difficult for postal workers to complete a round on foot within their shift; that the topography of East Dulwich, parts of which are very hilly, would further add to the difficulties; that public transport links to Peckham from parts of East Dulwich are difficult; and that there is no convenient parking near the Peckham office. We urged Royal Mail again and again not to close the East Dulwich delivery office without providing a fit-for-purpose replacement delivery office in the SE22 postcode area.
Nevertheless, Royal Mail management went ahead with the closure two years ago, just before the peak Christmas period in 2018. The result was total chaos, with delayed and missing post. Residents were left completely bewildered after Royal Mail continued to deliver “Sorry we missed you” cards with details of the closed East Dulwich delivery office and thousands of letters informing residents of the closure went undelivered. Royal Mail claimed at the time that it was not compulsory to tell local residents that their local delivery office had closed.
Services improved a little after that difficult Christmas, although many of my constituents continued to struggle to pick up post and parcels from the Peckham delivery office, due to its inaccessibility from large parts of East Dulwich. It is also clear that there is very little resilience in the arrangements for East Dulwich deliveries, so staff sickness and annual leave have continued to lead quite quickly to unreliable service.
However, the coronavirus pandemic has tested East Dulwich delivery services beyond breaking point. Since the start of the pandemic in March, constituents across the SE22 postcode area have reported that their postal deliveries are entirely unreliable. On many streets, residents report not receiving deliveries for days and sometimes weeks at a time.
Residents across East Dulwich have been inconvenienced, but many individual constituents have suffered consequences that are far more serious than being inconvenienced. Among the constituents suffering the most serious outcomes of this collapse in service are those who have missed important hospital appointments for critical health conditions, those whose relatives’ death certificates went missing and those required to shield who did not receive the Government’s advice on how to keep themselves safe.
In addition, dozens of replacement bank cards went missing, leaving some constituents unable to buy food online at a time when they were unable to leave their homes. Cheques went missing, including one for £4,000. One constituent now has to attend court for no other reason than that the letter informing her of a speeding fine arrived after the deadline for paying the fine had passed. Parcels for students leaving home for university have not been delivered before the start of term, and there are many cases of legal documents relating to power of attorney, care arrangements or conveyancing being lost or greatly delayed.
Royal Mail announced at the start of the pandemic that it was suspending Saturday deliveries. Also, Ofcom has confirmed that it considers the coronavirus pandemic to constitute an emergency and that Royal Mail is not required to sustain services without interruption in the event of an emergency. However, there is a huge difference between dropping Saturday deliveries and leaving my constituents without any deliveries at all for two or three weeks at a time. I believe that there is a serious gap in regulation, because if Royal Mail is not currently required to meet the universal service obligation, my constituents effectively have no way to hold it to account.
I want to draw attention to the context in which my constituents are suffering such serious consequences. While postal workers across the country have been serving on the frontline of the coronavirus pandemic, Royal Mail’s chief operating officer and outgoing chief executive were both working from home, in Germany and Switzerland respectively. The outgoing chief executive, whose abrupt departure was announced in May, had received a golden hello of £5.8 million, a sum that could have been used to hire 252 postmen and postwomen, just a few of whom would have been able to sustain reliable services for my constituents in SE22. The SE22 Royal Mail delivery office on Silvester Road in East Dulwich was sold for £7.5 million and is currently being developed for luxury flats, carefully designed to fall just below the threshold requiring any affordable housing.
Royal Mail has announced a suspension of delivery of dividend payments for the current financial year. There is no doubt that the organisation faces some serious challenges, but it is also clear that a privatised model for delivering this vital public service has not worked. The twin objectives of delivering the universal service obligation and a return to shareholders are not compatible. As a consequence, we see an organisation that, despite cuts and asset-stripping, is failing my constituents.
I have been in regular contact with Royal Mail since the start of the pandemic and I recently visited the Peckham delivery office. It is clear that staff there are working very hard, but they are being failed because their work environment is not fit for purpose. Voluntary van-sharing, which would compromise the safety of postal workers just as we enter the second wave of coronavirus, is not the answer either.
Also, although I receive replies from Royal Mail on behalf of my constituents regarding each individual failure, Royal Mail has never acknowledged the cumulative failure of its services in SE22 or the seriousness of the problems caused for so many of my constituents.
I have a number of questions for the Minister. Will he join me in raising the catastrophic failure of Royal Mail in the SE22 postcode area in East Dulwich at the most senior levels in Royal Mail and Ofcom, and in calling on Royal Mail to reinstate a delivery office in SE22? Does he agree that a regulatory system that does not allow for any accountability when the universal service obligation is suspended is not fit for purpose? Will he commit to a review of the regulation of Royal Mail? Will he take action to ensure that Royal Mail can no longer unilaterally close and sell off delivery offices without clearly demonstrating that it will not result in repeated failures to deliver the universal service obligation, as has often happened to the residents I represent in East Dulwich? Does he agree that Royal Mail should not be run by absentee, arm’s length executives domiciled overseas? Does he agree that the payments to Royal Mail executives are excessive and should be used instead to fund additional postal workers in areas of staff shortage? Finally, does he agree that privatisation is failing to deliver the services my constituents need, and that it is vital to bring this vital public service back into common ownership so that it can be run for the benefit of people, not profit?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) for securing this important debate and standing up for her constituents, who have clearly suffered through the teething issues of the change to the sorting office and from the impact of coronavirus, which has affected other users and customers across the country.
Before addressing the specific concern about disrupted delivery services in south-east London, I will provide a bit of context and outline the performance of, and pressures on, postal services in the current times. I agree with the hon. Lady, and I recognise the important role that postal workers have played and continue to play in serving customers and supporting local communities across the UK. We should never forget the social and economic impact of Royal Mail, the Post Office and postal services in general in connecting people. Their willingness to maintain deliveries during the coronavirus pandemic, at a time of increased social isolation, when many people cannot leave their homes, is vital. The Government are relying on the postal service’s continued operation to keep people connected across the country, and deliver the letters and parcels that are so important to everyday life and supporting the economy in these unprecedented times. It is therefore vital that normal services are maintained as far as possible.
Royal Mail’s well-established contingency plans to mitigate disruption to postal services are overseen by Ofcom, the independent regulator. It has reassured the Government, and I continue to monitor it and press it to ensure it is doing everything it can to maintain service levels during this period and that it continues to keep Ofcom informed. Specific changes to Royal Mail’s services are an operational matter for Royal Mail. Any reduction of services by it in exceptional circumstances will be temporary and are undertaken only when absolutely necessary. It is for Ofcom to monitor service levels in the first instance.
The regulatory conditions that require Royal Mail to deliver letters six days a week as part of the universal postal service also provide that it is not required to sustain those services without interruption, suspension or restriction in the event of an emergency. Ofcom has acknowledged that the covid-19 pandemic is such an emergency. It published a statement on its website on 29 April clarifying the regulatory framework that supported Royal Mail’s actions. It also confirmed that Royal Mail’s delivery obligations remain important elements of the universal service, and that it will keep the temporary change under review.
The regulatory framework is clear that emergency conditions allow Royal Mail to modify its operations, which includes reducing the frequency of the delivery of letters without formal authorisation if that is considered necessary to respond to the challenges it faces in sustaining the wider universal postal service during the pandemic. Royal Mail temporarily suspended Saturday letter deliveries for six weeks from 2 May to 13 June 2020 in the light of pressures on its staff during the height of the pandemic. Saturday deliveries of parcels continued through the six-week period.
A flexible approach to regulation under emergency conditions has supported Royal Mail and its hard-working employees. It has enabled the delivery of above-usual volumes of parcels, while managing high levels of coronavirus-related absences and necessary social distancing measures, keeping the country moving. Throughout the pandemic Royal Mail has been transparent with the public about changes to its services, with service update information published on its website.
Saturday deliveries were temporarily suspended nationwide, but I should like to address the specific concerns about services in south-east London. Royal Mail informs me that service levels have been affected owing to necessary changes to business operations and increased staff absence during the pandemic.
I shall address each of those issues in turn, because as the hon. Lady said there have clearly been teething problems and the changes have affected people, sometimes severely. I acknowledge the difficulties her constituents have experienced with those teething problems and during the coronavirus outbreak.
The safety of workers is a key priority of the Government. It is essential that Royal Mail workers are, and feel, safe in their working environment, which is why Royal Mail took significant steps to ensure its staff work in a safe environment in line with Government guidelines.
Royal Mail advises colleagues that good hand hygiene is the first and most important line of defence and promotes regular handwashing with soap and water. Other protective items such as hand sanitiser, disposable gloves and face coverings are available to all staff.
Royal Mail has implemented social distancing measures to ensure the safety of its staff and customers. For example, it introduced the “thumbs up” campaign during the height of the pandemic to make the public aware of the need to keep a safe distance while deliveries are made. In addition, Royal Mail reduced the number of staff in delivery vans from two to one. These measures have understandably had an impact on service levels.
As with businesses across many sectors, staff absence at Royal Mail increased during the pandemic and remains higher than usual, and that has clearly had an impact on service delivery. South-east London covers 28 postcode areas serviced by 20 Royal Mail delivery offices, and these combined postcode areas are served by Croydon mail centre. In the south-east London postcode area, sickness absence peaked at above 20% in May and is still higher than Royal Mail would normally expect at this time of year. Postmen and women who served the area throughout the pandemic continue to dedicate themselves to providing a public service in Dulwich and West Norwood and in all south-east London parliamentary constituencies.
Royal Mail employees have done their utmost to deliver as much mail and as many parcels as possible in difficult circumstances. In the East Dulwich area specifically there are 23 delivery rounds a day. At the peak of the coronavirus, Royal Mail partially failed to deliver in an average of 12 delivery rounds a day. That means there may have been a failure to deliver some products in each of those 12 rounds, and we have heard about the impact on the hon. Lady’s constituents. Those partial failures are now down to two or three delivery rounds.
Where business operations have been adjusted to deal with the pressures of the pandemic, Royal Mail has been transparent about the changes in services. It acknowledges there have been some reductions in service delivery, but given the pandemic, that is really no fault of its own, notwithstanding the teething problems with the changes to delivery offices.
The covid-19 pandemic continues to present challenging conditions, not just in the south-east but across the United Kingdom, Europe and globally. Royal Mail has done its level best to maintain service levels throughout a situation outside its control. To try to keep on top of the ongoing epidemic conditions, which might see rising staff absence alongside higher-still parcel volumes, in the run-up to Christmas, Royal Mail intends to recruit an additional 33,000 temporary workers, 10,000 more than usual, to help to manage the increase in online shopping caused by the coronavirus.
The Royal Mail’s universal service obligation is clearly a challenge. The changes that have been made are temporary, but services across a number of sectors have clearly been affected. Postal services affect so many people, which is why it is so important that we keep their social value and keep people connected.
The Government continue to push to keep Royal Mail to as high a standard as possible. Any permanent change would need to go first through a process with Ofcom before being decided in Parliament. It is important that we assess the impact on the hon. Lady’s constituents, and on people across the country—how they are being affected and how they use postal services.
The hon. Lady talked about absentee executives. As she said, there has been a change at the top, and I think that it is a better reflection of people’s expectations of what is required in Royal Mail at a particularly challenging time, even beyond covid. As to privatisation, there are some fundamental changes, not necessarily on ownership, that Royal Mail recognises and must address. It has a universal service obligation to keep six-day delivery right across the UK at a single price, but it also faces a challenge with the reduction in the number of letters being sent and the increase in the number of parcels, which as yet it has been unable to capitalise on as much as some of its competitors. A lot of functions need to be changed.
I said that operational matters are a matter for Royal Mail, so I will not comment about reinstating the service office in Silvester Road, but on behalf of the Government, I again take the opportunity to thank Royal Mail and to thank the hon. Lady for raising concerns for her constituents. It is important to focus on this and get it right, and not just in relation to the temporary nature of the pandemic, hopefully, as we learn to live with the virus—we do not know how temporary it is. Clearly, we need to get things right for those constituents who still rely on letters. Yes, people want their parcels, and people can use email, but some people like—and, as we have heard, need—a connection through letters, so thank you to the postal workers who continue to serve the nation, keeping us connected during these unprecedented times.
Question put and agreed to.
Government Response to Covid-19
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the effectiveness of the Government response to the covid-19 outbreak.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles, for the first time. First, I want to make it crystal clear that I do not underestimate this nasty virus. I have friends who have had it, friends who have got it, and a friend who nearly died from it. I also want to state that I have a lot of sympathy for our Prime Minister, who faces an unprecedented challenge, contradictory advice, and a tough call to make, but that must not extinguish debate. As we hurtle towards another lockdown, I would be doing my constituents a disservice if I did not question the wisdom of repeating what has already been implemented and failed.
Lockdowns, in most people’s view, do not work. They simply delay the inevitable—the re-emergence of the virus when lockdown ends, as has been shown. To paraphrase Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933, we have nothing to fear but fear itself. I do not know about you, Sir Charles, but after three long years of project fear during the Brexit debate, I am tired of fear. I long for optimism, hope, aspiration, courage, and our long-departed friend, common sense. Instead, we have been force-fed a diet of death and destruction on an almost hourly basis for month after month, and we face more, although who would not have capitulated after Saturday’s presentation when we heard that deaths could peak at 4,000 a day by Christmas?
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
Is my hon. Friend aware that already the case for the 4,000 deaths, the sombrero of doom, is falling apart, and even the researcher who put the research together now says we should not be using it?
Richard Drax
I have heard that. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I will come on to more statistics later, although they are not always helpful.
I was interested in a recent article written by The Telegraph’s Ross Clark in which he asked whether anyone had been able to read the small print at the bottom of the graph, which states:
“These are scenarios—not predictions or forecasts.”
He added that it was odd that there was no source listing for the graphs. I would think that the best guide to future deaths is numbers of infections, but even those are a difficult yardstick as they are falling in some parts of the country and rising in others. It is also important to acknowledge that the more we test, the higher the infection rate. It is encouraging that the death rate has halved as effective treatments have come into play. Let us not forget Professor Neil Ferguson’s dire warning in March of 250,000 deaths. The truth is that—my hon. Friend has hinted at it—predictions, modelling, forecasts and scenarios change, and with them the Government’s policy. What is that exactly? The modus operandi appears to be a roller coaster ride of lockdowns and release until a vaccine is found. But why, when we have a virus with a 99% survival rate? Last month the virus was the 19th most common cause of death. Have we overreacted? Yes, I think we have. A draconian, onerous and invasive set of rules and regulations now govern our very existence. Lord Sumption calls it a form of house arrest, and I concur. Interestingly, he also points out a section in the minutes of SAGE, the body advising the Government, where behavioural scientists advise the Government that
“Citizens should be treated as rational actors, capable of taking decisions for themselves and managing personal risk.”
Instead, unfortunately for all of us, coercion was selected.
This interference in our personal freedoms has not been seen since the war. Imagine then if we had predicted the human cost; we would have surrendered immediately. I am 62 and I cannot recall a moment in our proud island history when our nation has been so cowed, to the extent that it is now. Today, a police officer can issue a fixed penalty notice of £10,000 to those “involved” in a gathering exceeding 30 people. Initially aimed at raves, that power has now been used for other purposes. That and other draconian rules, such as the 10pm curfew and the rule of six, further enhance the sense of oppression.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the rationale and reasoning for the rule of six and the 10 pm curfew have not been backed up with evidence?
Richard Drax
The good reason why a few of us voted against those measures was that there was no evidence to support them.
The 10 pm curfew only further destroyed the hospitality sector, while the rule of six broke up families. I cannot think of a modern crisis in which family and families are more essential and more important. Surely, their support is common sense, despite the risks. It is for them to make decisions about who they see and when, not the Government.
Depressingly, we have been warned that this lockdown might go on after 2 December, putting family gatherings at Christmas at risk. Nowhere in the debate, as far as I can recall, have we heard the word “risk”. The reason, I fear, is that we have become risk averse. Personally, I think that has made the sleepwalk into an invasion of our civil liberties even easier.
All appears to hang on the introduction of a vaccine, but the history of vaccines does not bring much comfort. An all-out effort is being made to create a vaccine, but how effective will it be? Who will it help? When will we actually have it? All these questions are still unanswered, although I welcome every effort to get one. I have spoken to quite a few medical experts and they tell me that pandemics end naturally, mitigated by better treatment of those who suffer, a vaccine and immunity in the population. Like flu, we must learn to live with this virus and not let it destroy us.
In the meantime, we are leaving a devastated landscape, economically, financially, physically and mentally. My own constituency of South Dorset, the prettiest in the country, relies heavily on the hospitality sector. Those in that sector responded to calls to make their facilities safer, only to now see them shutting again.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
My hon. Friend mentions the financial aspects of the crisis and the financial devastation we are going through. Does he recall that, in the last 10 years, the Labour party has repeatedly lambasted us for what they call austerity, which was us trying to balance the books, reducing the deficit from £152 billion a year to £20 billion a year? Does he agree that if we had not pursued that fiscal discipline the situation now would be catastrophic?
Richard Drax
I am always delighted to hear from my hon. Friend. He sounds like the former Chancellor of the Exchequer on Radio 4 just the other day. I concur; when there is no money in the coffers, savings have to be made or taxes raised. I pay tribute to the coalition Government, who did their best to get our economy back into a place to face circumstances such as we face today.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for initiating today’s debate. Will he also note that had the Government not stripped our NHS so bare that it did not even have enough PPE to protect its workers, we would not be in this catastrophic mess and we would not have seen our incredible NHS workers die?
Richard Drax
I do not entirely concur with the hon. Lady. The NHS has record amounts of money. Let’s face it, many care homes are privately run and responsible for PPE themselves, as is the NHS. Not that long ago an exercise was run and warnings given that were a pandemic of this sort to come, the NHS should prepare. I am not criticising the NHS, for which I have huge respect, but it is up to the organisations themselves and not, perhaps, individual Ministers, to ensure that they have the right equipment. I am not going to go further down that road, if the hon. Lady will forgive me.
I go back to people opening and shutting their businesses. Business owners are furious at this chop and change, which places their livelihoods at risk, some after years of hard graft and sacrifice. Many of my constituents who are on low wages and struggling to survive depend on these jobs to get by. There is no doubt that another lockdown will see many jobs disappear; many already have. The huge take-up of universal credit will get even larger. Not one of my constituents has asked for this. They are proud people who do their level best to contribute. Signing on must be utterly soul destroying.
Let us not forget the welfare bill. Along with the furlough scheme, which is now to be extended—I welcome that in the circumstances—it has soaked up hundreds of billions of pounds we do not have. How and when will it be repaid? It will be repaid by my children—our children—that is who.
We will have to treat this spending spree in the same way we treated our wartime debt. Raising taxes would cripple those who survived these shutdowns, and who, let us remember, pay for our public services through tax. I mean no disrespect to those who work in the public sector, but on the whole their jobs are secure. It is the companies, entrepreneurs, small businesses and self-employed in the private sector who are bearing the brunt of this blunt tool and who must not—I urge the Minister for whom I have huge respect—be hit by taxes when we emerge from this pandemic. More of tax on another day.
What is an alternative path? I am a signatory to the Great Barrington declaration, to which I would like to add eight thoughts. First, the virus is not an indiscriminate killer, as portrayed. We know it mainly targets the elderly, especially those with serious underlying conditions. All our resources should be aimed at protecting them and those in care homes and hospitals. I hope that the Government respond positively to those who rightly say we should be allowed to visit family and friends there during this next lockdown. No one should suffer or die alone. Human touch is not only essential but it saves lives. Test and trace is vital and must be expanded nationwide as soon as possible.
Secondly, we must and should have expanded services in the NHS. Because that has not happened over recent months, many seriously ill patients have forgone hospital treatment either for fear of catching the virus or because beds have been put aside for the predicted surge of those suffering from covid. I have huge admiration for all those working in the NHS and thank them from the bottom of my heart for what they do. But the Government’s slogan “Stay Home, Protect the NHS, Save Lives” has the wrong emphasis. The NHS is here to protect us, not the other way round.
Thirdly, sadly, we must accept a certain number of deaths although, as I have just said, everything must be done to keep the figure as low as possible. Every death is regrettable.
Fourthly, it is time to publish everything we know to counter the current lack of transparency, especially the number of deaths caused by lockdown. Too many inquiries are met with silence or referred to freedom of information requests.
Fifthly, we must abandon lockdowns. They are destructive, divisive and do not work. Sixthly, while protecting the most vulnerable we must let the majority of the nation get on with their lives. Seventhly, that majority should adopt common-sense precautions where appropriate.
Finally, we must get the nation back to work, continue to keep our students at university receiving the education for which they have paid and not virtual education, and our schools must remain open.
I conclude as I started. I sympathise with the Government, but I and others must be allowed to question the direction of travel, especially one that clearly is not working. With signs of unrest growing here and in Europe, I urge the Government to look seriously at another way forward. I am genuinely shocked at how easily people’s hard-earned liberties have been taken away from them without so much as a by your leave. We are in this House to serve, not to dictate. I have learned in life that there is never one solution to a problem. An appreciation of our current situation would throw up several courses of action. May I urge the Government to study the alternative courses before theirs is beyond recall?
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles.
I thank the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr Drax) for securing this important debate. All of us here today are saddened that we are heading into another lockdown without the Government having done everything in their power to limit the loss of lives and infections in this second wave. I worry that thousands of lives will be lost and that our health and social care sectors will be pushed to breaking point once again. While I commend the Government for listening to the Opposition and to SAGE and for following the science, I am concerned that it has come a little too late.
We are here to discuss the Government’s effectiveness in dealing with the crisis, and I would not be telling the truth if I did not say that the Government have fallen short in navigating us effectively through the crisis. But here we are, and I look forward to working collaboratively with all Members in the House to move forward and mitigate the worst of what is to come.
The Government have rightly said that the NHS will get whatever it takes to deal with covid-19, and I am sure that the hon. Member for South Dorset agrees that it should be the same for the social care sector. It is imperative that weekly testing of care home residents and staff is prioritised in order to save many lives. As I speak about my friends and colleagues in the health and social care sector, I am sure that the hon. Member for South Dorset would like to join me in paying tribute to all the frontline workers who have put their lives on the line during the pandemic.
Statistics show that 1,320 healthcare workers have died from covid. One life lost is too many and 1,320 represents a dereliction of duty on our behalf. Delays in the early stages of the pandemic meant that healthcare workers were forced to work without the requisite PPE. Staff with pre-existing conditions are still working, despite evidence showing that they are more likely to die, or become very ill, from the disease. The sacrifices that they have made makes it incredibly painful that our nurses and colleagues in the social care sector are not being paid a fair wage. There are about 759 nurses living in my constituency who will be expected to work during the deadly second wave. One way this Government can show us that they value the work of our nurses is by increasing their pay now. It is unfathomable that nurses should still have to wait until April to receive better pay for the important work that they do.
As for social care staff, I hope that the hon. Member for South Dorset will agree that those on the minimum wage should also receive increased pay. A pay rise will not compensate them for the missed birthdays, school plays and other memories not shared with their loved ones, but it will give them—nurses and social care workers—dignity in their work and help them to provide for their families, which is help that they deserve.
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman will join me in asking the Government to ensure that just three things happen: first, that healthcare workers do not run out of personal protective equipment; secondly, that they receive a pay increase; and, thirdly, that healthcare and social care staff with pre-existing medical conditions are better protected and shielded during the second wave.
As I said, it is really important for us to learn the lessons of the first wave and to work together for all our constituents.
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
We are now going to try to keep colleagues to five minutes.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Sir Charles.
On 31 January, the first case of coronavirus occurred in the UK, in my constituency. At that point, we had real engagement with the Government, and I was grateful for the discussions I had with them and officials about how we could manage the pandemic. However, the plans put in place then certainly have not lasted throughout the crisis. That is why it is really important to return to some of the principles that were established early on.
We now know that over a million people in our country have contracted the virus, and 46,853 of them are no longer with us. Therefore, we cannot continue to take the risks that have been taken up to now. Although I heard what the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) said, the situation we are in means that we must put people’s lives at the forefront, which means protecting both their physical and mental health.
It seems to me that the virus is always a step ahead of the measures being put in place to control it. Therefore, this lockdown period will be absolutely vital for us to catch up with, get ahead of and then get on top of the virus, so that we can lock it, rather than people and the economy, down.
That was the plan on day one; that was part of the discussions that I had earlier this year. I was told that meticulous contact tracing was absolutely essential to track down the virus. However, after talking to public health officials locally, it is clear that there is so much delay in the process that contact tracing has been ineffective.
Let me give some statistics. When it comes to getting the test results themselves, 16% are provided within 24 hours and 60% within 48 hours. Within 72 hours, we get 96% of the data. Often, however, the data coming through is incomplete, because it has not been properly entered into the system. On top of that, we know that Serco then holds that data, often for 48 hours, as it has a national contact tracing system. By the time local authorities get the data, we are into day five, six or even seven of the virus. That is not how we lock down the virus tightly and move into the isolation and testing process. That is what must change.
We know that the ability of Serco to deliver good contact tracing falls below 50%. However, local authorities are turning that situation around. Yesterday, the statistic for York was 83.7%, and local officials say they would get to 100% if they had complete data. Let us just imagine it: the local authority controls the testing process, so when somebody turns up at a test, local officials input the data, and the test results could then be delivered overnight. That could be done in York if the Government supported local providers, such as the university and local laboratories, to turn those tests around overnight. Then, in the morning, the local public health team would be tracking down the virus and there would be contact tracing the next day, locking down the virus and therefore ensuring that the rest of the economy is working well.
That turns the whole debate on its head, from assuming that everybody is contagious to allowing us to have our freedoms. That is what needs to happen in the next month, because the accuracy local authorities can achieve comes from their local knowledge and the precision they have through their professional training. There are also just simple things, such as using a local phone number and knocking on doors to lock down the virus. That works, and it is essential that we go through that process.
I also want to raise an issue about the economy. At the moment, broad sweeps are taken, with different parts of the economy and different sectors shutting down. If we took a public health approach, as we do with all other public health issues, and instead made sure that workplaces and venues were covid-secure, we could certify them as such and ensure that there is enforcement. If they were not, they would be subject to an improvement notice or closure. Again, taking that public health approach means that we are not ruining the economy; we are just putting good practice in place. That is how we can manage the pandemic into the longer term, and I trust the Government will respond.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
Sir Charles, I am absolutely delighted that you are in the Chair, and I am sure my right hon. Friend the Minister is glad too. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) on securing the debate, and I am glad that he did so.
Having had the privilege of being a Minister with cross-Government responsibilities, I want to begin by reflecting on just how magnificently effective the Government have been in many ways in responding to the covid-19 outbreak. I regret that I will not be able to enumerate in five minutes all the ways in which they have been high performing, but I will touch on a few.
Starting locally, Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust has been absolutely outstanding. It is under the leadership of Neil Macdonald, and I could not have asked for more from our local NHS, which has responded flexibly, kept services going and looked after the public. I do not mind putting on the record that even though I am fine and I got the all-clear, I had a genuine cancer scare in the course of the first lockdown. I was therefore delighted that cancer services were continuing and that I was able to have the necessary tests to discover I was fine. However, it was a frightening moment, and I was grateful to the healthcare trust for making its services available uninterrupted, as far as I experienced them, throughout the crisis.
Buckinghamshire Council is so effective and dynamic that I could almost become an advocate of the ephemeral term “the entrepreneurial state”. I have been delighted with how the council has risen to the challenge of looking after local people, whether that was those who needed food delivered, local children or the homeless. I am delighted by the council’s performance. Fire, ambulance and GPs have all also risen to the challenge. This is about Government effectiveness, so I will not touch on the private sector, but I am grateful to it too. I have been delighted, both personally and on behalf of my electors, by the performance of the full spectrum of local public services.
The Treasury’s performance in delivering economic support has been absolutely tremendous. The gaps in support have been well rehearsed and argued over, and I will not go over them again here. I suspect it is futile to ask my right hon. Friends to close the gaps in support, but I particularly plead for the self-employed earning just over £50,000 a year. They have been especially hard hit, and there are a number of other groups, which we do not need to go through now. However, I encourage the Government to close those gaps. The key point with the Treasury is how easy it is to forget just what a stellar performance it was to get the furlough scheme, the self-employed schemes and the various loan schemes in place as fast as it did. It was an absolutely incredible performance.
We could also talk about the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government getting the homeless off the streets, apart from those who did not want to be reached, as far as I can tell, and about the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Cabinet Office, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Department for Education.
However, I want to press one issue with my right hon. Friend the Minister, which is PPE supplies. It has been raised already, and it has rather dropped off the radar between waves. I hope that in the next wave we do not find we have any shortages of PPE. I do not think the public will take that kindly at all. In the Department of Health and Social Care, there has been tremendous success with testing, and we are now looking forward with energy and enthusiasm, I think, to a further expansion of testing, particularly in Liverpool.
In my remaining minute and a half, I want to touch on some suggestions in terms of areas for improvement. I have four, if I can rattle through them. The first, which is possibly the one that has been most alive in our minds this week, and which hon. Friends have touched on already, is the communication of complex data. In particular, the modelled death projections have quickly been shown to be out of date, never accurate and not the most relevant factor to the decision—yet they are repeatedly put to us. I use those three factors because those are what come out of the answers I have been given. Every time officials and Ministers have shown us those charts, it has been like sunshine on the morning mist—the importance of the charts has just evaporated when prodded. That is regrettable; I will try not to go any further than that. This Government are supposed to be very good at communicating complex data. There are some exceptional data scientists in the Government—it has been my privilege to have contact with them over the last week, and these are really impressive people—but something went wrong when those charts came out.
The second area is expert advice. I have made some proposals for competitive multidisciplinary expert advice with red teams. I thank the Government for letting me be a red team. Modelling also needs to be improved; I will make some suggestions. Finally, there is cost-benefit analysis. It might be practically impossible to give us a cost-benefit analysis, but in the context of these momentous decisions, we really should be looking at some figures to help inform our choices.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I might have a slightly different focus in relation to where we are going.
As I said in the main Chamber last night, I am not a scientist, and I am certainly not a strategist. I understand my limitations in relation to covid-19, and I depend on others to keep me right about where we are. That allows me to accept that, during the first wave, the Government did what they could with the information they had, to fight the virus and the effect it had on this country. I am not going to cast any aspersions on the Government for that. I thank them and Ministers for all that they have done in a very difficult and trying time.
I also want to put on record my thanks to nurses and care workers, and I will make a plea, as the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) did, for the nurses. The Royal College of Nursing has contacted me, as it has contacted every MP, asking for a wage increase. I have told them I will support that; I have written to the Minister about it, and I want to make sure that that is in Hansard today.
We are now in a second wave, and we thankfully have more information. We have more knowledge and experience, and with the additional support comes an additional demand to get things right—as the Scripture says, to whom much is given, much is required. That being the case, the nation is watching and will hold us to a much higher standard. We have to get this right this time round.
I have lost a loved one very close to me. My wife’s mother died from covid-19 just two weeks ago. My sister-in-law was also getting oxygen. My wife’s aunt and uncle have both had it as well. I understand all too well the human aspect that is faced. I see the torment of those who cannot be with their loved ones at the end, who cannot choose the outfit and cannot have a normal funeral. Funerals are limited to 25 people, who then have to go home separately to their homes to grieve. The human cost is massive. What I suggest to everyone here—I say this honestly and respectfully—is to not underestimate the impact of covid-19 and the harm and the deaths that it brings. We all have to find a way to mitigate that as best as we can. Speaking personal, covid-19 is the most horrible, unfeeling and cruel disease. It robs families of their loved ones and their dignity.
However, the human loss in terms of the worst recession this nation has faced will be great too. There are cancer diagnoses missed by people who are afraid to go to the doctors. There is the inadequate funding that will come when budgets are slashed, which will mean that mental health services are lost. Every one of us is pleading for that focus on the national health. We see cutting-edge technology as a faraway dream, and we see all those things that are taken for granted—our welfare state—decimated due to decisions made in this House. The pressure to get it right is immense. Those who are on the minimum wage and those whose hours have been cut find themselves in a dire financial position. We cannot ignore these things—they are happening. We cannot ignore the self-employed, as the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) said. We all know those people as well.
Local businesses in my area have gone all out to ensure that they mitigate what is happening as much as possible. I have seen small businesses taking such steps as supplying free masks at the door. Small businesses understand that the mortgage payment is due. Their ability to invest in stock is on the line, unless they do all they can to stop the spread. It is for those people that I ask the Government again to assess the transmission data, and pinpoint where transmission happens, rather than blanket banning all shops.
Christmas is the time when the local high street makes the money to keep it going for the year. We all know that, and I know it is true for the towns in my constituency. That all hangs in the balance—on a thread. There are also the hairdressers and barbers; the Government want to get the R rate down to 1, but they get it down to 0.02 and they are all closed. Why is that? Children can go to school—in Northern Ireland, they went back to school on Monday past, which is good news. I also make a plea for churches. People want to worship and pray together. I would like to know where the data is that says churches must close, because I am not quite sure it is there.
It is important that we are here to do our job. I wholeheartedly agree with the Leader of the House, but it is vital that shops can be open in a safe way to do their job. We must get that right and ensure that lockdown gives us time to get opening and safety measures right, so that we do not find ourselves in this situation again, with the spikes that we are told will happen, in February and the spring. Our economy and the future health of the nation simply cannot take it. How do we do it? We do it together. We deal with health and the economy together. We support our Government and our Minister to try to make that happen.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) for securing the debate. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and I am sorry for his recent loss.
I do not want to be negative, but I am going to be quite negative, so I apologise up front. There is a lot that the Government—especially Treasury—have done that is extremely good, and I know that all Ministers are working as hard as they can, but I am concerned that people are losing faith in their use of data and science. Because the debate is such an important one, I want to focus on that and to park a lot of the good stuff, although I am not ignoring it.
First, scientists are becoming increasingly sceptical about the use of lockdowns. Edinburgh’s Professor Woolhouse says that lockdowns are a strategy that is “visibly failing”. Oxford’s Carl Heneghan—thank God for him—says that lockdowns push peaks into the future, just requiring more lockdowns. Anyone who thinks we are all coming out of lockdown on 2 December is living in a parallel universe. One can dream about it, but frankly the reality is slight. Sunetra Gupta has said:
“Lockdown is a blunt...policy that forces the poorest and most vulnerable people to bear the brunt of…coronavirus.”
Everyone making decisions about coronavirus is in a well-paid job with a cushy pension. There are many people who are suffering about whom one cannot say that. The WHO says that lockdowns are a last resort.
So disturbed are Heneghan and Tom Jefferson by the use of Government stats—the predictions, projections and illustrations—that they have said that the Government’s use of them is “abysmal”. I would love to know from the Minister why she thinks that senior independent scientists are being quite so caustic about the Government’s use of facts.
One reason, as far as I can see, is Professor Ferguson and Imperial College. I shall be careful what I say, because they are professionals and worthy of respect, but Professor Ferguson has for 20 years had a history of predicting mass death from almost every public health emergency. I am not a scientist, so I will not quote myself; instead, I will quote a bunch of other people, because it is strongly in the public interest that the Government, as a matter of urgency, conduct a peer review of the evidence that they have been receiving.
Johan Giesecke, Sweden’s former chief epidemiologist, said Ferguson’s model was “not very good”. In academia that is fighting talk. The Washington Post quoted him as saying that the forecasts were almost hysterical. Lund University applied Ferguson’s models and found a massive difference between his predictions and what happened. Professor Angus Dalgleish said that there had been “lurid predictions”. Viscount Ridley has criticised Ferguson’s modellings. Professor Michael Thrusfield of the University of Edinburgh said that Ferguson’s modelling on foot and mouth was “severely flawed”. John Ioannidis of Stanford University said that
“major assumptions and estimates that are built in the calculations…seem to be substantially inflated”,
although he did say that the Imperial team seemed to be professional.
Other experts whom I have spoken to say that Imperial’s work is almost always an extreme outlier to normal forecasts. Yet it seems that the Government, because of their risk-averse nature—which I understand—have taken outliers as the norm, which they categorically are not. Let us look at Ferguson’s predictions: 150,000 deaths from foot and mouth disease, when the figure was between 50 and 50,000; 150 million worldwide from bird flu, when 282 died; and 65,000 British deaths from swine flu, when 457 died. I know that mitigations take place afterwards, but the Government need to look into some of the advice they are getting, because I think it is highly dangerous. Members of SAGE yesterday were arguing for a total shutdown, including schools, and I really wonder whether the Government are losing the plot over this. We are obsessive about the risks of covid.
Mr Steve Baker
I had a meeting earlier, which my hon. Friend knows about, with Sir Jeremy Farrar. One thing that he explained to me is that if schools are left open, that adds 0.3 to 0.4 to R, so if we are going into lockdown for a month, it is a big compromise. The Government needs to explain why their strategy is consistent with leaving schools open, much as I applaud the fact they will be there.
Bob Seely
Where is there any sense of balance? I speak personally, and I know the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) lost somebody recently. Over the last decade, both my parents died of winter respiratory flu, and that was really upsetting for me. Three years ago, 22,000 people died of winter flu. According to the logic of some hon. Members of this House, we would effectively have to shut down our lives for six months of the year in case people die. A bizarrely dangerous precedent is being set, whereby the Government now believe they can effectively halt death.
Once upon a time, we would go to someone’s funeral when they hit 85 or over—my dad made it to his mid-80s—and talk about a life well led. Now, if someone dies of covid several years above the national average lifespan, politicians are saying it is the greatest disaster facing humanity and must never happen again.
I understand the virulent nature of covid, and I understand the impact on the NHS, although I thought the NHS was there to protect us, not the other way around. We need some semblance of balance; if the Government were using statistics honestly, openly and transparently and, on balance, came down on the side of lockdown, that would be fine. However, lockdown is a dubious tool and the way we are presenting the data is a hazardous way to approach the subject.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) for securing this important debate. I want to spend my five minutes touching upon how devolution stands up at a time of national crisis. Many of us had severe reservations about the devolution process when Mr Blair started to change our national makeup and constitution. I speak as someone who represents an English seat that borders Wales.
In Shrewsbury we are very proud of being the gateway to Wales. We have so many Welsh people living in our constituency that when England and Wales play against each other in rugby, we have both flags flying side by side throughout the town. Many people in our community have homes, businesses and land on both sides of the border; most importantly, many have families on both sides of the border. It has been devastating to see increasing divergence between the jurisdictions of London—of Westminster—and Wales, throwing up a great deal of uncertainty, misery and paralysis for border communities such as mine. It was really brought home to me by Councillor Hignett from Pontesbury, who has grandchildren just across the border. He can see some of his grandchildren who are on one side of the border, but not others, although Powys and Shropshire have an almost identical R rate.
I am also very disappointed with the Mayors, and the one I am most disappointed with is Andy Burnham. I believe that his grandstanding, pontificating conduct on the television has destabilised to a certain degree the tiered system that was starting to show results. Has his conduct contributed to the fact that the United Kingdom is now moving from a tiered system to a full-blown national lockdown? I would argue that the sheer refusal from him and his like to understand the common need to come together in a national crisis has contributed to making sure that areas such as mine with low R rates are now being forced into a national lockdown.
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
Order. It will have to be quick, otherwise we will run out of time.
Richard Drax
This is devolve and divide. Would it not be wise for the Government not to go down the mayoral route in the future for other areas of the country?
Daniel Kawczynski
I absolutely agree. This is something that historians will be looking over for many years to come. We have to learn from these mistakes during the national crisis.
We have a very low infection rate in Shropshire in comparison with other parts of the United Kingdom. We are a large rural county that is very spread out. Salopians—people from Shropshire—have been following the rules, but as a result of what has been going on in other parts of the United Kingdom, we now have a lockdown, which will have devastating consequence for many of our businesses. I will be voting for the legislation on Wednesday, but I am sure, Sir Charles, that you have listened to your constituents and many small businesses, which have put so much energy and effort into creating livelihoods. So much is at risk now, and it really pains me to see that suffering.
As I said earlier, I am proud of the fact that when we came to office we reduced the annual structural deficit that we inherited from Labour from £152 billion to £20 billion a year. My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset will remember the vilification to which we have been subjected for the past 10 years, with talk of savage Tory cuts and austerity. My goodness me, at a time when we are borrowing more than £200 billion, when we have a debt ratio of more than 103% of GDP, when we are already spending £53 billion of taxpayers’ money on debt interest and when the crisis has not even finished, I dread to think of the economic situation that we would now be in if we had followed the policies of the now suspended former Labour leader and gone for massive borrowing when we did not have a crisis.
I want to ask the Minister about something that a Conservative candidate in the forthcoming local elections has asked. Mrs Susan Coleman wants confirmation that everything is being done for ladies who are pregnant so that when they go through the process in hospital, their partners are given covid tests as quickly as possible and can be present throughout the whole process of giving birth to the child.
Finally, the leader of the Conservative group in Shrewsbury Town Council wants me to ask what happens if the R rate falls below 1 during this lockdown. Will it be possible for it to be lifted sooner than 2 December?
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
Mr Hunt will get 5 minutes if Mr Green takes just 5 minutes and colleagues do not intervene on him, and then everybody will be treated fairly.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) on securing this incredibly important debate.
My principal concern is the somewhat erratic nature of the Government’s approach to dealing with the covid crisis. At the beginning, we were in a very difficult position because we knew very little about covid, its impact and how it spread. It is not like flu, which we can understand by looking at last year and the year before that, and we cannot really look at what other countries are doing to see what we should be doing, because each country is different. We do not have that comparative process, but as we move forward we can reflect on what we have done, reflect on our successes and failures, and adapt as we go along. I was hopeful that once we had the tier system in place, we would be able to see the impact in the respective tiers. In Liverpool, for example, the Government would say that tier 3 was having a positive impact.
There were drawn-out negotiations in Greater Manchester that lasted 10 days. I would not want to apportion the blame for that to the Mayor or the Government. On one hand, we understand that this is an incredibly urgent situation, requiring decisive and quick decision making. One the other hand, negotiations can take 10 days, when in other circumstances the lockdown features have been imposed centrally.
The current approach to lockdown has us going from the tiered system—before it has been proven to work or to fail, and without seeing what evidence we can take from it—immediately into another national circuit-breaker lockdown. We have had one of those before, for three weeks. This is a milder version, because schools are not included, but it is happening in winter, in more difficult conditions. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset suggested, this lockdown should be more severe, because winter presents a more difficult environment in which to achieve a reduction of the R rate and control transmission to allow the test and trace system to work.
In Bolton, we have been through the national lockdown restrictions, the Greater Manchester local lockdown and the Bolton economic lockdown. We came back out into the Manchester lockdown and went into tier 2, then tier 3. Before we know it, we will be in another national lockdown. I am not sure that there has been sufficient reflection on the often devastating impact on people’s lives, livelihoods and education. Questions over civil liberties have not been looked into a great deal over the course of the pandemic, which began months ago.
There has not been enough time for reflection. Throughout this crisis, and especially since Bolton has been in such a difficult position, I have been asking for information from the Government. What has been happening? What is going on? What reports and assessments have been produced, and can I have access to them? Can I explain to my constituents what they have been through and why, and what the problems were? I have also asked what the successes have been. What successes have the Government learned from in Bolton that can be applied to the national lockdown or introduced to the tiering system? I would love to know.
Unfortunately, the Government have not communicated the basics. We are now going into a second national lockdown, and we need people to have confidence in the Government and their actions. We heard on Saturday about the figure of 4,000 deaths per day—four times the figure at the previous peak of the pandemic—but it largely does not reflect our experience over the last six or seven months. Our doctors and hospitals are far better prepared, and they have far greater knowledge than they did. According to the Government, however, the median figure in that report of 4,000 deaths a day could increase to 6,000. Many of my constituents are looking with disbelief at what the Government say. If people do not believe what the Government say or believe in their approach, people will not follow the law or the guidance.
To conclude, I would like to raise a couple of points. Regarding places of worship and gyms, what evidence is there to say that they should be closed down? What impact assessments have been made on the closure of gyms, particularly for women? People are concerned about running in the dark, and I think that will have a greater impact on women. The question should not be what assessment the House has made of the Government’s actions on covid, but whether the Government have really considered their own actions.
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
Thank you very much, Mr Green. Last but not least, Tom Hunt.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. I spoke yesterday at the general covid debate, where I covered lots of issues that I feel strongly about. Today I will talk specifically about NHS Test and Trace and some of my concerns about low levels of compliance, the mental health implications for people who are asked to self-isolate and the impact on their financial circumstances. I know a fair bit about this, because I was recently asked to self-isolate for 11 days. I immediately went to the guidelines, which said that a person will be asked to self-isolate if they have been exposed to somebody who has tested positive for covid within 48 hours of them developing symptoms. For me, I worked it out and it was 62 hours, and yet I was asked to self-isolate. According to the NHS Test and Trace guidelines, I should not have been asked to self-isolate. However, I was and I did. It was not pleasant, but we got through it. I got a very bad cold, which I thought was a cold and not covid. Then I thought I might have covid and a cold at the same time, so I did get a test and it was negative, but I still had to self-isolate for nine days afterwards.
I mention this because it got me thinking about the low levels of compliance. In the debate yesterday, I think my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt) suggested that the figure for compliance was only around 20%. I have heard similar figures mentioned in the media. That is a concern, because if we are going to have a successful test and trace system, we need really high levels of compliance. The question is: are we asking too much by requiring people to self-isolate for 14 days, and are we getting very low levels of compliance because we are asking too much? Would it be better to be more realistic, by perhaps asking people to self-isolate for seven days and getting about 90% compliance? I happen to think that would be better, and that there would be higher levels of compliance.
We have heard about the financial impact faced by those who are asked to self-isolate, and how self-isolation not only impacts them financially—I know that financial support is available, and whether that goes as far as it needs to is a different question—but disrupts their working life. Their lost income and the disruption to their working lives need to be taken into account.
The other point is about the circumstances in which people live. Not everybody has a nice big garden, not everybody has a terrace and not everybody has a balcony. When we are asking people to self-isolate for 14 days, we should never lose sight of the significance of what we are asking them to do. Some people live in circumstances that mean that they really would not want to be confined in their flat for 14 days, because of the impact on their mental health and the sense of being imprisoned and unable to escape or even to go out for a breath of fresh air.
If we are going to have a successful test and trace system, we need guidelines that are easy for people to follow and buy in to. I do believe that the vast majority of people in this country get it and want to play their part. If they are asked to self-isolate, they need to understand the rules and the guidelines, and those rules and guidelines need to be followed—in my case, they were not. It needs to be realistic about what it is asking people to do. If that means being pragmatic by saying seven days instead of 14 to drive up the rates of compliance, that is better than the status quo where it seems like so many people are not following the guidelines.
We have heard all about test and trace, but we have not heard enough about the implications for people of being asked to self-isolate for so long, or from the perspective of our liberties. Yes, it is necessary to have a test and trace system and yes, self-isolation is necessary if someone has tested positive, has had symptoms or has been exposed to someone who has tested positive. When we are discussing local authorities sharing data with the police force, the great concern I have is that some individuals might not get a test when they have symptoms. They may think, “If I get a test, not only will I have to self-isolate for 14 days, but potentially nine or 10 people I know will have to as well,” and that might impact their lives in all manner of different ways: financially, mentally and psychologically.
Let us have a test and trace policy driven by pragmatism to get high rates of compliance, but also one that never loses sight of the significance of what it is asking people to do. That is incredibly important, and I thank all the NHS workers who are working on this. We need to have a system that is easy to follow, realistic and drives high rates of compliance.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Charles.
I am grateful for the opportunity of this debate on the Government’s response to covid-19, which was not particularly effective. Unusually in debates in this place, there is cross-party agreement that their response was not particularly effective, albeit perhaps not always for the same reasons. Conservative Members and I might not agree on many other things, and we might not agree today, but there is agreement in this room that the UK Government’s response to coronavirus was not particularly effective.
We can see that in the figures, the latest of which appeared today and showed over 1 million cases recorded across the UK and 46,853 deaths. Those figures should chill us and give us cause for reflection. We could always have done more to prevent those deaths and the upset and suffering caused to so many people. My thoughts go out to everybody who has been affected, including my friend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who spoke of his family circumstances. It diminishes those deaths to say that we should get back to normal. We should not do that. We should try to protect more people in the weeks and months to come.
The UK has among the highest number of deaths and of cases in the world, so we have done something wrong. I fully accept that we did not know what we were dealing with—everyone muddled along and did the best they could—but we have now had many months to get this right. The UK Government spent lots on Serco’s ineffective track and trace system, and money has been thrown at the wrong kind of PPE that could not be used, yet we still do not have a proper plan. We saw the image of the Prime Minister hustling on to the television and disrupting Saturday night’s TV schedules because his plans had been leaked, only for him to announce lockdown not because of Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland or northern England, which had asked for and needed it given what they were going through, but because the south of England needed it, showing the chaos the Government are in.
The Government were told time and again to plan ahead. Only the other week I asked the Chancellor to plan ahead, to extend the furlough and to accept that things are not going back to normal any time soon. Businesses in our constituencies need that additional support in the weeks and months ahead because we cannot go back to normal.
Sectors of the economy—hospitality, leisure, tourism, transport, culture and the arts, conferences and exhibitions, weddings; the list is endless—cannot go back to normal because it is not safe for them to do so. In many cases, the Government seem to have ignored that reality, but they should not do so.
The other issue raised by my friend on the Treasury Committee, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), is the gaps in support. The Committee highlighted those gaps in its work and offered suggestions on how they might be addressed by the UK Government, who of course have the powers and the money to do so. The gaps remain. Those who run their own businesses—company directors and freelancers—have been advised by the UK Government to take up freelance roles and organise their businesses, only for them now to find themselves with no support and no prospect of it, because following the Prime Minister’s announcement at the weekend it does not seem as though those gaps will be plugged. The Government know about this. They have been told about this. They have been offered solutions, yet still they ignore a significant group of at least 3 million people. How the Government expect those people to pay their bills and feed their kids I do not know, because they cannot.
The hon. Member for Strangford mentioned the financial pressures of people on the minimum wage, who cannot survive on two thirds of their wages—nor should they be asked to do so. People on benefits are struggling. There has been no guarantee that the welcome £20 uplift to universal credit will be extended. It was not extended to people on legacy benefits—many millions across the UK—who are struggling and need that additional support.
I welcome the announcement made today by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on extending the minimum income floor to April, I believe. If that extension has been made and the DWP has accepted that there needs to be a change to the minimum income floor, why not to everything else? Why pick this one aspect that needs additional support and extend it to April, but nothing else? The furlough for the self-employment scheme runs until December. Why not extend it? Why not look at the reality we face? If the Government do not need to use it, that is fine, but it would be in place if it was needed. That is crucial in enabling families and businesses to plan.
I was disappointed to hear the comments made by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski). He accused devolution of being about division, and the Mayors—particularly Andy Burnham—of grandstanding. They are not. They are representing the people who elected them. That is their job. That is their duty. That is their role. It is the UK Government’s role to listen. If the UK Government had listened and reacted in kind, there would have been no need for that grandstanding, and no need for those Governments to be calling for more. It would have been something that would have been put in place in partnership. It should not be that these things have to be conducted in the media. These things should have been agreed well ahead of that having happened. The Government failed by not listening to those directly elected Mayors and devolved institutions, and that is why we have ended up in this situation.
I dispute the point made about the ten years of austerity that we have seen. I read an article on the website of the British Medical Association, which said that austerity had actually made the UK more vulnerable to coronavirus and its effect. In an article about experiences from the front line, it described austerity as “covid’s little helper”. That should also give cause for thought.
Alison Thewliss
It is all of our money. The Member talks about other people’s money. It is all of our money. We all pay in and we all deserve to have things when we need them. Part of the situation we are in is because of that. I shall wind up, Sir Charles, because I can see the clock.
There is much talk of scientists and different scientific opinions, and that is fine. Scientists are the experts in many ways on this. We should not judge them too harshly, because we have been finding out more all the time. Those scientists have the experience and qualifications that most of us in this room do not. We can have our opinions on which scientists we want to believe, but in the end we have to take the best possible evidence, do the best we can, and try to prevent any more people from losing their lives to coronavirus in the weeks and months ahead.
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
Ms Hayes, if you take 10 minutes and the front Bench takes 10 minutes, Mr Drax will get two minutes at the end and we will have landed this thing perfectly.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the chair, Sir Charles. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) on securing this important debate. It is right that in the midst of this deadly pandemic, which has cost over 46,000 lives and prompted the deepest recession since the 1930s, the Government are held to account for their response. It is welcome that hon. Members have had the opportunity to do so today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) spoke powerfully on behalf of nurses and social care workers and about the extraordinary sacrifices made by so many of them, as well as the need for them to be properly paid and protected. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) rightly highlighted the vital role of test and trace in enabling as many people as possible to live as normally as possible, and the failures of the Government’s privatised Serco system to do so. I want to add my condolences to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on the sad loss of his mother-in-law to this horrible disease. The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) spoke about the Government’s use of data, saying that they have not made the best use of it, and the hon. Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) described the Government’s approach as erratic: I agree with both of those statements, though I fear not so much with the rest of their analysis.
The Labour party supported the Government in introducing necessary measures to respond to the coronavirus pandemic to save lives and to prevent the NHS from becoming overwhelmed. We are now at a point, once again, at which R is rising in all regions and across all age groups, so we do not agree with hon. Members who have expressed the view that lockdown restrictions are not necessary, or that a whole-country approach should not be used at this point in time. Nor do we agree with hon. Members seeking to trade off the impact on the UK economy against coronavirus spread and impact on health.
Helen Hayes
I am afraid that I will not, as time is short. The consistent pattern across the world is that the countries with the highest levels of coronavirus infections also have the worst economic impacts. The two are linked. An effective approach to infection control is also protective of the economy. The tragic reality is that the UK has both the highest number of deaths of any European country and the deepest economic recession of any G7 country. The key question at this point is why the Government’s response has been riddled with so many failures. The UK entered the pandemic with a PPE stockpile which had been depleted and without emergency supply chains in place, leaving health and social care workers unprotected at the frontline of infection control. Despite the horrific data and dire warnings from Italy, Spain and France—and the knowledge that the pandemic in the UK was running just weeks behind them—the Government were too slow to introduce the first lockdown.
When faced with the challenge of PPE and ventilator procurement, and the need to establish a test, trace and isolate system, the Government instinctively turned to outsourcing companies—many without any proven track record of delivering the goods and services required but, on too many occasions, with strong links to the Tory party—instead of looking to public services. Documents leaked this week reveal Cabinet Office contacts and others were helping VIPs sell PPE to the Government outside normal procurement channels. Contact tracing—the critical tool in preventing infection spread—was suspended in mid-March, at which point the Government lost control of the virus. Since it started again, the privatised Serco test and trace system has entirely failed to reach the baseline hurdle of reliable—still less the promise of world-beating—while much more effective contact tracing has been done by hard pressed local public health teams.
The hon. Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) highlighted issues around compliance. Yet in failing to hold his closest adviser, Dominic Cummings, to the same rules that he had ordered the public to obey, the Prime Minister himself undermined public trust and confidence in his approach, confirming in the minds of residents across the country that we are not all in this together. For months, the social care sector was left entirely abandoned, without PPE or access to testing, but was forced to accept patients who were covid positive, resulting in huge numbers of tragic, avoidable deaths. Unlike in Wales, social care workers in England are not entitled to full sick pay if they need to self-isolate, forcing many to choose between health and safety and putting food on the table. Now the Chancellor has increased the tax on PPE by reinstating 20% VAT, affecting people buying face masks. Why have the Government introduced a mask tax in the second wave of a pandemic?
The Government were warned weeks ago that a short, sharp circuit break would be effective in limiting infection spread and mitigating the impact of a second wave. If anybody has any doubt about the need for that, I invite them to make—as I did just a week ago—a visit to their local hospital, to see how exhausted staff still feel coming into this second wave. When we talk about the need to protect our NHS, we are talking about those staff being overwhelmed by the numbers of patients who are so sick and who they have to treat. But when Labour called for a short, sharp circuit break, the Prime Minister ridiculed the idea, and the Chancellor doubled down to block it. It is clear that the delay has cost both lives and livelihoods, and has deepened the scars to our economy. We now face a much harder lockdown with a far higher cost, because the Government have once again acted far too late.
While the Government have our support for the additional measures this week, their response to this deadly pandemic has been characterised by a lack of preparedness, dither and delay, prioritising who they know over who is best placed to deliver, and failing to heed and act on the advice of scientists. Families and communities across the country are paying a devastatingly high price for their incompetence.
Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)
Paymaster General, could you leave two minutes at the end for the proposer of the debate? Thank you.
The Paymaster General (Penny Mordaunt)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Charles. In making a speech, the advice is usually say what you are going to say, say it, and then say what you have said, but I am going to start by saying what I am not going to say, because I understand that the specific rules around this next lockdown were signed off during the course of this debate, and will be published at around 5 o’clock this evening. Some hon. Members have mentioned specifics for places of worship, golf, gyms, and so forth. So as not to give Members duff information, I will not go into detail on that, except to say that I have had daily calls with Members. I have been listening to concerns from many Members about those issues and ensuring that those taking decisions and designing policies are very aware of the concerns of Members on both sides of the House, as well as the importance of things such as exercise to people’s wellbeing, alongside the importance of visits to family members in homes and the isolated elderly in particular.
I am also not going to go into detail about the general issues that my hon. Friends the Members for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) and for Wycombe (Mr Baker) and the hon. Members for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) and for York Central (Rachael Maskell) have raised about testing, track and trace and PPE. Those issues have been well rehearsed, and those Members’ points have been well made and will certainly be listened to.
I want to get to the heart of this matter, and of the issue that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax), who secured this debate. I thank him for having done so and, in response to his opening remarks, I will not say that that any Member who has spoken today wishes to let this virus rip. I regret those accusations that have been made in the past about people who are sceptical of the Government’s approach. None of wants to let this virus rip. All of us understand how devastating it is; many of us have had bereavements as a consequence of it. We have all been touched by this virus, and my sympathies go to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). Given that there is no silver bullet on the horizon, hon. Members are rightly asking whether this is the right course of action. That is a completely legitimate question to ask; in fact, it is our job in this place to ask those kinds of questions.
The question is whether we are paying too high a price to push infections out. As hon. Members will know, the Prime Minister has been trying to avoid a second lockdown, and has instead been pursuing local and regional lockdowns in the first instance. However, he has reluctantly decided to take this decision, and outlined his reasons for doing so at the weekend and yesterday in the House. I realise that it is incredibly bad news for many hon. Members and their constituents. I understand that people who are in areas of the country that have very few infections or none will be very aggrieved by this situation, and I also understand that there are parts of the country that have not just had the double whammy of two lockdowns—one gone and one to come—but have been under other restrictions in the interim. That is a very painful place for them to be.
Why are the Government pursuing this strategy? At the heart of it is the NHS. The aim is simple: to avoid hospitals buckling under the weight of covid patients, and to prevent deaths. Shortages of bed spaces and staff in certain parts of the country mean that the system is already under pressure, and we are told that the whole system capacity, including the additional Nightingale capacity, could be overwhelmed by Christmas if we do not take this course of action. Of course, there are costs to healthcare and the NHS of pursuing that strategy. Many hon. Members have spoken, not just today but previously, about the consequences of the first lockdown. We know that there were people who did not seek help —who did not access healthcare. We know that treatments were delayed, and we know that there is a real human cost to delaying those treatments and surgeries.
In social care, too, there has been a price to pay: isolation for many of those in their twilight years, but also—this is often not spoken about—adults of working age, such as those with a learning disability who have seen their care packages cut because of the provisions understandably put into the Coronavirus Act 2020. Mencap’s survey of carers across the UK revealed that 69% of people with a learning disability have experienced cuts to their social care during the pandemic. That is not for any malicious reason: it is because they could not access daycare centres and have the social contact that was so critical to their care. Of course, there will be an economic hit, too: if people are poorer, they are likely to suffer the long-term effects of mental and physical poor health.
However, the Government argue that the price of not pursuing this course of action would be greater than the damage I have outlined. The bottom line is that if the NHS becomes overwhelmed, deaths from covid and other diseases will soar, with doctors unable to treat everyone. The bottom line is that if the NHS becomes overwhelmed, then deaths from covid and other diseases will soar, with doctors unable to treat everyone. That is the worst outcome from the negatives I have outlined.
The strategy that the Government are pursing would indicate that that also has consequences for the future of healthcare spend and policy. Whatever criticisms are levelled at the NHS, it is a very efficient system. People often argue that it could have better outcomes, but it is a lean and efficient system. What it has, it uses. There will undoubtedly be questions in the future about capacity and staffing levels. Lessons must be learned about the future shape of policy in the NHS, as well as the specifics of the pandemic, not just in health but in social care too.
How effective will this lockdown be? It will drive down infections, but by how much depends on who is making the estimate, as we have debated today. Some models show infections being reduced to a quarter of what they are now, but others show reductions of just 10%, in which case the NHS will still be under strain. It will be a fortnight, at least, before people see change. I am afraid to say that those who may sadly lose their lives from covid at the end of November, probably have the virus today.
The Prime Minister and his team think that doing this now will provide the optimum outcome. They are hopeful about being able to unlock in December, but, as they have said, they are being driven by the data. Once lockdown is lifted, as Members have said, cases will rise. It means that a high proportion of the population will remain vulnerable to infection, which is why some scientists expect a third or more waves of the virus to be managed by repeat lockdowns.
Others argue that the need for future lockdowns is evidence that they do not work, but that is to misunderstand what they are there to do. As the Health Secretary has stated, this approach buys us time and is the optimum use of the healthcare we have in the meantime, while capacity is built and vaccines are sought. I thank hon. Members who have paid tribute to those working in health and care, in track and trace, in testing, in the heroic search for a vaccine and in improving treatments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski), made some comments about devolution. I think it is a good thing, but the price of devolution is divergence and diversity. I know that it has had very real consequences for border communities, particularly for businesses that have been asked to lock down one side of the border and not on the other. We have to learn lessons about better co-ordination from that, and we might try using the same app in the future. Devolution is a good thing and diversity is the price.
Many hon. Members have spoken about the hit to the economy and the human consequence of that. About a quarter of GDP was erased in quarter 2, but in quarter 3 there were signs of a sharp recovery. A number of factors were involved in that, including confidence in the drop-off of cases but also pent-up consumer demand and the Chancellor’s measures to stimulate the economy, which Members have mentioned. I know that Members do not want that choked off. That upturn shows that we have an incredibly robust and innovative private sector.
All of us are impressed by how businesses have adapted swiftly, to carry on and live with this virus, from investing in signage, PPE and sanitiser, dealing with fewer customers, moving online, changing shift patterns and introducing one-way systems in stores. I understand that those adjustments had real costs and, having invested in them, how aggrieved businesses must be to have to close down. We must not forget that.
Before I close, I wish to say a few words about the authoritarian nature of the lockdown, as people have described it. I say that knowing that the British people like rules. Anyone familiar with the off-side rule or the Duckworth–Lewis–Stern method will testify that British people like their rules. They like clarity and fairness, but I understand that they also like to be able to choose to follow rules. I know how uncomfortable many of us are in having to take these measures. I was asked by the Department of Health to take through the Coronavirus Bill and I remember the emotional state of my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), who was kind enough to say that he recognised that I might be in a similar state today.
I know that we have asked our constituents to do very painful things, and there has been real material harm to people’s livelihoods and emotional well-being, including, as my hon. friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham said, women having to give birth on their own. I can assure Mrs Coleman that, in great part due to the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns), those guarantees were secured for women giving birth and, I think, were announced at the weekend.
We are asking our constituents to do very difficult things, and that is matched by how little agency Members of Parliament feel they have over this situation. You, Sir Charles, alluded to this, saying that you felt the only thing you could do was to vote against the Government. However, I think that whatever seat we occupy, whether junior Minister, Secretary of State or Back Bencher, there is always something that we can do. What I will take away from this debate is to feed back to the Government the need for better and clear data. I looked at what the House of Commons provides Members with as well as what Government provide, and there is room for improvement. I will do that, recognising suggestions that hon. Members have made. If there are specifics on data, please let me know. As hon. Members know, I take calls with all MPs every single day, and I want to hear their ideas if they think policies are not working. I will continue to take that forward.
We also need to think about the future and our economic recovery. My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset, in whose name this debate stands, called for low taxation. We need to think about the future—not just about how we can ensure that we stick to our agenda of levelling up but how we can, through the G20, lead the global recovery as well. We are well placed to do that.
Finally, I think everyone in this debate will agree that we have to learn how we can live with the virus. I know my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) has suggested that we need a White Paper on that topic, and I will report back. I thank all Members who have taken part in this debate. If there is a lesson we should have learned in this place over the last four years, it is that when politics and politicians are in tune with the British people’s character, success follows. That is a lesson that we should bear in mind in the coming days and weeks.
Richard Drax
That was a typically courteous and thoughtful reply from my right hon. Friend, for which I am most grateful. As I said, she and the Government are not in an easy position, and I offer them huge sympathy. I am not rebelling in this instance—I am just seeing another way forward. My right hon. Friend mentioned living with the virus. We are going to have to live with the virus. It is here, perhaps, for the rest of our lives, like flu and other diseases. It will slowly reduce over the years and we can mitigate in the ways I suggested in my speech, but we cannot afford to shut down the economy and cause the devastation that we are currently doing. It will take many years to repay; that is what really concerns me.
My right hon. Friend talked about deaths. We regret every single death. I disagree with the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), who said that this was a trade-off between the economy and covid. It is not. There is no such thing as a trade-off. As my right hon. Friend said, none of us wants people to die. We want to protect those who are under threat from this disease while allowing others, within reason and using common sense and all the precautions that we know about, to get on with their lives and to keep this country running.
I offer my deep condolences to my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his loss. Many others have lost people through this ghastly disease, and I offer all my sympathy to them, too. No one wants anyone to die, but at the same time we do not want our country to be destroyed economically, with all the consequences, including for health, that would be involved.
In closing, I urge my right hon. Friend to consider at least another option along the lines that many others, including eminent people, are suggesting.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Pothole and Highway Repairs
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Pothole and Highway Repairs.
Potholes drive us potty in the Potteries. There is a legacy of decades of under-investment in our roads by previous administrations of Stoke-on-Trent city council and the current Conservative administration are running up a down escalator to get them fixed. They are running very hard. Levels of investment in our roads have shot up, and the council is investing £5 million a year in the current four-year period, which is absolutely pushing to the limits of the budget available.
The sad fact is that even when we spend pretty much everything we have available for our roads, the city lacks the council tax base, the parking surplus and, crucially, the Government grants that other cities enjoy.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
I wish to raise the dangers to pedestrians of poorly maintained pavements and roads and to give the hon. Member an example of a constituent who lives in sheltered housing, who contacted me after tripping on an uneven pavement and ended up with a black eye and a sore hip. I am pleased to say that the pavement was fixed within 24 hours of our raising the issue with Brent council—which has just won the Local Government Chronicle “council of the year” award—but does the hon. Member agree that when councils have had their budgets cut by £16 billion over 10 years there will inevitably be a focus on dealing with emergencies rather than maintenance to prevent them?
Jonathan Gullis
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. I agree that where local authorities have seen funding cuts, sometimes it is right to question whether or not we went too far. Certainly with road, highway and pavement repairs, there are questions that need to be answered, because I have very similar casework coming in from constituents in Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke. This is one of those problems that can be very easily and quickly fixed, but, sadly, when we have to keep replying to constituents to say that resources are as stretched as they are, sometimes they do not necessarily understand how severe the situation is. So, I completely concur with her.
The reason for that situation is that the current funding formula works against us. The need to address that unfairness is the reason why I applied for this debate. This is a debate in Westminster Hall, and I think that most people would agree that the roads in Westminster, if congested, are in good order. So I looked at what Westminster City Council has available to spend on keeping roads well maintained, and I was staggered to see that in parking surplus alone, the City of Westminster enjoys some £70 million a year—talk about the need for levelling up.
The figure for the city of Stoke-on-Trent is barely 1% of that figure—around £700,000 to £800,000 per year—and in my constituency there is no room to increase parking charges without reducing visitor footfall. Perhaps if we relocated the National Gallery to Burslem or the Royal Opera House to Tunstall, there would be room, but I recognise that for the immediate future this is a quite a big ask. For now, we are much more likely to be competing with comparable cities in the midlands such as our great friend and rival to be the UK city of culture, Coventry. Even there, according to a freedom of information request reported in the Coventry Telegraph, a £700,000 annual parking surplus is secured from the single most lucrative of Coventry’s car parks.
We cannot match that, so I was delighted that the Department for Transport awarded Stoke-on-Trent a one-off £6 million highways challenge fund grant for the current financial year—that is to say that I was delighted by the £6 million grant, but I would be more delighted if it was not a one-off.
As I have said, there is not an option to increase road repair funding further locally from either parking surplus or council tax. We have, I understand, the lowest council tax base of any city other than Hull. We are more than doing our bit by squeezing every penny we can from the city’s limited local budget into roads, but we need more money. Of course, the Government recognise that, and the Minister will be as determined, as I am, to unlock the transforming cities fund money promised to Stoke-on-Trent.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for giving way. I agree with everything he has said so far and I will probably agree with everything he says from now on as well. I am sure that he agrees with me that the resurfacing of key sections of the Stoke-on-Trent road network, not least Joiners Square and Snow Hill round- about, has been a great benefit across the city, and that we need more of it. Does he agree that the transforming cities fund bid would provide similar cross-city benefits, offering increased connectivity and better public, private and commercial traffic flow on road and rail across the six historic market towns that make up our city?
Jonathan Gullis
I am extremely grateful, as always, to my hon. Friend and good neighbour for her intervention, and I feel that in Stoke-on-Trent we always come at least in a duo, and normally in a trio when my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) joins us. I could not agree with her more about the importance of the transforming cities fund to unlocking some of the potential for our city and to improving our highways. I appreciate that the Minister who is here today does not oversee this particular portfolio, but I am sure that she has taken note of my hon. Friend’s comments just now and will pass them on to others in the Department for Transport, which she works in.
Such investment really would transform Stoke-on-Trent as a city, with key interventions to improve traffic flow and to revolutionise the city’s relationship with public transport. There are too many pinch points on our road network and traffic is very heavy, particularly at “slow hour”, which is a much more apposite phrase for the city than “rush hour”—or at least it was until covid-19 suppressed traffic.
I have a number of points to make about covid-19, because it continues to weigh on all our minds, and rightly so. It has caused much uncertainty about the viability of public transport and it is in no way a positive thing. The road workers who have continued to work throughout the pandemic are heroes. They have been delivering ahead of schedule on a number of resurfacing projects, and they will stay out digging roads and filling in potholes in the weeks and months ahead. Like everyone else, they would have preferred to have been on schedule without the covid pandemic than ahead of schedule with it.
However, we have seen what is possible if traffic volumes decrease and investment capital is put in place. The transforming cities funding will help us to realise similar outcomes in much better times and help us to power up Stoke-on-Trent.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that, although potholes, road quality and pavement quality are primarily safety issues, they also say something about an area’s pride in itself? There are areas in Ipswich, such as Chancery, Gainsborough and Rushmere, that need this extra investment, and when the Government are thinking about such extra funding, they should take into account not only safety, which is obviously important, but also an area’s sense of pride. To build up an area, it helps to invest in such things.
Jonathan Gullis
My hon. Friend makes an absolutely superb point. At the end of the day, improving the look and feel of an area improves the mindset and attitude of the people living in it. I look at the town of Burslem, which I represent—the mother town of Stoke-on-Trent. It has the highest number of closed high street shops of any town in the United Kingdom. I see the attitude of the local community, which has felt ignored and forgotten for decade after decade. However, knowing what potential that town has and the energy in the community to see it realised, I agree that if we improve our road surfaces and our pavements, it is not just about safety; it is about making a statement to the community that it is no longer going to be left behind.
Heavy traffic has been an exasperating problem for the city for two key reasons pertinent to this debate: first, because it causes damage to roads that were not laid to carry it, and secondly, because maintenance funding from the Department for Transport is not calculated according to traffic incidents but on road length. Research conducted by the Department for Transport in 2018 suggests that A roads under local authority control made up only 10% of road length across the country, but that that 10% carries 31% of the nation’s traffic. Minor roads made up 88% of road length, but the proportion of traffic they carry—34%—was only slightly greater than on the A roads. The remaining 35% of traffic is carried on the 3% of roads that are motorways or trunk A roads. Obviously, large rural areas with long roads and little traffic benefit disproportionately from the formula and heavily unurbanised areas with high-traffic A roads miss out.
Part of my constituency is outside the boundary of the city of Stoke-on-Trent, and I certainly would not want to cut the grant received through the transport authority, which is Staffordshire County Council. However, I want to see new considerations introduced to the formula that would top up cities such as Stoke-on-Trent, which lack the mileage of minor roads that even cities such as Manchester have. As I understand it, Manchester receives twice the highway maintenance funding of Stoke-on-Trent, based on the 299 miles of extra minor roads that Manchester has within its boundaries. That means a financing differential of nearly £2 million a year.
The Minister may know that local authorities make an annual report on the condition of principal A roads and also report each year on the average volume and frequency of all its traffic. I therefore suggest that it is not unreasonable to ask that a revised or bolt-on formula should take those reports into account. That is to say, funding calculations should show due regard for road type, with principal A roads attracting a premium in some way related to their reported condition, and with traffic incidents also taken into account. There would need to be safeguarding against false reporting of road conditions and it would be useful to include a match-funding element for cities such as Stoke-on-Trent that put precious resources into roads despite a low council tax/parking surplus base. I would be grateful for the opportunity to discuss that further with the Minister.
If we can get our fair share of road funding for Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke, we can carry on providing viable and well-connected sites to meet the Government’s housing targets, maximise the returns from the Ceramic Valley Enterprise Zone, boost our exports and productivity, support our growing logistics economy, enhance our city as a place to live, visit and work, and keep up the hard graft of turning around the fortunes of a city that deserves every bit of success in its current manufacturing recovery.
Outside my constituency office on Tunstall high street, old tram tracks have been revealed in road resurfacing works. The tracks have not been used for 100 years. They are a reminder of the past and also an allegory of a public transport revival yet to come. Filling our potholes and repairing our highways will not be enough for our future transport needs, but it will certainly be necessary. To conclude on this point, in order to realise both the aims of better public transport and better roads, we need input from the Department for Transport. I hope that we will see support for the transforming cities fund submission and that serious consideration will be given to a fairer formula for road funding.
Bus use has declined by a third in 10 years in the potteries, even before covid-19, and the condition of our roads and their pinch points are key contributors to the lack of reliability that has caused that decline. The transforming cities fund and a fair formula will keep Stoke on the up and help us to be even more ambitious. We can reopen the Stoke to Leek railway line via Milton, reinstate a tram network and deliver tourism gains that will help to preserve our amazing industrial heritage in the must-see, authentic potteries, the world capital of ceramics. They say that from tiny acorns great oaks grow and that if we mind the pennies, the pounds will look after themselves. I say that if we keep getting the potholes filled, the transport network can run smoothly and grow.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Rachel Maclean)
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Sir David.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) for securing this debate. I know that he has already engaged my Lords colleague the Roads Minister on potholes and highway repairs in his constituency. He passionately highlighted the pride in his local area that starts from the roads and spreads throughout his constituency. It is a symbol of his care and passion for his area. If we were to take a straw poll of MPs on the importance of addressing potholes and improving local roads, I think there would be a vote of 650-0 in favour, unlike many votes in this place, because everybody believes in it. I also thank the other Members who demonstrated that with their contributions: the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt).
We in the Department fully understand that potholes and other road defects are a major headache for everyone and the consequences of a deteriorating local road network are truly significant for all road users. They impact local economic performance, resulting in directly attributable costs to taxpayers, either through the rising costs of deferred work or through a more reactive approach that does not represent good value for money in the long term. We all want our local road network to be improved, and that is why the Department has provided over £7.1 billion in local highways maintenance funding between 2015 and 2021. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North will undoubtedly be aware of Budget 2020’s pothole fund, with over £1.5 million this year to help to fix potholes and resurface roads in Stoke. As he said, the Government have provided Stoke-on-Trent City Council over £5 million through the transport infrastructure investment fund, which includes this funding allocation, for highway maintenance for this financial year.
For our part, we have allocated part of our funding to local authorities based on the level that they themselves have reached on the path to what we consider an adequate asset management plan. That has been driven by the highways maintenance incentive funding element and corresponding self-assessment exercise, in which Stoke-on-Trent has participated since its inception. On bids, I noted my hon. Friend’s mention of the potential to power up Stoke-on-Trent through the transforming cities fund. The Department was very glad to receive Stoke-on Trent City Council’s revised transforming cities business case in October. I can confirm that officials are carefully reviewing it and the Department expects to make a decision later this month.
Road maintenance funding comes from several different streams. Locally, that can be from sources of revenue that local authorities raise themselves. My hon. Friend alluded to some of those challenges in his area. It also comes from central Government. The Department for Transport provides capital maintenance expenditure, which is primarily devoted to the structural renewal of highway assets. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government provides revenue maintenance expenditure through its revenue support grant, which mainly covers the routine works required to keep the highways serviceable and other reactive measures, such as gully cleaning and gritting and salting the roads in the winter.
As my hon. Friend knows, the Government are still preparing for our ongoing spending review process, in which we will seek to determine future allocations for these funding streams. In order to prioritise the response to covid and the Government’s focus on supporting jobs, this will be a one-year review and will conclude on 25 November. The final outcome will help to determine what we do next on local highways maintenance and its funding.
That brings me to how Department for Transport funding is allocated, which was the central argument of my hon. Friend’s speech. It is fundamental that we have as fair, consistent and reliable a method as possible through which to allocate funding for highway maintenance to local authorities. Only a few years ago, in 2015, the Department reviewed how we allocate maintenance funding and we engaged with local authorities, including his, among other stakeholders, to seek their views and input on our formula. The funding formula allocates 82.42% to roads in each local highway authority. The remaining 17% or so takes into account bridges with a span of 1.5 metres or more and lighting columns.
The formula does indeed take into account the road type. Principal roads, or A roads, which might generally be expected to have a higher rate of traffic, account for 9% of all road lengths in England, based on 2019 road statistics. The funding formula allocated to A roads is 27.47%, which is approximately three times the amount if allocated on road length alone, and approximately a further 55% of funding goes towards minor roads, or B, C and U roads, which make up 88% of all roads in England.
The formula does not provide weighting based on the condition of the network, as that might create an incentive to selectively maintain the road network in ways other than following asset management principles. Basing funding on traffic flow might create an incentive to concentrate traffic on certain areas of the network, rather than encourage optimum flow. Traffic volume and type is just one part of road deterioration. Weather events such as flooding and freezing temperatures play a large part, along with the quality of road maintenance and repair work being undertaken in the first place.
Manchester City Council does not receive twice the maintenance funding. If it did, My hon. Friend would be right to point out how unfair that is. Manchester has nearly 20 miles more of A roads and nearly 300 miles of minor roads. Its highways maintenance block funding allocation in 2020-21 was just over £3 million, in comparison with Stoke’s £1.9 million. Stoke received approximately 62.5% of what Manchester receives, based on formula allocation.
Clearly, any funding formula that a Department has could be controversial, but our view is that the funding formula at present is the fairest and most equitable and consistent for all local authorities. More importantly than what we believe, the method has had input from, and the prior agreement of, local authorities. However, as we get further clarity on the outcome of the spending review, the Department may decide to reassess whether the current funding approach is still the best option, whether we should continue with aspects such as the incentive element or the challenge fund, or whether we look at other ways to target funding, including formula funding, effectively.
Debates such as this are helpful as they highlight the problems and challenges on the ground. We will be looking at input such as this and the views of local highways authorities as part of the overall process. My noble Friend in the other place, the Roads Minister, will be happy to engage further if that would be helpful.
In short, it is essential that potholes and defects are repaired correctly the first time to make our roads fit for the future. The Government’s national guidance is helping authorities to apply best practice in that crucial work. That is why the Department commissioned “Potholes: a repair guide” by the Association of Directors of Environment, Economy, Planning and Transport, which was published in March 2019, following the intense weather of the 2017-18 winter. Such guidance should be used alongside a risk-based approach, as noted in the “Well-managed highways infrastructure” code of practice by the UK Roads Liaison Group.
There is unfortunately a backlog of repairs, and the recent winter has not made the situation any better. That backlog is a legacy of past underinvestment, which some hon. Members have highlighted, and we are seeking to correct it. The effect hitherto is that roads have been improving, at least until this year’s series of cold snaps. My hon. Friend will know from the road condition statistics that A, B and C roads combined have seen a gradual improvement, and that fewer roads have been considered for maintenance in the past five years.
However, we strongly believe that more can and should be done, and we intend to do more. We therefore champion the need for proper planned preventive maintenance, based on seeing the road not merely as something that needs to be topped up periodically from time to time but as a recognised asset subject to proper capital asset management principles. It is clear that organisations that have adopted those principles can demonstrate benefits, in terms of financial efficiency, improved accountability and value for money. We see no reason why that is not doable for local authorities. Indeed, the evidence is that it is, and it is already starting to bear fruit for them.
I hope that goes some way towards answering my hon. Friend’s concerns. I am more than happy to try to answer any other questions on this subject, and I will certainly take back his queries to my noble colleague the Roads Minister on some of the more technical issues.
Question put and agreed to.
Syria: Humanitarian Situation
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the humanitarian situation in Syria.
In 2015, I first became aware of Syrian citizen journalist, and now BAFTA-award winning director, Waad Al-Kateab. Ben de Pear, the editor of “Channel 4 News”, texted me with words to the effect of, “Ali, you have got to watch our report from a citizen journalist in Aleppo.” I tuned in and, with horrified disbelief, saw Waad, a film-maker and mum, show the violent attacks that families in Aleppo were going through. Her images shook this country. Bombs were falling on hospitals. We saw it, but the bombing went on and on, from Aleppo to Idlib and beyond. This debate is crucial.
I begin by thanking an number of colleagues who have always supported efforts to protect Syrian civilians. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), who is not here at the moment, was, alongside Jo Cox, a founding member of the all-party parliamentary group for friends of Syria. When he speaks, I encourage the Minister to listen. The Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), co-wrote “The Cost of Doing Nothing” with Jo, a vital report that underpins so much of what I will say. As that report points out, what is still required from the UK today is an atrocity prevention strategy with civilian protection at its heart. I thank other Members for coming to discuss Syria today.
I also thank the team at the Jo Cox Foundation, who, along with their colleagues in humanitarian protection organisations, provide a crucial rallying point for those who believe that a person suffering because of the Syrian conflict—or indeed any conflict—has the same right to protection as any of our constituents. They are an organisation worthy of Jo’s name.
Sadly, our response for Syrians and to what our own eyes have seen has not been worthy of Jo’s name. We should always have listened to Syrian civilians. That is a lesson for my party, the Labour party, as much as for anyone else. Regret about the past is not enough, however; we need action. I want to focus on the war against humanity that is still raging; on the intolerable lack of attention towards Syrian children, who account for at least half the refugees; and on how, even now, we as the United Kingdom can make a difference. We need diplomatic, defence and development strategies that all point in the same direction: the protection of Syrians. Faced with existing military and political failures, we recognise the limits on our ability to act, but just because an ideal situation is out of our reach, it does not mean that we cannot move beyond watching and waiting.
First, on the immediate situation, it is estimated that today 6.2 million people are living in camps in Syria. Mark Cutts, the UN deputy regional humanitarian co-ordinator for the Syrian crisis, said:
“I was struck during our visit to Idlib this week by how many people are still in tents in the mud on the sides of the road, with little to protect them from the rain & freezing temperatures to come”.
Winter is on its way. Will the Minister please explain how the UK’s contribution to the Syrian crisis will make life better for displaced people this winter? How will we make sure that the necessities of life are provided?
It is very hard to tell how covid-19 has permeated Syria as the data is uncertain, but given what we know about the virus in the region, the medical situation must be bad. I have previously asked Ministers what steps they can take to get urgent medical supplies into Syria and the nearby countries hosting refugees. I repeat that request today. It is not good enough simply to cite to amount of cash that we have earmarked; we need to hear how it translates into the protection of life.
What is the Minister’s latest estimate of how many children from Syria are still out of school, wherever they may be, whether in a camp or as a refugee in another setting? What specifically is his plan to change that? Nobody’s permanent home should be a refugee camp, so we need to work diplomatically, supporting our partners, to come to an agreement about the future status of camps. What is the future for the refugees who live in them? I will say more about our contribution to that later.
Food supply is a chronic problem, not only for those in camps, but for civilians elsewhere. As the Minister will know, the World Food Programme estimates that 9.3 million Syrians—approximately half the remaining population of Syria—live in food insecurity, while another 2.2 million live on the cusp. Even in the last six months of relative stability in the conflict and the economy, 1.4 million Syrians fell below the food security threshold. Between 2019 and July 2020, the cost of a standard food basket rose by 251%, and by 420% in the north-west of the country. Economically, that is the simplest representation of supply and demand failure.
It is important—if facile—to say that those humanitarian problems do not appear from nowhere. The bombs have come from somewhere. A lack of food is a consequence of the failure of the international community to protect those who are suffering. This war is man-made; it is not an act of God. I remind the Minister that when the House last debated Syria, on 24 February, he told us no less than five times that the Government were calling for a ceasefire. What is his assessment of the success of the UK Government’s approach so far? When did the National Security Council last discuss the situation in Syria and what was the outcome of those discussions?
This summer, the Leader of the Opposition asked the Government why they had underestimated the Russian threat to public life in Britain. The Prime Minister gave a characteristically defiant response. I will repeat that approach by asking the Minister what the Government are doing at an international level to ensure that Russian and Chinese vetoes at the UN Security Council do not stop Britain from standing up for its values and responsibilities.
Our failings in relation to the Syria conflict do not need to be more extended than they already are. Our country has a proud history of writing the rules of conflict and participating in efforts to hold the guilty accountable wherever they are in the world. Will the Minister give us a full update on efforts to collect and preserve evidence with regard to the conflict? What resources have his or other Departments committed to that, and what ministerial oversight is there of the process? I also want to be updated on the UK’s approach to sanctions because, without the overarching strategy that I and others have always called for, it is hard to see the purpose of them. They can be an important tool in changing the behaviour of a regime, but without an underlying strategy it is hard to understand where we are headed. Without a strategy, the bombs will still fall and the refugees will keep running from starvation and attack.
There are 6.6 million Syrian refugees, most of them in nearby countries. In Turkey, there are 3.5 million; in Germany, 600,000. The UK hosts only 19,768—as the Minister will no doubt remind us, we have indeed just about achieved 20,000 by 2020. I congratulate him on ticking the box for what was barely acceptable to the previous Parliament, but what will the commitment be for this Parliament? Syrians still in limbo cannot simply be left in camps. We cannot abandon people to hunger and homelessness. What are we going to do?
In closing, I want to return to a comment that Jo Cox made in relation to refugees. Her words are a forceful rebuke to the people who tell us there is a pull factor bringing refugees to British shores. She said
“Who can blame…parents for wanting to escape the horror that their families are experiencing… one in three children have grown up knowing nothing but… war. Those children have been exposed to things no child should ever witness, and I know I would risk life and limb to get my precious babies out of that hellhole.”—[Official Report, 25 April 2016; Vol. 608, c. 1234.]
There is another side to Jo’s story. It came last week in another short video shot by Waad Al-Kateab, who I mentioned at the beginning of my speech. Her friend from Aleppo, Afra, stood at a London airport. Finally, after 10 long months waiting, she was reunited with her little daughter, both now refugees in our care. The video has no words but shows Afra dropping bags and, arms outstretched, running to finally hug her child, both having risked life and limb to get to safety in our country. That short film shows what we can be: not just a safe haven for those running from terror, but a country that truly understands there is no greater love than the care that we show for our children. Action is urgent. I will again quote Waad’s tweet:
“I can't describe how happy we are to be together again. A new start and future until we will be back to #Aleppo.”
The first part of repaying the debt we owe to the Syrian diaspora here in the UK is to listen to them. I ask the Minister how he plans to listen to Syrians here in the UK about how they see the future of their country. I ask him to respond to that point and all the other questions I have raised.
Sir David Amess (in the Chair)
Colleagues, we have only until 5.30 for this debate. Two people on the call list have not shown up, so if colleagues, other than the Front-Bench spokespersons, take no longer than five minutes, no one will be disappointed. I call Mr Tom Tugendhat.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. Most of all, it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern). She was extremely kind at the beginning of her speech about several of us. Perhaps I can mention how I was about 80% through writing “The Cost of Doing Nothing” with my friend, Jo Cox, when she was murdered on that terrible day in June 2016. It was a very difficult time for all of us not only because we lost a friend, but because there were so many projects unfinished and so many deeds undone that would have been at least the beginning of what was so obviously a glorious career in the service of our country. It was difficult for many of us to understand how we could complete that work and how we could put flesh on those bones. The hon. Member for Wirral South was not only kind and generous but hugely courageous in helping me to finish that paper and in making sure that it lived in the spirit in which it was written—one of co-operation, care and compassion. I have nothing but praise for her, and her extraordinary speech today demonstrates that compassion that we all love her for, so I thank her for it.
However, I want to build on her words. What we are seeing in Syria today is the deliberate act of people. It is the deliberate act of the Assad regime and family. It is the deliberate act of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and its sponsors—the theocracy and theocrats in Tehran. It is the deliberate act of China and Russia, which have chosen to block humanitarian aid. It is the deliberate act of others in the region who have funded militias, inspired hatred and stirred up violence. But, here in Westminster, we must also remember that it is the deliberate act of our country too, and of others in the west who have not acted and are now finding out the true cost of doing nothing.
The paper I wrote with Jo for Policy Exchange is available online. The tragedy is that although the times have changed, the words do not need to. What it sets out—the cost of inaction and the implication of death and suffering that follows—is merely clearer, more obvious and more painful. Now, it is not 1 or 2 million refugees in Syria; it is 4 or 5 million. There are 9.3 million dependent on food aid, according to the World Food Programme. There are 11 million dependent on humanitarian assistance. This is no longer a failed state. It is barely a state at all.
The decision we have to take, and that I urge the Minister to push forward on, is to work with our partners and allies and to recognise that if the UN route fails, that does not mean a veto on our action; it is a veto on only one route of action. We do have difficult relationships in the region, and I am not going to gloss over them. We know that many of our partners make at best difficult, and sometimes frankly unpleasant, bedfellows. However, the truth is that when we are looking at tens of millions of people affected, hundreds of thousands killed, and refugee convoys and movements leading to the destabilisation of our allies and partners in NATO and eastern Europe, this is not, anymore, a matter of choice.
This is a decision that Her Majesty’s Government have to be involved in, because it affects us here in the UK. This is a decision that Her Majesty’s Government must be involved in, because our allies and partners are being torn apart by it. This is a decision that her Majesty’s Government must be involved in, because, as my dear friend, the hon. Member for Wirral South correctly said, this is a humanitarian disaster that we can change.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Members for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) and for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat). The conflict in Syria has created one of the worst humanitarian crises of our time. Some 5.6 million people have been forced to leave the country, and 6.2 million have been internally displaced. Some have been displaced since only January this year, when Turkish-backed forces took over Afrin—a previously a peaceful stronghold that had taken in hundreds of refugees since the beginning of this crisis.
The crimes committed against largely Kurdish communities forced out of Afrin include the persistent persecution of entire families, based solely on their cultural identity. In that context, I raised the issue of human rights atrocities against Kurdish communities in northern Syria in Prime Minister’s Question Time back in February. I asked my question of behalf of Rosanna, a constituent from Syria who came to this country as a refugee and who still has many family members in the region. I asked the Prime Minister if he would make a commitment to stand up for the rights of the Kurdish people not to be displaced. During PMQs, he made that commitment to meet me.
In preparation for that meeting, my constituent provided a significant amount of information about her and her family’s welfare, much of which was personal and challenging for her to provide. Both she and I were disappointed to receive an email from No. 10 saying that the Prime Minister would no longer meet us and providing little by way of explanation. Will the Minister meet me instead to discuss Rosanna’s case and the situation in Syria for Kurdish people in general? It would mean a lot.
The Syrian conflict is complicated, with many different groups involved and countless atrocities being committed. That deters the Government from acting, cementing the idea that we in the UK can do little to ease the humanitarian suffering in Syria. However, we are making the entire world less safe by not confronting and holding to account those behind the human rights atrocities.
Civilian suffering at the hands of different armies in this long conflict has been well documented by both UN investigators and independent human rights groups, but until recently the responsible parties have escaped punishment. Earlier this month, a criminal complaint was submitted to a German court over the use of sarin gas by al-Assad’s regime. That is at least a step in the right direction. It brings with it the hope that the world will begin to hold to account those who are responsible for those crimes against humanity.
It may come too late for many people. The Liberal Democrats are asking the Government to work with international partners to ensure enforcement of the ceasefire between Russia and Turkey and to make progress towards a long-term peaceful resolution. The UK Government must also use their role on the UN Security Council to push for continued humanitarian access by funding common humanitarian transport services and establishing shared logistics pipelines.
Coronavirus and the economic collapse are threatening what remains of normal life in the region. According to a UN report from 2019, 83% of people across both Government and rebel-held parts of the country were already living in poverty. The collapse of what is left of Syria’s economy means the timing of the covid-19 crisis could not be worse. Last month, the Syrian Government introduced limits on subsidised bread available at bakeries. Many families are now risking starvation. At least half of the nearly 12 million people in Syria needing humanitarian assistance are children. How dare we turn a blind eye?
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) on her powerful speech, and I congratulate the two speakers who followed her. I too pay tribute to our dear friend, Jo Cox, who was a powerful advocate for Syria and Syrian refugees.
I declare an interest, Sir David. I visited Lebanon in 2013 with the international children’s charity World Vision, and I also visited Jordan with the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. I visited Syrian refugees during those visits. During the trip to Lebanon, I visited a number of informal refugee settlements and saw the extent of the crisis. That was right at the beginning of the crisis, but things were unbearable, with hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing to Lebanon, ultimately making up more than a quarter of the population.
Recently we have seen the challenges facing countries such as Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan. They have hosted the largest number of Syrian refugees, compared with other countries, including our own, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South pointed out. I saw at first hand the devastation the crisis brought to people’s lives, and especially children’s. I will never forget the hundreds of children who were living in an informal settlement of makeshift tents on the outskirts of a town in the Beqaa valley.
The Palestinians, who had fled decades ago from Palestine and moved to Syria, had been forced out of Syria during the war, into the Palestinian camp in Lebanon. I will never forget the face of an elderly woman, who had been there since the ’40s, and then the children of the successor generation who had fled from Syria and were put in the overcrowded Palestinian camp in Lebanon. The plight of Syrian refugees is horrific, and alongside that, of course, there are the many Palestinians who were living in Syria and who were then forcibly displaced once again.
Almost a decade has passed now since the conflict began, and we see no end in sight in terms of a peaceful settlement, but the coronavirus pandemic has made the situation much worse. It is vital that our Government redouble their efforts to keep the pressure on those countries such as Russia and China that are blocking peace. They have blocked efforts by the British Government and the international community to bring an end to the conflict through various UN resolutions proposed by the UK Government and other Governments back in 2011, 2012 and so on.
The pandemic has meant that refugees face even greater risk. The spread of coronavirus is impossible to control in camps, not only in the camps that Syrian refugees live in, but in many other camps, whether in Bangladesh or in other parts of the world where people have been forced out. We need a resolution on achieving peace, but we also need to provide greater assistance to those countries that are bearing the brunt when they have their own challenges. I hope the Minister can say more in his response about what we are doing to reduce the risk of the spread of the virus in camps and to provide more protection. UN appeals have historically been significantly underfunded over many years, and those countries are bearing the brunt of the crisis in terms of providing for refugees.
I turn finally to the issues around trying to get an agreement for an at least temporary peace, while negotiations continue. At the beginning of the coronavirus crisis, the UN Secretary-General called for a global ceasefire. We have to ensure that our Government take a leadership role in making that happen as we face a second wave that could spread into refugee camps.
I end by quoting the UN Secretary-General, who said at the beginning of the coronavirus crisis:
“COVID-19 is menacing the whole of humanity—and so the whole of humanity must fight back.”
Those sentiments are more important than ever now, especially as we consider the plight of Syrian refugees in different countries around the globe and the plight of other refugees around the world. We have to act together to protect refugees and to stop the conflicts going on in Syria and elsewhere, if we are to protect people’s lives.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern). I do not believe we have actually spoken before, but it is a great honour to be able to take part in her debate. I look forward to working together on this issue and many others around development, foreign policy and aid.
We have heard from Members across the House just how devastating the impact of covid-19 has been on humanitarian work in Syria, already beleaguered after a decade of conflict. Difficult spending choices have to be made in the light of the covid pandemic, but our debate today highlights why a reduction in our aid commitments must not be one of them. Through our 0.7% aid spending target, we throw a vital lifeline to the world’s most vulnerable people, including the people of Syria. We must not balance our books on the back of the world’s poorest and must continue to uphold that 0.7% commitment.
The coronavirus pandemic has highlighted the gender-based violence pandemic in countries all over the world. The UN estimates that in the 12 months before the pandemic, 242 million women and girls were subject to sexual or physical violence. Experts predict that the number will rise significantly higher before the pandemic is over.
In Syria, such violence has been there for years. Since the Syrian civil war began in 2011, the women of Syria have been subjected to some of the most appalling violence witnessed in modern times. Through my role as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on preventing sexual violence in conflict, I am all too familiar with the accounts of Daesh enslaving women and girls, raping them and selling them like livestock. While so-called Islamic State has been all but defeated, sexual violence in Syria continues. Just last year, the Syria Justice and Accountability Centre released a report entitled “Do You Know What Happens Here?”, revealing the prevalence of sexual violence and gender-based violence at Syrian Government detention centres. The centre concluded that
“such abuses are “widespread, systematic and officially sanctioned”,
and that rape is used routinely in interrogation attempts to solicit confessions. Nor are these atrocities solely committed against women. A recent report from Human Rights Watch, “They Treated Us in Monstrous Ways”, details the sexual violence to which men, gay and trans people have been subjected by both state and non-state actors in Syria. The report notes that gay and trans survivors said that they were singled out for sexual violence because they were perceived as “soft”. These same regressive social views contribute to a cultural assumption in Syria that men should be invulnerable to sexual violence, exacerbating the deep shame and stigma of male survivors. That prevents them from accessing the support services they need, and from coming forward to seek justice.
There is no doubt that we cannot allow the people who commit these atrocities to escape justice. We must urgently tackle the culture of impunity that goes with the crimes committed. I have long advocated setting up a new international body to help collect evidence of conflict-related sexual violence, and to bring those who have committed these monstrous crimes to justice. I hope that today the Government will give serious consideration to pushing for such an international body, and to using next year’s G7 and our presidency to do so. That would help deliver justice for those subjected to sexual violence both in Syria and in conflict zones across the world.
Given the prevalence of sexual violence and gender-based violence in Syria and in other conflict zones, we should also consider earmarking a greater proportion of our aid budget to tackling these crimes. Our country spends just 0.3% of our aid budget on ending violence against women and girls. As we look forward to the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women and girls on 25 November, the Government must consider increasing the proportion of aid spent on that vital issue to support vulnerable women and girls in Syria and across the developing world. I echo the sentiments expressed earlier by the hon. Member for Wirral South on an atrocity prevention strategy: that is something that I would wholeheartedly support. Global Britain can lead, and it must lead. I hope that the Government will pay significant attention to the issue now and in the coming months.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) for making her point so well, as she does. She always has great compassion for her subject matter, and it is always a pleasure to hear her speaking up for those who are persecuted, those who are disadvantaged, and those who are second-class citizens in their own land.
As I have mentioned previously in Westminster Hall, we have Syrian refugees living and now working in my constituency of Strangford in the main town of Newtonards. They have integrated well and have employment. They have become very much part of the community. That has happened because the community accepted them. I say with real honesty. It is the sort of community in which I would have expected that to happen anyway, but the fact is that it happened. The Housing Executive made the effort to find them housing, Government departments made the effort to help them find employment, and church groups and community groups came together to donate furniture and clothes, and all the things families need when they come from a far-off land to a new town like Newtonards. Some could not speak the English language, but there were English language classes to help them absorb the language and get some knowledge of it. That tells me, and gives me great encouragement, that a community can adapt, and that people from a far-off land can come to a strange land and be totally and fully integrated. I had the privilege of speaking to some of them and their stories were harrowing and have stuck in my mind.
As we see the ravages of covid-19 in our country—a somewhat solvent country with good resources—I cannot begin to imagine what it is like in war-torn countries such as Syria. Reports I have read about it make it clear, in disturbing language. I have a deep interest in Syria and in the middle east, as do many of us, and that is probably why we are here. I have a particular interest as an individual and also as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief. I bring the issue to the attention of the Government and to the Minister on numerous occasions. I raise it at business questions on a Thursday if the opportunity arises. It is our job and our task in this world to do what we can.
A report that I read highlighted the fact that covid-19 overwhelms healthcare facilities. In Syria, 13,500 cases of coronavirus have been confirmed. It has spread as a result of an unchecked community transmission. Some 92% of officially confirmed cases cannot be tracked to a known case. The Syrians cannot even work out where the cases came from. We have a track and trace system, but they do not have that. They have no idea where it came from, who has had it and who is passing it on.
Worryingly, there are few healthcare professionals, with one Syrian doctor for 10,000 Syrian civilians, and of them 193 have tested positive and at least 11 have died from the virus. The pressure on Syria’s health system is incredible, and 18 doctors and distribution staff working at the crowded al-Hol displacement camp have tested positive, sparking fears that the virus will spread rapidly through the camp. That must be a concern.
In any debate I always like to say, and it is true, that our Government and Ministers are working extremely hard to help where they can, so I hope that in his response the Minister will say where help is going, how it is monitored and how it is delivered.
The numbers I cited are almost certainly a vast underestimate of those who have tested positive for covid-19. The World Health Organisation and the Office for the Co-ordination of Human Affairs admit that testing is limited and that the real figures far surpass official figures. Those statistics come from organisations on the ground. In north-east Syria alone, health actors estimate that the true numbers are 10 to 15 times greater than official figures suggest. Healthcare facilities are overrun.
We are reacting to covid-19 in our own country, but Syria does not have even the basics. It has just 13 ventilators and 59 ICU beds in the entirety of north-east Syria. I overheard an exchange during the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday that there are 90,000 ventilators in the United Kingdom and that we are using only 4,000. Minister, could we not send some of those ventilators to Syria? If we are not using them, let us at least give some of them to those who could make better use of them.
It is frightening. We must intervene if at all possible and send funding to trustworthy sources on the ground. Employment has evaporated: between 200,000 and 300,000 jobs have been permanently lost because of covid-19 and 15% of small and medium-sized businesses have reported permanent closure. The value of the Syrian pound is cratering—I use that word on purpose because it is right down. We think that the worst inflation is in Zimbabwe, but it is worse in Syria. The informal exchange rate hovers between SYP2,100 and SYP2,400 to US$1—that gives us an idea of just how bad it is—up from a rate of SYP694 to US$1 a year ago. The price of food and basic goods is sky-rocketing beyond people’s means—food prices have gone up 90% in the past six months and 236% in the past 12 months. My goodness: what does it cost to buy a loaf of bread or a packet of tea? It must be incredible.
I am aware that we are limited in our ability—we are unable to send out our medical staff and equipment when we are under so much pressure—but we can and must persuade other countries to do what we are doing. As the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) said, even if the rest do not do it, we should do it. We can and must secure funding to send aid. We must share our knowledge of how effectively to prevent spread and treat patients and we must be aware of our obligations when—please, Lord— the vaccine is available and in circulation.
I agree wholeheartedly about the need for an international court to try those guilty of murder, shootings and abuse of women. I support aid for Syria through NGOs that are on the ground and have accountability procedures and remind Members that while our priority is undoubtedly our own constituents we should never, ever forget those who are less able to look after themselves. Our job, my job, all of our jobs is to look out for those who cannot look out for themselves.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
It is a great pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I want to start, as others have done, by commending the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) for opening the debate and speaking with such compassion. I do not think that that will come as a surprise to any of us who have watched her in the Chamber. She set up what has so far been a very consensual debate, and that has reaffirmed my view that Westminster Hall is a much better place in which to discuss policy in the House, particularly when we are so divided. There were also excellent speeches from the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), and from the hon. Members for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) and for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), as well as, of course, my dear friend, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).
I offer a few thoughts on behalf of the Scottish National party. Since the outbreak of the civil war in Syria back in March 2011 the country has seen untold destruction, unthinkable death tolls and a refugee crisis that has spanned the globe. We have all seen the painful images from the conflict, from the war-torn streets of Aleppo, images of small children covered in dust from explosions—and, of course, the image that will I think live with all of us of Alan Kurdi lying dead on a beach in Turkey. The horrors of the conflict will have long-lasting effects for years to come, but the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights has reported that since the civil war begun an estimated 500,000 people have been killed, including more than 55,000 children. Sometimes when we stand and make a speech in Parliament we talk about numbers, but letting that sink in—55,000 children—makes us reflect. There is an onus on us in this House, who are legislators in the UK, not to turn a blind eye to that.
The Syrian refugee crisis is the largest displacement crisis of our lifetime, and as we have heard it has had an impact on 17.6 million people. Within Syria the infrastructure has collapsed under the conflict: 95% of people lack adequate healthcare; 70% lack regular access to clean water; half of children are out of school; 80% of the population live in poverty; and 70% of all Syrians live on less than $1.90 a day. The humanitarian crisis, which is now in its 10th year, now has another challenge, as Members have explained—coronavirus. The situation in the city of Idlib is desperate. Doctors say that covid-19 is now rampant in its overpopulated refugee camps, which Save the Children warns could overwhelm Syria. Precautionary measures such as social distancing and self-isolation are all but impossible—certainly in a war zone.
The Government have repeatedly failed the victims of the conflict. Only last month, Conservative MPs voted to remove child refugee protections. The UK Government have, I am afraid, also fallen short of taking on their fair share of people through the resettlement schemes. The Home Office capped the Dubs scheme at 480 children and, by default, have effectively closed it down, although there was no legal requirement to do that. By failing to provide safe legal routes for refugees to reach the UK the Government are leaving countless people vulnerable to exploitation by criminal gangs and a report last year by the Foreign Affairs Committee, of which the Home Secretary was a member at the time, said:
“In the absence of robust and accessible legal routes for seeking asylum in the UK, those with a claim are left with little choice but to make dangerous journeys by land and sea.”
More recently, the Home Office has failed even to acknowledge the refugee camp fire in Lesbos that left up to 13,000 of the most desperate people on earth homeless, many of whom were of course originally from Syria.
It is clear that the UK Government has fallen short on this issue time and time again, but moving forward there are clear steps that they can take. First, they should immediately resume the resettlement programmes that were paused in March. Italy, for example, has already done so. It is an abdication of responsibility at a time of global crisis if they do not resume those programmes. Secondly, the Government need to live up to international obligations by adopting in full the recommendations of the UNHCR, one of which is to increase the number of refugees resettled in the UK to at least 10,000 a year. The UK Government must lay out clearly what measures they will consider taking if Russia continues to be an obstacle to peace. The UK’s permanent representative at the Security Council, Dame Karen Pierce, called for a lasting solution for the situation. As a key member of the Security Council the UK should be prioritising the matter urgently, and should work to unite all parties around the table, in a desire for a resolution.
A protracted solution that works with Syrians, underpinned and led by the primacy of UN human rights principles, must, therefore, be the way forward. The Syrian people must not feel forgotten by the international community, and UK aid must be provided to the country. I agree with the comments that were made by the hon. Member for Totnes in that regard.
In stark contrast to the actions of the UK Government, though, Scotland has welcomed refugees. One fifth of all Syrian refugees have been settled in Scotland, and I am incredibly proud of that. Up until 2019, a total of 2,562 Syrian refugees were settled, which meant that Scotland met its target three years ahead of schedule through the Syrian vulnerable person resettlement programme. All 2,562 of those refugees are part of Scotland’s story, and we are proud that they have chosen to call Scotland home.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David.
First of all, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) for having secured this important debate. She spoke with such passion and detail about the humanitarian emergency that continues to engulf Syria almost a decade on from when this conflict began; she made a powerful contribution about the need to listen to the Syrian people, and I agree. As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for friends of Syria, she has been outspoken on this issue, loudly standing up for those who continue to suffer the horror of the war in Syria and for the refugee community, following on from the strong words and actions of Jo Cox. Five years ago, Jo said that we must look to the “best traditions” of our party’s history—our internationalism and our respect for human rights—as we think about the personal role we can play in protecting civilians in Syria.
I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) for retelling her visits to Lebanon and Jordan, witnessing the plight of refugees. She is right that a decade on, we have seen no improvements to the humanitarian situation. I also thank the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) for his contribution—a veto at the UN should not, and does not, mean a veto on Britain’s actions—and thank Members from across the House, the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) and for Glasgow East (David Linden), for their contributions.
The emergency in Syria is on the brink of descending to a new, horrifying low. The crisis has descended into an emergency, and nowhere is this felt more acutely than in the north-west and north-east of the country. The situation risks becoming irreversible, with lasting implications for not just the immediate future but for the next generation and the one after that, as well as for stability across the region at a time when the middle east and the world can least afford it. Some 12 million Syrians —65% of the population, including 5 million children—require international humanitarian assistance. As we have heard, 6 million have been internally displaced since the war began, and 5.6 million have been forced to flee, seeking safety and refuge in other countries.
We know that healthcare services lie in ruins, or have vastly reduced capacities. Half of all hospitals and health facilities have been destroyed by conflict, and there is a critical shortage of life-saving medicines and equipment at this vital time, including personal protective equipment. The prices of medicines in Syria have increased by more than 250% this year, and a gradual reduction in humanitarian aid access at the Security Council has recklessly and needlessly stemmed the flow at a time of maximum vulnerability for many in Syria. We know that covid has dealt a heavy blow to whatever health resilience remained, and in the north-west, there are only 600 doctors among a population of around 4 million people. Their work is truly remarkable, but there is little capacity for testing. People are dying at home, in makeshift tents and shelters, unable or unwilling to receive healthcare because of the stigma attached to covid.
If there is one thing we know about during this pandemic, it is our interconnected vulnerabilities. What happens elsewhere affects us all.
Covid and its repercussions stalk Syria. Many Syrians live in overcrowded accommodation. One exhausted mother outside Idlib describes how her family of 30 share one room and the adults sleep standing up. Nine million people in Syria live with daily hunger. That is an increase of more than 1.5 million people in the last six months alone. That is on top of the 15 million Syrians whose access to water and sanitation has been disrupted. All these things are vital in the face of a pandemic, let alone in the midst of conflict.
Words and numbers do not do the situation justice. The fears and anxieties and the hunger and exhaustion are things that no adult, let alone a child, should have to endure. Think of the terror that children experience as they watch their school destroyed by jets, seeing what was once a place of stability and warmth reduced to rubble—a future shattered as Assad and the Russian forces continue to rain terror; their hopes of a secure and prosperous future dashed in those bricks and mortar. Think of the biting hunger on cold nights, or—this is so often overlooked—the mental health toll from the stresses that conflict and trying to survive place on everyone, or the exhaustion of those constantly displaced from their homes, their communities and their livelihoods. The familiarity and solid foundation that a home gives are lost. Families leave behind everything, not knowing where their journey will take them. That is the human cost of a humanitarian emergency caused and shaped by extremism, conflict and a deadly reign of terror, political brinkmanship on the Security Council, and the reluctance and failure to protect the most vulnerable or to stand up to the rogue forces that chose to act with impunity.
It does not have to be this way. Twice this year, a deadline for the reauthorisation of the Security Council resolutions has been used to diminish border access: first, in January, when the north-east ended up with catastrophic human consequences, and again in July, when one of the two remaining borders in the north-west, at Bab al-Salam, was cut, leaving one cross-line mechanism. That delivery mechanism is operated by the Assad regime, where aid is now politicised, delayed and sometimes blocked altogether.
How has it come about that we have ended up allowing Assad to control aid to an area that he wants to recapture and a people whom he is terrorising? What is the Government’s strategy for dealing with that, and with Russia and China’s veto power on the Security Council? Failing to take on those who act with impunity has resulted in a more costly, higher-risk and therefore less effective humanitarian response. As we know, the UN deputy humanitarian chief has made it clear that the UK must work with partners to bring forward a strategy that works for the people of Syria, and doing nothing is not an option. What can the Minister do to bring forward a stand-alone resolution to reinstate access and relieve the rapidly escalating covid and health situation? Can the UK be facilitators of such a proposal? With the non-permanent membership of the Security Council now changing, what discussions has the Minister had with the 2021 intake?
We welcome the UK’s contribution to the humanitarian situation in Syria, but at a time of increasing need, the funding has dwindled: £300 million was pledged this year. That figure is down by a quarter on last year’s contribution. Pulling back now risks undermining the UK’s involvement to date and, worse, a catastrophic failure to protect innocent civilians and an abandonment of the values that we champion. Given that the UK is a leading contributor, can the Minister confirm that the UK will continue to be a leading humanitarian donor and that his Government will not cut funding from the UK Syrian aid programme for the 2021 financial year?
On sanctions, despite an agreed ceasefire for the city of Idlib in March, Assad and Russian forces continue to strike hospitals, healthcare facilities, schools, places of worship and markets, leaving a trail of death and destruction. Does the Minister agree that sanctions are no longer a deterrent to those who act with impunity and choose to exacerbate the humanitarian crisis? Will he meet me to discuss these questions and how we can ensure that the UK shows leadership on these issues? This is an emergency born out of civil war and heinous crimes, but aggravated by the decimation of health services, a refugee crisis, deepening food insecurity, dwindling international aid and now covid, as well as the reprehensible destruction and terror rained down on innocent people by Assad, Russia and other forces. We need to see leadership.
The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) for securing this debate. She has regularly spoken with great passion on this issue publicly and I know that she has written about it on a number of occasions over the years. In the margins of the Chamber, she has spoken with me directly. The passion that she displayed today reflects her long-standing concern on the issue—a baton that, as she said, she picked up from our dear lost friend, Jo Cox, and I am very grateful that she did so.
I am also grateful for the contributions of other hon. Members, who outlined in various ways the humanitarian catastrophe that we are seeing in Syria and enumerated the pain and horror that so many Syrians are experiencing. I have made notes and will try to respond to the points raised, but if I cannot cover them all, I invite colleagues to correspond with me to fill in any gaps in my speech. I shall focus on three main issues, which I hope will cover the majority of what was raised: the human impact of this brutal conflict; the restrictions on aid and the non-engagement in peace resolution; and, ultimately, the UK’s humanitarian response.
The impact of the Syrian conflict is wide-ranging and horrific. It affects not just Syria but bordering countries and countries beyond the region. More than half a million Syrians have lost their lives and 5.9 million women, men and children have lost their homes and are displaced across the country, many living in squalid, makeshift camps. We have seen in previous years the impact of winter weather on those people. Some 6.6 million Syrians are refugees abroad. Within Syria, covid-19 continues to rampage and 9.3 million Syrians cannot afford basic food supplies as the economy suffers and the value of the currency plummets, as several colleagues, including the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), highlighted.
The conflict’s destructive consequences seep out beyond Syrian borders. The crisis has exacerbated economic pressures in neighbouring countries and many Syrian refugees have travelled to Europe, including the UK, as was mentioned by several hon. Members. Syria’s humanitarian crisis will only worsen while the Assad regime continues to violate international humanitarian law, while it continues to attack civilians, while it continues to flout its chemical weapons obligations and while it continues to hinder humanitarian access.
Our position on Assad’s chemical weapons use is unchanged. As we have demonstrated, we will respond swiftly and appropriately to any further use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime, which have had such devastating effects on its own people. We welcome the first report from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons investigation and identification team, which found the Syrian Arab air force responsible for three abhorrent chemical weapons attacks in March 2017.
The UK has provided £11 million to support accountability for war crimes, which is one of the calls made by the hon. Member for Wirral South. Some claim that our sanctions are causing Syria’s suffering. That is a lie that the Russians have peddled for years.
Alison McGovern
Ever so briefly, as the Minister has kindly answered my question, can he confirm that he has ministerial oversight of that evidence-gathering process?
James Cleverly
Yes, that is part of my ministerial responsibilities. I let other colleagues know that I will not take any further interventions, otherwise we will overrun.
Russia has invested heavily in a disinformation campaign to protect its regime from accountability. The UK continues to implement EU sanctions in Syria and we will implement our own sanctions regime after the transition period. It is worth remembering that there are no sanctions on food or medicines and that there are humanitarian waivers so that essential items can get in while the tools for further oppression cannot. If Russia wants those sanctions lifted or for the UK and our allies to fund Syria’s reconstruction, it must first press Assad to agree to a political settlement.
The UK believes strongly in a UN-facilitated political process as the only way to reach a lasting and inclusive resolution to the conflict, as per UN Security Council resolution 2254. Special Envoy Pedersen has our full support. However, the Assad regime has not seriously engaged with the UN process. We call on those who have influence over the regime, including the Russian Government, to press for that engagement. That shows the importance of our aid and diplomacy working together.
Unfortunately, we have been appalled by Russia and China’s repeated use of vetoes at the UN Security Council to remove border crossings that are vital to the delivery of humanitarian aid in northern Syria. The loss of the al-Yaarubiyah crossing has already created a critical shortfall of medical supplies. It is essential that the resolution be renewed and the lost crossings revived. The UK will keep working to ensure aid reaches those most in need. We will not accept that aid deliveries from Damascus can effectively replace cross-border delivery until it is unhindered and needs-based.
Some countries may turn their back on the Syrian people in favour of politicking, but not us. The UK has committed more than £3.3 billion in response to the Syria crisis since 2012. Across Syria and its neighbours, UK aid has funded 28 million food rations, more than 19 million medical consultations and more than 13 million vaccinations delivered through UN agencies and non-governmental organisations. Our support in Syria targets those in the most acute need, including displaced Syrians living in camps. Our funding helps provide life-saving supplies such as medicine and shelter, water, food and essential hygiene support.
My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) rightly raises gender-based violence, and the UK has supported the UN and NGOs in providing direct support to victims. The UK has allocated £33 million to help humanitarian partners tackle covid-19, and UK aid is helping north-east Syrian communities recover from Daesh’s brutal occupation. Many countries have turned their backs on the Syrian people; the United Kingdom is not one of them and we will continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with them in their time of need.
Alison McGovern
Thank you, Sir David, for chairing the debate as excellently as you have. I thank all Members for participating, from the experienced ones like my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali), to those newer Members, such as the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), whose interest in the subject is very welcome, to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), who just joined us and who missed my comments saying that the Minister should listen to him. I am sure the Minister will have ample opportunity to do so, as my friend and co-chair of the all-party group for friends of Syria is not known for holding back in giving advice.
Written Statements
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Insolvency Service Performance Targets 2020-21
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
My right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Climate Change and Corporate Responsibility (Lord Callanan) has today made the following statement: Measure 2020-21 Target Make bankruptcy orders sought by individuals within 2 days 95% or greater Determine debt relief order applications within 48 hours 95% or greater Average time taken to process redundancy payment claims 14 days or less Issue reports to creditors within 15 days of interviewing 1 91% or greater Deliver against the agency apprentice target for 2020-21 42 or more Pay supplier invoices within 5 working days 80% Pay supplier invoices within 30 calendar days 100%
I have set performance targets for the Insolvency Service for the financial year 2020-21. The Insolvency Service is the Government agency that delivers public services to those affected by financial distress or failure by providing frameworks to deal with insolvency and the financial misconduct that sometimes accompanies or leads to it.
The Insolvency Service aims to deliver economic confidence through a fair corporate and personal insolvency regime which gives investors and lenders confidence to take the commercial risks necessary to support economic growth. It has a crucial role to play in supporting businesses and individuals in financial difficulty or facing redundancy owing to their employer’s insolvency.
In 2020-21 and beyond the Insolvency Service will be critical in giving confidence to the UK’s businesses, investors and employees following the impact of covid-19. I have set measures and targets at a level which will drive the Insolvency Service to deliver its essential services effectively for its stakeholders. These measures include:
The Insolvency Service’s annual plan for 202-21 is published in full on: www.gov.uk.
1 Or a decision that no interview is required.
[HCWS550]
Inclusive Transport Strategy: Year 2 Update
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Chris Heaton-Harris)
Today is “Purple Tuesday”, a day dedicated to ensuring that the needs of disabled people, as valued consumers, are properly recognised and that they receive the best levels of customer service.
As the Minister with the Department for Transport responsible for accessible transport, I am determined that the transport network deliver an equally first-class experience to disabled people. The challenges disabled people face when using our transport system are well documented, and while good progress has been made, I recognise there is still more to do.
I want to see continued steps being taken to improve disabled people’s experience accessing transport. I also want to see our ambition for a fully inclusive and accessible transport network by 2030, with assistance if infrastructure remains a barrier, realised. I am equally determined that the current pandemic and its aftereffects will not limit our ambition to achieving this.
Thus, I am pleased to help mark “Purple Tuesday” by announcing further progress on delivering our inclusive transport strategy.
The strategy was published in 2018 setting out an ambitious programme for transforming the transport system, and today I am publishing a report detailing what has been delivered in the past two years. In the last year we have, for example, published a passenger rights toolkit, which provides guidance to maritime operators on how to comply with passenger rights regulations; and launched the “It’s everyone’s journey” public awareness campaign.
Alongside the update on the inclusive transport strategy, I am also announcing:
Details of the first set of operators who have successfully applied to the inclusive transport leaders scheme, which allows operators to receive formal recognition for the positive actions they are taking to improve disabled passengers’ experiences of using the transport system, and to encourage others to follow.
A disability equality awareness training package that we are making available, free of charge, for all transport operators. This will ensure that all transport operators, big and small, can access a common standard of disability training for their staff; and
A funding competition, which will enable businesses to bid for grant funding to develop products or services that will improve the travel experience for disabled people.
I am grateful to the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee and representatives of disabled peoples’ organisations who continue to hold both myself and the Department to account for the delivery of the inclusive transport strategy, and I look forward to continuing to work with them as the strategy enters its third year.
Copies of this letter and the report on the progress of the inclusive transport strategy have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS551]
Minimum Income Floor
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
After careful consideration of the ongoing public health situation and the national working environment, the current easement of the suspension of the minimum income floor in universal credit that was due to expire on 12 November 2020 will be extended to the end of April 2021.
Regulations will be laid and made prior to 12 November 2020.
[HCWS552]