House of Commons
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Brandon Lewis) [V]
My apologies for not being with you in person, Mr Speaker, but as you know, I am self-isolating at the moment.
The UK Government are fully committed to the requirements set out in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement in relation to the circumstances that require the Secretary of State to hold a referendum on a change in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland. It remains my view that the majority of the people of Northern Ireland continue to support Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom.
Geraint Davies [V]
It is now just seven weeks before we embark on the biggest change to our trading arrangements that we have seen for a generation, yet food producers still have no idea what arrangements they have to put in place to trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Government’s avoidable failure to prepare now risks damaging Northern Ireland’s integral place in the UK internal market?
Brandon Lewis
I simply do not agree with that outline. Apart from the discussions that I have had with food producers and, indeed, the suppliers and retailers of food across Northern Ireland, one of the key things we have always been focused on delivering is unfettered access for Northern Ireland businesses to the market across the whole United Kingdom. We are still focused and determined to do that, and that is what the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill delivers. I am confident that the work of the specialist joint committee will be completed to ensure that we continue to have that good, free flow of goods, so that Northern Ireland continues not just to be an integral part of the United Kingdom, but to have a unique opportunity to develop its economy as we leave the European Union after the transition period, from January 2021.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
The Secretary of State will be aware that the conversation about our constitutional future is happening right across our community and every family in Northern Ireland. Of course, the Good Friday agreement provides the mechanism for dealing with that constitutional future through a unity referendum. Will the Secretary of State tell us exactly what criteria he will use in future to determine when a border poll will be called?
Brandon Lewis
I agree with the hon. Gentleman in the sense of people having a strong constitutional debate. We are seeing that across the United Kingdom and I encourage that; I think it is important that we all look at and discuss the strength and importance of the Union. In Northern Ireland, we have seen about £2.4 billion of support, because it is part of the UK, as we deal with covid. On his specific question, the High Court, in a recent judicial review on this very matter, agreed that there is no legal requirement, nor that it is in the public interest for the Government to set out a specific policy detailing any fixed criteria on the holding of a poll.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Brandon Lewis) [V]
We have always as a Government stressed the importance of the Union. The UK is a family of nations and a Union of people that works for everyone. We share cultural, social and economic ties that together make us safer, more secure and more prosperous. As a Government, we are absolutely committed to levelling up across the whole UK, taking every opportunity to strengthen the economy of Northern Ireland and its place in the United Kingdom. We have shown this, as I say, through the £2.4 billion that we have supplied to support Northern Ireland through the fight against coronavirus, including the extra £900 million announced in the summer and the £200 million announced as part of the winter economy plan.
Selaine Saxby [V]
I thank the Secretary of State for his response. Does he agree that we need unfettered trade across the Irish sea so that business such as mine in North Devon can trade with the rest of the United Kingdom as usual?
Brandon Lewis
Absolutely. It is imperative that we ensure that the UK internal market continues to function effectively and efficiently at the end of the transition period. A strong UK internal market provides benefits to our domestic businesses and consumers, as my hon. Friend outlines, and it gives confidence to our external trading partners. That is why we as a Government have been very clear that there should be no tariffs on internal UK trade—that we want to deliver that unfettered access for Northern Ireland businesses, Of course, we are ensuring that unfettered access for goods moving from Northern Ireland to Great Britain as provided for in the protocol.
Sara Britcliffe
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government are committing £600 million towards growth deals that will help to boost the recovery and ensure that we level up in every part of Northern Ireland?
Brandon Lewis
Yes, absolutely. We have committed £617 million already for the city and growth deals programme in Northern Ireland. That is the largest across the United Kingdom, together with the complementary inclusive future fund. That commitment has been matched by the Northern Ireland Executive, so the funding totals more than £1.2 billion, which provides a real opportunity to deliver on that levelling-up programme. Such initiatives help to drive growth and innovation in local economies, and have a positive and lasting impact on employment, skills, infrastructure, tourism and regeneration. That will benefit people across Northern Ireland and, indeed, the United Kingdom.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
Northern Ireland has had higher covid-19 rates than any other part of the United Kingdom in this second wave, yet its calls for the furlough scheme to be extended to cover lockdown were ignored for almost three weeks until the Government finally caught up with the rest of the country. Despite repeated questioning, however, it is still totally unclear whether the furlough scheme will be extended for Northern Ireland and the other devolved Administrations. Can the Secretary of State tell us whether Northern Ireland will receive the full backing of the 80% furlough scheme should it extend or reintroduce restrictions?
Brandon Lewis
The 80% furlough scheme ran until the end of October, and the Government announced an extension so it will continue for businesses that need it until 2 December. The Treasury has been clear about this. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor will keep it under review, because we want to make sure that we get the support there for people who need it. Our track record has shown that we have done that. We continue to do that and to make sure that support is there for the people and businesses that need it across Northern Ireland.
Louise Haigh
That is just not good enough. Northern Ireland has been in lockdown since 16 October and has not had the furlough scheme in place. The Prime Minister confirmed on Monday that the furlough scheme would be in place for the devolved Administrations should they need it. The confusion reflects the complete contempt with which the Government treat the devolved Administrations.
Further to the commitments made by the Government, significant sections of New Decade, New Approach, which supported the reinstatement of the Northern Ireland Executive, have still not been delivered. Key among the promises was to increase police numbers to 7,500 in Northern Ireland. Will the Secretary of State now ensure that that promise is kept and that the upcoming Finance Bill is used to deliver the funding for vital community policing?
Brandon Lewis
In the hon. Lady’s question, she outlined the answer about furlough in a sense, because the scheme has been in place. It was in place until the end of October and the Chancellor has extended it to 2 December, so it covers the period for which Northern Ireland has had extra restrictions. We have been working with the devolved Administrations and the Northern Ireland Executive throughout the period. I meet and speak regularly to the First and Deputy First Ministers.
That scheme is on top of the £2.4 billion of support that the Government have put in place through the Barnett consequentials formula to ensure that the Northern Ireland Executive have what they need to support people and businesses through covid-19. That is on top of the furlough scheme and the bounce back loans, so it is clear that we have put that support in place.
On the wider NDNA commitments, it is important to continue to deliver on them despite the challenges of covid-19. We have been doing that. We have been having joint board meetings, which I instigated recently. The next one will be in January. We will continue to assess the programme of work to deliver NDNA. It is important that some of those things are done, particularly the independent fiscal council that can give transparency and confidence to people about the expenditure of the Northern Ireland Executive.
I am sure the hon. Lady knows that policing in Northern Ireland is devolved, so it is a matter for the Northern Ireland Executive. I know from my conversations with the Chief Constable that they work closely with the Police Service of Northern Ireland and I encourage them to make sure that they have the funding that they need.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
The Secretary of State will be aware that strengthening the Union is also a matter for the local community level. He will know of the excellent and transformational work of organisations such as the Resurgam Trust in my constituency and the Schomberg Society in the Mournes. The Government committed to establishing a culture and community fund as part of New Decade, New Approach to promote our heritage and culture at community level. What steps has he taken to implement that fund?
Brandon Lewis
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We provided a further £2 billion of funding to implement the New Decade, New Approach agreement. We have ring-fenced £140 million for Northern Ireland’s unique circumstances. That fund can cover a range of projects that support community reconciliation initiatives to ensure that we are removing barriers and bringing people in Northern Ireland together. The allocation of funding for specific projects remains subject to final decisions, but Ministers will be taking those forward through the joint board, which is now meeting regularly.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
Staying with the agreement, the Government also gave a commitment to scope the establishment of a Northern Ireland hub here in London. Given the current economic situation, does the Secretary of State agree that such a hub is important for strengthening Northern Ireland’s economic position and its trade with the rest of the United Kingdom?
Brandon Lewis
Yes, I absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. We are committed to the agreement and to scoping the potential for a Northern Ireland hub in London. It is something I believe would be good for Northern Ireland; I absolutely share that view. We will be working with the Northern Ireland Executive to explore the options for delivering such a hub, which would complement Invest Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Office itself in ensuring that Northern Ireland is fully and loudly represented at the heart of government and at the heart of the UK in our country.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Robin Walker)
The UK Government have provided unprecedented levels of support to families and employers throughout the covid crisis. We want to see a prospering economy that reduces child poverty. Welfare is a devolved matter in Northern Ireland, with no official statistical information yet available on its impact in the current year. However, the Northern Ireland Executive are committed to combating poverty via the anti-poverty and child poverty strategies, which were agreed in “New Decade, New Approach”.
Bill Esterson
The first lockdown saw an 80% increase in universal credit claims in Northern Ireland. The five- week wait for universal credit increases family debt and child poverty. With Christmas seven weeks away, and in the middle of a second lockdown, is it not now time to end the five-week delay?
Mr Walker
I say to the hon. Gentleman that nobody has to wait five weeks for a payment under universal credit. Advances are a mechanism for getting claimants faster access to their entitlement, allowing them to receive 13 payments over 12 months, with up to 12 months to repay the advance. Basic eligibility checks for advances are now completed remotely, allowing people to access the support they need despite covid-19 restrictions. The repayment time for advances has already been extended to 12 months, and it will be further extended to 24 months from October 2021.
Rachel Hopkins
The legacy of the troubles and the intergenerational trauma means that Northern Ireland has some of the highest levels of disability, mental health issues and low pay in the entire UK. This means that the £20 per week cut to universal credit planned for 2021 will hit Northern Ireland the hardest of all. Will the Minister urge his colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions to rule it out, to stop families sliding into hardship?
Mr Walker
I recognise the factors that the hon. Lady points to, and it is important that there was extra funding under NDNA to recognise some of the unique factors facing Northern Ireland. The extra £20 a week has been put into universal credit to support people through this difficult time.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
We are ever mindful that Northern Ireland has already given £1.3 million for free school meals. Can the Minister further outline the impact of child poverty on the additional 100,000 children in Northern Ireland who are now on that list due to covid, according to the facts from the Department for the Economy? Will he also tell us whether additional assistance will be available for those in households who are now excluded from tax credits if they have a third or fourth child born after the 2017 cut-off date? How can we help these extra children who are now subject to child poverty?
Mr Walker
I do not recognise that estimate. The official figures that the Executive have published suggest that child poverty has decreased in both absolute and relative terms since 2015, but I absolutely recognise the need to provide extra support during this time. There is extra resource available to the Executive in terms of the £2.4 billion provided so far, and we will continue to work closely with them to support families in Northern Ireland, while recognising the £9 billion that has already been put into strengthening the welfare system across the UK.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Robin Walker)
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020 on the basis of the deal set out in the withdrawal agreement, including the Northern Ireland protocol, which will apply in all circumstances. The question now is whether we can agree a deeper trading relationship with the EU, similar to the one that it has with Canada, or whether our trading arrangements will be more comparable to those the EU has with countries such as Australia. We have taken extensive steps, in close co-operation with the EU, to implement the protocol, and we continue to work with the Northern Ireland Executive and a wide range of stakeholders across Northern Ireland to deliver this by the end of the transition period.
Claire Hanna [V]
The health service in Northern Ireland is facing incredible pressure from the pandemic, with warnings from some hospitals about running out of beds and key supplies for covid and non-covid patients. The Minister will know that our health service relies on medicines from across the EU and on co-operation with the health service in the Republic of Ireland, which is made possible through the EU common framework. Does the Minister agree that the disruptive end of the transition—right in the middle of this battle with the pandemic and winter pressures—is bad enough, but that leaving without a deal would be downright dangerous for people’s health in Northern Ireland?
Mr Walker
Let me agree with the hon. Lady about the huge importance of the national health service, which benefits Northern Ireland enormously, and the enormous importance of access to supplies of medicines, both through the Republic of Ireland and from the rest of the UK. It is important that Northern Ireland’s position and the supply of goods to Northern Ireland are protected by the protocol and that unfettered access is delivered both in terms of north-south movements and of access to the rest of the United Kingdom, which provides crucial support to Northern Ireland.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con) [V]
May I wish you a happy first anniversary in the Chair, Mr Speaker?
Criminality, smuggling and modern slavery, as my hon. Friend knows, cannot be the winners in a no-deal Brexit scenario at the end of this year. Can he assure me that the importance of these issues with regard to Northern Ireland are well understood at the heart of government and that he and the Secretary of State are doing all they can to combat them going forward?
Mr Walker
Absolutely. I recognise that the Chair of the Select Committee is doing an important inquiry into these issues. I have written to him with some initial written evidence, and I look forward to giving more detailed evidence in due course. The protocol does preserve the huge gains of the peace process and the Good Friday agreement by removing the major security risks associated with any requirement for checks at the land border and by providing a practical solution to avoid such processes on the island of Ireland. All the way through the implementation of the protocol, we have remained very aware of other potential security implications, including in the event of a non-negotiated outcome with the EU. We have well-developed and well-rehearsed plans in place, and we believe that the excellent working relationship between the Police Service of Northern Ireland and An Garda Síochána will continue, but I absolutely recognise the importance of the issues that he raises.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
The Minister, Lord Agnew, said that there had been a “head-in-the-sand” approach by traders to the Brexit changes to come, but less than 60 days until the protocol comes into force, the IT system to underpin custom declarations is not fully operational, the border operating model has not been published and the port infrastructure needed is now rated undeliverable by the Department in charge. This is a monumental failure of preparation, but it is not the fault of business; it is the fault of this Government— the only people to have their head in the sand. Will the Minister now apologise to Northern Ireland businesses for the worry, the stress and the additional burdens that they are having to bear?
Mr Walker
I recognise the importance of providing certainty and information to Northern Ireland businesses. We have set up the business engagement forum through which we have been engaging with businesses large and small to provide them with the detail, but, as the hon. Lady will recognise, talks are ongoing in the Joint Committee. What we need to do is ensure that we deliver the smoothest access to protect unfettered access, as we are doing through the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, and to deliver on the protocol for those businesses to provide the certainty that they need.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
The leaders of the Scottish Episcopal Church, the Church of Scotland, the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland, the United Reform Church Scotland, the Methodist Church Scotland and Quakers in Scotland are united in their concern over the UK Government’s actions on Brexit, with their plan to break international law, to act on devolved matters against the wishes of devolved Administrations and to place the peace of Northern Ireland in peril. That concern, they say, is shared by church leaders across the Irish sea. What can the Minister say to reassure these representatives of Scotland’s faith communities that his Government are listening to anyone as they career forward on their misguided path?
Mr Walker
I reiterate to the hon. Lady the answer that I gave earlier that we have already left the European Union with a deal and that we want to make sure that we deliver on our commitments under the protocol, absolutely protecting our commitment to the peace process and the Good Friday agreement. I am afraid that, rather than raising concerns about the reality of the Government’s intention, some of these people may have been misled by some of the statements from the SNP.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Robin Walker)
The Government are building a stronger and fairer economy for the future. To support the aim, the Prime Minister has announced an independent Union connectivity review, which is being led by Sir Peter Hendy. The review will consider how connectivity by road, rail, air and sea across the whole UK can support economic growth, increase quality of life and strengthen our Union.
Dr Davies
The north Wales main line railway connects Great Britain across the Irish sea and is vital for travel. Will my hon. Friend work with the Department for Transport and the Union connectivity review to see the line enhanced for the benefit of my constituents and the people of Northern Ireland?
Mr Walker
My hon. Friend speaks up for north Wales effectively and makes an important point. The Government will engage positively with the Union connectivity review, which will look at how we can improve the transport landscape across the whole UK, including connections between Wales and Northern Ireland. Levelling up across the whole United Kingdom is an absolute priority for this Government.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
What input can the Minister say that he has had into the Union connectivity review, and how tangible does he expect the outcome to be in promoting and cementing business and cultural relationships across the whole United Kingdom?
Mr Walker
The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that connectivity is crucial to business. As such, it will not surprise him that both the Secretary of State and I, along with the Department for Transport, the Cabinet Office and other groups, have met the Union connectivity review to make clear the importance of this for Northern Ireland.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Robin Walker)
The Government are committed to meeting our target of net zero emissions by 2050. The Secretary of State and I regularly engage with businesses across the manufacturing sector to discuss how the green economy is an opportunity to drive economic growth and reduce emissions in Northern Ireland. We are pleased that the Northern Ireland Executive have endorsed the extension of the Environment Bill to Northern Ireland and have pledged to pass a climate change Act.
Jacob Young
I thank the Minister for his answer. I know that he is a keen advocate of the hydrogen economy, as am I. Manufacturers such as Wrightbus in Northern Ireland are leading the way in the production of hydrogen buses—a perfect example of how we can decarbonise public transport. Does the Minister agree that greater investment in the hydrogen economy is essential not only for our net zero targets but for building jobs in every part of the United Kingdom?
Mr Walker
Let me say an absolute yes, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work that he does with the all-party parliamentary group on hydrogen. Northern Ireland has proven expertise with hydrogen electric power in the bus sector, and we have seen the introduction of the world’s first hydrogen and electric double-decker bus by Wrightbus this year. We continue to support and promote hydrogen technologies in Northern Ireland and right across the UK. The UK Government have already invested £121 million into UK hydrogen technology, and we are actively exploring with UK Departments and with the Executive how best secure specific funding for hydrogen production in Northern Ireland.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
I am sure that the Minister will join me in welcoming the acquisition of Bombardier in Northern Ireland by Spirit AeroSystems. He well understands the importance of aerospace for the Northern Ireland economy, but the aerospace sector needs to transition to meet the needs of the green economy, so will the Northern Ireland Office be a powerful advocate in government for a substantial investment in green technologies across the aerospace sector throughout the UK?
Mr Walker
The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. I very much welcome the news that Spirit AeroSystems has acquired Shorts. I recently met with union representatives, who outlined their concerns about the immediate challenges facing the aerospace industry. This investment in such a major local employer of high-quality jobs is an important step in providing certainty to the company and its employees at a difficult time for the industry. Of course, there is much more to do, and the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that innovation and green investment have an important part to play in the recovery phase. The UK Government will be doing everything we can, working alongside the Executive, to support a strong economic recovery and innovation in the green economy in Northern Ireland.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Robin Walker)
The Government continue to engage regularly with the Northern Ireland Executive as we get on with delivering the protocol and preparing for the end of the transition period. As well as working with the Executive, we are working with port authorities, district councils and other stakeholders in Northern Ireland to deliver protocol requirements at pace. We are also continuing discussions with the EU in the Joint Committee, informed by close working with the Executive, to secure a pragmatic approach to agrifood checks.
Kerry McCarthy
Last month, the operators of Northern Ireland’s four ports told Stormont that facilities to check goods arriving from Great Britain would not be in place by the end of transition. There were also concerns about the IT system, potential delays and the lack of clarity from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. With eight weeks to go, this is an absolute shambles. Who does the Minister hold responsible?
Mr Walker
The work is continuing. As we have previously set out, we are expanding some existing entry points for agrifood controls in Northern Ireland, building on what already happens at ports such as Larne and Belfast to ensure that new processes are as streamlined and efficient as possible. We continue to work closely with the Executive, port authorities, district councils and other stakeholders in Northern Ireland to take this work forward at pace, but the hon. Lady will recognise that some of these issues are subject to ongoing discussions in the Joint Committee.
Tony Lloyd [V]
The Minister rightfully has a reputation as being a decent individual, but will he not now apologise to businesses that so close to the beginning of next year—so close to the new regime coming in—businesses still do not know what regime they are going to operate under? Is not an apology now absolutely necessary from this Government to businesses in Northern Ireland?
Mr Walker
Let me first say what a pleasure it is to see the hon. Gentleman, if only on the screen, and welcome him back to the House, certainly from my perspective. In the last three months, we have published, on 7 August, operational guidance to Northern Ireland businesses covering customs, sanitary and phytosanitary measures and manufacturing goods, announced a £200 million trader support scheme service to support traders in Northern Ireland to meet the requirements of the protocol, announced over £150 million of investment in IT systems needed to operate the protocol’s requirements, and made progress on the recruitment and training of new staff to operate the protocol. However, I absolutely recognise the need to provide greater certainty, and we will continue to do that both through the business engagement group and through our work on the Joint Committee.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
The whole House is talking about the result of a heavily contested election—and indeed it is a year ago to the day, Mr Speaker, that you were elected Speaker. May I, on behalf of all Members, wish you therefore a very happy anniversary, and thank you, Mr Speaker, for making the speakership great again? [Interruption.] Thank you, Mr Speaker.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall have further such meetings later today.
Andrew Jones
The city-wide testing trial starting in Liverpool on Friday using the new lateral flow tests will cut the time to get results, cut the spread of the virus by identifying people who are infected but not showing symptoms, and vastly reduce both the number of people and the time involved in isolating, so the benefits to the NHS, to schools and to business are profound. When does the Prime Minister think the results from this trial will be available and its benefits extended across the UK?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right. I can tell him that the pilot is planned to last for approximately two weeks and we will keep the House updated on the results as they are evaluated.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
Can I start with the elections in the United States? Whatever the results, will the Prime Minister join me in saying that it is not for a candidate to decide which votes do and do not count or when to stop counting? The next President must be the free and fair choice of the American people.
Can I also express my revulsion at the terrorist attacks in Nice and Vienna? I am sure I speak for the whole House in saying that our thoughts are with all those affected.
Of course, Mr Speaker, I join the congratulations on your one-year anniversary.
Turning now, if I may, to covid-19, on 21 September, when the Government’s scientific advisers indicated that a circuit break would bring the virus back under control, the number of people that day who tragically lost their lives to covid-19 was 11. The Prime Minister ignored that advice. On Monday, 42 days later, the number of people who tragically lost their lives to covid-19 was 397—that is a staggering 35-fold increase. Does the Prime Minister understand the human cost of his delay in acting?
The Prime Minister
In answer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s opening question, of course we do not comment, as a UK Government, on the democratic processes of our friends and allies, and I do not think, in all seriousness, he would expect otherwise.
Turning to the point about covid and the decision—the difficult decision—that this House has to face tonight, I think I speak for many hon. Members across the House when I say that I do not think any Government or any Parliament would want to impose these measures lightly on the people of this country.
It was always right to pursue a local and regional approach, as our scientific advisers said. I will tell you why, Mr Speaker: because that regional approach was showing signs of working and still is showing signs of working. It did get the R—the transmission rate—down lower than it would otherwise have been. But we have to face the reality that, in common with many other countries in this part of the world, we are facing a surge in the virus, which this House must now tackle with the measures we have outlined. They will, as hon. Members know, expire on 2 December, and I hope very much that Opposition Members will support them tonight.
Keir Starmer
I am sure that nobody wants a lockdown, but it is a question of timing. Had the decision been taken a few weeks ago to put in place a circuit break, it could have been done for two to three weeks and taken advantage of schools being closed over half term. Now the Prime Minister’s proposed lockdown will be for at least four weeks, which means that businesses will be closed for longer and in the critical run-up to Christmas. Does the Prime Minister understand the economic cost of his delay in acting?
The Prime Minister
It is precisely because we understand the economic cost and the social and psychological damage of lockdowns that it was right to go for the local and regional solution, which was supported by many Members—indeed, it was supported by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, as long as it was useful to him for a while. That was the right approach. By the expiry of this period on 2 December, as I said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones), we will be rolling out across this country new types of testing on a scale never seen before, beginning this week in Liverpool, enabling us to detect asymptomatic cases. That is crucial, because as the House knows, 70% of transmission is taking place between people who have no symptoms. That will enable us to find new ways on a mass scale to break the chains of transmission. I want to particularly the Labour leadership of Liverpool for their co-operation—a manner of co-operation that I commend to those on the Opposition Benches.
Keir Starmer
The Prime Minister’s delay in acting is a huge failure of leadership, and it is no good saying that there was support for the tier system. As he well knows, I looked at the evidence and made a decision three weeks ago that the right thing was a circuit break. I do not buy the argument—I do not think anybody does—that the facts suddenly changed this weekend. The direction of travel and the number of infections, hospital admissions and, tragically, deaths have been clear for weeks.
But we are where we are. Millions of people across the country are really concerned about the restrictions that will come into force at midnight tonight. I accept that we all have a duty to pull together and try to make this lockdown work, so I just want to ask some basic and direct questions on behalf of those millions of people. First, will the lockdown end on 2 December come what may, or will it depend on the circumstances at the time? People need to know that.
The Prime Minister
I am grateful for the support that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is now offering, and I can answer him very simply. As the House knows, and as I informed him repeatedly on Monday, these autumn measures to combat the surge will expire automatically on 2 December, and we will then, I hope very much, be able to get this country going again and get businesses and shops open again in the run-up to Christmas. But that depends on us all doing our bit now to make sure that we get the R down. I have no doubt that we can and that we will be able to go forward from 2 December with a very different approach, but of course, it will be up to the House of Commons to decide thereafter what to do.
Keir Starmer
I accept that there will be a vote in the House. That does not tell us anything; that is the process. I want to press the Prime Minister. Is he saying that if, by 2 December, the R rate has not come below 1 and is still rising, we will come out of lockdown come what may, with infection rates going up on 2 December? That does not seem sensible to me.
The Prime Minister
It is thanks to the efforts of the British people that the R is now currently only just above 1 as it is. We are doing the right and the prudent thing at the right time to get that infection rate down, and these measures, as I have said repeatedly to the House, will expire on 2 December. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is now saying he wants to protract them beyond 2 December, then perhaps he should make his position clear.
Keir Starmer
I just want some basic honesty, and this is serious. If the infection rate—[Interruption.] We have to look the public in the eye. If the infection rate is still going up on 2 December, it is madness to come out of the system back to the tiered system, when we know the one thing the tiered system cannot cope with is an R rate above 1. That is the basic point. We can come back to it on 2 December, as we always do, but that is the point I am making.
The one thing we know a circuit break or lockdown does is buy time, and the Prime Minister needs to use that time to fix Test and Trace. I know he will talk about the capacity of 500,000, what is going on in Liverpool, how it is world beating, etc., but we have been going round and round in circles on this. The latest figures show that 113,000 contacts were not even reached, and that is just in one week. Only 20% of those who should be isolating are doing so, and the majority of people still do not get results in 24 hours. So can the Prime Minister give a straight answer: what is he going to do in the next four weeks to fix this, because if he does not, we will be back here again?
The Prime Minister
With greatest respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who has stood up and said that I will brag about NHS Test and Trace and its achievement of a target of capacity of 500,000, I am perfectly willing to accept the failings of NHS Test and Trace. Of course I am, and of course I take full responsibility for the frustrations people have experienced with that system, but to go from 3,000 tests a day, 2,000 tests a day to 500,000 is a quite remarkable feat. It is the biggest diagnostics exercise this country has ever carried out, and they are helping to drive down the R. They are doing, in my view, an absolutely invaluable job, whatever the difficulties they face. What we now need to do is to come together as a nation, briefly—if we can—put aside party political wrangling and point scoring, and work together, as I think he will tonight, to support this package to get the R down and allow us to go forward in a different way, with the mass testing that I have outlined from 2 December.
Keir Starmer
The Prime Minister must see that if four out of 10 of those who should be contacted are not being contacted, we have a problem in the system that needs to be fixed in the next four weeks.
Finally, I want to ask about care homes, which of course were hit so badly in the first wave of this pandemic. Can I pay tribute to all those working in care homes, who have given such dedication and commitment in the toughest of circumstances? We owe it to them not to repeat the mistakes of the first wave, but, Prime Minister, as we face the second wave, there is an increasing concern about the emotional wellbeing of those in care homes and their families if all visits are stopped. It must be possible to find a way—perhaps a dedicated family member scheme of some sort—to allow some safe visits to alleviate the huge fears of isolation and despair across the coming months. Will the Prime Minister work cross-party to find a scheme that will work for those in care and their families?
The Prime Minister
New guidance on care homes and visiting relatives safely—because the point the right hon. and learned Gentleman makes is incredibly important —is going to be announced today to try to strike the right balance between people’s real, real need to see their loved ones and obviously the risk of spreading the disease in care homes. We are going to be publishing some guidance about how that can be done today.
I am grateful for the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s offer to work collaboratively, but I have to say that the House will generally have noted that he has used this crisis as an opportunity to make political capital and to have what I think a shadow spokesman called a “good crisis”—a “good crisis”. Can I commend a different approach, because he has attacked the Government’s strategy? Can I commend a different approach? The former Labour leader, the right hon. former Member for Sedgefield, who is not as fashionable on those Benches as he once was or should be—[Interruption.] Not with all of them; perhaps on the Front Bench, but not all of them. He had written a good piece in today’s Daily Mail, in which he supports—broadly supports—this Government’s strategy: praising UK drugs companies for what they are doing; supporting our search for a vaccine; and supporting mass testing in Liverpool, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman deprecates. I think what he should do is actually take a leaf out of the Blair book, and by the way, I can tell him that Tony Blair would not have spent four years in the same shadow Cabinet as Jeremy Corbyn, standing shoulder to shoulder with him.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Department for Transport is already engaged on that matter, and I am sure it would be happy to meet him and representatives from the iPort that he describes.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP) [V]
Let me take this opportunity to send my best wishes to our friends in the US during this anxious time. Donald Trump claimed an unsupported victory and major fraud, with millions of legitimate ballots left to count. I hope that the Prime Minister will join me in condemning his actions this morning.
On Monday, the Prime Minister agreed access to the furlough scheme for Scotland, at 80%, if lockdown restrictions require it. Subsequently, a number of his Ministers have rolled back on that promise, and the Scottish Government have not received any detail about what the commitment means in practice. Today is the Prime Minister’s opportunity to clear up this mess of his Government’s making. Will Scotland receive full 80% furlough and payments for the self-employed under current eligibility criteria, whenever that is requested by the Scottish Government in the months ahead?
The Prime Minister
I hesitate to accuse the right hon. Gentleman of failing to listen to what I said on Monday—I think he heard exactly what I said. I gave a commitment then, and I in no way budge from that. Furlough is a UK-wide scheme and it has helped to save about 10 million jobs in this country, including about 1 million in Scotland.
Ian Blackford
What the Prime Minister said on Monday was that if the devolved Administrations asked for furlough, it would be granted. That was the direct answer that he gave to the question. The Scottish Government have been waiting for clarity on whether Scotland will receive additional money as a result of increased spending from English local government, and there is also no clarity about whether the unlimited payments for business support in England will be made available on a similar demand-led basis. Will the Prime Minister clarify those two points now, and commit to confirming in writing to the Scottish Government today, that access to the furlough scheme will be there if they need it?
The Prime Minister
Perhaps the most efficient thing I can tell the right hon. Gentleman is that tomorrow, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will be making a general statement about all the support and provisions that we are making for this latest phase to tackle the autumn surge of coronavirus. I repeat the points that I have made about Barnett consequentials—£7.2 billion has already gone to help Scotland, and we will support people in Scotland and throughout the UK during this crisis.
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for campaigning for places of worship in the way that he does, and I am so deeply sorry that these restrictions have to be put in place right now. We will work as hard and fast as we can to allow people to worship in the way they want from 2 December, and that is why I hope the House will approve this package of measures tonight.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
If every vote is counted in the US election, it is likely that Joe Biden will be the victor. The Prime Minister has a major challenge to build relationships with any incoming Administration. Therefore, in the light of Joe Biden’s entirely correct analysis of the impact on the Good Friday agreement of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, how quickly will the Prime Minister recognise the inevitable and remove those clauses from the Bill?
The Prime Minister
The UK Internal Market Bill, which has cross-party support, is a vital part of the armature—the skeletal structure—of the whole UK economy as we leave the European Union, and it ensures that goods and services placed on the market are available throughout the UK on the same terms. It is vital for our country and the hon. Gentleman should support it.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. We stand shoulder to shoulder with France, as I have told President Macron, and shoulder to shoulder with Austria, as I have told Chancellor Kurz, in our joint war against this abominable ideology. Together, we will defeat it.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister
I do indeed congratulate all the voluntary organisations that have stepped up, and I am proud that this Government have also helped to fund them to the tune of billions of pounds—not just the £9 billion increase in universal credit, but of course an extra £1.1 billion going to help councils. This Government will ensure that no child goes hungry this Christmas— this winter—thanks to any inattention or inactivity by Government. Never forget that it was a Conservative Government that instituted free school meals for five, six and seven-year-olds after all the years Labour was in power.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I do indeed believe that such a deal would be massively in the interests of our EU friends and partners, as well as anybody else, but that is of course up to them. What I can tell my hon. Friend is that we are supporting green technology of all kinds, particularly hybrid and battery vehicles, and we have just put another £49 million into grants for exactly the kind of vehicles that he and I have inspected and driven together so that this country can bounce back greener.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is entirely right, in the sense that, although the absolute numbers have not gone up in the way we feared, we are unquestionably seeing repeat victimisation in domestic contexts. It is intolerable. As the House knows, we have set up helplines to tackle it, and we are investing in refuges and independent domestic violence advisers. It is absolutely crucial that we tackle the scourge of domestic abuse and also deal with the mental health consequences for the victims. That is why we are investing massively in mental health and mental health charities.
Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)
An independent study published recently suggests that the writing ability of year 7 pupils is some 22 months behind expectations. My right hon. Friend will know that it is the life chances of the most disadvantaged that are hit hardest when schools close. We have rightly said that those children are an absolute priority for this Government. Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister give an assurance that, first, we will do whatever it takes to make up for lost ground and, secondly, we will never again contemplate closing our schools?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend. He is completely right about the paramount importance of keeping our schools open. Out of this crisis has come at least one potentially innovative idea that can really help exactly the types of pupils he is talking about: one-on-one tutoring of the kind that we have been able to support with our catch-up premiums and our national tutoring programme. As we come out of this pandemic, I want to see us keeping up with one-on-one tutoring because I believe it can make a huge difference to children’s confidence and academic attainment.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I listen to a huge range of scientific advice, and indeed there are eminent scientists and epidemiologists who say that we should not do any kind of lockdowns or measures like this at all—David Nabarro of the World Health Organisation, whom I esteem greatly, for instance. We have to take a balanced decision and make a judgment about when the right moment is. The hon. Gentleman talks about the long-term effects on people’s lives. We have to make a balanced judgment about the effects on people’s mental health, livelihoods and prospects, the prospects of young people, and the importance of saving lives and protecting our NHS. That is the balance we are trying to strike tonight, and I hope he will support it.
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
In a few short weeks, we end the transition period with the European Union. May I ask the Prime Minister to confirm that the transition team will endeavour to keep Dover clear of traffic gridlock, and that work will continue at pace on the proposed upgrade to the A2 between Whitfield and Dover’s eastern docks?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend and I congratulate her on her campaign for the people of Dover. I can tell her that, thanks to her lobbying, Highways England is now developing plans to improve Brenley Corner junction and access into Dover along the remaining single-carriageway sections of the A2 from Lydden.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP) [V]
The Prime Minister
I hesitate to accuse the hon. Lady of not listening to what I have just said, but I want to repeat that the furlough is a UK-wide scheme that will, of course, continue to be available to the people of Scotland. For any further elucidation of the details of the entire package of support that this Government are putting in place for the people of the entire UK, I direct her to what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will say tomorrow.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
A potential vaccine for covid provides us all with hope, and that hope is thanks to investment in research and development. The Prime Minister has pledged more money for research than any of his predecessors put together, to deliver on his vision of the UK as a global science superpower. Does he agree that maintaining the Government’s commitment to spend 2.4% of GDP on research and development by 2027 will also be essential for that vision?
The Prime Minister
You have asked for speed in my answers, Mr Speaker, and the answer to my right hon. Friend is basically yes. I reiterate that we are committed to that 2.4% and to increasing public investment in R and D by £22 billion by 2024-25.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I am very interested in what the hon. Lady says because, as she knows, this Government are investing massively in 5,000 low-carbon buses. I would be interested to know what type of coaches she is talking about and the details of the company that she rightly represents. That company should be eligible for bounce back loans and for all sorts of support. She is shaking her head, so I invite her to write to me with details of that company’s needs, and I will do my best to oblige her.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
Northern communities, including my Cheadle constituents, have already been subject to restrictions for months, which has meant a disproportionate effect on northern livelihoods. The importance of the Prime Minister’s levelling-up agenda has never been starker, so today I ask him to fast-track infrastructure spending in the north, including Northern Powerhouse Rail and a new train station in Cheadle. Will the Government, with northern MPs and business leaders, formulate a northern economic recovery plan, to ensure that our region comes out of the pandemic stronger than ever?
The Prime Minister
I can certainly confirm that we are going ahead with Northern Powerhouse Rail. In addition, I can tell my hon. Friend that Cheadle will receive at least £500,000 from the towns fund to support the local high street and the local community.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I think that he is raising the 1983 miners’ strike—or the early 1980s at any rate. I would be obliged to him if he could send me further particulars of his concerns, which I will do my best to address.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking teachers across Elmet and Rothwell for keeping the schools open this term, and does he share my frustration that half of the laptops that he provided to Leeds City Council for distribution to the city’s most vulnerable learners remain in the storeroom at Leeds Civic Hall? What can be done to get the Labour council to pull their socks up?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. That is indeed disappointing, because over 2,500 laptops and tablets and 400 routers were delivered to Leeds City Council for disadvantaged 10-year-old pupils. I will do whatever I can to spring those laptops from the cupboard as fast as I can.
Mr Speaker
Let’s head up to Manchester to see if they are in the cupboard with Jeff Smith.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab) [V]
The Prime Minister
They are not going to. The furlough scheme, as the hon. Gentleman knows, was extended until the end of October. We are putting in measures now to support people across the whole UK throughout this period until 2 December, and that is the right thing to do. We are putting our arms round the people of this country to get them through the pandemic and beyond.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I understand that the Prime Minister will soon receive from the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Transport a recommendation that we enable quarantine periods to be cut for air passengers who have tested covid-negative. When is a decision likely to be made, and will he look favourably on this proposal, which will allow the aviation industry in this country to get back to its rightful place?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend. He is right to lobby for the aviation industry. This country has the third biggest aviation industry in the world. It is currently having a terrible, terrible time, and my sympathies are very much with all the employees involved. One of the benefits of getting polymerase chain reaction testing up to 500,000 a day is that we have new possibilities for testing of all kinds across the country. We will be bringing forward further measures and proposals as soon they are finalised.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
What has possibly undermined people’s confidence in, and understanding of, what the Government are trying to do is the constant party political point-scoring, and the attempts by the Labour party and the hon. Lady to obscure what we are trying to do. The best thing would be to advise her constituents on what to do: follow the guidance, and get the virus down—and let us all do it together.
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con) [V]
Levelling up will matter more than ever as we emerge from the pandemic next year, and I was delighted to see the first town deals announced last week. They will deliver transformative investment for places such as Darlington. Will my right hon. Friend prioritise rapid decision making in the cases of Middlesbrough and Loftus, which have applications pending for this vital fund?
The Prime Minister
Yes indeed, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on lobbying for Middlesbrough in the way that he has. I can tell him that Tees Valley is already getting £126 million from the local growth fund. The devolution deal will mean £450 million extra for transport, skills and employment, and Middlesbrough will get at least £500,000 from the towns fund, thanks at least in part to his lobbying.
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady is right to draw attention to the issue. In addition to the £600 million care home action plan that we announced earlier this year, we will put further funding into care homes in the short term, but also making sure that we have long-term reform of that sector. As I said to the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) earlier, we will bring out specific guidance to enable people to visit loved ones in the way that they should and they must.
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con) [V]
My right hon. Friend and I share similar libertarian views, and I guess that some of the decisions he has taken for the country’s common good were contrary to his personal creed and feelings. While those of us with higher political morals than Captain Hindsight on the Opposition Front Bench have sought to do our collective best during recent times, what does my right hon. Friend believe are the views regarding antisemitism, following the recent Equality and Human Rights Commission report, that the current Leader of the Opposition—a knight of the realm, no less—holds now? Does my right hon. Friend believe that they are any different from those the right hon. and learned Gentleman displayed when serving the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn)?
The Prime Minister
The only comment I would make on all that was that I was genuinely amazed that the leader of the Unite union should make a remark of the kind that he did, and that the Labour party should remain in receipt of funding from Unite and take no steps to dissociate itself from that union after that remark. I did find that absolutely astonishing.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I am not going to pretend that every aspect of NHS Test and Trace has worked in the way that I wanted to, but as I said earlier on, it has achieved some very considerable things. What I think it has also done throughout the pandemic, from the get-go, is work with local authorities and local people. What we will be doing now, as we roll out the mass testing that I have described to the House in Liverpool and elsewhere, will be led by local people, and we will be working with those local authorities to deliver those programmes.
Points of Order
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I seek guidance on the powers of the House to summon witnesses to attend Select Committee inquiries and answer questions on their businesses’ involvement in UK matters? I ask this because there is a very real public concern about Disney, which made the film “Mulan” among the Uyghur slave camps in Xinjiang, and is therefore implicated in the mass human rights abuses of the Uyghur people by the Chinese state and may be profiting from them.
You might have thought that Disney would want to come in front of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee to explain its position, but Disney—a firm based in Hammersmith and with a substantial footprint in the UK—and its representative, Jan Koeppen, are refusing to attend. Can you advise what steps can be taken to ensure that Disney fulfils its obligations, not only to Parliament but to the public? Can you confirm that the House can require Disney to attend and that a refusal could be a blatant contempt of Parliament? What should the Committee do next?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving me notice of her intention to raise this matter. It is very important that Select Committees have access to witnesses to assist them in carrying out their important work, and I am sure representatives of Disney will have heard what she has said. What I would say to Disney is that it is a major corporation, and it is good at communications, so I would expect it to reflect what it does as a business. If witnesses refuse to attend when invited, it is open to Committees to summon them formally. If a witness fails to appeal when summoned, I would expect that to be reported to the House. Consideration could then be given to how the matter could be taken forward. As I understand that the Committee has not yet taken the first step, which only it can do at this stage, it is therefore a matter for the Chair of the Committee. With the hon. Lady’s good offices, I do not think this will rest here today.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The suggestion has been raised on the Floor of the House this week that in the current pandemic we should have a special coronavirus Select Committee. I thought it would be helpful for hon. Members to know that the Science and Technology Committee and the Health and Social Care Committee are together embarking on a large inquiry into all aspects of the pandemic and all the lessons that need to be learned. On the issue of whether we should have lockdowns and what their scientific basis is, we will be having a session later this month to which we will be inviting the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care.
Mr Speaker
Once again, let me thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. As he knows, it is not really a point of order for the Chair, but it is now on the record. Quite rightly, he has made his point, which follows Monday’s point of order. I do not want to get into a debate between the two—it is a matter for the House, not a matter for the Chair—so I think we will leave it at that, but I thank him for giving me notice.
In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for three minutes.
Employment (Dismissal and Re-employment)
Wednesday 4th November 2020
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Employment (Dismissal and Re-employment) (No. 2) Bill 2019-21 View all Employment (Dismissal and Re-employment) (No. 2) 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
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit employers dismissing employees and subsequently re-employing them for the purpose of diminishing the terms and conditions of employment; and for connected purposes.
Since I introduced the Employment (Dismissal and Re-employment) Bill in its first incarnation in June, I have been taken aback by the level of support for the measure. The messages I have received from people across the country asking how they can help and support the progress of my Bill have been touching and gratifying. I thank the great many colleagues from all parts of the House who have been supportive since the outset. That is perhaps evidenced by the fact that every political party that has elected Members in this place is represented in the list of sponsors of the Bill. I should add that without the help of Public Bill Office staff, I would have no Bill to speak to today, and I offer them my thanks for their help with getting it this far.
Tens of thousands of workers have been forced to the edge of a cliff by employers who have suddenly discovered the value of ignoring loyalty. Some 30,000 British Airways employees were told to suck up huge wage cuts and slashed conditions or join the dole queue. For some, this meant a cut in take-home pay of 60%-plus. They were told that they were the lucky ones. More than 10,000 of their colleagues have joined that queue.
Like many of my colleagues on the Transport Committee, I have received hundreds of emails from BA employees who have been subjected to such tactics. Those emails tell individual stories of fear, worry, anxiety, disappointment, anger and resignation, but they also paint a picture of a corporation intent on badness from the start. Workers who had decades of service with BA received emails just before midnight advising them to sign on the dotted line or face the sack. Employees who had recently returned from leave for ill health were told that their annual leave would be slashed, or they would face the sack. People were told that their wages would be slashed and they had no option but to accept, or face the sack. This is not how a modern, civilised country manages its labour market. These are the tactics and behaviour of characters from a Dickens novel, and the behaviour of these companies is like yet another remnant of the 19th century.
No one argues that the economic crisis that the world faces means that businesses do not have tough decisions to make; of course they do. The impact of covid-19 on commerce and industry will not disappear as soon as we have tackled the virus and normality begins to return. The after-effects will be long-lasting and damaging, but that does not give employers the right to behave like absentee lairds, returning to their assets only to inflict yet more damage on people they appear to hold in contempt.
We should expect—and, given their various answers and statements on the matter, the Government fervently hoped—that these companies might self-police their behaviour. Most other employers are able to treat their staff fairly, with decency and respect, but it is clear that we cannot rely on rogue bosses to show that same decency and fairness voluntarily. That is where the state, this Parliament and the UK Government must step in to guarantee fairness for every worker in the UK, as Governments around Europe have done in the past.
It is one of the sad ironies of the British Airways situation that in the other two countries where its parent company, International Airlines Group, operates—Ireland and Spain—fire and rehire tactics are banned. IAG could not tell its Aer Lingus subsidiary to copy and paste from the playbook of Willie Walsh and Alex Cruz, because the Irish Dáil took a decision to extend protections to workers in Ireland. Ireland’s economy is better placed, better structured and better regulated than that of the UK. It is time for the UK Government to learn lessons from our nearest neighbour and follow its lead.
The Government can, in the words of the Prime Minister himself, put their “arms around” millions of workers across these isles with one very simple action: put aside Government time for my Bill. Get it into Committee, where we can debate how best to offer workers more protection from rogue bosses, and encourage those who are yet to be convinced to back this measure. My Bill would simply amend the Employment Rights Act 1996 and equip workers with the tools to protect their living standards virtually overnight. It would put our labour market on a level playing field with those of our European friends and allies, and, crucially, it would put our workers on a level playing field with workers in the rest of Europe. It would put our businesses on notice that the Victorian era is fit for the history books, not a guide to human resources.
As I said to the Minister when we met to discuss the merits and content of my Bill, I am not precious about it being my Bill—this Bill—that makes the changes required. If the UK Government and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy come up with their own plan that achieves the same ends, I will wholeheartedly welcome it. I know that hon. Members on this side of the House would do the same, and that a great many of the Minister’s concerned colleagues, who have spoken to him about the issue, would also appreciate action.
Workers do not care whose name is on the Bill. They care that their interests are being protected and that their jobs are not being used as pawns in a war in which the only winners are the likes of Willie Walsh and well-upholstered shareholders. The Minister said that although he and the Government could not support the Bill at this time, he remained open to looking at the issue and further protections. I hope to continue the dialogue.
My Bill would make a simple amendment to the Employment Rights Act 1996 to add the re-employment of a worker on less favourable terms and conditions to the definition of unfair dismissal. That would allow employees to use the existing employment tribunal system to enforce their rights if required, and would mean that employers could no longer act with impunity. Amending the Act in that way would allow employees targeted for fire and rehire to take cases against unscrupulous employers and, where appropriate, secure reinstatement and compensation. In short, the Bill creates no extra bureaucracy, no extra administration and no extra complexity, but creates a necessary protection for workers that employers will be forced to respect or face judicial proceedings.
I am grateful for the opportunity to lay out the case for action in that area. I look forward to the Labour Party re-tabling an Opposition day motion on it to allow us to have a real discussion and debate on the finer points. I also look forward to one or two Conservative Members potentially attempting to justify the actions of rogue employers such as Willie Walsh and Alex Cruz. Their actions were and are utterly shameful and immoral and should be illegal. After wrecking thousands of lives, they have both skipped off into the sunset. Mr Walsh took an £800,000 bonus pay-off having thrown more than 10,000 loyal staff on the dole in the middle of the biggest economic crisis since the war and effectively rehired 30,000 more on reduced terms and conditions.
BA would say that fire and rehire has been taken off the table. Indeed, the outgoing chief exec told the Transport Committee a few weeks ago that that was the case, but there are two problems with that. First, a lot of the damage to thousands of lives has already been done. BA threatened the workforce with taking an effective pay-cut of 40%, 50% or 60% or taking redundancy, then followed through with the process of accepting voluntary requests, selecting who was successful in getting their old but less well-paid jobs back and making thousands more compulsorily redundant. Only then did it take fire and rehire off the table. That is callous and fools absolutely no one.
Secondly, it seems that employees under the BA/IAG umbrella still face being fired and rehired at the turn of the year. When Alex Cruz confirmed to the Committee that it had been taken off the table, he was being at best disingenuous and at worst misleading. I should say that there is a new management team in place at BA. I wish them well in fixing the mess and trying to repair the broken relationship with the workforce. They need a lot of luck.
It is not just British Airways. We said that its practice would be swiftly followed by others if the Government refused to follow the Prime Minister’s warm words with action, and so it has proven. Fellow blue-chip company, Centrica British Gas, has made the same fire and rehire threats to more than 20,000 of its employees, although it has not served notice on anyone at this point. Ground handler Menzies Aviation has also followed a similar path, despite assuring me personally that it would absolutely not be taking that approach. Many other companies across the UK, including Heathrow, have followed in British Airways’ dark and ever-growing shadow.
Trade unions across the board, including Unite, GMB, Unison and Prospect; thousands of betrayed BA and Centrica workers; thousands more who feel that they will be next; and crucially, I believe, a natural majority in this House are all demanding action from the Government. They should act sooner rather than later, back our constituents and give them the support and protection they deserve, not just in the short term during the pandemic and its economic impact, but in the long term as we collectively build the economic recovery that we all need and hope for. But that recovery will be a hollow one if the Government leave workers in the same position they were in previously, at the mercy of corporations that treat the lack of regulation over their actions as a green light to mistreat and bully their employees.
We must act to give workers security and dignity at work and my Bill would go some way—only some way, but an important way—to providing that security and dignity. I ask the Government and Government Members to go that way too and get behind my Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Gavin Newlands, Huw Merriman, Neil Gray, Chris Stephens, Lilian Greenwood, Sarah Olney, Sammy Wilson, Caroline Lucas, Stephen Farry, Claire Hanna, Liz Saville Roberts and David Linden present the Bill.
Gavin Newlands accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 29 January 2021, and to be printed (Bill 206).
Royal Assent
Mr Speaker
I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Act and Measure:
Prisoners (Disclosure of Information About Victims) Act 2020
General Synod (Remote Meetings) (Temporary Standing Orders) Measure 2020.
Business of the House (Today)
Ordered,
That, at this day’s sitting, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 16(1) (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents), the Speaker shall put any questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the motion in the name of Secretary Matt Hancock relating to the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) (No. 4) Regulations 2020 (SI, 2020, No. 1200) not later than three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this Order; such proceedings may be entered upon, though opposed, after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Matt Hancock.)
Public Health
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
15:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 516 / Noes: 38 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
I beg to move,
That the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) (No. 4) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 1200), dated 3 November 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 3 November, be approved.
We come together today to implement time-limited restrictions across England from midnight, so that we can contain the autumn surge of the virus, protect our NHS and save many lives. Of course, this is not something that any of us wanted to do. None of us came into politics to tell people once again to shutter their shops, furlough their staff or stay away from their friends and family. In common with all Members, I feel the pain and anxiety that we will all share in the month ahead. But as Prime Minister, when I am confronted with data which projects that our NHS could even collapse, with deaths in the second wave potentially exceeding those of the first, and when I look at what is happening among some of our continental friends and see doctors who have tested positive being ordered to work on covid wards and patients airlifted to hospitals in some other countries simply to make space, I can reach only one conclusion: I am not prepared to take the risk with the lives of the British people.
I know it might be tempting to think that, because some progress has been made, we just need to stay the course and see through our locally led approach. It is true that the extraordinary efforts of millions across the country—especially those in high and very high alert level areas—have made a difference, suppressing the reproduction rate of the virus below where it would otherwise have been. I want to record again my thanks to the millions who have put up with local restrictions. I want to thank the local leaders who have understood the gravity of the position.
But I am sorry to say that the number of covid patients in some hospitals is already higher than at the peak of the first wave. Even in the south-west, which has so far had lower case rates than most of the rest of the country, hospital admissions are over halfway to their first-wave peak. The latest analysis from the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, published on Friday, suggests that the R remains above 1 in every part of England, which means that the virus is continuing to grow among the population. Every day that the number is above 1 is another day that the number of cases will rise, locking in more hospital admissions and, alas, more fatalities, pushing the NHS ever closer to the moment when it cannot cope.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Every one of us in this House has received numerous emails and telephone calls about the closure of church services. I understand that, and I am making a plea to the Prime Minister for that to be reviewed. For many people, it is the only outing they have in the week and the only opportunity to have any contact with people for prayer and contemplation. In Northern Ireland, churches have been able to remain open through the use of masks and hands, face, space. Could that be looked at? I believe that people across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland would appreciate that, especially in England.
The Prime Minister
I know the hon. Gentleman speaks for many people in this House in raising that concern, and I feel it very deeply. It is an awful thing to restrict people’s ability to worship in a communal way. Obviously, as he knows, we are allowing private worship, but for many people that will not be enough. The best I can say is that in all reality, if we approve this package of measures tonight, we have a very good prospect of allowing everybody to return to communal worship in time for Christmas and other celebrations in December.
The course we have before us is to prevent R from remaining above 1 and to get it down, otherwise we face a bleak and uncertain future of steadily rising infections and admissions until, as I say, the capacity of the NHS is breached. I know there has been some debate about the projections of some of these models.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
On uncertainty, we have had a week of uncertainty from the Prime Minister and his Cabinet on whether the extension of furlough will apply to Scotland if it chooses to go into lockdown, if it needs to go into lockdown, beyond 2 December. That comes after the Prime Minister’s Government refused the request of the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Governments for furlough support at the end of September.
Can the Prime Minister finally provide us with a clear, unambiguous answer as to whether, if Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland requests 80% furlough after 2 December, it will be granted?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman cannot take yes for an answer. Not only will I come to that point later, but my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will be saying more about the matter tomorrow, and the hon. Gentleman can interrogate him.
What I will say, on the point of uncertainty, is that I know there has been a debate about the statistics on how big the loss of life might be and on the precise point at which the NHS might be overwhelmed, but all the scientific experts I have talked to are unanimous on one point. As the chief medical officer has said, if we do not act now, the chances of the NHS being in extraordinary trouble in December would be very high.
Be in no doubt about what that means for our country and for our society. It means that the precious principle of care for everyone who needs it, whoever they are and whenever they need it, could be shattered for the first time in our experience. It means that those who are sick, suffering and in need of help could be turned away because there is no room in our hospitals—even in East Sussex.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
All of us in this place will be concerned about saving lives. What evidence has my right hon. Friend received that we will save more lives by the lockdown he proposes than we will lose from public health, from a lack of jobs and from a mental health crisis? That is the evidence I seek from the Prime Minister today in order to cast my vote his way.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend raises a very important point, and it is the crux of the debate. Alas, as leaders and as politicians, we have to look at the immediate peril we face. I do not in any way minimise the risks to mental health and physical health that come from the measures we have to apply. That is, of course, why we debate and insist that we explore every other avenue before we go down that route, but we have to look at the real risk of mortality, and mortality on what I think would be a grievous scale, that would stem from doing nothing.
To give my hon. Friend a picture of what it would mean, those who are sick, suffering or in need of help could be turned away because there is no room in our hospitals.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Prime Minister
I will give way in a moment.
Doctors and nurses could be forced to make impossible choices about which patients would live and which would die, who would get oxygen and who could not. I know that some Members, like my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), are hearing from their local hospitals that the pressure is not that great yet, but the whole point about a national health service is that when hospitals in one part of the country are overrun, sick patients are transferred to another, until the whole system falls over. Let me be clear that this existential threat to our NHS comes not from focusing too much on coronavirus, as is sometimes asserted, but from not focusing enough, because if we fail to get coronavirus under control, the sheer weight of demand from covid patients would not only lead to the covid casualties that I have described, but deprive other patients of the care they need. We simply cannot reach the point where our national health service is no longer there for everyone.
This fate is not inevitable. We are moving to these national measures here when the rate both of deaths and infections is lower than they were, for instance, in France, when President Macron took similar steps. If we act now, and act decisively, we can stem the rising waters before our defences are breached.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I accept the Prime Minister’s logic and think it is far more dangerous to do nothing than to do what he proposes, but does he accept that we need to learn some serious lessons from the first lockdown, particularly about the impact on cancer patients? There was a 100,000 backlog when it came to treatment and diagnosis at one point. Cancer Research UK estimates that 35,000 people might unnecessarily lose their lives to cancer because of wrong decisions. Will he accept that, while there are many hospitals that are, shall I say, clean sites, where covid is not being treated or is not present, there is an opportunity to use those sites to treat cancer patients, catch up with cancer, save those lives and not make the same mistakes as we did first time?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is exactly right and has encapsulated the argument that we make. My right hon. Friend the Health Secretary and I have talked repeatedly to Simon Stevens of the NHS and his teams about making sure that throughout this period, we continue to look after cancer patients—those who need the decisive care that the NHS can provide. I do believe that this approach—these regulations—are the way that we can do that.
I know there are many in this House who are concerned about how long these measures might last and that, if people vote for these regulations today, they could suddenly find that we are trapped with these national measures for months on end. So let me level with the House: of course, I cannot say exactly where the epidemiology will be by 2 December, but what I can say is that the national measures that I hope the House will vote for tonight are time-limited. It is not that we choose to stop them. They legally expire, so whatever we do from 2 December will require a fresh mandate and a fresh vote from this House. As I have made clear, it is my express intent that we should return to a tiered system on a local and regional basis according to the latest data and trends.
The Prime Minister
The whole House will share my sorrow and regret at the necessity of these measures, which I know is a perspective shared by my right hon. Friend—I am happy to give way to him.
Mr Harper
I have listened carefully to the argument and looked at the data very carefully. What I am troubled by—when I have looked at the basis on which the modelling has been done, both in terms of SAGE and the NHS—is that the modelling does not take into account the effect of the introduction of the tier system and any of the effects of it. I think, therefore, that we have acted too soon, because we are starting now to see the tier system working. The data from Liverpool yesterday, published by Steve Rotheram, is very encouraging and shows that the tier system is working, but the modelling that the NHS is using for its capacity usage does not take into account that introduction at all.
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. He is expressing a point of view that is shared by many people, but, alas, I believe that he is wrong. The facts do not support his view. I looked at the data and, unfortunately, this is what we have: hospitalisations mounting very, very steadily, which, as he knows, are leading indicators of fatalities. We have 2,000 more people on covid wards than this time last week and 25% more people today than there were last week and, alas, 397 deaths tragically announced yesterday —more than we have had for many months. The curve is already unmistakable and, alas, incontestable.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)
In the past two weeks, we have gone from seeing cases mainly among young people to them being mainly among older people. We have seen it going from a problem in a few cities to a problem across the country. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we do not need a fancy model to see the numbers piling up in hospitals and to see what has happened in France—because it has not taken action as quickly as we have—to know that the thing to do is to take action now, not just to save lives, but to save the economy as well?
The Prime Minister
The economic dimension of what we are doing is absolutely right and the argument, as my hon. Friend rightly says, works both ways. I know how difficult it is, particularly for businesses that have just got back on their feet, that have done their level best to make themselves covid-secure, installing hand- washing stations, plexiglass screens and one-way systems, and, as the Chancellor has set out, we will do whatever it takes to support them. We have protected almost 10 million jobs with furlough and we are now extending the scheme throughout November. We have already paid out £13 billion to help support the self-employed, and we are now doubling our support from 40% to 80% of trading profits for the self-employed for this month. We are providing cash grants of up to £3,000 per month for businesses that are closed, which is worth more than £1 billion a month and benefits more than 600,000 business premises. We are giving funding of £1.1 billion to local authorities in England further to support businesses in their local economy in the winter months.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
The Prime Minister accused us earlier of not being able to take yes for an answer on differentiated furlough for the other nations of the UK. The problem is that we have not heard a clear, unequivocal yes to the question, so can he sort that out now? If Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland need to introduce lockdown measures at different times than England, will the Chancellor be there to support us with furlough?
The Prime Minister
Yes. I really do not know how to exhaust my affirmative vocabulary any further—they won’t take yes for an answer, Mr Speaker. All of this comes on top, as the hon. Gentleman knows—
Several hon. Members rose—
The Prime Minister
With great respect, Mr Speaker, I think that I have answered the question and I think that my friends opposite are going to oppose.
This comes on top of the more than £200 billion that we provided since March. We will also ensure that, throughout this period, our schools stay open. We will not allow this virus to do any further damage to the future of our children. I said in the summer that we had a moral duty to reopen our schools as soon as it was safe to do so, and that they would be the last element of our society to close down again. We have stuck to that pledge. Our schools will remain open, as will colleges, universities, childcare and early years settings.
The measures before the House are designed to arrest the virus, to drive it down and to get on top of it once and for all. If we are able to test on a big enough scale to identify the people who are infected, often without symptoms and who unwittingly and asymptomatically pass the virus to others, those people will be helped immediately—this is the key thing—to self-isolate and to break the chains of transmission, reducing the spread of the virus, reducing the numbers of people in hospital, and reducing the numbers of people dying. I think that if we all play our part in this system it could be a hugely valuable weapon in our fight against covid in the short, medium and long term, and an alternative to the blanket restrictions that have been imposed in so many parts of the world.
This week we are piloting a mass test in Liverpool, where an immense effort benefiting from the logistical skill of the armed services will offer everyone a test, and our aim is to make mass repeated testing available for everyone across the country. Thanks to the pioneering work of British scientists, we already have a life-saving treatment for covid and the genuine possibility of a safe and effective vaccine next year. Taken together, these achievements provide every reason for confidence that our country can and will pull through this crisis, and that our ingenuity will prove equal to the challenge.
The Prime Minister
No, I will not—I am finishing up.
This year, I and the whole of Government have asked much of the British people: more than any Prime Minister, I believe, has asked of the British people in peacetime. I have to say that the public have responded magnificently and selflessly, putting their lives on hold, bearing any burden, overcoming every obstacle, and tolerating every disruption and inconvenience, no matter how large or small—or inconsistent—so that they could do the right thing by their fellow citizens. I wish that it had been enough to defeat this autumn surge. But while I am more optimistic now about the medium and long-term future than I have been for many months, there can be no doubt that the situation before us today is grave and the need for action acute.
It is absolutely right for this House to have doubts—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry, Prime Minister, but Mr Murrison, you cannot read newspapers in the Chamber.
The Prime Minister
It is absolutely right for hon. Members to consult relevant documents that may contain information to the advantage and betterment of the House.
The Prime Minister
I can assure my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) that his future is rosy.
It is right for Members on all sides of this House to have the doubts that have been expressed, to seek answers from me, and to provide scrutiny. That is the purpose and duty of the House of Commons. But while it pains me to call for such restrictions on lives, liberty and business, I have no doubt that these restrictions represent the best and safest path for our country, our people and our economy. So now is the time for us to put our differences aside and focus on the next four weeks in getting this virus back in its box. I know that once again our amazing country will respond to adversity by doing what is right—staying at home, protecting the NHS and saving lives. In that spirit, I commend these regulations to the House.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
I know that a lot of Members want to speak, particularly on the Government Benches, and so I will keep my remarks brief.
Nobody votes for these regulations today with anything other than a heavy heart, on both sides of the House. I did not come into Parliament to restrict people’s freedoms, to prevent people meeting their friends and their loved ones, or to decide when people can and cannot leave their home or how many people may attend a funeral. I do not want Parliament to be closing businesses, gyms, bars or places of worship. Frankly, I do not want Parliament to be legislating on any of these issues, least of all after the British public have made so many enormous sacrifices already.
Parliament probably should have had more time to scrutinise the regulations, to amend them and to consult. There are going to be anomalies and inconsistencies that we cannot amend and probably could have been ironed out. I am very concerned about the impact on businesses who spent thousands of pounds becoming covid-secure, doing everything the Government asked, only now to be forced to shut. However, while these regulations are not in any way desirable or perfect, they are now necessary because the Government have lost control of the virus, and we will support them.
The country is at—indeed, we are several weeks past—the tipping point in the fight against the virus. We must never forget that on Monday, 397 people lost their lives to covid-19, more than 1,000 patients were on ventilators and there were over 20,000 positive cases. To anybody who disputes the trajectory of the virus or what the cost of inaction would be, I would point out that when SAGE warned 44 days ago that if we did not act at that time there would be catastrophic consequences, there were then, six weeks or so ago, 11 deaths from covid-19, just over 4,000 infections and 181 people on ventilators. That is not graphs. That is not projections. That is the grim facts in the past few weeks, and we know that the figures double, then double and then double again. That direction of travel has been clear for some time, and I am afraid the reality is that the two pillars of the Government’s strategy—the £12 billion track and trace and the regional restrictions—have been washed away by the second wave. If we are to have any chance of getting the virus back under control, to prevent many more people from falling ill or losing their loved ones and to protect the NHS, we need to take decisive action now.
There are some wider points I want to raise, and I suspect that they are shared points. There needs to be additional support during the lockdown. This is going to be incredibly hard for the British public. Millions of people tonight are really anxious about what will happen over the coming weeks. They are anxious on the health front for themselves and their friends and family, and anxious about their jobs. That is why we called for the restrictions to be put in place some weeks ago when there could have been a shorter period, which would have been better on the health front, with fewer lives lost, and better on the economic front.
More broadly, I was struck by the words of the chief executive of Mind, who warned earlier this week that the second lockdown was likely to be even harder on people’s mental health. We know that there has already been a large increase in demand for mental health services, so there needs to be emergency support in the next few weeks to address this. I think that this is a cross-party issue that we can work on together. I am also concerned about domestic violence, which was one of the issues in the first lockdown. We saw an appalling rise in domestic violence during that period. The charity Refuge reported a 50% increase in demands to its helpline, and there was a 300% increase in visits to its website. I passionately believe that we need to do much more as a country and as a Parliament to tackle this, and that must start with a clear, well-resourced plan for addressing domestic abuse during this lockdown and this winter.
I want to turn to the question of faith, which has already been raised. These regulations will have a serious impact on faith communities and places of worship. There is real concern across faiths about the lack of consultation, and I hope that the Government can urgently address that, including by convening the places of worship taskforce.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The leaders of every single faith community have now written to the Government asking for the evidence behind the closure of churches during the next four weeks. The fact is there is almost certainly no evidence. Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that all the faith communities —Muslims, Jews, Christians—have really done their best to comply, through cleansing and in every other way, and will he demand of the Government now that the churches, mosques and temples are opened as soon as possible?
Keir Starmer
On the question of whether all faiths have done their level best to comply, I do agree. A huge amount of effort has gone in, in places of worship and many other places, to try to defeat the virus. The British public have done a huge amount, and so have all the institutions and faith organisations, to try to keep the virus down, but the truth is that it is out of control. The taskforce needs to be convened so that these issues can be discussed during the next few days and weeks, because this is a very deep issue for many people.
Tim Farron
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is making some very important points. Does he accept that, for churches and other faith communities, although the buildings themselves may not be sacred, what goes on within them is? We have noticed over the last few months the importance of verbal and non-verbal cues when people are gathered together, which allows them to help one another when they are mentally and emotionally struggling. While I understand the logic behind the closure of these places, it is potentially hugely damaging to people’s mental health and wellbeing. Does he agree that this needs to be reviewed at the soonest possible opportunity?
Keir Starmer
I do agree that it should be reviewed as soon as possible. I think that is probably a shared sentiment across the House, as nobody wants these measures to be put in place. It is a bit like the care homes issue that I raised earlier. We all know the risks to care homes from the first phase of the pandemic, and we all know the toll that the next few weeks are going take—not only on those in care homes, but on the families who are desperate to visit those in care homes. That is why I think it may be possible, on a cross-party basis, to find a way to have safe visits during the next few weeks. There are very difficult questions.
Let me turn to the question of homelessness, which is already a moral emergency in this country. The lockdown now comes as the weather has turned, the winter is setting in and sleeping rough is more dangerous than ever. It is therefore vital that the Government restart the “Everybody In” programme and reintroduce the evictions ban so that we do not see a further spike in homelessness. That needs to be done urgently.
More broadly, the Prime Minister needs to show that he has a plan B on 2 December to control the virus and rebuild the economy and a clear strategy to ensure that we never, ever get into this situation again. The explanatory notes in the regulations show just how vague the plans for 2 December are, as they say: “It is expected that at the end of the 28-day period, the previous alert levels introduced in October will once again be brought into force. This policy is subject to review”. There are millions of people who have been in restrictions for many months who will be very worried about that paragraph.
Let us take Leicester as an example. Leicester has been in restrictions for over 120 days. It is very hard to make the argument to the people of Leicester that the restrictions are working. It is very hard to make the argument to the people of Greater Manchester, who were in the equivalent of tier 2 restrictions for six weeks, that the tiered system is working. That is because the public’s experience of the tiered system is that areas that are in tier 1 or the equivalent end up in tier 2, and that areas that have been in tier 2, sometimes for weeks on end, drift towards tier 3. If the tier system worked, tier 2 areas would go back to tier 1; that would be success. But, actually, the vast majority—if not all of them—have gone up to tier 3.
The Prime Minister sometimes says that this is a party political issue, but it is not. If the idea at the end of the exercise on 2 December is to go back to the system that we are leaving tonight, when that system—certainly in tiers 1 and 2—simply is not working, that is very hard for the public, because they know that that is not going to keep them safe, they know that it puts further health and economic matters at issue and they know that it means that Christmas is not going to be what it could be.
Neil O’Brien
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is talking about my constituency. I gently point out to him that during the period of the most restrictions in Leicester, the number of cases did come down from 160 to 25 per 100,000. That shows that tough controls of the kind that we are about to vote to bring in today do work.
Mr Speaker
Let me help people. A few Members have now intervened a couple of times. We want to get everybody in. If they go down the list, I am sure that they will appreciate that.
Keir Starmer
I have looked at the Leicester figures frequently; they do go up and down, but Leicester has never come out of the restrictions. It is a point that I have been making, and it is not a party political one. The point is that if an area is in restrictions and does not come out, the restrictions are not working. If an area was in tier 2 restrictions and ends up in tier 3, tier 2 did not work. To go back to that system does not make any sense. For heaven’s sake, we have got to use the next four weeks to come up with something better than that for 2 December, otherwise we will do the usual thing, which is to pretend that something is going to happen on 2 December, and then, when we get there, find out that what we said would happen will not happen. I can predict what is going happen because it has happened so many times in the past seven months: the Prime Minister says, “x won’t happen”; x will happen; it does happen; and we start all over again. It is not fair to the British public to pretend that something is going to happen on 2 December.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman confounding his own logic? He has spent the past several days berating the Government for not introducing a circuit breaker, but at no time did I hear him explain how we would leave the circuit breaker, which it seems to me was simply the half-term holiday rebadged.
Keir Starmer
The lower the rate of infection and the lower the admissions, the more chance there is to get the virus under control. That is why you have to go early. If you want to safeguard the economy, go early. How on earth has it helped the British economy to delay and to go into a lockdown for four weeks when, on 21 September, SAGE was saying it could be two to three weeks? How on earth has it helped the British economy to miss the chance to do lockdown over half-term?
All Members will have seen the data about schools. We all want schools to stay open. How on earth did it make sense to miss half-term? Most schools would happily have said, “We’ll get up early—the Thursday before half-term—and we’ll use Monday and Tuesday as inset days,” and we could probably have got the best part of two weeks of schools being closed naturally, because of half-term, and have the lockdown over then. I do not think there can be anybody in this House who does not think that would have been a better period for a circuit break, lockdown—call it what you like.
It has not helped the economy to waste three weeks. If, at the end of those three weeks, the Prime Minister could say, “Well, there we are—the tiered system is now working, and I’m going to stick with it,” that would be one thing, but the Prime Minister is now saying, “I am going to do the lockdown,” which is failure. That is failure.
The next four weeks cannot be wasted—cannot be wasted. We have got to fix test, trace and isolate. The last figures show that, in just one week, 113,000 contacts were missed by the system. Four in 10 people who should be contacted are not being contacted under the system. If you are not contacted, you cannot isolate. It is not just a number; that is 113,000 people walking round our communities when they should have been self-isolating. Hands up if you think that has helped to control the virus.
We have been on about the track, trace and isolate system for months. The promises come by the wheelbarrow, the delivery never. Only 20% of people who should be isolating are doing it. Something is going wrong. Just continually pushing away challenge and pretending the problem does not exist is a huge part of the problem. Those figures have got to turn around, and they have got to turn around in the next four weeks. If we get to 2 December and those problems are still in the system, we will be going round this circuit for many months to come. If this is not fixed in the next four weeks, there are massive problems.
The Government have also got to stop sending constant mixed messages: “Go back to work, even if you can work from home,” or “Civil servants, get to work,” only a week later to say, “Stay at home.” The constant changing of the economic plans is creating even more uncertainty. There have been huge mistakes made in recent weeks during this pandemic. We have been told so many times by the Prime Minister, often on a Wednesday afternoon, that there is a plan to prevent a second wave—it is working. Well, there was not, and it did not.
Now, less than four months after the Prime Minister told us that this would all be over by Christmas, we are being asked to approve emergency regulations to shut the country down. That is a terrible thing for the country to go through, but there is not any excuse for inaction or for allowing the virus to get further out of control, so Labour will act in the national interest, and we will vote for these restrictions—these regulations—tonight.
Mr Speaker
I say to Members that we are going to start with a four-minute limit, starting with Theresa May.
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
May I first say that I do not envy my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Government the decisions that they are having to take and the difficult position they find themselves in? This pandemic has challenged Governments across the world, and Ministers have been under relentless pressure in dealing with this issue. However, just as Ministers are making tough decisions, so is Parliament, and Parliament will make better decisions if it is fully and properly informed.
I want to comment on the circuit breaker idea. I looked at the SAGE paper of 21 September and what was absolutely clear was that this was not a two-to-three-week circuit breaker, full stop, end of story. It would have had to have been repeated, possibly again and again, and I doubt if any economy could have borne the irreparable damage that would have done, with the impact on lives that that would have had, which would have been significant.
Of course the Government introduced the tiered approach. I would echo the comment made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) that one of the issues with that approach is that we have not had a proper analysis of its impact. The evidence from Liverpool shows that the number of cases is falling. I raised this in a briefing the other day and was told that that was because fewer students were coming forward to be tested. But when we look at the figures, we see that the number of cases is actually falling across the age ranges. We need a proper assessment of how the tiered approach is working.
There are other examples of figures being used in a way that I think has been unhelpful to Parliament and to the public. Let me take the 4,000 figure. The decision to go for this lockdown appears to have been based—partly, mainly or to some extent—on the prediction that there would otherwise be 4,000 deaths a day. But if we look at the trajectory shown in that graph, we see that we would have reached 1,000 deaths a day by the end of October. The average number of deaths in the last week of October was 259, by my calculation. Each of those deaths is a sadness and our thoughts are with the families, but it is not 1,000 deaths a day, so the prediction was wrong before it was even used. This leads to a problem for the Government, because for many people it looks as though the figures are being chosen to support the policy, rather than the policy being based on the figures. We need these proper analyses; we need to know the details behind these models; and we need to be able to assess the validity of the models.
There is one set of data that has not been available throughout. There is a lack of data on the costs of the decisions being made: costs in non-covid treatment in the NHS, and in non-covid deaths; costs in domestic abuse; costs in mental health, with possibly more suicides; and of course costs to the economy, with jobs lost, livelihoods shattered, businesses failing and whole sectors damaged. What sort of airline industry will we have as we come out of this? What sort of hospitality sector will there be? How many small independent shops will be left? The Government must have made that assessment, so let us see it and make our own judgments.
I want to make one point about public worship, echoing the concerns of others. My concern is that the Government today making it illegal to conduct an act of public worship, for the best of intentions, sets a precedent that could be misused by a Government in future with the worst of intentions, and that has unintended consequences. The covid-secure remembrance service in Worcester cathedral will now be turned into a pre-recorded online service. Surely, the men and women who laid down their lives for our freedom deserve better than that.
The public and Parliament want to support the Government to take the right decisions, and to do that we need to have the right figures, the right data and the proper information.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Congratulations on your anniversary, Mr Speaker.
We in the SNP are not unused to the Prime Minister scuttling out before our spokesperson gets to their feet, but the fact that he could not wait four minutes to listen to his predecessor was, I think, extremely unfortunate. Like her, I want to acknowledge the personal tragedies and loss of life caused by the pandemic and extend our condolences to everyone who has lost a loved one this year.
I will be as brief as I can, because none of us wants to deny the 48 Tory Back Benchers lined up on the call list the opportunity to make their views known to their Government. Perhaps even more Members would be taking part if the Government had allowed them to continue to contribute virtually in this Chamber. Asking Members to travel hundreds of miles to Westminster while the public are being asked to stay at home looks increasingly untenable and puts too many staff of the House at risk. Perhaps it suits the Government not to hear from their own Back Benchers with constituencies or households in the high-risk category.
In any event, had the Standing Orders on English votes for English laws not been suspended during the pandemic, this motion would be subject to the double majority procedure, which would have had the effect of negating any votes cast by MPs representing Scottish constituencies. I can confirm that the SNP will not be taking part in any Division arising from the motion, which probably gives the Government some comfort in the Lobbies. That is because the development and implementation of public health policy is devolved across the United Kingdom, and it is right that the relevant legislatures should make decisions for their own areas and not interfere in the decisions of others. However, the Tory Government’s continued delays and obfuscation on the provision of economic support, especially for job retention and furlough, have effectively interfered with the ability of the devolved Administrations to make the decisions that they might have wanted to, so even if we are not voting on the motion before us, we have to use this opportunity to press the Government yet again.
The obfuscation is continuing—even at Prime Minister’s questions and in the Prime Minister’s responses to my hon. Friends who intervened on him. On Monday, to Members across the House from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the Prime Minister kept saying that furlough was UK-wide. Then, conveniently, in response to the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross), he said “of course” furlough would be available whenever the devolved Administrations need it. Today at Prime Minister’s questions, he said, “Well we have to wait for the Chancellor to make a statement tomorrow.”
The Prime Minister repeatedly says that the SNP will not take yes for an answer. We will take yes for an answer when it is put in writing to the Scottish Government and it is clear and unambiguous. This Tory Government must urgently engage with the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and confirm that if any of those Governments move all or part of their territories into lockdown-level restrictions, with the closure of non-essential retail, hospitality and leisure, funding will be available on the current furlough terms for employers to retain staff at 80% of their wages.
The Scottish Government are also still waiting for clarity on Barnett consequentials as a result of increased spending for English local government, and there is still no clarity on whether the unlimited payments for business support in England will be made available on a similar demand-led basis for Scotland. That has to come in writing, on usual-channels terms, from the Chancellor before he gets up and makes his statement in the House tomorrow.
As I said to the Prime Minister in the Chamber on Monday, his furlough scheme is in place across the UK until December this year; the equivalent scheme in Germany is in place until December 2021. That is the kind of certainty that employers and employees alike are crying out for. That is the kind of certainty that businesses need in order to plan for and adapt to a health and economic crisis that will not go away any time soon.
That is why the Government must use this time wisely and well. They must use the period of heavier restrictions to work with the devolved Administrations to improve test and trace across the United Kingdom and to ensure that capacity and support gets to where it is needed in the four health services, and they have to put in place provision to support businesses and the economy in a way that will provide certainty for however long the crisis lasts.
I want to acknowledge, as the First Minister of Scotland has repeatedly, that lockdown is tough. There are hard times behind us and hard times ahead, and all of us in the SNP want to say thank you—thank you to our amazing NHS and social care workers and others on the frontline; thank you to the businesses owners who are being forced to close and to their employees, who are making huge sacrifices; and thank you to the excluded, who have had no support whatsoever from this Government and are still holding their heads high.
The rules being introduced in England today and the restrictions in place elsewhere in the UK are difficult, but they are necessary. They help us to protect ourselves, they undoubtedly help us to protect our loved ones and those around us, and they help wider communities. They definitely help to protect our NHS and, ultimately, they help to save lives. We thank everyone making sacrifices to follow these restrictions. Together, we will get through this.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
I agree with what the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) said in giving thanks and recognising the sacrifice that many have made in their lives, their work and their relationships.
Where the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister agree on these regulations, I shall agree as well. Were it possible to table amendments, I would have done so. I have been to three church services recently. One was for a funeral, one was the morning service on Sunday, and the other was the monthly communion at St Margaret’s, where I am the parliamentary warden. All those services were covid-safe. I believe that if we have to come back to this again, the Government ought to be able, with the faith leaders—the Jews, the Muslims, the Christians and other faith groups—to find a way for them to provide for at least a body of people to be together with the celebrant, with others participating remotely.
May I also say that after 34 years, Pamela Carrington, who has looked after successive rectors of St Margaret’s, Westminster, is retiring? I pay tribute to her this afternoon, and I hope that it may be possible in the future, Mr Speaker, for you to make a presentation to Pamela Carrington in recognition of all the support that she has given to Members of Parliament. We thank you for letting us use your dining room in normal times for our monthly breakfast, too.
On the regulations, provision has been made for the centenary of the tomb of the unknown warrior in Westminster Abbey. I am glad that that has been built in. That was thoughtful. Perhaps as a result of the work of Coxswain Iain McKenzie in my constituency, who raised the question of the Submariners Association memorial on the Embankment, provision for remembrance attendance, appropriately and safely, is in the regulations. I give my support to that.
I want to come to the points where I believe we have not got it right. I believe that two people playing tennis, separated by a net, can do so safely, and as safely as if they went for a walk. The golf restrictions are unnecessary. There is obviously responsibility on a club or a premises, but I think that should be possible. If I can go for a walk with a dog or a cat or fly after my parrot—I do not have any of those—I ought to be able to go around with golf clubs. There are interesting questions as to whether swimming, so long as one does not have infection risks in changing rooms, can be safe. Basically, I think that all separated sports should be allowed. I can see the problem with more intimate sports, such as wrestling and other recreations of that kind, but I believe that we ought to be able to make provision for people to get exercise.
Munira Wilson
I am not a wrestler, but I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way on the issue of physical activity. I have just heard from councillors in my constituency that, under the restrictions, a skate park for young people has to be closed. How can that be sensible when young people need something to do? It will just end up being damaged while it is closed as they try to break into it. They can socially distance and have physical activity, which is also good for their mental health.
Sir Peter Bottomley
I hope the Secretary of State for Health will pass that on to other people to see if provision can be made and guidance provided. Obviously, there are going to be boundary problems, with one side saying yes and one side saying no. There ought to be space in between where, under conditions, that is possible. We all have to take responsibility for contributing to reduced social contact to reduce risk, but if we do those things, we can learn from what we have done in the past and do it better in the future. I hope that this month of restrictions has the effect that we all want it to.
I want to finish by saying that we are not just looking at these regulations. I still criticise the Government for using the covid provisions to bring forward the regulation to put extra storeys on leaseholders’ blocks of flats. That was improper. It was not necessary and it should not have happened. I return to the last point, which the Chancellor will be dealing with: what will the compensation be for those who are affected and are not getting support? The people in the events industry, whether music or exhibitions and so on, and those in the freelance sector, which has been a growing part of our economy for the past 20 years, seem to have been hung out to dry. Those who started new businesses—we know that four out of five new businesses do not last—in the past year or so seem to have been excluded. I believe we have a duty to do more for those people. The excluded should be included.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
I will not be supporting the Government’s regulations in the Lobby later this afternoon.
There are two reasons for a lockdown: to save lives, and to buy time to improve the situation. I do not believe that, when one looks at the details, the Government have provided the information necessary to vote on those issues, or that one can have any faith that they will improve the situation at the present time. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), the Leader of the Opposition, made a devastating case for the Government’s incompetence over this period.
If we look at saving lives, the problem is that we have had exaggerated claims, both by the Government and some scientific advisers, about the consequences of not having a lockdown. People are undoubtedly dying of this dreadful disease, but we have not been given the other side of the equation. We have not been told how many people will die of cancer or need various other treatments. We have not been told how many people are likely to commit suicide. For us to take a decision in the round, we need both those figures. We need the figures on the economic catastrophe that is happening in my constituency and in other parts of the country because of the lockdown, and on the long-term consequences for the jobs of the people we all represent. That is one side: we simply do not have the information about that.
In terms of improving the situation, we have a national test and trace system that does not work because the Government do not want it to work and because it is fundamentally flawed. If contracts are given out beforehand to private companies, which need to be nimble on their feet and act quickly in order to respond to a particular outbreak, the contracts often cannot respond to that. In one case in the centre of Manchester, workers from the central test and trace system walked off site because the contract said that they did not have to work after 10 o’clock.
The central system simply will not work. It cannot pass on the information in time and the responses are getting back to the people who can do something about them in more than three days. I talked to the north-west regional health people earlier this week, and they said that their time for returning the information is more than three days. If people are going to infect other people, that time is lost.
The system does not work because it is centralised. The history of public health in this country is of decentralisation. Local people can find out where there is a problem, whether it is in a school, a factory or a street, and do something about it. They can test and get people to isolate. The central system will not work. If I believed that the Government were going to improve it over this period, I might be tempted to vote for these regulations, but they will not. They have failed to give us information not just about the economy and the other side of the equation—the damage to people’s health —but about what is happening in the health service, so I cannot join them in the Lobby.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I rise in sadness, because I simply have to say to the Government that I cannot support them today, and I want to set out the reasons why.
I say to my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary—I have supported him enormously in every task he has had, and I stand behind him on most of these charges—that this is difficult; the Government face the most terrible compromise and consequences. I obviously feel for them and I want them to succeed, but we are taking arguably the second largest decision that any Government have taken since the second world war. The first was back in March. Locking down an economy plunges individuals and businesses into a terrible state of lost jobs.
We are doing this on the basis of SAGE’s advice on Saturday—it was leaked on Friday night. I thought that the leak was appalling. Whoever did it should it be sacked, strung up to dry, made to come here to apologise and grovel out the door on their hands and knees, and beaten on the way out. What they did was appalling because they bounced the Government. I would like to think that the Government would have spent their time investigating the data that was presented to them, which has subsequently unravelled in the past few days. I would have loved them to have looked at it carefully and understood it. For example, SAGE talks about reaching 4,000 deaths by December, but even Professor Whitty said yesterday:
“I think all of us would say that the rates will probably be lower than that top peak…I think there has been some rather overblown rhetoric on this.”
Well, it was SAGE’s overblown rhetoric, in case he missed the point. The reality is that that figure has turned out to be incorrect. Professor Tim Spector of King’s College London has said that he believes that the rate is now at 1, and is falling after some plateauing. There is good evidence that, across the board, the tier system is beginning to work.
I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was not able to stay for the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May)—he must have been busy—but she made the point that I want to make now. As she has said previously, many of the tests were looked at before the tier system has a chance to bite. I thought that what the Prime Minister did back in October, when he chose to go for a tier system, was brave because SAGE was arguing for a circuit breaker. By the way, I hate the term “circuit breaker”. It is a euphemism that is appalling. It is not a circuit breaker, it is a business breaker and, as the Prime Minister said himself, it is a very big decision. It is a decision that damages lives, and the people who will be damaged by it will be the poorest in society, because they will lose their jobs. The loss of a job is not just an income problem. It is about self-respect; it is about status; it is what someone does. It is about how someone stands up in front of their family and shows them that they are bringing money back to the house and improving their lot.
All these measures are damaging, and I believe that this decision was not necessary now. The Government could use the tier system to ensure that we press down on covid, and evidence from all the areas we have looked at in Liverpool and the north-west shows that levels of the disease are beginning to come down. I believe that further such pressure would work. All the data that are now unravelling do so on the basis that, as we move into a full lockdown, the damage to the economy will be enormous. I ask my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister whether we may now urgently have an economic impact assessment to show what the damage will be to our economy, livelihoods, lives and people’s wellbeing and mental status, and I will oppose these measures tonight.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
I wish to set out my concerns about the regulations, primarily because I believe that economic pain will be inflicted on my constituency, and hardship on my constituents. We have unintended health consequences from the first lockdown, the Government lack a plan to deal with the backlog, and they are failing with the testing system, not least because they decided to hand it to the private sector. Let me remind the House of the Prime Minister’s response to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer). On 20 May he said that
“we will have a test, track and trace operation that will be world-beating, and yes, it will be in place by 1 June.”—[Official Report, 20 May 2020; Vol. 676, c. 568.]
The Government introduced changes to local restrictions for September, before the tier restrictions were passed in this House on 13 September. Those measures were supposed to be reviewed on 11 November, and not enough time was allowed to assess whether they were working. It appears that they might have been working, because we have seen a notable improvement in the infection rate in Merseyside and Halton. I speak to hospitals in my constituency on a regular basis. I know that they are under a great deal of pressure, and what a fantastic job everybody who works there is doing. I will continue to keep an eye on that.
In the proposed regulations, the Government state that a “vulnerable person” could be
“any person aged 70 or older,”
or
“any person aged under 70 who has an underlying health condition.”
The Government believe—rightly—that it is important to give the meaning of a “vulnerable person”, but they do not set out how we can specifically protect that group. That is shocking, given that that group of people make up a significant proportion of patients who are admitted to hospital with covid. That vulnerable group must be better protected to save lives and ease the pressure on our hospitals. People tell me that they simply cannot afford to live on £95.85 a week, and that they have to choose between putting their health at risk from covid and not being able to afford the things they need. They are frightened and going to work. The Government should be focusing everything possible on that clinically vulnerable group.
Instead of sensibly shielding our most vulnerable people, why are the Government closing businesses when there is no evidence to suggest that they are responsible for the spread of covid? There is no reliable evidence for closing gyms or stopping golf and tennis, and no evidence to suggest that such activities are responsible for spreading covid. In coming to their decision, the Government do not appear to have taken into account how many organisations and businesses have invested large amounts of money to become covid-safer, which was not the case prior to the first lockdown. Where is the evidence that churches pose a significant risk? Constituents tell me that going to mass helps them, and there is no evidence for this measure.
Today, figures from the Office for National Statistics show that many more people are being paid below the minimum wage. Many of those are younger, low-paid people in the hospitality and service industry.
I have written to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care three times since April to ask him to put Halton forward as an ideal place for mass testing. My requests have been ignored. Liverpool has now been chosen to be a mass testing area. Although Halton is included in the city region for tier 3 restrictions, we have not been included in the testing. Why has Halton not been included in that mass testing?
The 18-week NHS target has been missed by a quite considerable amount for people on waiting lists with a range of conditions, from cancer to coronary disease and gynaecological conditions. A significant number of my constituents have not been seen or treated in time, which may mean that some people with treatable conditions are not treatable in the future. There is real suffering going on in my constituency, and there is, of course, an effect on mental health. I cannot support these regulations as they stand.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
May I start by apologising for reading a newspaper during the Prime Minister’s contribution? Mr Speaker was quite right. However, I was not, in my defence, reading my horoscope, even if the Prime Minister kindly did. I wonder whether, in mitigation, I could bring to the House’s attention the headline that I was reading in the Metro this morning, which says, “Vaccine on front line in a month”. Just imagine my excitement at reading that. I hope that the Metro is correct, but I gently point out to those on the Front Bench that, in the event that it is not correct and we do not get a game changer soon, we will seriously have to think about a plan B. In the few minutes available to me, I shall explain why I think that is the case.
Irrespective of the Prime Minister’s kind remarks about my future career prospects, I will be supporting the Government this evening. I cannot think of a single issue since 2003 that has occupied me quite as much as this, and I have agonised over my choice. I am going to support the Government because it hinges on one thing for me, which is that schools are remaining open, which I have discussed with the Secretary of State. In the light of evidence produced by Ackland et al in Edinburgh, it seems to me that it would be foolhardy to close down schools based on deaths to do with covid, due to the consequences of such an extraordinary move. It is the right decision to keep schools open and prioritise them, and it is for that reason that I will be supporting the Government this evening.
I will also be supporting the Government this evening because it seems to me that, broadly speaking, they are doing the same thing that other jurisdictions are doing, and there is safety in numbers. I will be supporting the Government too because of the wide margin of uncertainty that attends all this and a sense of some humility in trying to examine all this complicated material and make sense of it. Finally, I shall be supporting the Government because I know that the Prime Minister, who shares many of the libertarian instincts that I hold, has pushed back as much as he can on some of the advice that has been given to him. I find that convincing, and if I was in any doubt, having analysed the data over the weekend, that has pushed me over the line in the decision I have made.
I am concerned about the clarity of data and the logistics chains for the vaccine that the Metro hopes will be with us within a month. As the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care knows, I am concerned because I have granular evidence from my constituency that the organisations that can provide the wherewithal to guarantee the cold chain necessary for the distribution of the vaccine have not yet been tapped into. I cite the company Polar Thermal in my constituency, which is a leader in this technology and has yet to be contacted.
I am concerned about the lack of a plan B. Plan B has been made all the more possible by the advent of lateral flow testing technology, which will facilitate focused protection if necessary, and we need to give much closer thought to that. I am concerned about places of collective worship. I am concerned about non-contact sports such as tennis and golf. I understand the logic behind proscribing those activities, but we have to treat the British public as adults and individuals with autonomy and agency. I respectfully disagree with the decisions that have been made on those fronts, and I hope very much, particularly if this sadly has to be continued beyond the beginning of December, that they are looked at again.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I have been feeling quite emotional today, not just because of the news that is coming from the US, but because of the gravity of what we are being asked to debate and vote on. Having been an MP for only 11 months, I never in my wildest dreams thought that I would be asked to make a decision such as this.
I am horrified by the regulations that I am being asked to vote for today. I am horrified by the impact that the restrictions will have on people’s lives, their mental health and their livelihoods. I am horrified by the upward trajectory in infection and hospitalisation rates, and the bleak projections that so many experts have presented to us. I am horrified that we are being put in this position in the first place by a Government who have dithered and delayed when we might have had a second, shorter lockdown sooner, while schools were closed for half-term, to try to get the virus under control.
I am horrified that the warnings from the Academy of Medical Sciences that I put to the Secretary of State back in July about addressing the test and trace system were not acted on. Alongside all the draconian and damaging measures that we are being asked to support—my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I feel we have absolutely no option but to vote them through—there is not a shred of evidence that the Government will use this lockdown wisely to address the deficiencies in the main weapon that we have until a vaccine comes along, which is to test, trace and isolate every case to keep people safe and to keep our economy going.
We hear a lot about testing, but nothing about boosting contact tracing rates by allowing local authorities to lead the tracing, as they have so effectively proved they can do, and nothing about properly supporting, practically and financially, those who need to self-isolate. Even the Prime Minister has finally acknowledged that the sub-20% isolation rates are a major problem. Although I and other Opposition Members have made the case for such measures for some time, I am pleased that, finally, Conservative Members—not least the former Health Secretary and Chair of the Health Committee, the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt)—are now also doing so. If the Secretary of State will not listen to me and other Opposition Members, will he please listen to the right hon. Gentleman, and, for the sake of our country—for people’s lives, their wellbeing and their jobs—listen and act wisely during the next four weeks? There is no shame in changing course and learning from other countries.
My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I have said repeatedly since the start of the pandemic that sharing the data, the evidence and the Government’s workings is essential to public trust and compliance when such draconian measures are being put in place, so I whole- heartedly endorse the comments by the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). I urge the Government to publish the impact assessment and show us the scale of the trade-offs that are being made in terms of physical and mental health, jobs lost and damage to the economy. This is not an election campaign. Both sides of the argument must be shared openly, and the evidence shared transparently, so that Members and, most importantly, the public can look at the evidence and trust that we are collectively doing the right thing in the nation’s interests.
In the few seconds left available to me, I add my support to comments that have been made by Members on both sides of the House about looking again at the regulations surrounding collective acts of worship and publishing the evidence to show whether they are a source of infections and outbreaks; and looking again at non-contact sports, particularly for adults, but also as outdoor activities for children and young people. That is critical to people’s mental health and physical wellbeing.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
For weeks and months now, businesses across Greater Manchester and our communities have been subject to restrictions to reduce the rate of transmission of coronavirus and enable us to return to living our lives normally. Towns and cities across the north have been particularly hard hit, so we must deal with this virus and aim, by the end of the year, to enable people to spend time with their loved ones again and give certainty to businesses.
The restrictions have so far been hugely difficult for businesses and caused immense strain, but many—like Ryan in Cheadle, who transformed his café into a green- grocer’s to meet local demand—have been innovative. Businesses have been willing to start up, and that shows that they really want to get going. That is true of Inventery in Cheadle Hulme, a new bar that already has rave reviews. With Government assistance, businesses have kept going, but they are truly worried about the effects of a further month-long lockdown. I know that the Government have heard the urgings of businesses and people who work in the leisure and hospitality sector about the support that is needed to keep them open. I welcome the financial measures announced and applaud the measures that businesses have taken to minimise transmission and operate in a covid-secure way. However, in this debate, we are called to balance our economy, our communities and the lives of our constituents. It will be hard, therefore, for any hon. Member to claim to be unequivocally right in their view or decision.
Back in March, we spoke of the pressure on the NHS as the virus raged through the continent and reached a critical point here. The NHS remains at the forefront of my mind, as do the health and the lives of my constituents in Cheadle. My local hospital Stepping Hill is not yet receiving the number of covid patients it did in the peak earlier this year, but it is close. At the height of the first wave, 130 coronavirus patients were admitted. The number is now just seven less than that at 123.
This week, the North West Ambulance Service declared a major incident, with ambulances waiting hours outside the hospital with sick people needing to be admitted. A four-hour wait for an ambulance at a hospital door means that the ambulance crew and paramedics caring for and treating those patients have to work hard. While the ambulances idle at the hospital, people have to wait for them to attend at home, sometimes having suffered heart attacks or strokes.
Hospital pressure always has a knock-on effect whether through ambulance delays or cancelled operations. For those whose elective surgery has been cancelled, it means many more months of pain and uncertainty with potentially deteriorating conditions. It is essential that we do not let the pressure increase as we enter the difficult winter season.
Whatever decision we make, there are growing concerns about the mental health of people who have set up businesses and put their life savings into them; workers who are concerned about their future; and people who are facing and fearful of loneliness, who miss socialising with their friends and who cannot go to church and receive the solace and spirit that they need. I ask for that to be considered. I also ask for a post-covid mental health strategy to be put in place so that, after all this, in the new year when, hopefully, we are in a better position, people know that charities such as Mind and the Samaritans and local authorities have the funding and packages there to support them. We must do so too.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
We were told that the reason for the first national lockdown was to give time to build capacity in the NHS, presumably so we would not need any further lockdowns. So what has the Secretary of State been doing? Why has he failed in that task? Well, we know what he has been doing. Instead of building capacity and sorting out Test and Trace properly, he has spent far too much of his time seemingly relishing the power of seeking to micromanage every aspect of everybody’s life.
It is perfectly clear that lockdowns do not even work. They do not save lives; they merely spread deaths over a longer period. But lockdowns do cost lives, as well as livelihoods, not to mention the other health implications of collapsing the economy, particularly the effect on people’s mental health.
If lockdowns and blizzards of arbitrary rules were a solution to the problem, we would have solved it months ago. We have not been short on version after version of senseless arbitrary rules with no scientific basis behind them. There has been a new set of rules virtually every week, yet the Government persist with that failed strategy. People are not stupid. They can see that the rules do not make any sense, which is why they, like me, no longer have any faith in the people making the decisions at the Department of Health and Social Care and Public Health England.
Earlier this week, I asked the Prime Minister how many collapsed businesses and job losses he and his Government believe are a price worth paying for pursuing this strategy. I do not think I got an answer, so perhaps the Secretary of State can answer that question today. How many job losses would it take before he accepted that we needed a different strategy? How many jobs is he prepared to sacrifice to keep to this policy of lockdowns and arbitrary restrictions? Two million? Four million? Six million? People would like to know. How many house repossessions is he prepared to see while keeping to this strategy?
That gets us to the nub of the matter. People like the Secretary of State and Public Health England are not offering to sacrifice their jobs so that we can pursue this strategy. Nobody voting for the motion tonight is offering to sacrifice their job so that we can pursue this lockdown policy—of course not; they are just expecting millions of others in our country to sacrifice theirs. Nobody voting for this motion tonight is offering to give up 20% of their salary, or to forgo all their income completely, as so many in our country are expected to—oh, goodness me, no! Those sacrifices are conveniently being expected of everybody else. It stinks.
I would at least have some respect for those voting for this motion, and for the Secretary of State, if they offered to sacrifice their job in solidarity with all those in the country whom they are expecting to do that, but there is no chance of that. No wonder so many people have no faith in politicians. No wonder so many people feel that there is one rule for us and another for them. I never thought I would see the day a so-called Conservative Minister urged Parliament to further sacrifice our most basic freedoms, collapse the economy, and destroy jobs, all to pursue a failed strategy. Speaking as a Conservative, whatever the problem, collapsing the economy and destroying people’s jobs and livelihoods can never be the right solution.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
The Government have repeatedly failed to listen to the voices of people on the frontline in this pandemic, and to our communities’ fears about the impact of covid. The Government’s centralisation of their response, and the way that they have handed it to the private sector, has been catastrophic, and will go down in history as such. On the eve of another national lockdown, my fear, once again, is about whether a Government who are ideologically hellbent on using the pandemic as a testing bed for the promotion of the private sector over public services can listen and learn from their failings.
In Liverpool, West Derby, the community and mutual aid groups have had to step in where the Government and their friends in private companies such as Serco have failed us all. In the first lockdown, the community in Liverpool came together to form mutual aid hubs because of these failings. We distributed 48,00 visors, 37,000 masks, and thousands of aprons and scrubs to frontline workers who had been left without personal protective equipment by the Government. Fans Supporting Foodbanks and North Liverpool food bank distributed thousands of food parcels to families and other people in our community, often shielding, who have been left without adequate financial support by the Government.
In Liverpool, it was evident back in September that the pressure on hospitals was increasing due to a steep rise in covid-19 cases. Liverpool’s Mayor and, following that, the Leader of the Opposition called for a circuit-breaker lockdown, which would have been timed to run alongside the school holidays. This would have relieved pressure on our health and social care services and saved lives, but tragically that call fell on deaf ears once again.
The challenges facing our communities will be even greater over the winter, and will not be helped by this Government refusing to provide free school meals over the holidays, or refusing to reinstate measures such as the eviction ban. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that he will start to listen, and that lessons have been learned from the failings of the first lockdown? Will he finally start prioritising our public services over the interests of private companies that have a track record of failure, and will he finally start listening to the people in communities who are being hit hardest by this pandemic?
Sir Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)
We are being asked today to take away the fundamental freedoms of nearly 68 million people in this country. First, I thank Mr Speaker for his strenuous, successful efforts to persuade the Government that we should have three hours’ debate on this subject, and not 90 minutes, but the fact that we have three hours of debate on such a massive intervention taking away liberty shows how little we value the liberty of our constituents. It is not good enough: it should have been at least a day of debate before we took such extreme action.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
Can I just put on record that it is probably only thanks to my hon. Friend that we are having this debate at all in advance of the measures coming into force?
Sir Graham Brady
My hon. Friend is too kind, but I am grateful to him.
I fully accept the sincerity of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State in bringing forward these measures, and their belief that they are doing the right thing. None the less, I have to say that, in more than 23 years as a Member of Parliament, when I vote against this motion tonight, I will do so with greater conviction than I have in casting any vote in those 23 years. Other Members have commented on the paucity of information and proper data presented to the House and the fact that we have been asking for the proper impact assessment that gives both sides of the account. That is important for us to be able to make a balanced judgment and, crucially, it should be the basis on which the Government have made their judgment. Why it is not possible to publish that impact assessment should be deeply troubling for all of us.
I will say a word about a particular sector that is very important for my constituency. The aviation sector was decimated by the first lockdown and by an absurdly long period of quarantine without airport testing being introduced to reduce it. Just as the sector was looking forward to the introduction of an airport testing regime in the next few weeks, instead—and for the second time this year—the sector has been effectively closed by the Government. Businesses such as supermarkets have enjoyed record profits but also have enjoyed rates relief during this period. Airports and airlines have been reduced to zero revenue again, and it is essential that they are given proper support or they simply will not be there when we come through this crisis and are looking to them to resume what has been a very successful British industry over the years.
In my last two minutes, I want to raise a more fundamental question. I want to ask whether the Government actually have any right to take the measures they are taking. What troubles me most is that the Government are reaching too far into the private and family lives of our constituents. There is an arrogance—unintended, perhaps—in assuming that the Government have the right to do so, that they have the right to tell people whether they can visit their elderly parents in a care home; that they have the right to tell parents and grandparents that they cannot see their children or grandchildren; and whether they have any right, for heaven’s sake, to tell consenting adults with whom they are allowed to sleep.
Do the Government have the right to ban acts of collective worship? I am glad that at this point the Churches are standing up against this and objecting, because earlier in the year I thought they possibly went a little too quietly. Do the Government have any right, for heaven’s sake, to ban golf or tennis without giving any reason whatever? When the Prime Minister was challenged on this on Monday, he simply said, “Well, if you start to give exemptions, the whole thing will unravel.” We cannot vote for measures on that flimsy basis. We cannot ask people to follow rules that patently make no sense and expect them to have respect for what is being done.
So I have a fundamental problem with much of what we are being asked to do here—the economic impact as well as the human toll. I cannot be the only Member who has sat in a constituency surgery with a constituent in tears as they have said that they cannot see a vulnerable elderly parent with dementia in a care home. We must not do it.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
Given the near crisis point in the capacity and the ability of the NHS to cope with rising cases and hospital admissions across the country, I believe that action is necessary. I am, however, at a loss as to why the Government have acted so late. This has led to more cases and ultimately more deaths, and means that we now need a longer lock- down that will have a huge human and economic cost.
For weeks we have seen the evidence pointing to a growing second wave of the virus, not just in areas like Bradford, which has been subject to restrictions for months, but right across the country. I know these are difficult decisions for the Government to make. However, weeks ago the Leader of the Opposition called for a circuit-breaker lockdown, in line with SAGE advice. The Government chose not just to ignore that but to ridicule it. Had it been enacted then, that short lockdown coinciding with half-term could have put a brake on the virus at a critical moment. We would have been spared some of the pain and hardship we are now facing. Now we are facing a potentially open-ended lockdown, with Ministers unable to confirm when it will end. Businesses will be shut for longer, families will be separated, and mental and physical health will suffer. The economic and social cost of lockdown has been made worse by the Government’s failure to act earlier.
In West Yorkshire, things have been even more chaotic. The Government announced last Thursday that our region would go into tier 3 from the following Monday. At that point, Ministers repeatedly denied that the country was facing a national lockdown. Businesses and families across the region began to prepare for the new restrictions. Yet the very next day—the very next day—the national lockdown was leaked to the press and it was announced that West Yorkshire would stay in tier 2 until the lockdown. Over recent weeks, the Government have treated the people of the north with utter contempt, and this is just the latest example in a long and sorry saga. The Government must commit to honouring the financial commitment they made to the people and businesses of West Yorkshire when the tier 3 agreement was made.
I turn to a couple of specific points. The Government need to plan and to deal with social isolation and loneliness, particularly among older people and those with caring responsibilities. Many of my constituents across many faiths have asked me to tell the Government and the Prime Minister that collective acts of worship are essential and should not be made illegal by any Government: they are an essential part of their faith and an essential part of their lives. I ask the Government to reconsider the ban on collective worship. The Government should also look at how gyms and other sports facilities can be reopened safely. Again, this is essential for maintaining mental and physical health through these long and difficult winter months.
Finally, the Government need to plan for getting out of this lockdown and dealing with the economic consequences. The lack of an impact assessment of these regulations, and the subsequent cost to jobs and businesses, is simply neglectful, because areas like Bradford will suffer most if, at the end of the lockdown, we return to a new set of local restrictions when many businesses will simply not survive. There needs to be an absolute focus in Government on saving and creating jobs, because without this, the consequences for my constituents will be devastating. So I say to the Government: do not waste this time; use it to get a grip on the virus and begin planning for our economic recovery. A failure to do so will lead to a prolonging of the lockdown and all the human, social and economic harm that that brings.
Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
It is lovely to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Our freedoms are like the air we breathe. They are fundamental to us as a nation and to who we are as its people. Yet once again we stand on the threshold of using the rule of law to undermine the rule of law, the foundations of which have been laid over centuries. We are not asking our constituents to do anything. We have never asked; we have coerced them. We have coerced them through criminal and civil law. Let us not use the word “ask”, because it is not an accurate description of what we have done. We have criminalised freedom of association, the freedom to go about one’s business, the freedom to travel—and the freedom to protest. The freedom to protest is the oxygen of democracy. This hurts my head and it hurts my heart. Dismissing these sincerely held concerns as wanting to let the virus rip is both deeply ungenerous and deeply, deeply unkind, but in responding to that charge, I say that if this Parliament is not the place for disputation, delectable or otherwise, where is this rigour to be found? I want people to live long lives, full lives, happy lives, myself included, but my mortality—our mortality—is ultimately our contract with our maker, whereas our fundamental rights are our contract with Government. I will not be supporting this legislation. I think it is terribly unjust and, like my dear friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady), I think it is, in many parts, cruel.
I will have no part in criminalising parents for seeing their children and children for seeing their parents—no part. This legislation goes against my every instinct—perhaps an instinct even more fundamental than the love and touch of my family. I am not living in fear of the virus. I will not live in fear of the virus, but I am living in fear of something much darker, hiding in the shadows, and when the sunlight returns, and it will return, I hope that it chases those shadows away, but I cannot be sure that it will. I cannot be sure, and that is at the heart of my anxiety and the anxiety of so many of the people whom I represent in this place.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to be able to contribute this afternoon.
We undoubtedly face a very difficult and, indeed, challenging situation, and I support the Government’s approach. Cases of the virus are doubling every few days and, given the sheer pace of growth now, it is quite clear that they will outstrip the capacity of the NHS to respond. We cannot ignore the very serious position that we now face. These measures, however difficult, are necessary and, indeed, other options, such as the tiered system, have quite clearly now failed.
I pay tribute to all those who are contributing so bravely in the NHS and other services: our care workers, NHS workers, key workers, volunteers, and, indeed, other members of the community. This bravery and determination is impressive and it is being demonstrated by people who have been through this once already this year and, in some cases, during the summer and the early autumn as well.
I wish to raise a series of very specific points, to which I hope the Minister will be able to respond later. First and foremost, it would have been so much better had the Government acted sooner. The numbers were quite clear. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) mentioned earlier from the Dispatch Box, had this action been taken sooner, lives would have been saved and the economy protected. It is worth reflecting on that and I do hope that Ministers will reflect quite deeply on this issue and on the delay, which has been so unfortunate.
I hope the Secretary of State for Health will look into fixing the test and trace system. It is quite apparent that it is currently failing. There is a low rate of test and trace going on compared with what is needed. In my own area, we have seen some very serious problems, including delays in facilities coming to Reading and Woodley. We have also seen a very unfortunate incident in a care home, and I ask him to look again at whether it is possible to have a much greater capacity for testing in care homes, as people are particularly vulnerable at this time. I also ask him to look at the scope for far greater testing across the health and care system, perhaps looking in much greater detail at the scope for testing home visiting staff. Constituents have raised that with me with great concern. Elderly vulnerable residents would be reassured if there were more capacity for testing visitors coming into their homes.
There are a number of other measures, mainly economic and social measures, that I hope the Government as a whole will look into and that other Members have raised today. In particular, I mention the concerns of many self-employed people. I realise that Members across the House share this issue. Someone said to me only today, “I have paid in all my life through taxes and the national insurance system, and now—at a time of great need—I am not able to get anything back.” I hope that the Government look at the loopholes in the current measures, reconsider them and understand that there are people who may be missing out on support at this difficult time; I do appreciate that they are reviewing some of the measures.
I urge the Government also to look across sectors in the economy, not just at the most visible end of them. For example, measures have been put in place in the hospitality sector to support pubs, and it is right that they should be supported. Across the supply chain and other dependent businesses, though, there has been much less support. It is important that Ministers remember that and take further action to look at whole supply chains and sectors, and to understand that a wide range of businesses are under pressure at this difficult time.
Finally, I agree wholeheartedly with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras and others across the House about the importance of people being able to worship, and I hope that the restriction will be reviewed. I also hope that the contribution and value of sport to our society, to children and to people’s mental health is reconsidered.
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)
Prior to this debate, I was contacted by many constituents with their opinions on how to vote today. My default position would be to support those who wish for fewer restrictions, to allow others to live their lives as they choose to, and to help and support each and every constituent in that choice. However, this is an unprecedented situation, and the first duty of any Government must be to protect their citizens. I know that the Government—and especially the Prime Minister—have not taken any of these difficult decisions lightly.
I have supported and will continue to support the tiered structure, and the ability to look at the situation at a very local level and understand what is going on in each locality. That has enabled some of the country to remain at a low level of restriction for an extended period. However, in order to prevent a deluge of intensive care beds being needed, I have come to the conclusion that we must have a heightened restriction of our liberty throughout November to stem the tide of the virus. That is not to say that our constituents have not followed the rules. I thank the people of the Loughborough constituency—residents, visitors, students and pupils alike—who have very clearly followed the rules, which has helped not only themselves but their friends and neighbours.
There is a hard task ahead for many during November. There are a number of religious festivals and commemorations which in other years have attracted huge crowds and gatherings, such as Diwali, Advent and the birthday of Guru Nanak. These are often times when families get together to celebrate their faith. That will not be possible in private homes this year, but I still press for churches and places of worship to be allowed to open for those specific events in order to support their communities. Loughborough usually has a large and very moving remembrance service in Queen’s Park, along with others in Shepshed and the surrounding villages. Again, they will not be able to happen in the same way this year, but that does not diminish our need to honour our fallen; we will remember them.
My friends, colleagues and those who live in the Loughborough constituency will know that I have been “going on”—as they would put it—about a V-shaped recovery for a long time. We owe it to those who have lost their lives to ensure that we come back stronger and better as a country and as a constituency. In Loughborough, we have capitalised on all the support from the Government: the grants and support for small businesses; the loans that have been available to keep businesses going; and the individual support for those who have found themselves in a difficult situation. Programmes such as eat out to help out and kickstart, and the early town deal funding, have all supported the local community. I welcome the fact that the support package has been extended to ensure that a safety net remains for those who need it.
Let us get ready for the time that these new restrictions will ease. Let us take the time to plan—each individual, each family, each business and each organisation. Let every one of us make a positive decision to create a good recovery for ourselves, our local communities and our businesses. Risk assessment is the key to this. With risk, we eradicate if we can and mitigate where we cannot. This is a global pandemic; we cannot eradicate, so we must mitigate. As part of the planning process, we should therefore look at taking a different approach to events and venues, whereby each produces its own risk assessment of how many people it can safely accommodate while adhering to social distancing guidelines. Let us spend this month making sure that each of us has a plan to get on in life. Let us turn the negative into a positive, and all take part in the recovery of this great country.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
Like many hon. Members, I would like to start by paying tribute to all the British public, including those in my Aberavon constituency, who have shown such resilience and fortitude throughout an extremely difficult 2020.
These new restrictions are, of course, for the people of England, but the economic package accompanying them will have a significant effect on Wales and on my constituents. Regrettably, it has become all too evident that the Prime Minister and Chancellor only took decisive action in terms of economic support once London and parts of the south-east were put into tier 2 and then full lockdown. When we in Wales went into our fire breaker, the UK Government refused to extend furlough. When the north of England went into tier 3, the Government refused to extend furlough. Now, with new restrictions affecting the south-east, the money suddenly appears as if by magic. Furlough must be fair for all—it is as simple as that.
During his successful general election campaign, the Prime Minister promised to level up the UK. In reality, the very opposite has happened. This virus has turned the gap between the south-east and the rest of the UK into a chasm. We now need a clear and specific plan that states what levelling up is actually supposed to mean in practice. This plan must have our steel industry at its heart.
A focus on steel would deliver three interlinked benefits. First, it would support the creation of high-skilled, well-paid jobs in areas of the UK that have been ignored by successive Conservative Governments since 2010, including in south Wales. Secondly, it would strengthen the UK’s sovereign capability. One of the most important lessons of the pandemic is that we are far too dependent on supply chains from other countries, and increasingly, those countries are run by authoritarian Governments who are not our natural allies. Thirdly, it will enable our transition to net zero, backing the industries of the future but also greening current industries. Yet, by failing to provide the UK’s largest steelmaker and the employer of 4,000 steelworkers in my constituency with the emergency loans during the pandemic to plug the cash flow gap caused by the fall in demand, the Government have again chosen to sit on their hands. There can be no post-pandemic recovery, no levelling up and no modern manufacturing renaissance without a strong and healthy steel industry.
I will end by saying a few words on test, track and trace. While Welsh Labour backed local experts and our local authorities, the UK Government have put test, track and trace in the hands of Serco, without any proper tendering process. Serco won huge contracts to the tune of £500 million and, through no fault of the vast majority of its employees, I might add, utterly failed our country at this time of need. The choice that the Government have taken is to privatise and centralise when they should have been keeping what is a truly public function in the public sector and allowing local authorities to mobilise the expertise that they have on the ground. I hope that the UK Government will look to Cardiff Bay—to the Welsh Government—learn the lessons of Test and Trace, and take this four-week lockdown as an opportunity to fix the system and learn from the way in which the Welsh Government have done it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I will be moving straight to the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), but after he has spoken, I will reduce the time limit to three minutes to try to accommodate as many colleagues as possible.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will have understood from my intervention on the Prime Minister earlier that, for only the second time in my 15 years in Parliament, I am not able to support my Front Bench. You will know from our shared endeavours and experience in the usual channels that it is not easy for a former Chief Whip not to support their party, but I do so for the following reasons.
I very strongly supported the tiered approach, and my part of the world, which I am here to represent, has a very low level of the virus. My constituents have been working incredibly hard—businesses and individuals—to keep the virus under control, and there is a very low level of prevalence not just across the community, but particularly among those who are over 60, where the level of virus remains low and, over the last few weeks, has been flat or falling. Certainly in conversation with my directors of public health and my local NHS, no concerns have been raised about the NHS being over- whelmed. That was my starting position.
I listened very carefully to what the Prime Minister set out in his press conference on Saturday, and I looked yesterday at the data that was published, but there are several flaws with that data. First, the modelling that has taken place about the number of deaths is old data, and we already know—my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) set this out very clearly—that the most extreme of those models is wrong. It has predicted things for dates that have already passed, and it has been wrong by a factor of four or five.
The second thing we know is that the modelling that SAGE has undertaken does not take into account—it is set out very clearly in documents published yesterday—the introduction of the tiered system over the last couple of weeks. Therefore, all the modelling just does not take into account the fact that over half of the country has been placed under tier 2 or tier 3 restrictions. We know from the information published just yesterday by Steve Rotheram, the Mayor of the Liverpool city region, that that region, which was the first region placed in tier 3 restrictions, has seen quite a significant reduction in virus across all parts of that region.
Of course, it is that data from SAGE that has been fed into the national health service, and all of the modelling done by the NHS about its capacity has been based on that SAGE modelling. So if that modelling is wrong, as I believe it is, the NHS forecasts are wrong. It was very interesting that one of the leaked slides last week, which showed the capacity of the NHS being exhausted in the next few weeks, was not used in the presentation by the Prime Minister at the press conference, and no data has been published to substantiate it. That is because, according to that slide, the south-west hospital capacity should have been exceeded already, and it has not, and it is nowhere near being exceeded. Therefore, I simply do not believe the Government have made the case.
One further reason for me is that these regulations also give the power to use reasonable force to enforce them to officers of the state who are not trained to safely use that power. The Secretary of State knows I have raised this on the Floor of the House and with him and his Ministers. I had understood a review was to take place to remove it. That power should only be used by police officers who are properly trained to safely use it. For those reasons, I am unable to support the Government and will be voting against the regulations later today.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
My communities in South Cumbria, in the lakes and the dales, are arguably the worst hit on both counts: in terms of our vulnerability economically, with 40% of our entire workforce on furlough at one stage and a sixfold increase in unemployment; and, on the other hand, with an age profile 10 years above the national average, the vulnerability and the potential for fatality in the face of the virus is great.
At the same time, we are seeing huge pressure on our local health service, which has done a stunning job over the last seven or eight months, making personal sacrifices in every single department. We see the beginning of signs of being overwhelmed by the virus at this period. Just in the last few days, the North West Ambulance Service has been urging no one to call 999 unless their call is for a life-threatening emergency. This is what the Government are seeking to prevent. The greatest threat to our liberty is a threat to our right to life, and our access to medical services threatens to be overwhelmed if action is not taken.
Having said that, I am deeply critical of some of the Government’s approach on this issue, not least on some of the economic areas, where there has been a blind spot when it comes to the 3 million people, we believe, who have been excluded from any kind of support whatsoever. I think of people who have been self-employed for 18 months or so in my constituency. I think of people running small limited companies—taxi drivers, personal trainers, hairdressers—getting absolutely nothing for seven or eight months, or people who happened to have been on the payroll just a day or two too late earlier this spring. Those people, who are the backbone of our economy—the entrepreneurs we need to drive the recovery when, eventually, it comes—are left in deep and desperate debt, not sure if they can afford to put food on the table for their children or pay to keep a roof over their heads. The Government must act and must act now to help those who have been excluded.
I also point out that a third of those who are excluded are private renters. The Government immediately extended mortgage holidays for those lucky enough to own their own homes, and rightly so, but they have done nothing for renters in the past few days or weeks. Surely this is a moment for the Government to rush through some legislation, to suspend section 8 on rent arrears and section 21 on no-fault evictions, and to increase the local housing allowance so that people can afford to pay their rent. It is important that we protect all our constituents from hardship, and that we protect their lives and well- being. Above all, it is essential that we protect them from potential homelessness and destitution.
My final word is on the news about the furlough. We are told that people who were laid off prior to 23 September will not be furloughed. I can tell the House that there are thousands of people in the tourism industry who have been laid off because of the hardship that industry is facing. I ask for a package of support for hospitality and tourism, backdated before 23 September, to run right the way through to the Easter holidays next March.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Thirty-four years ago, as an otherwise fit and healthy 24-year-old, I was carried out of my home by an ambulance crew with a collapsed lung. I had an emergency operation in the middle of the night. I was frightened, worried and concerned about many things. Would I live? What would be the impact on my health for the rest of my life? The one thing that I was not worried about was whether there would be a hospital bed for me. Yesterday, in England, there were 10,971 covid patients in our hospitals, which was an increase of 2,376 on the previous week, or an increase of over a fifth. My own local hospital, Luton and Dunstable University Hospital, has told me that it now has much less spare capacity than it did in April and May, during the first lockdown, so the margin for error is very small.
There are no good choices before any of us. We are being asked to do a horrendous thing today. The impact on jobs, businesses and the loss of our freedoms, which every one of us who will support the Government tonight cherishes just as much as those who will not, are awful things for us to have to do. Against that, however, we must set lives lost, hospitals turning people away, and a lack of treatment for people who are ill or have had terrible accidents. I cannot in all conscience not support a measure to prevent that happening.
I wish the motion was amendable, because I think there are things that we could do on safe care home visits. As the Second Church Estates Commissioner, I am of course concerned about the lack of collective worship, and I think that churches are some of the safest places I have been in recent weeks. I am concerned about businesses with bills they cannot pay. I am concerned about the events industry, which seems to have fallen outside so many of the support packages. Whipsnade zoo in my constituency, which has a full 600 acres, cannot open, but Kew can. Why not just close the indoor elements of zoos and allow the outdoor parts to welcome people? Let us make sure that we have click and collect for small independent shops, so that they do not lose out and so that people can shop safely come 3 December, rather than standing in long queues. Let us make sure that we do not have huge crowds celebrating on new year’s eve.
The most important thing I want to say is about enforcement. It is not just about explaining and educating; the police, councils and shops themselves must do more about people not wearing masks in shops. People should wear masks at work. It is terrible that eight out of 10 people are not self-isolating properly. This is a shared responsibility for all of us.
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
I fully understand the lure of the precautionary principle, given the dreadful scenarios that the Government are facing, with increasing cases and projections. I understand the lure of saying, “Let’s do this, just in case; let’s take no chances.” I certainly do not envy the Prime Minister or any member of the quad their decisions. However, I have a number of concerns that simply cannot be overcome.
Let us cast our minds forward to 2 December, because I feel that we will be in this situation again. What will “Good enough that we can unwind” look like? It took three and a half months last time for us to have a haircut or our first pint in a pub. What level of daily infections or hospitalisations will be deemed good enough to unwind?
It is a mistake for the Government not to consider what those figures might be, because they would at least give the public something to aim for and look forward to, but we have no data and no concept of what that is likely to be. We are told that this is the last bridge before the cavalry come over the hill and that we have better treatments. We are told that we will have the vaccine that we are all looking for, but we do not know when it will be ready, how effective it will be or the timeframe over which it will be rolled out across the population. Let us not forget that HIV has been with us for 40 years, and we still do not have a vaccine.
There are so many clear nonsenses in the regulations. I and many others in the House, I am sure, are getting emails from gym owners and users, people who enjoy outdoor archery and those concerned about the golf situation, and a lot from churchgoers. How can it be sensible that a couple are allowed to go for a walk on the course of the golf club that they belong to, but they face a fine if they dare do it with a golf club and a ball?
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Has the hon. Gentleman received, as I have, a letter signed by 1,500 managers of church organisations, ministers and people of religion opposing these regulations and asking why on earth the Government are closing churches?
Craig Mackinlay
An overwhelming number of the responses that I have had are from churchgoers, and I will develop that point very briefly. Congregations that go to churches, synagogues, mosques and temples are adherent, sensible, disciplined people. To treat them as anything but is, I am afraid, nothing but an insult.
A few weeks ago, we were offered the tiered system and the House supported it. It was deemed to be the new holy grail. Liverpool, under tier 3, seems to be having results, but we simply have not given enough time for those opportunities to bed in. Kent and my constituency of South Thanet are currently under tier 1. What will all this mean to businesses and pubs that have invested heavily in covid-friendly and secure facilities? We have already seen flip-flopping on the earliest-published proposals on off-sales, and microbreweries can now continue selling beer outside. The supermarkets could always sell as much as they liked. That, I am afraid, is at the heart of the muddled thinking. I want to develop what I want to call the Wilkinson conundrum—a great store on every high street. How can it be that it can continue to sell essential and non-essential items when it is illegal for the independent shop next door to sell just some of the non-essential stuff?
I am being asked to spend £50 billion extra today, or perhaps even more. There is no data about what that means for other health issues, and no assessment about what it means to family members who are not able to see grandchildren or see off loved ones in their final days. I am here to make a decision. I will not abstain; I am paid to have a view, and I will be voting against the measure.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I just want to point out gently that not everybody is going to get in on this debate. If interventions are taken at this stage, particularly from people who are not on the speaking list, that will prevent others from speaking.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
If we are going to defeat this virus, the public have to have confidence in the Government. They have to know that everything the Government do is based not on opinion polls but on evidence. Modelling is not evidence; scientific fact is evidence. There has been too much chopping and changing of Government policy. We have been encouraged to eat out to help out, get back to offices in September, and then stay away from offices. Everything should be based on evidence.
I have very little time, but I want to mention one point for which evidence is all-important. The leaders of all the faith communities have written to the Prime Minister demanding evidence that people attending church services are spreading covid. I know there is no evidence. The chief scientific adviser to the Government has confirmed there is no evidence. Everybody knows, if they go to their local church or, indeed, their mosque, that mask wearing and social distancing are in force. Even in mosques, my friends tell me, people are bringing their own prayer mats. There is no evidence for this ban. The ban comes because the Government say, “If we’re going to stop people going to pubs, we have to stop people going to churches or mosques or synagogues.” There is no evidence.
However, when I intervened on the Prime Minister a couple of days ago, he assured me that this was only a temporary ban on religious services. He took the trouble to come up to me before this debate and say, “Edward, we’re going to get churches open.” I said, “When?” He said, “Soon.” I understand that contacts are taking place with the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of Westminster to try to get the churches open as soon as possible.
On that basis, and on that basis only—that this is a temporary measure, that the Government will provide evidence and that the churches will open on 2 December—I am prepared to vote for this measure today. I will do so on that basis and on that promise. It is a fundamental human right in any society—we are signatories to the convention on human rights—for people to be able to go to communal worship. We cannot just tell religious people, “Sometime in the future you’ll be able to go to a religious service.” That is not good enough for them. They want to be able to have that communal worship, and to have it now.
It is not good enough for the Government—I am looking at the Health Secretary—just to say that we are all in this together and that, because they are stopping people playing golf or going to bars, religious people have to be under the same restrictions. Provide the evidence. I have received an assurance that churches, synagogues and mosques will open before 2 December, or at least by 2 December. On that basis, and on that basis only, I will vote with the Government.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
This, of course, is the eventuality that we all had hoped to avoid. I hate even contemplating a curtailment of freedoms in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady) set out, but no responsible Government could sidestep what this Government are faced with.
We have spoken a lot in the last few days about the “overwhelming” of the national health service. It is worth dwelling on that word and thinking about what it means in practice. As my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) outlined, it means people who need other essential treatments just not being able to get them in the way that we have come to expect we will always be able to rely on the national health service. Of course, this time, unlike the previous lockdown, we are approaching winter, with all the stresses and strains on the national health service that that brings in any case.
This is a global pandemic, but we often speak about it as if we were the only country involved. In fact, every one of the five major countries of western Europe had a steep rise in covid cases during the course of October, and now there are new restrictions coming across the continent, perhaps most notably in France and Germany, the other two large economies of Europe. They have very different political traditions, different health systems and different experiences with test and trace. Both of them, like us, sought to exhaust the possibilities of a localised and a regional approach, and now they are returning to a national programme.
It is true that in different parts of our country there are different rates of prevalence of this virus, but the trend is upwards pretty much everywhere, with the rate above 1. Of course, as the Prime Minister outlined earlier, when one hospital gets full, it moves patients on to another hospital; staff have to move on in order to shore up the system. Ultimately, we are one nation and we have one national health service.
This lockdown is not going to be the same as the previous one, in particular because education will remain fully open. I really thank the Government for that and welcome that approach. I acknowledge that prioritising schooling involves some trade-offs, and we must acknowledge that any time people get together there is a risk of transmission of this virus, but I would ask for special reconsideration in two areas: non-contact outdoor sports and, as so many colleagues and others have mentioned, religious services. Obviously, not everyone has faith, but for some who do, the solace that they receive from attending church or another place of worship with other people is as important for their mental health as other mental health services, which we rightly prioritise and will keep going come what may.
I welcome the business support. I hope the Government will also use this time to make sure that there are medium-term support packages for the most affected sectors. Nobody wants to be doing this, but I will be backing the measures this evening.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
In Huntingdonshire, as of last Friday, we had a very low and stable figure of 58 cases per 100,000, and about half a dozen hospital beds in Hinchingbrooke Hospital were occupied by covid patients. In effect, without lockdown we would have remained at tier 1 status. That is of great credit to the caution and sensible behaviour shown by residents locally, and also reflects the excellent local public services and council provision that I am seeing. If I were to support these further massive restrictions on our liberty and democracy, I would need not only more evidence for their chances of success than I have received to date, but an understanding as to why Cambridgeshire should be treated in exactly the same way as high-risk areas in the country.
One well-respected local family business of some 40 years’ standing has just contacted me to say that they will not be able to stand a further lockdown. The majority of local businesses I speak to have already made redundancies and now dread for their futures. Huntingdonshire has one of the highest proportions of small business ownership in the country, typically without the capital reserves of large corporations. Those businesses have done everything they can to stay afloat, through finding new markets, taking up Government loans and furlough schemes, and general twisting and turning to do anything and everything to keep their businesses alive. I have been incredibly impressed by the resilience and resourcefulness of those local businesses. Frankly, they deserve more than for me to tell them that I have voted for a further lockdown, given our low local covid rate and the national lack of evidence.
Our local health workers, carers and volunteers have also done a magnificent job, and many lessons are now being learnt that should improve health and care provision in the second wave of the virus. Yes, of course, we need to save the NHS, but that cannot be at the cost of wiping out the economy, without which there will be no money to pay for the NHS. The problem is that we are not getting a weighted assessment of the health costs in the context of all the other costs. When the allied forces planned D-day, an assessment of the human and material costs was drawn up before deciding to invade. It would be wrong to say that Churchill and the generals failed to show humanity in their assessment of likely casualties, but they weighed that up against the strategic objective of retaining a democratic European continent.
We now roll from one lockdown to another, with no vaccine, and no effective track and trace system. We need urgently to consider a weighted strategy, our objectives here accepting that whatever happens, lockdown or no lockdown, we are ultimately going to have to learn to live with the virus.
Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
There are three questions here. How did we get into this situation? What do we do about it now? How do we find our way out of it? Much has been said about whether we should have done this or other things earlier. When the crisis is passed, there should be a full and detailed examination of decision making in response to the pandemic. When the time comes for that I will fully support it, but that time is not now. We have more immediate questions to answer.
This House has to take decisions today on the basis of where we are, not on where we wish we were. We have to make those decisions, as so often, on the basis of imperfect information and in the knowledge that all our options will harm someone. I respect the fact that different Members of this House can, for good and decent reasons, come to different conclusions on that. I do not dispute for a moment the human and financial cost of the measures, but it seems to me that the preponderance of the scientific evidence we have seen is telling us that if we do not take a decision with damaging consequences, we face an outcome with devastating consequences. For that reason, I will support the measures today.
At times of threat, we act to protect the most vulnerable members of our society, even when it hurts the rest of us. That is who we are as a nation. Whatever else the pandemic changes, it must not change that. The Government’s job is not just to react, but to plan for the future. On this, I have to say that I do not think the Government have said enough. We must now accept the need to live with this virus in the longer term. It is simply impossible for businesses or individuals to manage their lives if we are to find ourselves continually and unpredictably in and out of lockdown, so these measures may be a short-term strategy, but they cannot be a long-term one.
In a second lockdown, everyone knows that it can happen more than once. What was tolerable as a one-off looks less so when it seems like a repeated occurrence. As others have said, lockdown is hard on our mental health and harder still when it is dark and wet outside, and I am afraid that all this affects likely compliance with these restrictions. If people do not comply, the health benefits of a lockdown disappear altogether. There must be clarity on how we come out of these restrictions, not just on what date the Government hope that we do. The Government must say clearly what objectively we need to see to have these restrictions lifted, so that everyone can see the way out of them as well as the way in, thereby, I hope, making it more likely that people will comply with them and that they will have the desired effect.
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
As the Prime Minister said earlier, none of us wants this. Pitting lives against livelihoods and, I would add, the quality of our lives is excruciating, uncomfortable and tugs at our values and sensibilities. The truth is that it is an invidious conundrum with no good options, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright) said. We cannot escape the fact that these measures will come at a significant cost for many people in our constituencies, including mine, whether that is social, financial or from a mental health perspective.
I take a particular interest in the impact on children, who we know have had a whole range of new experiences during the first lockdown, not all of them good, that may play out for many years to come. I welcome the fact that schools will remain open for the next four weeks. That is incredibly important for a whole range of reasons, and I urge every parent to do their bit in ensuring that their child gets the education and all the other benefits from schools remaining open. I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to clarify whether a child who is classified as clinically vulnerable is still expected to go to school, as I have had some queries about that.
We know about the financial damage that this will cause—the scarring of the economy, as it is sometimes known. I have highlighted previously, and I will do so again in a debate on Monday in Westminster Hall, the wedding industry, pubs, zoos and beauty salons. We cannot forget that, despite the significant package from the Chancellor to support those businesses, there are still gaps that need to be filled, and they need some hope for the future.
I understand that the figures we have—I would like to see more granular data in the future—are not good to read, in terms of the number of covid patients in hospital and the trajectory that many of our hospital trusts tell us they are on. We need to act, and I will be supporting these measures, but I urge my right hon. Friend, as other Members have, to ensure that we do not end up in a vicious cycle of lockdowns, which will do more and more damage as we try to control the virus. We need a plan for how we can live with it in the longer term and keep the R below 1 once we have reduced it, so that we can continue to reopen the economy and, most of all, give Eddisbury residents and businesses the normality, certainty and hope that they crave.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
When we entered lockdown in March, none of us could be sure how long the measures would be necessary for or what measures would be necessary in the future, but we accepted the privations and limitations on our life to defeat the virus. We quickly realised that we would not return to normal. We grieve the loss of life, and we grieve the loss of livelihoods as well.
It is with a heavy heart that we contemplate what we are doing in the House today, but it is clear when we look at what many of our constituents are telling us to do: I have only had two constituents write to me to say that I should support the Government tonight, and I have a responsibility to those constituents, but we, as Members of Parliament, have a greater responsibility. We have a responsibility to our constituents, but we also have a responsibility to our country. Whatever we think about whether we should have persevered with the two-tier system, or whether the restrictions on many activities have been too onerous—I will touch on a couple in a moment—no responsible Government and no responsible Secretary of State could sit and not listen to the overwhelming weight of the scientific evidence. I regret that that is where we are, but it must be right that we cannot allow the national health service and people’s right to health to be threatened if we can avoid that.
Therefore, with some reluctance—as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care knows—I will support the Government tonight. I am reluctant because we take these measures by consent, yet there are huge contradictions in some of the guidance and regulations that the Government have set out today. They still have not had a chance to clarify them, but they should do so. The most obvious one relates to the off-sale of beers, where the regulations clearly say that this is allowed but the guidance this morning still has not been changed. That is maybe not most important one, however. Some of the guidance on what educational establishments are able to do is much worse and has not been clarified. There are also inconsistencies. Why can I go for a run, where someone could cough and splutter, when I cannot play a round of golf?
Like so many of my fellow Members, I regret that we are putting privations and restrictions on the huge numbers of people who wish to worship and express their faith, and I say to the Secretary of State that I hope that the commitment that was given to my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) will be honoured. I will support the Government today, but I hope that they will use the time to set out clearly what their targets and objectives are and to set out clearly that they can stand up the test, track and trace system and the new, more widespread, testing.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
When looking at this issue and my vote this evening, I look at the evidence and ask myself three questions. Can our local NHS cope? Have we properly assessed the impact of the regional lockdowns? Which path will be the least destructive to the health and wellbeing of the constituents who sent me here to serve them?
When it comes to the local NHS, the figures today show that we have 24 covid in-patients being treated by East Sussex county hospitals. Of those, a third are being treated in the community, and not one of them is in a high-dependency unit. The NHS system in East Sussex coped fantastically last time, and it has learned lessons. This is another important aspect. It has learned lessons on how to treat people, on the oxygen levels required and on life-saving treatments such as dexamethasone. It has a better understanding of how to treat, and that matters.
When looking at the evidence from the regional lockdowns, I just do not believe that we have given it significant time to properly tell us whether or not they are working. Data coming out of University College London suggests that the R rate is close to or at 1, and the word coming out of Imperial College suggests that it is too early to tell. The daily average has now gone down to 20,018. What that tells me is that we should have taken more time to determine whether the regional lockdowns were working before shutting down other parts of the country where covid rates are low, as they are in East Sussex.
Then we come to the question which path is the least destructive. Again, I have asked for evidence to show that, given the destruction and damage caused to people’s lives and livelihoods, they would actually be worse off if we did not take these measures. This evidence has not been provided to me, and it is difficult to make a decision when we do not have two competing sets of analysis. I have been asked whether I have met anyone who has lost a loved one through covid. The answer to that is, tragically, yes I have, and the heart goes out to them, but I have also attended the funeral of a friend in the past year who took his life, having lost his job. I have met people who have not attended hospital appointments and now have terminal illnesses and who wish to goodness that they had attended them. I have met people who suffer domestic abuse behind closed doors that has not been uncovered. I have met people who have lost their jobs and the roofs over their heads and who have lost everything in life and become destitute. I have also met people experiencing mental health torture from isolation and loneliness from which they cannot recover. Those lives matter, too, and because I cannot see any evidence that there will not be more of those lives impacted than the lives we save, I am unable to support these measures and will vote against them this evening.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
The decision facing us today has big implications for how we will recover from this pandemic and how we take people with us, and I am pleased that we are at least having a vote on it. I have kept an open mind and listened to the debate, and I know that the Government have a difficult balance to make. They have to make a judgment call based on clinical advice, on what the economy is saying and on what people are saying is sustainable for their compliance.
Let us be clear: there is no risk-free option. This is all about balancing and managing risk, but too often the advice from clinical experts is confusing and contradictory. Why is SAGE using predictions of 4,000 fatalities per day, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) said, when the actual figure turns out to be 1,000 at most? Why can projections from a couple of weeks or 10 days ago turn out to be so wrong that they need to be revised so sharply? Is the problem that too often we seem to conflate scenarios with forecasts? Where is the clarity over how many of those deaths might reasonably be expected as seasonal flu deaths if covid was not a thing?
What weighting is being given to the rise in non-covid deaths at home because people with cancer, heart disease and other conventional killers are not getting treatment in hospitals that have been reconfigured almost exclusively to deal with covid, let alone the impact on suicide, on rates of stillbirth and on babies? We are now talking about a third wave. How many more will we have? Clearly, the science is not black and white, and we must consider the impact of all the measures holistically and not look just at what one set of scientists is telling us.
The impact on business is of greatest concern, as many hon. Members have said, and the hospitality industry has been hit hugely. The service industry that relies on the hospitality industry has almost been forgotten, and already struggling small and apparently non-essential shops that have just stocked up for Christmas are losing their trade to supermarkets and garden centres up the road. In the aviation and international tourism industry, travel agents cannot be furloughed because they need to process refunds, for which they get no payment at all. For many, this is economic death by 1,000 cuts. It is a salami-slicing of business, and the resulting redundancies, bankruptcies and reduced wages will affect the livelihoods and lives of many of our constituents. At the very least, we should have an economic audit of the impact of lockdown, which feeds into and challenges the scientific advice.
The other crucial factor is what people are prepared to accept and follow, and that is linked to confidence and the explanations they are given. People see apparent contradictions such as, “Go and exercise, but you can’t play golf. You can’t play tennis and children cannot exercise outside. You can’t go to church,” and if logic is not being applied, people’s confidence is trashed. National lockdown is a big step. The science for it is questionable, and the business case against it overwhelming. Why are we doing it at this stage before seeing the effects of regional lockdowns? For me, the case is not proven, the proposed measures are not proportionate, and I cannot vote for them.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
I do not know whether it is with pleasure or huge difficulty that I follow the powerful speeches from my neighbours in the south-east my hon. Friends the Members for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) and for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). As for most hon. Members, this has been an agonising decision, and it has not been made easier by the Government and those on the Front Bench putting forward data that contains inconsistencies or inflated projections. In constituencies such as mine, which only rarely gets near the R rate of 1, it has been hard to explain why we need to go into a national lockdown.
Many of us fought for the right to have this debate and vote, and those on the Front Bench should have shared with us the data that enabled them to make those decisions. We could have used that data to argue in our constituencies up and down the country, instead of spending time arguing with the Government and trying to get hold of it in the first place. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle laid out, it is a very different picture in the south-east. We do not have a huge infection rate or a huge number of beds taken up with covid patients, and all our local health practitioners have explained that such things will not be the case for many months down the line. I would have preferred the tier system to have played out for a period, to see how it was working. I keep being told, however, that we need a national decision and a national endeavour, that it is one national health service, and that the Prime Minister has no choice but to put us into a national lockdown.
I will be reluctantly supporting the Government tonight, but with a caveat. I am putting the Secretary of State and the Government on 28 days’ notice. They have had many months, but over this short period, they need to put in place a public health strategy that works for the whole country—not just the north and the midlands, but me in Wealden. That means taking care of the most vulnerable people in my care homes. If we can test, track and trace in Liverpool, the same should be applied to people who wish to visit their family members in care homes. I am still hearing from my care home staff that they cannot get hold of tests and, when they do, they are never returned within a decent time.
We also need a real financial analysis of the decisions that we are taking. When people lose their jobs, they lose their security and their homes and it has an impact on their mental health. It is more than just the job; it is everything else.
In the short time I have remaining, I will make a point that has been made by many hon. Members already. We are overstepping the mark as a country, as a Government and as the Conservative party by making legislation about how people live their lives in their private homes. That is not a space that we should enter easily. In my experience, when men, institutions and Governments get hold of that power, they give it up very reluctantly.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
There have been many powerful contributions, not least by my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani), which have stressed the importance of liberties, lives and livelihoods in the difficult decisions that the Government are taking. The argument for the 28-day lockdown 2 hinges on the capacity and resources of the NHS and the threat of our hospitals nationwide not being able to cope in the season most favourable to the spread of the virus.
The national data is convincing and the international evidence is compelling, but at a local level it varies. My neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), has made the case that it is hard to support restrictions on the lives, livelihoods and liberties of his constituents, given the relatively low numbers of covid patients there. The argument that persuades me, however, is that ultimately, no area is an island.
Everyone who lives in Gloucestershire, whether in rural areas or towns, depends on the Gloucestershire Royal Hospital in my constituency for A&E treatment of the virus. Although I believe that our hospital has the staff, ventilators and beds to withstand a second wave on its own, there is a real risk of mutual aid being called for in Bristol, Swindon or other cities nearby, which would considerably increase the scale of the challenge for us. Ultimately, rural areas with lower rates of infection, wherever they are in our nation, depend on the hospitals in our cities in their hour of need, so we have to accept the temporary new closure with huge reluctance and sadness about what it means for many of our constituents.
This statutory instrument is not amendable, but I hope that the Secretary of State, who I am sure is listening hard, and his colleagues will continue to fine tune the detail and the guidance. Balancing what I called in October the small joys in life with the risks and infection rates is important in a democracy where only consensus and agreement to comply will deliver the result that we all want.
In that context, the letter from the leaders of all the major faiths is the single largest plea in numbers of lives and wellbeing touched. The voices supporting visits to care homes, gyms and other things precious to constituents are also important within an acceptance of the second lockdown. Such voices must be heard. In cities such as ours, with a cathedral, dozens of churches, a handful of mosques and adherents of the Hindu, Jewish and Sikh faiths, the freedom to pray is welcome, but the freedom to worship together is one that I strongly support. I urge the Prime Minister to ensure that that comes back with a return to local tiers on 2 December.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
These are extreme measures for extreme times. I think I agreed with every word of my hon. Friends the Members for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady) and for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker). Against my instincts, I have forced myself to confront the reality of the Government’s arguments. I say a big thank you to the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister for giving me a privileged opportunity to take scientists into No. 10 to interrogate the data. I confess it was as a red team, as I said in public. I was rather hoping that we would take the wheels off the data and thereby stop this lockdown altogether, and I am sorry that that has not been possible.
The best argument for the Government’s policy is the one I put in a Telegraph article earlier. With R above 1, and perhaps up to 1.5—it is, I understand, easier to suppress it to 1.5 than to below 1—and the plateauing phenomenon, there will be intolerable pressure on the NHS. Because Professor Whitty had to clarify, if not correct, the record on what he said yesterday to the Select Committee, I went back to see what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said to me about Liverpool’s cases when I intervened on him on Monday. On this complex subject, he did not get it wrong. I have checked very carefully, and I am sure that he got it right. But the reality is that there are different datasets. Professor Tim Spector tweeted:
“Further evidence today from our Zoe CSS survey that we have passed the peak in second wave new cases in the U.K. there will be a four week lag before this is seen in a decline in deaths and 1-2 weeks in hospitalisation. R value close to one in most areas now”.
The point I want to make is that the Government’s strategy, as advocated by some of the best scientists—it has been my privilege to meet them—relies on a bet that science will deliver vaccines, improved testing and improved treatments. I am delighted that people are optimistic about it, but I am being asked to impose the most enormous costs on my constituency and my country, on a bet about science delivering in an environment in which there are contested datasets, including a dataset that suggests that R is going below one. I am not able to do it, and it is with a heavy heart and many misgivings that I will be voting no tonight. I really wish I had the clarity—on either side of the argument—that is occasionally expressed in this House, and much more routinely expressed outside it.
I want to make a point about compliance. If we have this lockdown and it is not complied with, it will be a disaster. We can have no more innovative eye test procedures in the course of this lockdown. There must be compliance, and a good example must be set. In 28 days, I will not behave as I have done this week. I will continue to behave responsibly in working with the Government, but there will be no equivocation about my views. We must learn to live with this virus, deliver on the new science, reform expert advice, reform modelling and improve standards in Government so that never again do we see a model such as the one that was presented on Saturday, which evaporates like morning mist under the sunlight of close inspection.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
Forty-eight hours ago, I came to the House and asked the Government to sharpen the axe with regard to the measures that are being put in place. Today, the House will decide whether to use that axe. This is a Rubicon moment, with a national Sophie’s choice. If we use the axe, we will have the biggest impact we have had on civil liberties since the war. We will cause economic damage and job losses, and we will mortally wound businesses. There will be mental health problems, and we will indebt our children and our children’s children.
On the other hand, if we do nothing, NHS surge capacity is likely to be breached. The quagmire of covid will kill off all the non-covid cancer, stroke and joint operations. More people will be left with long covid. Staff will struggle to cope, facing burnout or, worse still, literally having to choose whose mother, father, grandfather or grandmother will get treatment. This is a horror choice for any Government, and I think it is right that the 650 representatives from across the country will make this decision.
Unfortunately, there is no double-blind trial running, with a second UK where we can see what else is happening. We have to make a judgment call about what we think might happen. For me, the concern is over surge capacity. In the Health Committee, we have seen evidence of what happens when it is breached. In Italy, there were so many over-subscribed beds that people could not get treatment. People aged over 60 were written off, purely on the basis of their age. Many in the House might well find themselves written off for that very reason. In Spain, nursing homes were abandoned with people in them. We have to take that seriously. If hon. Members think that that cannot happen here, I ask them to look at the letter they received this morning from NHS Providers, which represents all 216 trusts. It asks us to support the motion, because urgent action is needed.
I spoke before about how the virus has opened Pandora’s box, and how we need hope. That hope comes in the ingenuity of vaccines, but until then I believe our communities will follow the lockdown rules. I believe that the Treasury should continue to actively listen and do its darnedest to support businesses and jobs, and I believe that mass testing must be rolled out so that people can get a test and carry on their daily living. I will support the lockdown but I will hold the Government to account to mitigate the impact of using this tool and make sure that we cut down the covid pandemic.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
It is a profound moment in which we are being asked knowingly to restrict the civil liberties of our fellow citizens to an unprecedented degree in peacetime, and knowingly and deliberately to harm the economic welfare and, in some cases the personal welfare of our fellow citizens, because lockdowns have consequences and do damage. In deciding whether that can ever be acceptable in a country that believes in the rule of law, it is important to consider whether such measures are necessary, proportionate and supported by evidence. I accept that the covid pandemic is an emergency of a kind that can make such draconian measures necessary. I regret to say, however, that I do not believe that the measures set out in the regulations are either proportionate or based on the evidence.
I do not doubt the good intentions of the Secretary of State and the Government, but the details of the measures go beyond those that are appropriate to achieve the objective that is set out. We could refer perhaps to the briefing from the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law and its reference to the late Sir John Laws who suggested doing the minimum that is necessary to achieve the objective with the minimum intrusion on civil liberties. I am afraid some of the measures here go beyond that. There is no scientific basis for the banning of non-contact outdoor sports. There is no scientific basis for treating grassroots football and community sport differently from elite sports. There is no scientific basis for stopping and, indeed, criminalising people of faith joining in collective worship when they do so in a safe fashion, forgoing the right to join in communal hymn singing or music to limit the risk of transmission. That goes beyond that which is proportional.
There is no economic impact assessment, but as to the disbenefits to businesses, I have seen family businesses of 20 years’ standing already go under in my constituency. I cannot vote to support that without clear evidence as to why it is necessary, the extent to which it is likely to continue and what the plan is to come out the other side in good order.
With a heavy heart, I cannot support the Government in the Lobby today. These measures are not amendable, but I would have been prepared to look at a more limited or proportionate form of regulations, An example of the short notice that we have had to consider these measures and the poor drafting of them is that people are allowed to go to an estate agent, but they cannot go to a solicitor. But the documentation that people will need to get a mortgage and to move house will frequently need to be witnessed in person by a solicitor. These are poorly drafted regulations, and that is only one of many examples. That is why I cannot support them.
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)
It is with a heavy heart that I stand today to support the Government’s proposals for a national lockdown, which, incidentally, are supported by 55% of Bishop Auckland residents, according to a local survey I ran this week. Let me begin by making it perfectly clear that the notions of freedom and liberty remain at the core of my values, my ideology and my very ethos, and it goes entirely against my instincts to impose restrictions on the freedoms of our residents. I certainly did not come into politics to tell people why they could not leave their homes, who they could visit, whether they could spend time with their families or to tell people they are not allowed to go out on a first date. This is not a decision that any of us will take lightly, but I believe we must make the choice to do the next right thing and support this four-week lockdown.
We know that the next four weeks will be difficult. I remember all too well the solitude of living on my own during the first lockdown and what that did to my mental state, and that is a tiny speck of nothing compared to what some of our constituents have gone through. People have lost loved ones, either to covid or to other illnesses that covid left undetected, and my deepest condolences go to everyone affected in that way.
Mental health is an issue very close to my heart, and it continues to decline for so many across our communities. Each of us must do all we can to support them in the difficult, dark nights ahead.
Many businesses are facing unprecedented difficulties, and each has a group of employees who are desperately concerned about their jobs, their livelihoods and their futures. I am incredibly grateful to the Chancellor and the Treasury team for the support they have put in place, and I urge them to continue engaging with MPs, businesses, local authorities and individual residents to ensure that we can continue to support as many people as possible through this period of economic hardship.
I hear people ask how I can justify voting for these restrictions today, and it is because I am thinking about the future of our freedom. Like all of us, I want to see life return to normal as soon as possible. I want to see children playing with their friends, students celebrating freshers’ week, couples having the big wedding of their dreams and families getting together to celebrate Christmas. But getting our freedom back means biting the bullet now, acting decisively and suppressing the virus through this time-restricted lockdown.
We will defeat this virus, of that I am completely confident. We will return to the sunlit uplands of hope, optimism and promise, and we will be able to refocus all our efforts, not on an unexpected global pandemic but on rebuilding our country—as the PM says, building back better—on levelling up the left-behind areas and on massively increasing opportunity for people in Bishop Auckland and beyond.
To reach the light, we first have to go through a tunnel. I know our communities will, once again, join hands to make it through this difficult phase, and I know that in doing so we will eventually emerge into a brighter post-covid future.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
Members have spoken with sincerity and eloquence this afternoon, and it is clear that the House would have benefited from, the regulations would have been improved by, and indeed our constituents would have expected, a full day of debate. We are invited to endorse a long, hard lockdown that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster himself conceded at the weekend could well need to stretch beyond the beginning of December.
We will endorse the regulations before the House because, for all the disputes about graphs and modelling, the trends are clear: general and acute beds are filling up, critical care beds are filling up and more people will die over the next two to three weeks because we did not act sooner.
Our constituents will want to know there is a plan. It is still not clear what criteria will be used to judge whether the lockdown should be lifted. Is it bringing the nationwide R under 1? Is it falling hospital admissions? Is it lower prevalence rates among the over 60s? Is it a prevalence with which contact tracing is effective? I hope the Secretary of State can answer that.
I want to underline three quick points raised by Members on both sides of the House. John Steinbeck wrote:
“A sad soul can kill you far quicker than a germ.”
That is not entirely biologically correct, but we understand the point. Loneliness and isolation extract a heavy mental and physical toll, so will the Secretary of State guarantee a mental health plan for the winter? Will services continue to be accessible, either online or face to face?
At times of crisis, many of our constituents find solace in faith, communion and congregational prayer. Churches, mosques, temples, gurdwaras and synagogues have gone to great lengths, often at great cost to volunteers, to make themselves covid secure. We have Diwali coming up soon. Many mosques have been in touch with me to ask, if individual prayer is allowed in a church or masjid with social distancing in place, why not congregational prayer?
With respect to social care, I understand that the Secretary of State has published some guidance and that visits will be allowed outside or behind screens, which is welcome, but could he use the mass testing that is now coming online to allow people to be tested so that they can see their relatives inside a care home, and perhaps even hug them? Many will fear that this is the last Christmas for their loved ones in care homes.
Finally, what happens next? The Paymaster General warned yesterday of further lockdowns, but a hokey-cokey of lockdowns has to be avoided. This virus is controllable with the correct measures in place, so we urge the Secretary of State to use these four weeks to quickly expand saliva testing to all NHS staff and key workers. We also need tracing teams, led locally, doing the detective work to identify super-spreading events with retrospective tracing. East Asian countries are avoiding lockdowns with this cluster-busting approach. We should institute it here.
We need decent sick pay and support for those isolating, and we need to improve ventilation systems in public buildings. Finally, we need a plan for Christmas. When the lockdown ends, thousands of students will be travelling the country to go home. What is the Government’s plan to keep us safe through Christmas and the new year?
Tonight we will support these measures, but we are demanding that our constituents, who have paid a huge price, make greater sacrifices because of a failure to act sooner.
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
The measures that we have just debated are indeed extraordinary; they are in response to an extraordinary threat to our nation’s health and prosperity. Taking these measures does not come easily to me or my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, nor should it to the House. Our historical liberties are hard-won and precious, and should not be infringed save in the gravest of times, but these are grave times indeed, and if we do not act now, the NHS will not be able to cope. No Member of this House wants to see the scenes that we have witnessed elsewhere in the world of hospitals overrun, or of doctors forced to choose who to treat and who to turn away.
We must drive this virus down together and take these tough yet time-limited measures, making sacrifices now for the safety of all. It will not be easy—I know that—but in a pandemic there are no easy choices. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Edward Timpson) put it, we face an invidious choice. We are called to make fundamental changes to how we live, work and socialise, but it is in pursuit of a common cause. We must and will use this time to drive forward innovations that will help ensure, if at all possible, that this lockdown is the last: the mass testing mentioned by so many, which we began to roll out this week and are driving forward night and day; the vaccine mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) and others, which, while not yet assured, we will be ready to roll out as soon as we safely can; and the treatments that this country has pioneered.
There have been some excellent speeches, all made with a heavy heart and with regard to the seriousness of the situation. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) spoke of the need to assess the impact on not only health but the economy. We know that the economic impact of the measures will be significant, but we also know that if the virus continues to rise—to double—the economic impact will be still more serious.
Many Members raised the issue of the impact on mental health. I take that very seriously. Before supporting this decision, I consulted with the Royal College of Psychologists, which has said that stricter measures to control the virus are needed, because the virus itself has a negative impact on people’s mental health.
There is a wider point on mental health services and health services more broadly: the NHS is open. We are determined to ensure that it stays open as much as is possible for non-covid treatments. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), for whom I have a huge amount of respect, argued passionately about the impact of the first lockdown on the health services available. I say to him with all sincerity that it is by tackling the rise in the virus that we will keep the NHS open, rather than by allowing the virus to grow. In his constituency, the number of cases has almost doubled in the last two weeks; I looked that up as he was speaking. I urge him and others who support the NHS so strongly to support these measures, in order to allow the NHS to continue to do its job.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
The Prime Minister very honestly said to me on Monday that one of the lessons from the end of the first lockdown was that we did not insist enough on people isolating when they were contacted by Test and Trace. Going forward, at the end of lockdown 2.0, how will we improve on that?
Matt Hancock
We have to constantly improve on that. First, the number of people being contacted and who are isolating has risen sharply. Secondly, while of course there is always a need for more, the proportion has started to rise recently, and the amount of resources and support that we are giving to the Test and Trace service continues to grow. I absolutely support my hon. Friend’s point that we must use this month to ensure that that service is there and ready. Those who have said that it does not have any impact are wrong. It is having a significant impact on bringing the R down from its natural elevated rate of around 2.5 to where it is today, but with the R above 1, the virus continues to grow, and we must bring it down.
A number of colleagues in all parts of the House raised the issue of communal worship, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham). I can tell the House that Ministers are talking to faith leaders to do everything we can to reach an accommodation as soon as possible. I understand the impact of this infringement on liberties, which many colleagues mentioned.
We saw support for the measures from across the House. The hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) talked about how furlough must be fair for all, and we have extended the furlough system. My hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) talked about the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence. While science of course consists of men and women with different views, I truly believe that the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence is in favour of suppressing the virus. We heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Wealden (Ms Ghani) and for Loughborough (Jane Hunt) about how, with heavy hearts, they are supporting these measures. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright) talked about taking damaging decisions to prevent a disastrous outcome later, and I think that was about right.
The hon. Members for Reading East (Matt Rodda) and for Blackburn (Kate Hollern) expressed their support, even though they also wished that this had come in earlier. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) and my hon. Friends the Members for Bosworth (Dr Evans) and for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) spoke so eloquently of what the promise that the NHS is always there for you means. It is something that binds us together as a country and something that we must protect and cherish. The issue of care homes was raised, including by the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth). The updated visitor guidance was published this morning. I agree with him about seeking further expansion of testing in care homes, including for visitors.
There was a widespread debate about the need for more data publication. All I can say is that we are constantly expanding the data that is being published. There is more and more data from the NHS on hospitalisations, more and more data on cases and where they are, and more and more contact tracing data. I am absolutely enthusiastic about publishing more and more data. Indeed, we have been commended, as a country, for the open approach that we are taking to the amount of data that is published.
Ultimately, this comes down to a very significant judgment about how we best lead a nation through an incredibly difficult period with a virus that exists only to multiply, and lives and breathes off the essence of what it is to be human. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) spoke of a passion for freedom and I, too, am a lover of freedom, but I also care about protection, and it is the combination of the two that we must balance and address.
In ordinary times, these measures would be unimaginable, but these are not ordinary times. The virus in circulation feeds off the human contact that makes life worth living, and we must act to thwart its deadly march to protect our NHS and to save countless lives while supporting every person with everything that we have, and supporting the science that, with increasing confidence each day, I know will help us to find a better way through. I commend these regulations to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Hon. Members, apart from those on the Front Bench, should leave the Chamber by the doors behind me. We must try to keep social distancing going.
Question put.
Agriculture Bill
Wednesday 4th November 2020
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Agriculture Act 2020 View all Agriculture Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Message as at 4 November 2020 - (4 Nov 2020)
17:16 - The House divided: - Ayes: 331 / Noes: 272 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 16B.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
With this it will be convenient to consider:
Lords amendment 18B, and Government motion to disagree.
Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords amendments 16B and 18B.
Victoria Prentis
I should start by declaring my farming interests and the fact that I come from a farming family, but that is not the only reason hat I think this is one of the most exciting Bills before the House this year. This Bill matters to everyone who sees a great future for British farming as we leave the EU and the confines of the common agricultural policy. As we have seen from the huge amount of public interest in it, this Bill matters to everyone who is interested in what we eat and in where and how it is produced. Food standards are important, particularly as we forge new trade deals around the world.
This Bill has been much improved during its passage through this place, and I must thank Members on both sides of both Houses for their assistance, starting with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Lord Gardiner and the Minister for the Environment, with whom I am working closely on future farming policy, and our marvellous Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Fay Jones), who is a strong voice for her farming community, as is Emma Pryor, our Spad. I should also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), Lord Grantchester and Lord Curry of Kirkharle.
I thank the many Members who voted for previous incarnations of the Bill, voicing their concerns privately to me and believing, rightly, that it would come right in the end. We must recognise that a large number of people outside Parliament have been involved in the debate on standards, including the National Farmers Union and the many members of the public who signed its petition, and many British farmers.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
It would be remiss of us not to thank the Minister for the way that she has engaged in this process, listened to farmers and their representatives and got the Bill to such a good place. May I put on record my thanks to her?
Victoria Prentis
That is very kind. We should also thank the farmers, who are rightly proud of the food we produce.
It has proved very difficult to find the right form of legislative words to protect our standards. It is important that we comply with World Trade Organisation rules and that we do not impose impossible conditions on future trading partners. I feel that, following the gargantuan efforts of many people, we have got to a sensible compromise. My concern about amendment 16B is that it would cause problems for our negotiators and impose burdensome administrative measures on our trading partners. Demonstrating equivalence of standards is a complex and technical task that involves delving deeply into the cowsheds, chicken huts and legislatures of other nations. I feel that our amendment in lieu is a better way to achieve the goal.
We stood on a clear manifesto commitment that in all our trade negotiations we would not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare or food standards. As I have said many times before, we need a range of tools to help us achieve that goal. The first tool is legislative. The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 transferred all exiting EU food safety provisions, including existing import requirements, to the UK statute book. These include, as I have said several times before, a ban on chlorine washes for chicken and hormone-treated beef. Any changes would require new legislation to be brought before this Parliament, and I do not see any appetite for that.
The second tool is the regulatory body, the independent Food Standards Agency, and Food Standards Scotland. The third tool is consumer information. Earlier this year I committed to a serious and rapid examination of the role of labelling in promoting high standards and high welfare across the UK. We will consult on that at the end of the transition period, so very shortly.
The fourth tool is Parliament, which plays an important role in scrutinising our trade policy. The Government have provided a great deal of information to Parliament on our negotiations, including publishing our objectives and our scoping assessments before the start of talks, and we also work very closely with the relevant Select Committees. However, during the passage of the Bill it has made it clear that further parliamentary scrutiny of trade deals is desirable. That is why we have tabled an amendment requiring us to report to Parliament on the impact of new trade agreements on the maintenance of our food, animal welfare and environmental protection standards. This proposed new clause would add a duty on the Secretary of State to present a report to Parliament before or alongside any free trade agreement laid before Parliament under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 procedures. The Secretary of State for International Trade has said that the Government will find time for debate. If Parliament is not satisfied, it can delay ratification through the CRaG process.
Turning to Lords amendment 18B, the Government will in fact go further than is proposed. We are putting the Trade and Agriculture Commission on a statutory footing, with a provision to review it every three years. This will be done through a Government amendment to the Trade Bill, which has finished in Committee and is about be considered on Report in the House of Lords, where the amendment will be introduced. That will ensure that our trade policy is examined in detail by key experts. This House asked for parliamentary scrutiny of trade deals, and I am delighted to provide it.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
Can I take the Minister back to amendment (a), because she moved on before I got to make my point? Subsection (5) of the proposed new clause provides that any report would have to be laid before Welsh Ministers and Scottish Ministers. Can she outline what would happen if those Ministers, or indeed Northern Ireland Ministers, disagreed with the content of the report?
Victoria Prentis
The whole purpose of the reporting mechanism is that it will not just be for Parliament, or indeed any of the devolved Administrations, to object to the report; it will be publicly available and, I suspect, widely scrutinised—we have all seen how interested the public are in these matters. In those circumstances, I am quite sure that we would find a way of discussing the matter in this place, so that the views of the Commons could be tested in the normal manner. Were that situation to arise, I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman would find a way of making his views and those of his constituents clear.
Victoria Prentis
I will not, because many Members wish to speak and I have been asked to be as quick as possible.
We are putting the Trade and Agriculture Commission on a statutory footing. The House asked for scrutiny of trade deals, and I am pleased to provide it. Parliament will have the reports from the Trade and Agriculture Commission, and it will have time to study the texts and specialist Committees in both Houses to examine them in more detail. It will be the lawful duty of Ministers to present both Houses, and indeed the devolved Administrations, with the evidence they need to scrutinise future trade agreements.
I believe that the Government amendment provides a comprehensive solution that really gets to the heart of this important issue. I therefore urge the House to reject Lords amendments 16B and 18B and to accept the Government’s amendment in lieu.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Before I call the spokesman for the Opposition, I warn Members that there will be an immediate limit on Back-Bench speeches of three minutes. We obviously have very little time and many people wish to speak, so the shorter the better. I remind Members that brevity is the soul of wit.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
I rise to speak in support of Lords amendment 16B. Like the Minister, I declare an interest: my little sister is a sheep farmer in Cornwall. I thank all farmers for their work throughout the covid-19 pandemic and the work they will be undertaking during the second lockdown.
We have been here before, and we may yet be here again. I welcome the Government’s adoption of large parts of Labour policy since the last time we spoke about the Agriculture Bill. I have to say to the Minister that we are not quite there yet, but we are nearly there. The vote on food standards today is being followed by people in all our communities. It is a decision about what type of country we want Britain to be. I want Britain to be a country of high standards that respects the welfare of animals and ensures that environmental protection is baked into our food chain. We therefore continue to press Ministers to put our high food and farming standards into law.
I turn to the Government’s concessions and the amendment in the Minister’s name, which puts them into action. I am glad that, after voting against attempts to strengthen the Trade and Agriculture Commission a short time ago, the Government have changed their mind and listened to farmers, the National Farmers Union and Labour, in particular, on strengthening it. I thank Ministers for their efforts, and in particular the Farming Minister for her personal effort in trying to reach a compromise on that. I am grateful for all the work she has done. In particular, I thank Lord Grantchester, Baroness Jones and the Lords Minister, Lord Gardiner, for what has taken place. It has been a team effort, and it has included the work of the National Farmers Union and Minette Batters.
The Minister was up against a hard deadline to pass this Bill because of the Government’s decision to oppose an extension to the powers in the Direct Payments to Farmers (Legislative Continuity) Act 2020, which Labour proposed when we discussed this on 21 January. We suggested that Ministers take an extra 12 months of power so that they would not be up against a deadline, and I recall Ministers saying that that would not be necessary. It turns out that a bit of forward planning is a good thing. I encourage Ministers to look at such amendments the next time we introduce them, rather than arguing against them simply because of where they came from. It is important that farmers are paid.
Working side by side with our nation’s farmers, we have helped to secure two key concessions from Ministers. The first is that the Trade and Agriculture Commission should be put on a statutory basis, renewable every three years. That will happen in the form of an amendment to the Trade Bill. That amendment has not yet been published, so we cannot see the words, the meaning and the effect that it will have. When will we see the Government’s Trade Bill amendment on strengthening the Trade and Agriculture Commission so that we can understand how it will work legally with the new clause in this Bill?
We know that the International Trade Secretary and the Environment Secretary have not always agreed on food standards. The truth is that I do not trust the Department for International Trade not to break any promises once this Bill is passed. It is clear that despite having one Government, we sometimes have two competing food agendas. Will the Minister confirm that discussions about the wording of the amendment will take place with the Opposition and will involve DEFRA and DIT Ministers?
Will the Minister also give a commitment on the membership of the Trade and Agriculture Commission? Although it is broad at the moment, we feel it could be strengthened by an enhanced consumer voice, and with trade unions being part of it. I know that there is a proposal for trade unions to sit on a small union sub-committee, but having unions—a voice of the workers in our food sector—as part of that main body would be important.
The second concession that the Minister accepted was to enhance the scrutiny of trade deals, in recognition that the proposals put forward previously were inadequate. Strengthening that is supported on both sides of the House. There is more that can be done here. That is an argument that the shadow International Trade Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), and I have been making consistently, but I feel that we can go a wee bit further.
I welcome that the Government will require a report to assess any trade deals against the standards of animal welfare, environmental protection and plant health, but this is extra scrutiny; it is not a vote on this matter. That is what we agreed and I think what should happen. The amendment the Minister has tabled only proposes that the report will be laid before parliamentary Committees and not to the House itself. It will not be subject to an automatic vote; only to a circuitous and fragile route. The House will know that, for a vote to happen, the CRaG process requires that the Government, in their generosity, would award the Opposition an Opposition day to challenge the trade deal if that trade deal falls below the standards we expect, regardless of what the TAC report may say.
Luke Pollard
I will carry on for just one moment, if I may.
The Minister says that a deal can be prayed against, but what we need is a proper system of parliamentary scrutiny, not a reliance on the benevolence of any Government Minister to afford the Opposition an Opposition day. To avoid any further ping-pong, I would be grateful if the Minister could guarantee now, and furthermore say in a published ministerial statement, that the Government will not unreasonably refuse an Opposition day for that purpose, in particular when it comes to a vote on any food standards in any future trade deals.
I want to press the Minister on the wording in Government amendment (a). We have spoken about this and I hope she will be able to give some clarity. The wording “consistent with” is used in relation to our own standards. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out where that has the same legal meaning as “equivalent to”. Many Lords had a similar concern about that and I would be grateful if she could set out the difference around what that means. I also think there is a logic to using production standards as one of the areas. I know the Government can ask the Trade and Agriculture Commission to look at things beyond what is in primary legislation, so I would be grateful if the Minister could look at whether production standards could also be used in relation to that.
Will the plans for parliamentary scrutiny include deciding negotiation objectives, consultation, access to texts during negotiations, and a statutory role for the relevant Select Committees as well as the TAC? The duty in the Government’s new clause is to report to Parliament on to what extent commitments in new free trade agreements relating to agriculture products are consistent with maintaining UK standards. Will the Minister explain if that will allow deals to let in imports of those products, provided that it is merely reported to Parliament, or will that provision enable goods produced to lower standards to be stopped from entering the UK?
Jim Shannon
One important factor for us in Northern Ireland, and especially in my constituency, is the milk sector. It is very important that the high standards we have in our products which are sold across the world are maintained. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that under the Bill the high standards we have will be maintained by every other country in the world that will have a chance to bring their products into the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Luke Pollard
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for intervening. I think that is a point the Minister should address in her remarks as well. We should be a beacon for high standards. As the Minister herself moved an amendment to the Fisheries Bill on seal protection precisely to enable our trade with the United States, which had higher legislative standards on seal protection—not on other things, perhaps—we need to make sure that that works on both sides of the Atlantic. That is a good principle that I hope the Minister will adopt.
I am mindful of the time, Madam Deputy Speaker, so will quickly run through this. We need to put our food and farming standards into law. Farmers have a genuine and widespread concern about that, and I think it is still missing from where the Government have moved to. The movement from the Government is welcome. It showed that the arguments the Government whipped their MPs to support could be further improved, an argument made by Conservative Back Benchers, as well as Labour. I believe there are further concessions that could help to undo the final concerns on this matter. I want to see farmers paid. I want to see the Agriculture Bill put into law. I expect that many of these issues will return to us when the Trade Bill comes back to this House.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to rise to support the Government amendments this evening. I am sure the Whips will be delighted to hear that. I thank the Prime Minister for his involvement in getting us to this solution. I also thank the Secretaries of State for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and for the Department for International Trade, and I thank the farming Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), for all her hard work in bringing us all together. I believe that this is a very good day not only for agriculture and food, but for the environment and animal welfare in this country and across the world.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
The hon. Gentleman knows that his opinions are very well regarded in Ulster by many of the farmers there. What would he say to the farmers in my constituency? Does he believe that the Bill, with the amendments that he is supporting, now addresses the concerns that have been expressed by farmers and consumers across Ulster about food standards, and are they now properly protected?
Neil Parish
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I believe that it does, because it brings us the opportunity to have the Trade and Agriculture Commission on a statutory basis for three years. That has to report on every individual trade deal and it will give us that opportunity to scrutinise them, but it will be up to all of us Members in this House to make sure that the Government do stand up to the high standards. That is what I would say to the farmers of Ulster.
The work that the Government have done to bring this forward over the weekend has been very welcome. We have recognised the need to put our manifesto commitments in law and give everyone confidence that our standards are a priority and will not be traded away. This new Government amendment to the Agriculture Bill, along with extending the Trade and Agriculture Commission in the Trade Bill, is very welcome and I will be voting for the amendment.
Our Lordships—I pay particular tribute to Lord Curry—have rightly kept the pressure up with their amendments and helped to bring this about tonight. Government Members, along with the National Farmers Union and others, have been working very hard to find a way that we can show our commitment to the highest standards of food production in law. The Government amendment to the Bill is not quite perfect, but I accept that it is very hard to put these things in legislation, and they have moved a very long way from where we were. I am very grateful for the fact that we are here tonight and I think that all my Government colleagues can very much come together on this. We all know that trade deals are a tough business. Every country wants the very best for its business and its people.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I think the hon. Gentleman is right. There is no reason why we would wish to reduce our food standards in the United Kingdom, especially since we export all around the world on the basis of our high food standards. Has he any concern that the role of the commission will be to look at trade deals and make recommendations as to their impact but that it will not have the ability to change the regulations if the Government should decide to go down the route of changing them?
Neil Parish
I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for his intervention. The commission will not have the powers to stop proposals but it will have the powers to bring them to this House. Therefore, it is very much for us to make sure that we raise that and drive this through. The measures will also make it more difficult for the Secretary of State for International Trade to sign away animal welfare in a future trade deal because of the commission.
I have said from the start that I am pro-trade with any country, but we do need fair trade. We also need to make sure that we have good negotiating teams that will gather years of experience in negotiating, because it is absolutely essential that we get good trade deals. We need to use all our experience and expertise in Parliament, Government and across the industry so that we are wise to the challenge that new trade deals can present. I want deals that deliver for British farmers and help them to sell more brilliant produce across the world, such as lamb and cheese—dare I say it, from Devon, but also from the whole United Kingdom—into America and Scotch whisky to India, and I know that the Government are really keen to ensure that this happens. Let us use organisations such as the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, which has a levy paid into by farmers, to get our market open in developing markets, with a high British standard of food and with us presenting it well across the whole of the world’s markets. We need to back British food and get it out into those markets, because until people have actually tasted our great British food, they will not realise how wonderful it is, and the moment they have tasted it, they will want more of it. We really can do this.
I very much welcome what Ministers are doing and the beefed-up Trade and Agriculture Commission. We need fair trade, not just free trade; they are compatible. I believe that we will see good trade deals in the future but we will maintain standards. I assure the Minister that all of us on the Government Benches, and I suspect those on the Opposition Benches too, will hold the Government to account, and I look forward to us delivering these good and fair deals in the future.
Deidre Brock
My inbox has been full of messages from constituents looking for food standards to be maintained. I know from conversations with colleagues that their inboxes have been filled, too, and we know from comments that we have heard already today that other Members have had similar experiences. If Ministers will not protect those standards in legislation simply because it is the right thing to do, perhaps they will consider doing it because there is huge public pressure for it.
Throughout the passage of this Bill and in other debates, we have never been given an adequate reason why the Government are so determined to keep food standards off the face of legislation. We were told that they should not be in this Bill but in the Trade Bill; come the Trade Bill, we were told that they should not be there but somewhere else. We have been told to trust the Government to deliver, and that future deals could be scrutinised by Members. Indeed, we have just heard that from the Chair of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish).
We are always being told, “Not here, not now,” but we have never been told why exactly the Government are so opposed to putting food protection in legislation. The EU manages it and other countries manage it, so why not the UK, particularly in view of the overwhelming support from the public and our agricultural communities? I would be happy to give way if any member of the Government wanted to let us know what the thinking is there, and why the standards we are told will be insisted on are not written into law. It is an issue that causes grave concern to food producers and consumers, because the guarantees that help to protect farm businesses also help to protect the health of people who pick up their food from the shelves of supermarkets.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
The hon. Lady says she has received a great many emails about this from her constituents. I hope she has gone back and told them about the triumvirate of checks and balances that are now in place from CRaG, the Trade and Agriculture Commission and the International Trade Committee. The Government have put in place the mechanisms to scrutinise all that. That is the solution to this situation.
Deidre Brock
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but of course he is talking about scrutiny in the face of a Government with a nearly 80-Member majority. We have no way of pushing that forward if we disagree with whatever comes up in whatever trade deal comes before this House. The Government’s majority means that those of us on the Opposition Benches will be completely overruled. That argument is spurious, frankly, and I am afraid that many in agricultural communities, and certainly many of my constituents, simply do not believe the Government.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
Will the hon. Lady give way?
Deidre Brock
No, I am going to get on for the moment —and I can see that Madam Deputy Speaker is encouraging me to do so.
Lords amendment 16B is a watered-down version of those protections, not the gold standard that people were hoping for, but it is what we have. Surely, it is something that Ministers can accept, given their repeated insistence that food standards will be respected in trade deals. Similarly, Lords amendment 18B would be a tiny imposition on ministerial life but, likewise, a little reassurance that is worth having. I recognise, however, that it will fall in the face of the Government’s amendment in lieu.
I am afraid that the Government’s amendments fall far short of offering us any reassurances or any meaningful way forward, and that the future for high-quality food production and consumer confidence in the end product is in danger. [Interruption.] I hear the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) chuntering from a sedentary position about the National Farmers Union Scotland. Just today in the Scottish Affairs Committee, we heard from the NFUS on its concerns about the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill—the potential for a dive to the bottom in food standards that comes with it, and its relationship to what happens in trade deals on the back of the Agriculture Bill and the forthcoming Trade Bill—so the NFUS still has its reservations.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
Like the hon. Lady, I have had many emails from constituents raising concerns about this. Does she agree that part of those concerns stems from the time it has taken the Government to come back and the fact that they have repeatedly issued confusing messages about this matter? There is deep concern that the way the Government have responded has not really dealt with it.
Deidre Brock
I absolutely agree. That is basically what I am attempting to get across. I feel very much—the contact I am receiving from constituents across agricultural communities indicates that this is also how they feel—that this is a sop, really. The Government are encouraging Back-Bench MPs to vote for the Bill and ensure that it gets through, but this House will have no meaningful way to stop anything that endangers food standards in future trade deals when they come before us. I suppose it is a step forward that reports have to come before the House, but it is not enough. The future of high-quality food production, potentially animal welfare rights and consumer confidence in the end product are in danger.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to be here this afternoon. I thank Ministers—in particular the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis)—for the work that they have done and for listening to the concerns that we have all expressed. I also thank Minette Batters, the president of the NFU, for her tireless work with the EU this year, and Lord Curry, Lord Grantchester, Lord Gardiner and their other lordships for their work and for listening and putting the Trade and Agriculture Commission on a statutory footing, as we have all been asking for.
This is a good moment, and not just because Government Members get to honour our manifesto commitments, which were sincerely made and taken by the public. It is also crucial for us to make Brexit a moment when we take back control of trade so that we can protect UK standards, ensure a level playing field for our farmers and go further by using our market leverage as one of the great markets of the world to promote UK leadership in modern farming: low carbon, low water, low plastic, low input, high productivity farming—the very farming that we need to be exporting around the world. To that end, we need to be looking in the Trade Bill at the use of variable tariffs to promote the export of British agricultural leadership around the world.
This battle now goes to the Trade Bill, where I will be pushing for three key things. First, I want a proper impact assessment for all trade deals, including the impact both for this country and for the third party. I congratulate the International Trade Secretary on renewing our trade arrangements with Kenya, which is an interesting and important market for us. I would like to think that we might be able to go further in due course and have a trade deal whereby we in this House could understand what it means for Kenyans as well as for agriculture in this country. After 15 years, we have lost the architecture for assessing the impact of trade deals, and we need to put that back in place so that this House can understand exactly what it is voting on.
Secondly, I want us to explore variable tariffs. What I mean by that is a world in which, yes, it is wrong that the EU imposes a 40% tariff on food from Africa—I am pleased that will be moving away from that—but also where we rightly do not accept food that is unsafe. I want us to imagine a world where we put a basic tariff on food that is safe but not produced to the standards that we would like to encourage, and zero tariffs on food produced in the way in which we need the world to produce it—with less carbon, less water and less plastic—and to use that to help drive our exports.
Thirdly, I would like us to put in place proper parliamentary scrutiny that is better than the CRaG process to ensure that we hold Ministers to account on the aims of trade deals and on the final terms, so that the House can show that we have used this moment genuinely to protect UK farmers, to make sure that they have a level playing field and to show our support for the best of British farming and all that it stands for.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I rise in support of the amendments from the other place. In recent days, the Government have moved to address some of the concerns that I and other Members have raised in this House, and we welcome that progress.
Let me make it clear that I do welcome the announcement by the Trade Secretary that the Trade and Agriculture Commission is to be placed on a statutory footing with an extended remit. It is good news, and it is of some comfort to the industry and to consumers. I would echo the sentiments expressed by the Ulster Farmers Union that it is a step forward and a win for those of us who have lobbied hard for enhanced protection for our agriculture industry. However, right now, as I see it, this is not enough.
Right now, with what we know—and I recognise amendment (a) tabled by the Government—I see no reason why Members who want to protect our standards and who really believe this must be done would disagree with the amendments from the other place. Indeed, if the Government’s good intentions are genuine, they ought to support these proposed changes to the Bill, legislate today and remove any question mark over the commitment to protecting our industry and our consumers.
The remit of the Trade and Agriculture Commission still does not go far enough. It does not have the legislative power to stop the imports of food that do not meet the demands we place on our own industry. Yes, we can be told by the Trade and Agriculture Commission what to do, but it is advisory, and for that bar there is no legislative blockage. For me and my colleagues, that is simply not enough. It is not that cast-iron guarantee that legislative protection will be given.
In the election campaign one year ago, the Conservative manifesto stated that, in exchange for future funding, UK farmers
“must farm in a way that protects and enhances our natural environment, as well as safeguarding high standards of animal welfare.”
The message was clear: “If you farm in the UK and want to benefit from financial support, we have certain demands of you that must be met. Make the standards or derive no public funding. Make the standards or we will not do business with you.”
A huge burden is placed on our own industry, and it is a burden that it embraces at considerable cost, so why are this same Government unwilling to go further and legislate to place the same requirements on those outside this country? Why not legislate today, and remove any doubt? Today provides an opportunity to provide the absolute clarity our farming industry needs to say that we have its back.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
In putting the environment at the heart of our new system of farm support, this is one of the most important environmental reforms for decades. I was proud to be the one to introduce the Bill to Parliament in my previous role as Environment Secretary.
Dismantling the common agricultural policy is, of course, one of the key benefits of Brexit, but there is no doubting that this legislation, although not a trade Bill, has been overshadowed by trade matters. Like the Chairman of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), I warmly welcome the significant concessions the Government have made on trade. Setting up the Trade and Agriculture Commission, extending its duration and putting it on a statutory footing will toughen up scrutiny of our trade negotiations in this country. It will also provide invaluable support and an invaluable source of independent expert advice for this House. It will strengthen our ability to hold Ministers to account on trade and farming issues, as will the requirement in Government amendment (a) to report to Parliament on how any future trade deals impact on food standards.
I welcome the statement at the weekend from the Trade and Environment Secretaries that the bans on chlorine-washed chicken and hormone-treated beef are staying on the statute book and will not be lifted, even if our negotiating partners ask us for this. Real progress has been made, which is why I will vote with the Government this evening, but this is not the end of the campaign on trade and food standards. This Government were elected with a stronger commitment on animal welfare than ever before. We must use our new status as an independent trading nation to build a global coalition to improve animal welfare standards.
Many countries use trade agreements to impose conditions on their partners. Even the US has fought lengthy battles in the WTO over protection for turtles and dolphins. It is possible, so while the debate on the Bill is drawing rapidly to a close, the task of scrutinising UK trade negotiations is really only just beginning and will require continued vigilance by all of us in this House. We must ensure that our negotiators stand firm and refuse to remove any of the tariffs that currently apply on food unless it is produced to standards of animal welfare and environmental protection that are as good as our own. The UK market for food and groceries is around the third largest by value in the world. Greater access to it is a massive price for any country. We should not sell ourselves short.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I rise to support the Lords amendments, but I acknowledge the progress that has been made in putting the Trade and Agriculture Commission on a statutory footing. I do not think that I am being churlish when I say that the Government were dragged kicking and screaming to do this; I am just stating the blindingly obvious.
The progress that has been made is testament to the campaigning prowess of the NFU, Minette Batters and, indeed, the whole farming community; otherwise this matter would not have come to this place a few weeks ago, would it? So it is blindingly obvious that the Government’s heart is not in this. Nevertheless it is a step—[Interruption.] Government Members grumble from the Benches opposite. Why did they not fix this a fortnight ago if they meant it?
The reality is simply this: we support free trade and fair trade, which is why we are deeply concerned that, still, this Government amendment, which is an act of progress, will finally be subject to a scrutiny process that culminates in a CRaG procedure. In other words, it is take it or leave it from a Government with an 80-seat majority. We know what matters to this Government—the getting of a deal not just with America, but with other countries. Let us make sure that we remain healthily sceptical, as I know every single farmer in the country will be.
There is a reason why we think that fair trade as well as free trade matters to British farmers: we fear the undermining of the very unit that makes up British farming, makes it special and, indeed, underpins the animal welfare and environmental protections of which we are rightly proud, and that is the family farm. I just want to draw to the Minister’s attention something that she could mistakenly do in just a few weeks’ time that could do as much damage as an unfair trade deal. It is the phasing out of basic payments in just eight weeks’ time, which is seven years before the new environmental land management scheme will come into force. That is 60% of the revenue of livestock farmers that will begin to be phased out from January. It is between 5% and 25% of their BPS incomes from January.
I am simply saying that we want our family farms to survive through to ELMS being available. We support ELMS by the way, but we cannot surely take away people’s major income and then make them wait seven years until the new one comes in place. If the Government are committed to maintaining and protecting family farming and the benefits that it brings to our landscape in the lakes and dales, to biodiversity, to food production, to tackling climate change and to preventing flooding, they need to keep those farmers in place in the first place. I respectfully ask the Minister to look again and maintain the basic payment scheme at its full level until ELMS is available for everyone.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
There is a quote that says, “There are two things that you should never see made—laws and sausages.” We are in a unique position today to be discussing a law that will help to make sausages. The reason that quote is said is all this bartering that we see going on back and forth, with ping-pong from our unique position here in the UK Parliament.
Following on from what the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) said in the previous speech, we can discuss how we got to here, but surely we celebrate the fact that the Government have listened to the Opposition parties, to those of us on these Benches, to the NFU and to the NFU Scotland. Minette Batters has been mentioned many times in this debate, but I want to pay credit to Andrew McCormick, the president of the NFU Scotland, and his leadership team—his vice-presidents and his policy advisers Clare Slipper and Jonnie Hall—who have constructively worked with the Government to get to the stage that we are at today. That is positive for the way that we do politics in this country and for the way that we can improve legislation going through this Parliament.
It was not an easy decision for me to oppose the Government a couple of weeks ago, but I supported the amendments at that time because there were no alternatives on offer from the Government. Tonight, the Government have brought forward a positive alternative, and even those on the Opposition Benches, through gritted teeth, have accepted that the Government have gone a long way to meet the demands of Opposition parties, and all those who have contributed to negotiations on the Bill. I think that is welcome, and we should celebrate a Government who are willing to improve their legislation to deliver the needs of MPs and the campaigning groups that engaged with us. We will have a better Bill as a result of that, and I am therefore pleased to support the Government tonight.
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
As a relatively new MP, I have been astonished by the commitment of this Government, the ministerial team and the Parliamentary Private Secretary to put the rights of farmers and this great nation at the front of this outstanding Bill.
On my election, I became forged to representing the interests of farmers and the farming industry in my constituency. Farming comes up on a daily basis, and I would like to speak personally about that, rather than about the international scene. The farmers of Derbyshire Dales are of hardy stock. They are wedded to the rugged land and the livestock they raise. They are farmers such as Simon Frost, who picks me up in his Land Rover and takes me around the land that his family has farmed for centuries, and his wife, Suzanne, who has spent her working life in science and animal welfare. They are custodians of land, such as Sir Richard FitzHerbert at Tissington, who showed me around the dales that he and others love so much.
I am also grateful to the agricultural team at Bakewell, and to Alastair Sneddon, auctioneer, who goes out of his way patiently to brief me on the ins and outs of what is happening. Because of those constituents I stand here today to support this outstanding Bill. My constituents have also been well served by the National Farmers’ Union, represented by Andrew Critchlow in Matlock, by Jane Bassett from Hartington, and by Andrew Broadley from Derbyshire Dales.
Derbyshire farmers were understandably wary of newcomers, and I was one of them. Although I had small landowners and tenant farmers in my family, it took them a while to accept me, and to understand that I had their interests at heart. Once elected, I made it my mission to badger the poor ministerial team—they know what I mean—and I sat on the Bill Committee, and worked jolly hard for my constituents whenever I could. I know and am confident that this Government have the interests of farmers and the rest of the population at their heart, and that includes local issues in constituencies such as mine. I think about Hartington Stilton, Dovedale blue cheese, Peakland White, and Peakland Blue, and I know that Ministers have the backs of my constituents who work in those small businesses, and who possibly wish to go global.
We were elected on a manifesto of commitment and of not compromising our standards, and we will not do so—the passage of the Bill has proved that. We have maintained existing protections in law through the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, and the Bill contains many safety and reviewing features. I am so proud of what we have achieved. This is a listening Government. The jewel in the crown has to be the Trade and Agriculture Commission, and I am delighted by the expertise of those who contribute to that. I therefore support the Bill.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
I shall keep my remarks brief, out of courtesy for those further down the call list, but also because there is little left to say about the Bill and the Government’s ambitions therein. I support amendment 16B and its provisions on equivalence for agrifood standards in relation to future trade. The amendment places a benign requirement on the Government to have, as a negotiating objective in trade deal negotiations, the ambition of achieving equivalence of standards. While noting that, I would point out the Secretary of State’s insistence that proponents of protecting food standards, environmental protections and animal welfare standards are seeking to mandate precisely the same standards as we produce here in the UK. That is a tendentious misrepresentation of the pursuit of equivalence, encompassing as it does the same or higher standards.
Amendment 16B does not tie the Government’s hands when negotiating or bind them to any requirements and outcomes, meaning that the Government would still be free to prioritise other negotiating objectives above the duty to seek appropriate equivalence thereby representing the wateriest of all provisions, which if the Government oppose it—as they will—should leave us all very concerned.
I have to say that the Minister has been very generous with her time in discussing these matters with me and listening to my deeply held concerns about the Bill. She debates in such a conciliatory and kind way that I come away believing that she has agreed with me when in fact she has done no such thing in any given instance. [Laughter.]
If this is the last thing I say on this subject, I will observe that I believe the Government have wilfully lost sight of the fundamental importance of the material we are legislating for. We are transacting frameworks for the import of production domestically, not of timber or textiles or televisions, but of the foods that we will eat, and that is what is at risk when the Bill passes unamended, as it inevitably will. The food we prepare and feed to our children has not received the protection it deserves, and nor has its intrinsic worth been recognised—a theme which is manifest in the Agriculture Bill, but also in the Government’s Trade Bill and, of course, the detestable smash-and-grab United Kingdom Internal Market Bill. Everything I have done and said in the passage of this Bill has been in the interests of those working in farming and food production in Angus, in Scotland and across the whole of the UK. The people of these islands deserve better than this, whichever nation they call home. Scotland will have better than this, as the dawning of independence supports.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
I thank the Minister for her incredible work on the Bill, and may I thank the Conservative party—every other Member has thanked their party—because we put this in our manifesto and we have delivered. We promised high standards on animal welfare, and we have kept that promise. We promised that our farmers would be protected, and we have done that. We have fulfilled and honoured what we said we would do. We have taken the EU commitments that we had, and we have brought them into statute.
I thank the Government for listening to farmers, and I am proud that our party is the voice for the British farmer. I welcome the new partnership with the Department for International Trade, but I hope that we will look not only at how we can protect ourselves, but at how we can promote the British farmer; how we can package ourselves; how we can put our delicious cheeses, apples and wines on the lips and in the stomachs of our North American colleagues so that they long for the delicious food quality standards that only we can provide.
Look at the success of Yorkshire Tea, which increased its consumer value in the US by 950% this year alone. That shows what can be done with a strategic plan to market our amazing agricultural products abroad. I welcome the Bill—
Joy Morrissey
I am wrapped up. One more thing I would say is that I am grateful that chlorinated chicken will not grace these shores.
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
Much of the debate on this significant and ambitious Bill has homed in on animal welfare, food and environmental standards as part of our future trading relationship as we leave the EU. It is fair to say that this has been a difficult issue that has caused tension and concern, meaning that at times it has been easy to forget that we all want the same thing—namely, not to compromise on the UK’s already high standards in each of these important areas. Indeed, my objective has always been to ensure that Cheshire farmers are at the heart of a trade policy that maximises opportunity and does not undermine those standards.
That is why—as those on the Front Bench know very well—I have pressed upon Ministers the need to widen the remit and increase the length of the Trade and Agriculture Commission so that it has the real teeth that we now see in the amendments. Those amendments before us and those to future Bills will go a long way to enabling many of us to support the position we have now reached. I think they also reflect well on the work that has been done by the NFU—including NFU Cheshire and its chairman, Richard Blackburn—and many others to get us to this position. By putting the commission on a statutory footing and ensuring proper parliamentary scrutiny of all trade Bills, we have reached a sensible, legally sound template for ensuring the maintenance of our animal welfare, food and environmental standards, which will put us in a strong position to export our standards and our great British goods and produce further and wider across the world.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
We have more time than I thought. I call Wera Hobhouse to speak for two minutes.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Goodness—two minutes! I will just rush though this. The Lords were absolutely right to try to strengthen the Bill. They are listening to British farmers and British people, and this House should, too. My constituency of Bath is home to one of the first farmers’ markets in the UK, where local producers sell directly to local people who can be reassured that they are buying quality food produced to high standards. Our city’s UNESCO world heritage status is strongly linked to our green surroundings, and our fields, hedges and trees are all symbols of our agricultural heritage. Many towns and cities across the UK are the same. They are home to small family-owned farms that are run by people who want to farm and who know farming.
I have watched this Government slowly renege on their promises to British farmers, telling them to compete internationally or die. Are we to subsidise them to run their farms as public parks for the recreational benefit of city dwellers? Can the Government not understand why this is causing a great deal of anger? One million people signed the NFU’s petition to protect the British food standards, and this issue is not going away. The Government say that the Trade and Agriculture Commission will have teeth and that there is therefore no need to enshrine British food standards in law, but teeth for whom? Concerns about chlorinated chicken and hormone-produced beef have been dismissed as alarmism, and attempts to protect British food standards have been brushed off as protectionism disguised as self-sufficiency. The Government are not the people who will stand up for British farmers; we on this side are. Instead, they will force farmers to lower their standards in order to compete. That is not good enough, and we will support the Lords amendments.
Victoria Prentis
The Bill has been much improved by more than 100 hours of debate, and I do not mean to give it much more. On the trade and agriculture amendments to the Trade Bill, we will work closely with DIT throughout the drafting of this amendment, and we will together agree the final version. Union reps have been involved in TAC roundtables, and I am happy to ask DIT to explore what more can be done. I do not know who the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) thinks NFU Scotland, NFU Cymru and the Ulster Farmers Union represent if it is not farmers from the devolved Administrations. All those bodies are represented on the Trade and Agriculture Commission at the moment.
The report that we promised today would be laid before Parliament, and it would be public. If standards in a future trade agreement were lower than ours, there would rightly be a public outcry. We would expect the Government to give time for debate, whether as an Opposition day or otherwise. The situation in the last Parliament has undoubtedly left us scarred, but it was, thank goodness, very unusual. It would be extraordinary, in the circumstances of the Government laying such a report, to refuse all requests to provide time. I have had a meeting with Clerks from both ends of this building to discuss that and they confirmed that that was the case.
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill
Wednesday 4th November 2020
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 View all Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Messages as at 4 November 2020 - (4 Nov 2020)
18:29 - The House divided: - Ayes: 333 / Noes: 264 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendment 4B. If Lords amendment 4B is agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.
Lords message considered forthwith (Programme Order, 19 October).
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 4B.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendments (a) to (c) in lieu of Lords amendment 4B.
Kevin Foster
Lords amendment 4B relates to family reunion and unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. I am sure that hon. Members will have in mind the tragic events in the channel last week. Let me reiterate very firmly that the Government are determined to end these dangerous, illegal and unnecessary crossings to ensure that lives are not lost and that ruthless criminal gangs no longer profit from this criminal activity.
As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary recently announced at the Conservative party conference, we intend to reform our broken asylum system to make it firm but fair. We intend to bring forward legislation next year to deliver this, allowing for a wider debate on the subject. Our reformed system will be fair and compassionate towards those who need our help by welcoming people through safe and legal routes. It will also be firm and stand up for the law-abiding majority by stopping the abuse of the system by those who raise no founded claims through protected routes but do so purely to frustrate the implementation of our immigration law and procedure.
Let me reassure hon. Members that the Government remain committed to the principle of family unity and to supporting vulnerable children. We have a very proud record of providing safety to those who need it through our asylum system and world-leading resettlement schemes, and we are determined that that continues. We have granted protection and other leave to more than 44,000 children seeking protection since 2010. The UK continues to be one of the highest recipients of asylum claims from unaccompanied children across Europe, receiving more claims than any EU member state in 2019, and 20% of all claims made in the EU are in the UK.
The Government understand the importance of this issue, and it is right that we continue to debate it. Lords amendment 4B is well-intentioned in seeking to ensure that adequate protection is in place for vulnerable asylum-seeking children. However, we have made a credible and serious offer to the EU on new arrangements for the family reunion of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. It remains our goal to negotiate such an agreement. As my noble Friend Baroness Williams announced in the other place on 21 October, in the event of no negotiated outcome, we will pursue bilateral negotiations on post-transition migration issues with mutual interest countries, including on family reunion for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. Government policy has not changed on this matter.
However, it is worth noting that the UK already provides safe and legal routes for people to join family members in the UK through our existing immigration rules, all of which are unaffected by our exit from the EU, as they apply globally. In the year ending June 2020, the Government issued 6,320 refugee family reunion visas and have issued more than 29,000 in the last five years. This shows that our existing refugee family reunion routes are working well, and these routes will continue to apply, including to people in the EU, after the transition period. Our resettlement schemes were the largest in Europe over the last five years, directly resettling more than 25,000 people from regions of conflict and instability, half of whom were children. During the debate in the other place on 21 October, the Government committed, as part of this vital work, to conduct a review of safe and legal routes into the UK, including those for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in EU member states to reunite with family members here in the United Kingdom.
The substantive amendment that the Government have tabled in lieu, amendment (a), makes important statutory commitments, demonstrating the Government’s assurances to review legal routes to the UK for people seeking protection in EU member states or seeking to come to the UK to make a protection claim, including for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children to join their family members here in the United Kingdom; to publicly consult on legal routes for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in the EU seeking to join family members in the UK; to lay a statement before Parliament providing further details of that review and public consultation within three months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent; and to prepare a report on the outcome of the review, publish it and lay it before Parliament. Amendments (b) and (c) concern commencement of the commitment in amendment (a) to lay a statement before Parliament and specify that it will come into force within three months of Royal Assent.
I trust Members will agree that amendment (a) in lieu is substantial and clearly demonstrates how seriously this Government take the issue of family unity for vulnerable children. It is important that we consider these routes, to discourage vulnerable children from making the dangerous and illegal journeys that can result in the kind of tragedy we saw last week. Due to the scope of the Bill, amendment (a) refers only to legal routes for those who have made an application for international protection in an EU member state or are seeking to come to the UK from a member state to claim protection here. However, I can confirm that the review we conduct will be concerned with legal routes from all countries, not just EU member states. That is in line with our new global approach to the future immigration system and ensures that there is no advantage to making a dangerous journey across the Mediterranean, often organised by criminal trafficking gangs. Those granted permission under these routes can instead travel safely—via scheduled air services, for example—to the United Kingdom.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Minister tells us that the system is working well and that it would be dangerous to change it, and for that reason, the Government are not going to change it. What purpose is served by a consultation in those circumstances?
Kevin Foster
We are happy to look at a proper review of the rules. Our current rules apply alongside Dublin for those who are within the EU. We think it is appropriate to take stock, as we are doing with the rest of our migration system, as our arrangements fundamentally change with the European Union. We are happy to make the commitment to review them for the future; that is part of the general stock-take we are doing. It is not unreasonable to highlight our record on resettlement and this country’s commitments and the actions it has taken, compared with the commentary we sometimes hear. I am sorry to hear that the right hon. Member does not see a review of the rules as the way forward, but I am sure that he and his colleagues will look to proactively and positively engage with the discussion that this amendment and the review will engender.
It is now essential that the Bill receives Royal Assent without further delay if key elements of the Government’s future border and immigration system, including the new skilled workers routes as well as social security co-ordination, are to be implemented as planned. Further delay would put at risk the ending of free movement at the end of the transition period, which means the UK would effectively continue to have free movement, but unreciprocated by the European Union, into 2021. We cannot accept a delay to that key manifesto commitment. I therefore hope that, for all the reasons I have outlined today, the House will now support our amendments (a), (b) and (c) in lieu, and the statutory commitments they contain, and disagree with the Lords in their amendment 4B.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
I want to start by thanking the Minister for taking the time earlier this week to explain the Government’s amendments in lieu, and for writing to me and others today with further details. Although we do not have a problem with the Government’s amendments—on the contrary, we welcome the opportunity to review all the safe and legal routes available to those fleeing war, torture or persecution and who have grounds to seek asylum in the UK—the review offered still falls a long way short of the commitment that we have asked for in Lords amendment 4B.
The review is a welcome addition to the Bill, but the fact that it is to be introduced through an amendment in lieu of ours makes it feel somewhat hollow by comparison. The Minister will be aware that support for our amendment in the only slightly varying drafts in the other place, spearheaded so ably by Lord Dubs, has resulted in two significant Government defeats, and efforts in the Commons have consistently had support from Members on his own Back Benches. I want to thank them for their work on this, not least the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). He and my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), through their work on the Home Affairs Committee, have championed the merits of continuing the routes for unaccompanied child refugees.
We ask the Minister one more time to reflect on why adopting the Dubs amendment in its entirely is not just critical but time-critical. We debate the amendment today with 56 days to go until the Dublin regulations end, and with them the lifeline they offer, and we fall back on the immigration rules. We also debate the merits of our amendment, as the Minister has already said, in the shadow of such tragedy in the English channel this year. The sinking of just one of those insecure boats just last week resulted in the loss of life of four people, two of them children who were just six and nine. A further 15 people were taken to hospital, and three more are missing, presumed dead, including the 15-month-old baby of the Iranian Kurd family who died. It is a truly harrowing reminder that people are making more and more desperate decisions as this Government’s squeeze on safe and legal routes continues. It demonstrates that the morally bankrupt traffickers, who allow children and adults alike to get into their dangerous boats and set off to sea in bad weather, will continue to exploit people in the worst possible ways unless we reopen and continue those safe and legal alternatives, family reunion being one of them.
The deliberations and ping-pong between the two Houses on the matter of family reunion or the question of accepting unaccompanied child refugees should not be politically contentious. We are a decent and humanitarian country that takes seriously the requirement, enshrined in international law, to consider asylum claims and offer refuge to those fleeing persecution and destitution, and the Minister has rightly spoken of our country’s proud record on that.
When the House previously considered Lords amendments to the Bill, the Government rejected Lords amendment 4—the earlier version of this amendment—citing financial privilege, as is so often the parliamentary way. I am inclined to agree with Lord Dubs when he said:
“Given the time we spent on the issue and its importance, to say that the technicality of financial privilege is sufficient to dispose of it…falls short of being humanitarian”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 October 2020; Vol. 806, c. 1595.]
I heard the Minister’s contribution and read his letter earlier today, and it remains the Government’s goal to seek new arrangements with the EU for the family reunion of unaccompanied child refugees. However, when he responds, could he update the House further? We understand that the Commission simply does not have a mandate from the member states to enter into negotiations on this issue with the UK, so those talks simply cannot progress as things stand. With that in mind, the Minister will know that his review does not commit to continuing the route, and he has offered no substitute to bridge the gap between the European co-operation ending and the possible restart of routes or any new routes that result from his proposed review. The Government’s rhetoric on the anticipated sovereign borders Bill has not given us hope on that front, but if he is serious about finding a way forward and continuing the family reunion co-operation that we are currently committed to, I urge him to support the amendment.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I am going to call the Minister at 6.27 pm, and the questions will be put no later than 6.32 pm. There are a number of MPs on the call list, so please show some self-discipline in order that we can get in as many as we can.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I rise to speak in support of Lords amendment 4B. I was disappointed to hear the Minister dismiss it as just well intentioned. I think it is absolutely essential. With just eight weeks to go before the Dublin arrangements for family reunion fall, we have had the tragic drownings in the channel recently; mercifully, but surprisingly, such cases are rare.
Here we go again. This is the last remaining amendment that has come back from the Lords, and it has done so with a vengeance. It was a big defeat for the Government in the other place, by 320 votes to 242. Lord Dubs has led the charge on this ably and eloquently over many months, and he spoke with huge passion. The debate in the other place was just about financial privilege; as he put it, that
“falls short of being humanitarian and falls short of respecting the opinions of this House.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 October 2020; Vol. 806, c. 1595.]
Many in this House think we must do better, and I find it extraordinary that the Government are still digging their heels in for the sake of about 500 highly vulnerable children.
The Government have produced their own amendment. I have no objection to it; it is perfectly innocuous. It commits to a review of safe and legal routes, and that is welcome. It is the least that can be expected, however, because it is what the Government have promised all along in the light of the welcome overhaul of the immigration system and the continued suspension or non-renewal of previous safe and legal routes. Simply adding the Government’s amendment to the Bill will not guarantee the replacement for the Dublin family reunion scheme that we have been promised for so long—despite the fact that, as the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) has said, there is no negotiating mandate from EU member states.
The amendment gives no timescale for when measures may be introduced, if they are to be. Neither does it give details about how extensive a replacement scheme may be, given that the Government’s separate refugee family reunion scheme is much more restrictive about family members who can reunite. Part 11 of the rules applies only to pre-flight children seeking to reunite primarily with parents, and provisions on reuniting with uncles or aunts, for example, are subject to very strict criteria and high evidential thresholds.
Let us look at those thresholds by considering the ability of a young teenage boy on the Greek islands to reunite with an aunt or uncle in the UK—a case that we raised with the Minister in the Home Affairs Committee this morning. The Minister made it sound as though that would be no problem, but it will not work in practice for most cases. That child would have to apply under rule 319X, which technically allows children to join uncles, aunts, cousins, siblings or any other family member who is not a parent and who has the refugee status of humanitarian protection. However, the requirements that have to be met are very onerous, and there are strict evidential requirements.
The child would be able to apply under 319X, but only if the uncle or aunt is a refugee, not if they are British or have other status, unlike in the Dublin regulations. The child can apply only if the uncle or aunt can maintain and accommodate them. That is a very high threshold, and it is much higher than the one in Dublin. The child can apply only if they can show that
“there are serious and compelling family or other considerations which make exclusion of the child undesirable”—
that is a very high test that is hard to meet, and there is no such test under the Dublin regulations—
“and suitable arrangements have been made for the child’s care”.
The child can apply only if the uncle or aunt can afford the £388 fee to make the application. The uncle or aunt cannot be a refugee with indefinite leave to remain; they must only have limited leave to remain as a refugee. That is an absurdly high bar to meet, and I suspect the Minister knows it. Frankly, it is no substitute for the safe and legal routes that are available now, which have worked well and have been responsible for saving hundreds of highly vulnerable children.
That was the only alternative scheme that the Minister could offer the Home Affairs Committee this morning. He claimed that some 7,400 refugees—it fell to one of the officials to look this up on the computer in front of them—had been issued family reunion visas in the year to March 2020. But they are from outside the EU. The scheme is welcome, as is the fact that we have brought those people in. The Government are to be applauded for targeting some of the most vulnerable families and children, who are genuine refugees from some really dangerous parts of the world, and that has worked exceedingly well. They are all from outside the EU, however, so the scheme does absolutely nothing for the children we are talking about. As things stand, on 1 January 2021, an unaccompanied child in a squalid French refugee camp or on the streets of Italy, or any of the 1,600 unaccompanied children on the Greek island of Lesbos—where a refugee camp recently burned down, as the hon. Member for Halifax mentioned —or a child orphaned because their parents were killed by a bomb in Syria, by terrorists in Afghanistan, or by disease or famine in sub-Saharan Africa, will have no obvious mainstream means of applying to join a last remaining sibling, aunt, or other relative in the UK. Safe Passage, to which I pay great tribute for its work on this issue, says that some 40% of the cases that it supports in France are of siblings trying to reunite. That is the reality.
Given that, I am afraid that all the assurances given by the Minister at the Dispatch Box and at this morning’s session of the Home Affairs Committee pale into absolute insignificance and irrelevance. I have set out what the position will be on 1 January 2021, in eight weeks’ time, unless a deal is negotiated and agreed before then—and a deal on a Dublin replacement is not even being discussed at the moment.
I have asked previously for a serious replacement for Dublin III, and a Dubs 2 scheme; the previous Dubs scheme did an extraordinary job of rescuing 480 very vulnerable unaccompanied children from dangerous parts of the world. I ask the Government, as a last-ditch effort to show their good will and commitment to a practical scheme that we know works, to roll over the terms of Dublin, at least until a new scheme is in place. I also ask them to give the go-ahead to the more than 30 councils across the country that have offered places to over 1,400 refugees like these refugee children, and to provide the financing for that.
We are not talking about a huge number of children. We are, however, talking about some of the most vulnerable children, who find themselves in hopeless and dangerous circumstances through no fault of their own—the sort of children we have a proud record of helping, and the sort of children whom we helped through the Dublin scheme, and can continue to help if the Government will make this concession. The Lords amendments would achieve that. Let us not let those children down.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). We provide safe, legal routes so that fewer people feel compelled to try the more dangerous alternatives, with all the tragic consequences that they can entail, as we saw recently. The simple fact that should determine how we vote tonight is this: if the Government successfully resist Lord Dubs’s amendment, there will be fewer, not more, safe, legal routes for people from the start of January.
Bilateral agreements that might replace some features of Dublin are months, if not years, away. There is no prospect of a negotiated settlement with the EU on this issue by the end of December, so in just a few weeks, people who could previously have reunited with family members in the UK will not be able to. They will turn to people traffickers and smugglers instead, or attempt other dangerous crossings themselves.
The Minister has pointed to the domestic immigration rules on family reunion. While some who will lose rights under Dublin will be able to use those rules, very many will not. Those domestic rules are indeed very different from Dublin and more restricted in scope, and often include significantly more difficult legal tests and evidential hurdles, as the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham set out.
I think the Minister knows that the domestic rules are not a substitute for Dublin, so he pointed to the possibility of a review. I thank him for speaking to me about that earlier this week; we will engage constructively with that, but the offer of a review is too little, too late. It simply holds out the possibility that something might appear further down the line to fill the gap left by the loss of the Dublin rights. First, we should be sceptical about whether anything robust enough will ever appear. Even the Government’s proposal to the EU for a post-transition successor to Dublin was in reality a significant watering down of Dublin, under which children’s rights would be subject to the Government’s discretion and appeal rights would be abolished, while other individuals would lose their rights altogether.
Secondly, even if the Government were to come up with something acceptable down the line after this review, the gap between the start of January and that replacement appearing will be hugely damaging in itself. People are not going to wait to see what might happen. From January, with the safe Dublin route closed, more vulnerable people in Europe with family here in the UK will be tempted by and driven towards the traffickers and the dangerous routes. If the Government want a sensible compromise, and it has already been suggested a couple of times in this debate, at the very least they should offer to keep the Dublin routes open for now until the promised review takes place, and alternative proposals come forward and are approved.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the hon. Member for keeping his comments brief. I do not intend to put on a time limit, but if people can keep to roughly Stuart C. McDonald’s length of speech—about four minutes—we will get fairly well everybody in.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
This Lords amendment should not be a point of party political disagreement. I agree with every word that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) said. He is a fellow member of the Home Affairs Committee, and the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) is also a member of the Select Committee. We may disagree on many things, but on this we are in strong agreement, as we are with my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch).
When in the past we have helped child refugees, we have done so on a cross-party basis—be it, generations ago, with the Kindertransport or, in more recent years, with the Dubs amendment put forward by Lord Dubs, himself a child of the Kindertransport. We have done so with the investment through the aid budget supporting refugees across the regions, and with the resettlement scheme, which many of us called for and the Government rightly brought forward, to help many Syrian families restart their lives. The same principle should apply here as well.
We have always had cross-party agreement that we should do our bit to help children and teenagers who are alone with no one to look after them, and who have fled conflict and persecution but have family here in the UK who can care for them, put a roof over their head, try to make sure they get back into school, look after them and give them back a future. It is something that every one of us would want for our own families if we, for a moment, just think about walking in others’ shoes and about the awful plight of families in this situation, torn asunder by conflict or by persecution. I have teenage and adult children and, like so many of us, I would want them to be back together or to find others who could care for them from within our family if something terrible happened.
While the Government’s proposed review will, I hope, be important in looking at safe and legal routes to sanctuary, it is not an alternative to the Lords amendment. Reviews take time and consultation takes time. All of those things take time, and we do not know yet where it will end, but at the moment the rules change in January, and therefore it is not an alternative for the children and teenage refugees who may be in need of support to rejoin family now.
The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham set out clearly why the current rules do not suffice to provide that support, but Safe Passage provided us with the reason why there is so much at stake when it described the case of a 14-year-old teenage boy on the streets of Paris, whose brother is here. Safe Passage had worked with him to get him off the streets into secure accommodation, to get him support from social services and to get him into the legal process to apply to rejoin his adult brother, who is in Scotland. However, the boy and his brother became deeply anxious that the rules were about to change at the end of December, and he has now left that accommodation. He has absconded, and nobody knows where he is. The message he left behind said, “I have heard that the law will change. What will happen to me?” The huge risk is that he may now end up in the arms of people smugglers or people traffickers, trying to make a really dangerous journey. We have seen the consequences of those awful, dangerous journeys in flimsy boats, with lives having been lost so recently—children’s lives have been lost as well.
I urge the Minister to think again and go with the spirit of the things he told us this morning about wanting to be compassionate towards child and teenage refugees. I urge him to keep these provisions in place, to accept the Lords amendment and to recognise our continuing obligation to reunite desperate families. If he wants to look at this again once his review is in place, he will have done no further harm to those families in the meantime.
For the sake of these teenagers and young people, whose safety and lives may otherwise be at risk, I urge the Minister to accept the Lords amendment.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I very much welcome the Minister’s restating of the commitment to safe and legal routes, which we all recognise are critical to tackling the risks of trafficking. I also very much welcome the commitment to existing family reunion routes.
One issue that has not received enough attention in the debate around child refugees is the humanitarian issue of what happens to them after they arrive in this country. It is important that I ask the Minister to consider some of those wider implications, because they are enormously significant in making a decision about the UK’s attitude to so many of these questions. They are vital to our care system, to local authorities and, of course, to local communities, because the children and young people we are talking about in the context of this specific amendment and debate are a very small proportion of the number the UK is involved in supporting. Indeed, from 2015, we saw around a doubling of the annual number of unaccompanied children and young people coming into the care of local authorities in the United Kingdom under the terms of the Children Act 1989, partly as a result of the Government’s commitments, but also in recognition of the fact that determining the narrow legal status of a child refugee before they arrive here and ensuring that is sustained after their arrival is something with which this debate and the legislation struggle.
One of the big challenges I have always found, having worked with the noble Lord Dubs on these issues for some time, is that the idea that Dubs created a very specific route that opens up an opportunity often turns into an illusion for these children once they arrive,. I have personally come across many examples of young people who have been lined up to come here to be reunited with a family member only for it to transpire that the family member is in no position to care for them, and that young person is, in fact, simply being lined up to be taken into the United Kingdom care system. That, of course, is the ultimate destination for many unaccompanied child refugees, because that is what our legislation requires.
Although I very much agree with the points raised by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), we need to consider not that Dubs is unique in and of itself but that, actually, it concerns a very small, flexible and variable number within a much larger number of child refugees who are coming into the care of the United Kingdom.
When the Minister looks at the wider capacity picture, he should speak to the 30 councils that have come forward and said they would like to take Dubs children. He should ask them why they are not willing to make those places available to the large numbers of existing asylum-seeking children who are in the care of local authorities while looking for openings under the national transfer scheme. That would enable many of these children, many of whom may turn out to be Dubs eligible anyway, to move into the care of a local authority in a different part of the country. That is a critical question.
In conclusion, I welcome much of what the Minister said. I simply ask him to provide in his response a commitment on the future of global resettlement. We all recognise that this is a very small part of that much bigger picture. A clear commitment from the Government about when the scheme will commence and what its resourcing will look like would provide assurance of what the future framework is for so many vulnerable people around the world and maintain the UK’s reputation as providing a safe and honourable route to a safe haven for those who genuinely need it.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds). I have heard him speak on this matter in the past, and he does so with clarity and some experience and authority. Of course, he is right to bring these problems to the attention of the House. I would observe in passing, however, that the problems he highlights are, relative to the problems we will have if we remove the Dublin scheme, easy problems to have. The state, as we all know, is not a good parent. We have seen that not just in relation to refugees, but in relation to our own constituents. Frankly, however, those are problems that can be solved when you have used the safe legal route to get children here. That is really what is at stake here.
The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) was absolutely forensic and clinical in his dissection of the Government’s policy and response. It was an absolute masterclass that should be played to future generations of new Members. He is absolutely right. He laid bare the paucity of the position the Government have taken for reasons that I still fail to understand. The Minister said we would doubtless engage proactively with the consultation he referred to. Of course, he is absolutely right. We will do that. My colleagues and I will never pass up an opportunity to put the case for the creation of safe and legal routes. However, it is no substitute for the House now stepping up to the plate and meeting its obligations and responsibilities, moral and legal, in providing those safe and legal routes.
The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), the Chair of the Select Committee, said that we should walk in the shoes of those who find themselves in this position. She is absolutely right about that. I do not know if I am the only person in the Chamber at the moment who has ever gone to sea in November in a gale. Having been born and brought up on Islay and representing Orkney and Shetland, it is just part of what you do. It is absolutely terrifying. Being at sea when a gale blows up is absolutely terrifying. I remember one occasion waiting on a pier to go on a ferry with my own children. I decided I would not take them. It was a modern ferry. It was well-equipped and would have had every rescue availability if something had gone wrong. It was a ferry that would only go to sea because it had a responsible captain who felt it was safe to do so. But I was not going to put my children through that, because they were young and they would have been terrified.
So how bad have things got to be before any parent would consider the possibility of going to sea at this time of year, knowing the possible consequences that we saw in the channel so very recently? That is what at stake here. The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford is absolutely right. We should put ourselves in the position of those who find themselves in that position. If we do, the Dubs amendment looks like a very modest proposal indeed.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
Rasoul Iran- Nejad, Shiva Mohammad Panahi, their daughter Anita, eight, their son Armin, six, and their 15-month-old baby, Artin—just the latest people to have lost their lives attempting an unsafe passage across the English channel. They are real people, not just a statistic. The Institute of Race Relations research found that 292 people have lost their lives crossing the channel to the UK since 1999, with the numbers steadily increasing since 2013. Those statistics are tragic enough, but behind each one lies the story of a human being so desperate to escape war, famine, destitution or persecution that they will take unimaginable risks to reach what they believe will allow them security and a safe life. It is not enough to express sadness, or thoughts and prayers as the Home Secretary did, because actions speak much louder than words.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Before I call Tim Farron, I would like to say that at 6.27 pm and no later, the Minister will be up on his feet. You know that Jim Shannon is on the list and it would be nice if you could at least ensure that he is able to make a contribution.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow so many well-informed, logical and compassionate speeches in this important debate. In the Home Secretary’s party conference speech a few weeks ago, she talked about the vast importance of refugees using legal routes to come to the UK. I think all hon. Members present agree and all—or most—are bemused as to why she would close off a route such as this, which is relatively modest, as has been said.
The ire that is focused on criminal gangs is absolutely justified, but we push people into the arms of those criminal gangs if we close off safe and legal routes. Wherever the negotiations with the EU end up, the chances are that we will need to bring in our own domestic policy that offers young people and families the opportunity to be reunited on these shores.
I will make four quick points. First, the numbers are few. The reaction of some newspapers, and from the mouths of some Ministers and others, is a colossal overreaction to the numbers of people actually travelling. Yes, it is more than we would want—it is a sign of something utterly heartbreaking—but we are not talking about the tens or hundreds of thousands that some of us have seen in south-eastern Europe over the last few years. The numbers are few, so let us not overreact with the sabre-rattling rhetoric that we sometimes hear from the Government and the Conservative party.
Secondly, the stakes are high, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) encapsulated. I remember being on the shores of Lesbos a few years ago as a boat came in, and talking to a family afterwards—a five-year-old girl, three-year-old girl, mum and dad. The dad ran a garage in Syria and the mum was a nursery schoolteacher. They were relatively comfortable, but they took a colossal and unspeakable risk, because staying was more risky. The stakes are high, so how dare we put barriers in their way?
Thirdly, the objections are poor. I often hear people talk about the pull factor, but there is a push factor, for pity’s sake. Those people will try to find a way to our shores by a safe and legal way, or by utterly brutal and dangerous ways, unless we provide those safe routes.
Finally, this is not worthy of us. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) rightly talked about our national character. I think it was a couple of days ago that Sir Ben Helfgott was honoured in the Pride of Britain awards. I am massively proud of Ben Helfgott because he is one of the 300 Windermere boys. There were 300 young people—mostly children—rescued from the death camps after the end of the second world war who came here and were resettled literally on the shores of Lake Windermere. They were accepted, brought back into some kind of civilised existence and set on their way, and they achieved wonderful things like Ben did. That is the Britain that I know and love. Accepting refugees from Uganda, from Kosovo—that is what makes Britain Britain. It is just beneath us to be finding reasons and excuses not to say yes to the entirely reasonable Lords amendment that provides a safe and legal route for family reunion, and prevents people from being pushed into the arms of dangerous criminal gangs.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for gently asking the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) to leave time for me to speak; I thank the hon. Gentleman for doing so. I will take no more time than anybody else. I also thank the Minister for the discussions that he has had with the Democratic Unionist party, particularly with my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), who said that they were very useful.
I have concerns about the long-term detention of mentally ill people, who would be vulnerable detainees. Will the Minister outline in his response how he believes the Bill addresses the deficiencies highlighted in the troubling cases of ASK and MDA in 2019? I am sorry that I did not have the chance to give the Minister these notes in advance; I intended to do so, but overlooked it. Concerns have been expressed to me that at-risk adults do not have sufficient protection, and everyone who has spoken has highlighted the importance of full protection, which is even more necessary for vulnerable people.
Like other hon. Members, I have some concern about children who have lost parents—children who are in France, as the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) mentioned, with a relative in the United Kingdom. We need to ensure that those families can be reunited; we should be trying to do that.
The Minister and I have talked on many occasions about immigration issues and the rights of European economic area nationals to come over here to work on fishing boats. I understand that the issue is not for this Bill, but the Minister indicated some time ago that we would have a meeting. In fact, if it had not have been for covid-19, we would have had that meeting in Portavogie in my constituency of Strangford over Easter. I feel very strongly about the issue and want to make sure that it is on the Minister’s horizon. I know that he was keen to have that meeting. I was also very keen, along with the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and other Members who wanted to address the same issue, which is why I wanted to put it on the record again.
Let me quickly mention another issue. I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief. We have asked the Minister and the Government to consider allocating a proportion of places to people who are fleeing countries in, for example, the middle east. I am thinking of Christians from Syria, Iran and Iraq. I would like to see whether it is possible to specify a percentage who could come to the United Kingdom. I thank the Minister and the Government for the relocation of some Syrian refugees, who were able to integrate into my constituency of Strangford. They came in from Syria with absolutely nothing—some were not even able to speak the language—and the whole community came together to ensure that they were looked after, including the Housing Executive, church groups, community groups and everyone else. That is a lovely example of how things can work. The Government enabled it to happen, and I thank them for that. However, there are other Christians and Christian families who, I believe, should have the opportunity to come and relocate here as well.
A nation is marked by its compassion for others. Every one of us in this Chamber for this debate, including the Minister, wants to see that compassion used in the legislation to ensure that those who our hearts burn for are able to come here.
Kevin Foster
It is always a pleasure to follow my good friend, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and to reflect on his comments. It would be a bit out of scope for me to get on to fishing, but I recognise his campaigning on freedom of religious belief. He raises again the points we make about the challenges that are still faced globally by those fleeing persecution, merely because they express the same faith that he and I, and many in this Chamber, share. He also talked about how those who relocated from Syria or the region had resettled and been integrated into life in Strangford, with excellent support, I am sure.
That brings me on to the interesting speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds). I know he has long engaged with this issue, both since his arrival here and, crucially, beforehand, through his work as a councillor and through the Local Government Association. His reflections were interesting, particularly when he made the point about offers being mentioned, and asked why were they not actually made, in order to support Kent? Also, when we hear about offers being made in Europe, I think that it reveals the differences in the debate. The Government’s view is that now that we have left the European Union and the transition period is coming to an end, we are moving away in our wider immigration system from the idea of a two-tier approach to non-EEA and EEA. Why not offer places as part of our resettlement programmes more generally or offer them up to those coming straight from the region? This is one of the reasons why I have had very interesting conversations with the Lord Bishop of Durham about the idea of talent beyond borders, looking at how we can open some of our economic migration routes for those who are skilled migrants—who have skills and abilities—who are currently in camps in the region and have been identified as potentially even having skills that are in shortage in this country.
That is where the core of the discussion goes. We have left the European Union. Is it really sensible to carry on in a system that will replicate a unilateral system that effectively applies only to those who are in a collection of safe and democratic countries that we have now left? Yes, negotiations are ongoing. It would probably not be right for me to give a blow-by-blow account at the Dispatch Box. As we have said, if we cannot achieve a reciprocal agreement with the whole European Union, based on the generous offer that we made earlier this year, we will look to talk to individual countries within the European Union where there is a mutual interest in having an arrangement between us both.
Let me turn to why the Government will not and cannot accept Lords amendment 4B. Part of it requires the Government to lay a strategy for the relocation of unaccompanied children from Europe. Again, this would be rather difficult to deliver and is very broad in scope. My hon. Friend touched on this. Local authorities are already caring for over 5,000 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children—146% more than in 2014—and any move in a policy sense has to be balanced in terms of ensuring what offers are made locally. My local council, not controlled by my party, wrote to me earlier this year saying that we should be doing more for refugees across the world in resettlement, particularly in Europe. I asked them, “What was their offer?” Answer: nothing—after quite a bit of chasing about places. We do need to ensure that what we are offering up is backed up, when people arrive here, by resources and an ability to make a life here.
The amendment in lieu sets out a clear path for a review of our migration rules and is about creating safe and legal routes, including from the region directly. This is not just about avoiding a dangerous trip across the channel; it is about avoiding it and having no reason for a dangerous trip across the Mediterranean as well. That is why I am proud that we are one of the global leaders in resettlement and proud of the record that we have as a nation. When we do this review, we will take forward that reputation and ensure that we have a functioning system, but this time based on our having a global set of migration rules and not on a system that we were part of due to being a part of the EEA.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 4B.
Exiting the European Union
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
I beg to move,
That the draft Blood Safety and Quality (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 8 October, be approved.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With this we shall take the following motions:
That the draft Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 8 October, be approved.
That the draft Human Tissue (Quality and Safety for Human Application) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 8 October, be approved.
That the draft Quality and Safety of Organs Intended for Transplantation (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 8 October, be approved.
Edward Argar
Today we debate four sets of regulations that are critical in giving effect to the Northern Ireland protocol for the safety and quality of blood, organs, tissues and cells, including reproductive cells.
All hon. Members would agree that donated blood, organs, tissues and cells play a vital role in life-changing treatments for UK patients, whether blood transfusions to treat major blood loss, heart transplants to treat heart failure, stem cell transplants to treat blood cancer, or eggs and sperm to treat infertility. Patients rely on those treatments every day. Many people would not be alive today were it not for the generosity of donors and their families, and I pay tribute to them.
The UK has always set high standards of safety and quality for blood, organs, tissues and cells, and those standards will always be of the utmost importance to this Government. The current safety and quality standards for blood, organs, tissues and cells are derived from EU law. Last year, in preparation for the UK leaving the EU, the Government made four statutory instruments to fix shortcomings in the current law caused by EU exit. These were made on a UK-wide basis and will come into effect on 1 January 2021. The 2019 statutory instruments maintain the current safety and quality standards across the UK. On 20 May 2020, we set out our approach to implementing the Northern Ireland protocol as part of meeting our obligations under the withdrawal agreement with the EU. We are committed to meeting these obligations, all the while recognising the unique status of Northern Ireland within the UK and the importance of upholding the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.
These four instruments will come into force on 1 January 2021. They will ensure that Northern Ireland continues to be aligned with the EU blood, organs, tissues and cells directives, as required by the protocol. In particular, first, although the safety and quality standards will remain the same across the UK from 1 January 2021, for Northern Ireland those standards may be expressed by reference to EU legislation, whereas for Great Britain they are not. Secondly, the UK regulators for blood, organs, tissues and cells will continue to act as the competent authorities for Northern Ireland in respect of the EU. That means that the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, the Human Tissue Authority and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority will continue to meet the same EU obligations for Northern Ireland as they do now.
Thirdly, these instruments amend the definition of “third country” for imports into Northern Ireland to ensure that we meet the terms of the Northern Ireland protocol but also our commitment to unfettered access. That means that, from 1 January 2021, when establishments in Northern Ireland receive blood, organs, tissues and cells from Great Britain, they will need to treat them the same as those received from outside the EU. In accordance with our commitment to unfettered access for goods moving from Northern Ireland to Great Britain, there will be no changes to the requirements when sending blood, organs, tissues and cells from Northern Ireland to Great Britain. The movement of blood, organs, tissues and cells around the UK is critical for patient treatment, and we are committed to ensuring that this movement can continue from 1 January 2021.
Fourthly, these instruments will require tissue establishments in Northern Ireland to continue using the single European code for traceability purposes, as they do now. Fifthly, the 2019 statutory instruments introduced some limited regulation-making powers into UK law for each of the UK nations. The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 contains the powers needed to make changes in relation to safety and quality of blood, organs, tissues and cells for Northern Ireland. The powers in the 2019 statutory instruments are therefore no longer needed for Northern Ireland, and consequently, these regulations limit that regulation-making power to Great Britain. These instruments also make minor corrections to the 2019 statutory instruments to change references to “exit day” to read “implementation period completion day”, so that the regulations will function effectively at the end of the transition period.
The regulators for the sector are working with licensed establishments across the UK to help ensure that they are ready for any changes that will arise from 1 January 2021. These changes affect only a small number of establishments in Northern Ireland—one blood establishment, one transplant centre, two licensed tissue establishments and four fertility clinics. There will be some minor administrative costs for establishments in Great Britain moving blood, organs, tissues and cells to Northern Ireland.
Legislative competence for the donation, processing and use in treatment of human reproductive cells remains reserved to this Parliament. Competence in respect of all other human tissues, cells, blood and organs is devolved, and the relevant instruments are being made on a UK-wide basis with the consent of the devolved Administrations, for which I am grateful. There is work under way to put in place a common framework between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations to support co-ordinated decision making in the future on the safety and quality of blood, organs, tissues and cells after the end of the transition period.
To conclude, these regulations are vital to the Government’s preparations for the end of the transition period. It is essential that they are made, to allow the UK to fulfil its obligations under the Northern Ireland protocol. The UK has high standards for the safety and quality of blood, organs, tissues and cells. These instruments ensure that the UK will continue to work to those high standards after the end of the transition period and that blood, organs, tissues and cells will continue to move around the UK from 1 January 2021. I therefore commend the regulations to the House.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
There are many great trios and trilogies—we think of the Marx Brothers, the Lord of the Rings or Ali and Frazier, culminating in the “Thrilla in Manila”. This week the Minister and I have had our own trilogy of debates—two upstairs and now one, the main event, in the main Chamber—on three statutory instruments that are pretty much identical, but with different names. I do not see many people from those Committees in the Chamber, so as well as being able to recycle my gags, I can recycle some of my points of substance; I am sure the Minister will forgive me.
These are technical, Brexit-related amendments, but they are also of life-saving importance. They refer to the safety and quality of blood and blood components, organs, tissues, cells and reproductive cells for treating patients. Among other technical changes, they will allow current regulators in these areas to continue as the competent authorities in relation to the EU for Northern Ireland. That is, of course, essential in both legislative and practical terms, so we will not be dividing on these regulations. It is vital that this and the rest of the protocol is implemented in good time. I asked the Minister for this on Monday and Tuesday, but, with fewer than 60 days to go, it is really important to put on the record his assurance that the rest of the protocol will be implemented in time.
The UK legislation for the safety and quality of blood organs, tissues and cells is, of course, based on European law. The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 ensures that the EU-derived domestic legislation will continue to have an effect after the end of the transition period. In 2019, this House introduced regulations to ensure that UK legislation in this area could function effectively after the transition period. However, Northern Ireland will remain subject to relevant EU laws as a result of the protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland, so today these four statutory instruments amend those regulations and allow Northern Ireland to meet European law. This seems to be an area where divergence would not be of great interest across Great Britain and Northern Ireland, so it would be helpful to have some assurance from the Government—again, I have raised this twice this week—that there are no grand plans for significant divergence in this area. Similarly, I wonder whether I might press the Minister on how these regulations will relate to the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill. During the Commons stages of the Bill, we pushed a human tissue amendment to stop unwillingly harvested materials from entering the UK. Clearly, these regulations will have a bearing on underpinning that amendment. We were not able to make much progress in this place, but I am happy to say that, this week, the Government Minister in the other place, during the Lords stages, has indicated a willingness to try to come to a common agreement on this. If we can find such cross-party support in the other place, will the Minister make a commitment to look at this with an open mind?
The OneBlood establishment in Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Blood Transfusion Service at Belfast City Hospital, will of course be able to continue to receive blood and blood components from similar establishments across the UK, but when this happens, Great Britain will be treated as a third country—as it will be. When the Minister was on his feet, I think he said that there would be no great frictions there, but I would like to understand that in practical terms and to have full assurances that there will not be a delay in the use of blood products and that patients will not be injured in waiting to receive them. I think that is something that requires a categorical assurance.
Regarding organs for transplant, we know that the NHS Blood and Transplant service will continue to be responsible for organ donation and retrieval in the UK. Between April 2019 and March 2020, 32 organs from deceased donors moved from Great Britain to Northern Ireland and 126 organs moved from Northern Ireland to Great Britain. Organs will continue moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, but, as before, Northern Ireland-based establishments will now be treated in Great Britain as a non-EU member for these purposes, so we need a firm commitment on the record that this will not, as I say, hinder our ability to move those organs. Clearly, there is a significant need for such an assurance as this is likely to continue on a significant scale.
The Human Tissue Authority says that human tissue establishments will need to vary their licences in order to continue their activities post-transition. This includes establishments that intend to import or export tissues and cells as the starting material for the manufacture of an advanced therapy medicinal product. That is extremely important, so what variance does the Minister foresee? Will there be delays? How will it happen? I wonder what consultation he has perhaps had with such centres.
I wish to make a final point on fertilisation and embryology. What disruption is expected to patient treatment as clinics adapt during the transition period? Can the Minister say what proactive support is being offered to those clinics to limit the impact on patients?
All of this would be much easier if we had a deal arranged. When these regulations were laid in 2019, my predecessor as shadow public health Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), was saying then that there really was not much time to get a deal done, and that was 18 months ago. We have burned through those 18 months and are down to the last two, so, again, we would like a clear commitment from the Minister today that every effort is being made to reach a good deal for ourselves and for our partners, because that is what the British people were promised, and that is what the British people expect. In doing so, we need to make sure that disruption to such important things as those we have been discussing today can be avoided.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to ask some questions on this matter. I would like first to put on the record my thanks to the Minister for the opportunity, which he gives equally to every Member of this House, to bring to him our questions or concerns. He was very kind to do the same for me, and I appreciate it.
I am a great supporter of organ transplants—that has always been one of my goals. I supported in this House the legislation that made them easier. I have also replied to a consultation in Northern Ireland to ensure that similar legislation can be introduced there. I have done that for a number of reasons. First, I believe that it is really important. Secondly, it is personal for my family, because my nephew Peter is a recipient of a kidney transplant. Without that transplant, that wee boy would never have progressed to become the man he is today, and all because someone gave him the gift of life.
I have spoken at length during the pandemic to highlight the importance of organ transplants continuing. Some 3 million people in the UK have chronic kidney disease, including 1,000 children—my nephew would have been one of them all those years ago—and about 65,000 people are being treated for kidney failure by dialysis or transplant. In the UK, 6,044 people are on the transplant list, and 4,737 are awaiting kidneys.
Interestingly, during the covid-19 crisis, more transplants took place in Northern Ireland than on the mainland, which shows why it is so important to have transplant organs going from the mainland to Northern Ireland, and from Northern Ireland to the mainland. The indication from the Minister is that that will happen, which is good news.
At least one person a day will die because they have had to wait too long, and eight out of 10 people waiting are hoping for a kidney. NHS Blood and Transplant has estimated that this change in the law has the potential to lead to 700 more transplants each year by 2030. That might have to be extended by a year because of the pandemic. I hope that the pandemic will not prevent those who need a transplant from getting that opportunity.
I am keen to get confirmation from the Minister in relation to the tissues regulation, which is a very technical matter. I have taken the opportunity to give him a copy of this, and I hope my description of it is appropriate and correct. Many constituents and people in Northern Ireland have raised this concern with me, so I just want to put it on the record, and perhaps he can provide an answer. I would like something clarified regarding the use of “aborted babies and their tissue”, as it is termed. If one reviews the instruments themselves, the word “aborted” is not referenced. The Minister and I have talked about that, and I understand that. However, in this instrument, it would be implied or covered under the broader term “tissue”, which is defined as
“all constituent parts of the human body formed by cells”,
but that does not include
“gametes…embryos outside the human body, or…organs or parts of organs if it is their function to be used for the same purpose as the entire organ in the human body.”
Does the Minister know whether the Human Tissue (Quality and Safety for Human Application) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 address the concerns about the use of tissues or organs from aborted babies, and if so, how is the issue of consent dealt with? My constituents have asked me to ask that question and I want to put it on the record in Hansard tonight, and I know that he will do his best to answer it. I would appreciate it if he could outline that. I am being very honest with you, Mr Deputy Speaker, about where I am coming from, because every cell of that little one is precious and must be used with consent and appropriately, just as is the case with those incredibly brave men and women who chose to donate the organs of their lost loved ones in order to save others.
I am always reminded—I will conclude with this thought—of a person who tragically died as a result of an accident in Newtownards. A few months later his father came to tell me that his son had been able to give seven parts of his body to organ donor recipients. That changed the lives of seven people. I am ever mindful of how important that is. I believe it is a worthy decision, and my family are beyond grateful for those who did this for us. However, we must always ensure that there is dialogue with the family, and this issue must be highlighted at every stage.
Edward Argar
As the shadow Minister alluded to, it always a pleasure, and an increasingly frequent one, to appear opposite him in dealing with delegated legislation. He is of course a fellow east midlands MP, which only adds to the pleasure of appearing opposite him. He raised a couple of broad issues, and then I will come to some of the specific points that he made. As ever, if I omit to answer something, I will endeavour to write to him so that he has that on the record.
The shadow Minister asked about our intention to implement the Northern Ireland protocol and the regulations relating to it in good time. The fact that this is the third piece of delegated legislation relating to the implementation of the protocol that he and I have dealt with on consecutive days is a reflection of our commitment to getting on with it and bringing forward those regulations. We are doing that with his co-operation, for which I am very grateful.
The shadow Minister talked about a negotiated deal. It will not surprise him to hear—he has heard this twice already this week—that the UK Government continue to negotiate with the European Union, and it would be wrong for me to prejudge, either in Committee or on the Floor of the House, the outcome of those ongoing negotiations.
The shadow Minister asked a number of specific questions. He made a point about the divergence of regulations, either now or in the future. As my noble Friend Lord Bethell said in the House of Lords, on divergence from existing EU regulations:
“There may be at an appropriate point in the future an opportunity for the department to review whether the UK’s exit from the EU offers us opportunities to reappraise current regulations to ensure that we continue to protect the nation’s health. When that moment arrives, we will consult, analyse and assess. The regulations put in place the opportunity to do that—but that is for a moment in the future and it is not envisaged in the near future.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 November 2020; Vol. 807, c. GC238.]
On the previous pieces of delegated legislation we have considered, I have highlighted the UK Government’s intent to continue to be world-leading on the issues that we have been dealing with on these three consecutive days.
The shadow Minister mentioned the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill, which is currently going through the other place. As drafted, it will allow us to strengthen the requirements governing the use of human tissues and the development of medicines. Were it deemed necessary and appropriate to do so, powers under clauses 1 and 2 would enable us to introduce new requirements to the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 for medicines manufactured using human tissues. I look forward to the passage of that Bill through the other place and its becoming law in due course. I am confident that it will be in place in good time.
The shadow Minister asked about the movement of blood and blood components, which is a hugely important issue. As he is aware, the UK is largely self-sufficient in the supply of blood and blood components, and it occasionally exports rare blood cells, although fewer than 10 units per year to EU and non-EU countries. Components are frequently shared across the four nations to meet need and clinical demand, and I believe that these regulations clearly ensure that that flow is not interrupted.
On that theme, traffic between Great Britain and Northern Ireland will remain, as it will between Great Britain and the European Union. To give the shadow Minister further reassurance, I am glad to confirm that Northern Ireland will align with the EU, but we are committed to finding a way to work closely with it within the UK common framework, which is currently being developed, to ensure that that trade continues unhindered. He may even have mentioned these figures himself. Between April 2019 and March 2020, the UK exported 13 organs to the EU and imported 13 organs from it. Although those numbers may seem low, each and every one of those organs is vital to the individual receiving it. I am committed to maintaining the freedom of movement of those organs.
Working with industry is a theme that the shadow Minister picked up in others of these delegated legislation sessions. We have already published some guidance, and we look forward to publishing more. We believe that it is absolutely vital that we work with industry to make sure it has all the information and support it needs to make a seamless transition to the new regulations.
It is always a pleasure to see the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) in his place. We missed him for a week or two when he was self-isolating, and the place was not the same without him, so it is a real pleasure to have him back. As ever, he spoke movingly and powerfully of the importance of these regulations in what they do to save lives. I hope I can offer him some reassurance, although the point he raised was a very technical one. He is right to say that that point is not explicitly mentioned in these regulations. I hope that that gives him some reassurance, but if it is helpful to him, particularly in the light of his constituents’ concerns, I or a fellow Minister will undertake to write to him with further clarification, so that he has that on record. With that, I commend the regulations to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Exiting the European Union (Human Fertilisation and Embryology)
Resolved,
That the draft Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 8 October, be approved.—(Edward Argar.)
Exiting the European Union (Human Tissue)
Resolved,
That the draft Human Tissue (Quality and Safety for Human Application) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 8 October, be approved.—(Edward Argar.)
Resolved,
That the draft Quality and Safety of Organs Intended for Transplantation (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 8 October, be approved.—(Edward Argar.)
Business Without Debate
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Delegated Legislation
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Covid-19: Emergency Transport and Travel Measures in London Boroughs
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
Travel and transport are what keep our capital going, and they produced its suburbs. When we add the covid emergency into the mix, however, questions are raised about the disproportionate numbers of black and ethnic minority people and transport workers who died earlier in the pandemic, at a time when they were not getting the protection they needed. Their families are still seeking death in service benefits. There is also the whole question of democracy in the age of the virus, and how we build back better, more sustainably and in a more resilient way on the other side of all this as part of the new normal.
Happily, some of the issues I thought I would be addressing tonight have been overtaken by events. Thanks to the Transport for London bail-out at the weekend, there will be no extension of the congestion charge—phew!—and there will be no charging for under-18s. I pay tribute to our Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan—so much better than the guy before, isn’t he?—for all that.
That leaves me with emergency traffic orders, which are those controversial things that have enabled pop-up cycle lanes, pavement widenings—some people call them “road smallings”—and controversial low-traffic neighbourhoods all over our capital. They have followed a sequence of implementation now, consult later.
I want to make a confession: I am a confirmed, long- standing cyclist, dating back to when I went to school in what is now my constituency every day in the ’80s. We now have more bikes than people in our household. My own offspring replicate that journey in the ’90s when I was at Cambridge University, where it was almost compulsory to get on your bike every single day. I completely understand the benefits of cycling: it is free, it takes us door to door, and it is environmentally friendly. I am a confirmed cyclist.
These low-traffic neighbourhoods seek to get us all on two wheels or on foot, in a move towards active travel—a modal shift. We can still get everywhere we need to go in a car; they just mean we have to go the long way round. A good recent example is Bowes Road in Acton, which first became known to me because every BBC cabbie, when they took me up there, would go down it rather than the A40. Residents hated that because their road had turned into a thoroughfare and they could not get out of their houses. Now a low-traffic neighbourhood has been introduced there, and they love it. There are these oversized flower pot things called planters, and bollards, and the residents have been able to reclaim their street. In that instance, a pre-existing problem has been dealt with and rectified.
However, colleagues from every compass point of London, some of whom are here today, have told me about examples of LTNs that are not well-designed and are not working, in neighbourhoods that are already naturally low-traffic neighbourhoods. These things popped up with no consultation and no notice, even, and it feels to people like they have been inflicted on them. We have seen large-scale opposition all over London, with tens of thousands of signatures in Wandsworth and in my own borough, and in Islington I think there have been marches.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady agree that a number of the changes that have been made have had a really negative impact on the taxi trade? The licensed taxi is one of the most accessible forms of transport. If we block it out of key routes such as Bishopsgate, we make it more difficult for people with mobility issues and disabilities to get to the places they need to get to.
Dr Huq
The right hon. Lady makes a really good point. We have relied on cabbies—remember that taxi exam, the knowledge? That is completely invalidated by these changes. She makes a really powerful point. I think people feel discombobulated because these changes are so radical and dramatic, and they appear to have come out of nowhere.
I think that policies work best when policy makers take the public with them and act for them, rather than doing stuff to them, which I think many feel has happened. In our borough there are 37 different schemes, with over £1 million of funding. The most controversial is LTN 21—they all have these rather Stalinist names. Oh, sorry—I will be in trouble. Across three wards, nigh on every side street has been blocked; it has turned the area into a convoluted maze of planters at odd angles. The right hon. Lady referred to commercial vehicles. Delivery vans have become more and more prevalent in the pandemic; they are completely outfoxed by these measures.
When news of this debate broke on a local forum, hundreds of replies—they were going up by the minute—came in with things that I should raise, so I will try to give voice to some of those.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I do not know whether the hon. Lady is more concerned about having been insufficiently enthusiastic in her mention of Stalin or having been too enthusiastic in bringing him up. In the context of low-traffic neighbourhoods, does she think that a good deal of consultation and discussion with the emergency services is critical? That has been a consistent problem with the implementation of LTNs, certainly in the view of my constituents and many others.
Dr Huq
The hon. Gentleman speaks so much sense. We are at one on Heathrow—actually, I think all three of us who have spoken so far are—and he is right. In theory, these people are not allowed to express an opinion, so the leadership say, “Yeah, fine,” but the people who have to implement these things—the ambulance personnel, police people and fire officers—all think that they have made a difficult job ever more difficult at a time when every second counts. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
I am sure my hon. Friend is reflecting the views of some of her constituents, but does she share my concern that while we worry about sending car drivers around the long way, pedestrians have to walk a long way down the road to find a safe place to cross every single day and no one ever notices, because it is so normal for pedestrians’ needs to be put behind those of the motorist?
Dr Huq
My hon. Friend is right. Pedestrians often feel at the bottom of the food chain. Actually, walkers have contacted me saying that they have got nothing out of this. Cyclists have got new cycle lanes, but they seem to have been a bit forgotten in all this. I think the key thing is to take people with you and get consent, and that also means consultation.
Other issues that have popped up include kids being distressed at the much elongated minibus journey to the Log Cabin disabled children’s adventure playground. Elderly and infirm people and their carers are also affected. When we say, “Oh, the sat-nav will update”, they are a bit befuddled because they use the old-fashioned “A to Z”, as do I actually. I have a case of a lady who had regular out-patient appointments at a central London hospital, but has now been discharged because the taxi gave up on too many occasions, so that is a bit serious. This affects all sorts of businesses, such as workmen with all their tools. Shops say that they used to benefit from passing trade on the way back from longer journeys, and that has all gone now.
If hon. Members have a little google, they can see on YouTube how, all over London, traffic that was supposed to be evaporating—it was meant to disappear because, after a while, people have new habits and give up driving—has actually been displaced to main roads. Those are residential roads, and people live there too. They already had unacceptably high levels of pollution, and it has just worsened. If the whole aim was combating emissions, that is undermined when there is a very long way round—five times, 10 times longer, or whatever. In some boroughs, compliance checks that no one is driving through are done with those sinister little motor vehicles that are idling, with NO2 emissions. Again, that seems a little bit serious.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
Does the hon. Member agree with me that consultation is important, but what is also important is signage? One of my constituents approached me to say that the family drives every day from Kensington through the borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, and on the first day that one of these schemes was operating, the family got eight tickets because they were not aware of it and the signage was so poor.
Dr Huq
Goodness me, the hon. Lady tells a chilling story. In Ealing, at least initially, there are no fines—maybe I should not be saying that—so that people get used to it. There is a softly-softly approach. Ultimately, I guess that people do get used to it, but it seems wrong to have that many tickets on day one.
In a global pandemic, life is hard enough as it is, and to make life even harder feels punitive. This policy is well tried in places such as Copenhagen, but this is just copying and pasting that into outer London, a place that people liked because of suburban convenience and because of the grid system.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. I want to draw her attention to a recent report by the Institute of Race Relations called “The London Clearances”. This report found that regeneration projects are being used to actively dispossess working-class communities and low-income families of their homes. This process, which is commonly known as social cleansing, has mostly been understood as a class issue. However, given the over-representation of black, Asian and ethnic minority communities in social housing and the racialised language used to describe London’s post-war housing estates—for example, in the aftermath of the 2011 riots —I believe this is also very much a race issue. Certainly, constituents of mine have been in touch about the impact this is having on them and the fact that some of the measures have been targeted not towards housing estates in very congested or overcrowded areas but areas that have terraced homes—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I am sorry, but interventions by their very nature should be short, and that was very long.
Dr Huq
I thank my hon. Friend for a point that deserved to be made at length. She makes the point about the main roads, and those are people too. They feel two-tiered now: their house prices are probably lower, and they feel they have a raw deal because of the constant gridlock forcing everyone there.
At best, this has been a mixed experience. Where these measures work, where there is a need and where there is consultation, they are really good, but if it is felt that they have been illogically plumped somewhere they are not desired, that is a completely different matter. Somebody said to me the other day that a bollard had been put on a very short road that has got only one house on it. He said he did not ask for it and added, “We feel penned in like animals.”
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
Is not part of the problem the lack of consultation? Has not that been caused by the Government’s insistence that the schemes be implemented straightaway within an eight-week period, not allowing any consultation with communities or very limited consultation at best?
Dr Huq
My hon. Friend speaks so much sense. It is true that it feels that this catastrophising, saying, “Emergency, emergency, we have to do it by the end of September”, with no time for consultation apart from six months later, is just the wrong way round, putting the cart before the horse.
We have had this vote today, and some of us have wrestled with our consciences about the lockdown. On balance, I thought it was the right thing to do, but coronavirus has greenlighted many incursions—some people call them draconian—on our civil liberties, on citizens’ freedom of movement. As I said, I strongly think that to gain consent, we should consult. Pictures have gone viral in Ealing of planters that have been vandalised and bollards that have been ripped out. Yes, that cedes the moral high ground: it is wrong to do that. Vandalism is bad, so it is a moral boost for the diehard proponents of the schemes, but it also shows this is not a consensual policy and that something has gone wrong if that is happening.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the low traffic neighbourhoods are really important in constituencies such as mine, which has the A23 running through it and has so much pollution? Does she also agree that the lack of consultation could have a negative impact on future measures as the public will almost learn to react negatively because they feel like they have not been consulted in the past? We really do need those measures to protect our environment and change the nature of traffic in our areas.
Dr Huq
I completely agree that we have a climate emergency, we have our net zero obligations and we have an obesity crisis, but doing this without a consultation has just got people’s backs up. It sometimes feels that these things have been formulated, not by anyone who cycles or understands local traffic flows, but just in order to satisfy the criteria for a budget where there is money available and time is running out.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
Does the hon. Member agree that low traffic neighbourhoods can sometimes be important for air quality in constituencies such as mine in central London? One council is currently going through a consultation on the Hyde Park estate, and while residents welcome the ending of rat running, they are concerned that they have not been listened to. They have their own ideas and they want to work in partnership with the council to make those work. Does she agree that working in partnership with residents is the way forward for local authorities?
Dr Huq
The hon. Member, and former council leader for where we are now, speaks with authority and passion and makes total sense on this. We need a collaboration between residents, stakeholders and businesses—all the different actors in this—which sometimes feels like it has not happened.
I know the Minister is a reasonable person and I have some questions for her. She is not the type to blame it all on Sadiq Khan, like some people would.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy
On the matter of Sadiq Khan, does my hon. Friend agree that he should be congratulated on seeing off the Government’s plans to extend the congestion charge zone and to begin charging under-18s for travel?
Dr Huq
Of course I agree with my hon. Friend. People would have been charged to go from Ealing to Acton, and possibly to use the A23, which goes to Brighton. It is good that that has gone, and congratulations to the Minister too, if she was involved in that.
We are told that local authorities are the final arbiters, but there is so much mistrust around this. Is there any kind of mechanism to ensure that it does not look as though people are marking their own homework? Would she, or someone, be able to swoop in? The Secretary of State wrote to councils to say that they should have had pre-implementation consultation, and should respect all road users. How will that wish be operationalised, especially in places where the consultation takes place six months after implementation? Surely there is scope for some sort of review before then if things are not working. There have been reversals—wholesale in Wandsworth, partial in Redbridge and Harrow. Could the Minister give some guidance on that? I think some councils are getting a bit entrenched; they are not for turning, or for any modifications.
In the final reckoning, does the Minister think a referendum might be a way forward? The scheme has been divisive in the way that Brexit was—sorry to bring that up, Mr Deputy Speaker, but it coloured all our lives for many years, and it has not gone away. A referendum would be completely equitable. If a council has a consultation tool on its website, only those with the right level of literacy, technology and energy will use it and make that count; what about the elderly and infirm? In a referendum, we could give as options, “Yes, with modifications, if need be”—then if “yes” wins, the modifications can be worked out—and “No” for those who want the measures removed.
Apsana Begum
I will be brief this time. Does my hon. Friend agree that there should not only be consultation, but due consideration should be given to equalities impact assessments, and to determining the socioeconomic impact of LTNs?
Dr Huq
My hon. Friend has read my mind. Impact assessments are missing in all this. There have been no baseline data or traffic surveys. It would be good to have a clear point of measurement, so we can ask, “Did it work?”. How will this be measured?
I have suggestions for the Minister. There are ways to discourage car use other than taking this big-bang approach of setting up all the LTNs at once. Instead of our closing every side road, I would like us to have dedicated, segregated cycle lanes on main roads. More of those, please—but not the bollarded ones, because I feel kettled in those, and people cannot overtake or be overtaken in them. Could she address cycle theft, cycle storage, and even bike grants? Not everyone has the same ratio of bikes as the Huq household, so could she help out there, maybe?
There could be more demand-responsive buses, and we could incentivise lift-sharing; on the other side of the pandemic, we will be allowed to be less than 2 metres apart. Perhaps we could even make public transport free, or cut fares—that was a Khan policy as well. There could be more charging points for electric vehicles. People who have bought those recently feel doubly diddled—or triply, if you count controlled parking zones, but that is probably another debate.
The biggest side-effect of this noble policy, which has good intentions—reducing carbon emissions and obesity, and all that stuff—is that it has dichotomised residents into the Lycra-clad brigade of cyclists versus the greedy, gas-guzzler motorists who feel a sense of entitlement to drive around in a metal box, when most of us are both, if not many other things, too. We all inhabit complex Venn diagrams. I use the tube every day as well as doing all those other things. Just the other day, I was on my bike, near one of those bollards. A guy in a Transit van-type vehicle had to reverse a long way, and started effing and blinding at me for being on a bike. I do not think he knew who I was—I hope not. Anyway, that is what the policy has done: create binaries in previously harmonious communities. What I am trying to say is that a well-intended policy has had unintended consequences, but there is time to rectify them. I know that the Minister is a reasonable person; I am curious to hear her answers to all those points.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Rachel Maclean)
It is a pleasure to respond to the debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) on raising this important subject, which has attracted wide interest from colleagues in all parts of the House. The title of the debate is “Covid-19: Emergency Transport and Travel Measures in London Boroughs”, so it is important that I welcome her support for the generous help the Mayor of London has been given for Transport for London, thanks to the Conservative Government; it will keep London going throughout the pandemic. I put it on record that it was certainly not the Government’s plan to extend the congestion zone. That is a matter for the Mayor of London.
I move on to the subject at hand, about which the hon. Lady addressed a number of questions to me. I am pleased that she is a keen cyclist—we start from a point of agreement there—and I am sure that she welcomes the Government’s record investment in cycling and walking. That is the biggest ever investment to get people out of cars, clean up our dirty air and decarbonise our transport sector.
David Simmonds
The Minister refers to the need to clean up our dirty air, which many of us regard as a high priority, particularly in the capital. Does she agree that it is necessary to make the enforcement powers that we give to local authorities sufficiently meaningful, as envisaged by our local council here under the leadership of my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken)? That would ensure that people who behave in an antisocial way by idling engines near schools, for example, receive a penalty commensurate with the damage they are causing to the local environment, children and other nearby pedestrians.
Rachel Maclean
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. It is right that we focus all our attention as a Government on keeping our air clean through measures such as the one he mentions and others.
Our active travel fund was set up to encourage more active travel, particularly while public transport capacity was constrained. That is why we announced £225 million of active travel funding in May. Many of the points made by hon. Members relate to feedback from their constituents. It is important that those queries and concerns are raised and addressed in the House.
The Government published clear guidance to set out what is expected of local authorities when making changes to road layouts to encourage cycling and walking. Low traffic neighbourhoods are a collection of measures, including road closures to motor traffic, designed to remove the rat-running traffic that can blight residential roads. They deliver a wide range of benefits for local communities.
The Government have consistently made clear to local authorities the importance of consulting on such schemes, which is key to delivering a scheme that works for all. As the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton said, it is about taking local communities with us.
Theresa Villiers
I express great enthusiasm and support for pro-cycling measures, but I have real reservations about, for example, a pop-up cycle lane on Park Lane when there is a parallel one through the park, or a pop-up cycle lane on Euston Road. It seems that, without generating real benefits for cyclists, we are undermining the ability to get around this great city. London is such a huge motor of our economy that the last thing we want to do is damage productivity or connectivity in the capital at this difficult time.
Rachel Maclean
I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend that the schemes need to be designed with care and with respect for the dynamics of the local area. Local authorities are free to make their own decisions about the streets under their care. It is for them to deliver schemes in line with legislation and good practice, including engagement and consultation, and it would be inappropriate for a Government Department to intervene in matters of local democratic accountability.
Local authorities have always had responsibility for managing their roads. They have the powers and the autonomy to do so. Central Government have no remit or powers to intervene in the delivery of local road schemes.
Nickie Aiken
I am interested to hear what the Minister has said about local authorities having the ability and the right to do that. In the capital, however, we have red routes that are managed by TfL under the Mayor. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) mentioned Park Lane in my constituency. The Mayor of London and TfL gave Westminster City Council four hours’ notice that they were putting in that cycle lane. Local authorities have to be held to account, but so do Mayors and the likes of Transport for London. Does the Minister agree?
Rachel Maclean
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The Mayor of London has considerable powers and influence over the roads in the capital. The Department for Transport cannot direct a local authority to halt a scheme, but the local authority in the area of the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton could do that itself and make changes to it.
Dr Huq
People are asking about the letter that was sent to every local authority from the Secretary of State for Transport, and what it actually means. Is that just him huffing and puffing, or does it translate into anything? Secondly, people do not like the term “rat run”. They feel it is insulting to describe getting between A and B in the most direct way, and reducing emissions, as “rat running” if they live there.
Rachel Maclean
I will respond to the hon. Lady’s point about the letter from the Transport Secretary. I think she is referring to the fact that we have already delivered one tranche of funding, and those authorities that have demonstrated genuine plans to consult local communities and embrace good design principles will receive a second tranche, or in some cases more funding than their indicative allocation. Authorities that have not been able to demonstrate that to the same extent will receive less, and in some cases considerably less. We in the Department want to take people with us. We recognise the benefits of cycling and walking schemes, and where those have been delivered successfully, which they have been in many areas up and down the country, they have delivered considerable benefits to the local environment, the local economy, and local communities. That is a good thing, and we want to back it.
In the time remaining to me—literally 30 seconds—let me say that I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss this important issue, and I would be delighted if the hon. Lady would like to write to me or meet me. I will also invite other colleagues who have responsibility for some of the other areas to which she has referred in this debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
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 |
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (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 |
Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
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 |
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (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 |
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP) | Gavin Robinson |
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
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 |
Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) | Dawn Butler |
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) | Rachel Hopkins |
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Dave Doogan (Angus) (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 |
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) | Stuart Andrew |
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Laura Farris (Newbury) (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 |
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con) | Craig Mackinlay |
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con) | Caroline Nokes |
Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) | Julie Marson |
Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP) | Ben Lake |
Neale 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 |
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
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 |
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab) | Kate Osborne |
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con) | Tim Loughton |
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 |
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) | Zarah Sultana |
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab) | Kate Osborne |
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) | Patrick Grady |
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con) | Rebecca Harris |
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kate Osamor (Jarrow) (Lab/Co-op) | Nadia Whittome |
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
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 |
Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Christina Rees (Neath) | Chris Elmore |
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab) | Stuart Andrew |
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC) | Ben Lake |
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeff Smith (Manchester Withington) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab) | Dawn Butler |
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
David Warburton (Somerton and Frome) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC) | Ben Lake |
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab) | Rachel Hopkins |
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Draft Competition (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 5 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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 Competition (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. The purpose of the regulations is to implement competition law provisions in the withdrawal agreement and ensure that the UK’s competition regime functions as Parliament intended at the end of the transition period.
While the UK was a member of the European Union, its competition regime was integrated with the EU’s competition system. That remains the case during the transition period. As part of the UK’s preparations to withdraw from the EU, Parliament approved regulations in 2019 that created a separate and sovereign UK competition regime. They will come into force at the end of the transition period and require amendment to reflect the position set out in the withdrawal agreement.
Part three of the withdrawal agreement contains provisions on competition law. The regulations that the Committee is considering today amend the Competition Act 1998, the Enterprise Act 2002 and other domestic law containing competition provisions in order to implement fully the provisions in part three of the withdrawal agreement. The Government have consulted stakeholders, including the Competition and Markets Authority, competition lawyers and the Competition Appeal Tribunal in developing the regulations. An impact assessment was not undertaken because the impact of the regulations on businesses and the Exchequer is expected to be minimal.
I will briefly explain which of the withdrawal agreement’s provisions on competition law require further implementation and how the regulations achieve that. The effect on anti-competitive behaviour in mergers as they impact on the UK market after 1 January 2021 will be considered by the UK competition authorities under UK law. However, there will be a limited set of EU competition and merger cases that relate to the UK, which were opened, but not completed before the end of the transition period. Article 92 of the withdrawal agreement deals with those cases. I shall refer to them as live EU cases in the rest of my speech. The withdrawal agreement brings live EU cases to an orderly conclusion by giving the European Commission competence to complete them. Live EU cases will be completed under the law that applied when they opened. That approach provides certainty and legal clarity to the UK’s businesses, regulatory authorities and courts.
The regulations address three broad topics: live EU anti-trust cases; live EU merger cases; and EU commitments and remedies. First, with respect to the European Commission’s investigations of live EU anti-trust cases, the regulations amend transitional arrangements made in 2019 to reflect the European Commission’s jurisdiction over those cases. The amendments ensure that the CMA can assist the European Commission in those investigations in the way that currently happens under the Competition Act 1998. To implement fully the legal effect of the withdrawal agreement, the regulations restrict the CMA from investigating the UK aspects of a live EU anti-trust case until it has concluded. That reproduces an effect similar to that which currently arises under EU law. The CMA will of course be free to investigate the UK aspects of any anti-competitive behaviour that occurs after the end of the transition period.
Decisions of the European Commission and the Court of Justice of the European Union on live EU anti-trust cases will be binding in the UK for the purposes of private claims seeking follow-on damages for a breach of competition law. The regulations ensure that UK authorities must take into account any relevant penalty issued by an EU body in a live EU anti-trust case when deciding the amount of the penalty to be issued under UK law.
Secondly, the European Commission will continue to have exclusive competence over live EU merger cases, including in relation to any UK elements of the case. The regulations give the CMA the power to investigate a merger that is being re-examined by the European Commission following a successful appeal, if the Commission is not considering UK aspects of the merger in its re-examination. That will prevent any enforcement gap from emerging in the UK. The regulations amend the Enterprise Act 2002 and transitional arrangements made in 2019 to reflect the European Commission’s jurisdiction over live EU merger cases.
Thirdly, the withdrawal agreement states that the European Commission will remain responsible for monitoring and enforcing the UK aspects of commitments accepted and remedies imposed in connection with EU competition cases. Those commitments and remedies often relate to multiple EU member states, and the European Commission would normally be best placed to secure their continued compliance. However, the withdrawal agreement allows, by mutual agreement, the monitoring and enforcement of the UK aspects of such commitments and remedies to be transferred to the UK’s competition authorities. The regulations therefore give the CMA monitoring and enforcement powers to secure compliance with commitments and directions if it is agreed that the responsibility to monitor and enforce them will be transferred to the UK.
Those powers are modelled on the CMA’s existing powers to monitor and enforce domestic commitments and remedies. They will also apply to certain sector regulators that enforce competition law concurrently with the CMA.
In addition to those three categories of amendment, the 2019 regulations are amended to make appropriate reference to the end of the transition period. Consistent with the approach that the 2019 regulations took, the draft regulations will revoke a recent EU regulation on investment screening, which will have no practical effect on the UK beyond the end of the transition period.
The provisions on competition law in the withdrawal agreement mean that the UK will move smoothly to a separate and sovereign competition regime. The regulations will provide legal certainty for UK businesses, the CMA and UK courts. They make only those changes that are necessary to effect the withdrawal agreement provisions and to ensure that the UK’s competition regime functions as intended by the regulations that Parliament approved in 2019. I therefore commend them to the Committee.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray.
I thank the Minister for his opening remarks and emphasise that the Opposition believe that open and competitive markets promote consumer welfare, that healthy competition is a fundamental part of a prosperous economy, and that effective competition law is an absolute prerequisite of achieving that. Well-balanced legislation in this area can bring down prices, encourage product innovation and lead to better quality service delivery.
As a member of the European Union, the UK has benefited from harmonised competition standards across the single market for decades. Those rules have protected UK businesses and consumers from the negative effects of so-called abusive practices from large corporations based elsewhere. They have been developed at EU level by UK representatives in our own national interest. I am sure that the Minister agrees that European competition law was primarily instigated and driven by UK competitive ideas, practices and regulators. To a certain extent, we have left the EU with our competition law framework. Unfortunately, we are not so clear how the sovereign competition framework that the Minister mentioned will look and where it is going. Perhaps he can provide greater clarity on that.
It is certain that the weight of 600 million consumers that the European Union brings to the table has given it great clout on the international stage. The EU’s robust competition framework has been used to take on tech giants, curb unhealthy market dominance and push for consumers to be able to migrate their personal data from platform to platform. So even though the UK has technically left the European Union, in reality we continue to benefit from EU rules now.
Today’s instrument is being laid partly to amend legislation to reflect the fact that the UK will be covered by EU protections right up until the end of the transition period, as the Minister said. It formalises the European Commission’s ability to carry out its agreed functions under Title X of part three of the withdrawal agreement in the UK during the transition. As the Minister set out, that includes the European Commission continuing to have the jurisdiction it needs to make final decisions on merger referrals made to it before the end of the transition period. Of course, the retention of those rules during the transition period makes absolute sense. It limits disruption at an already difficult time and keeps our markets functioning harmoniously with our nearest neighbours.
We will not oppose the instrument, although we have some concerns. The transition period comes to an end at the end of this year, in less than two months. Businesses with a base in the UK will continue to be subject to European Union frameworks insofar as any of their actions affect competition within the European Union, even after the transition period ends, but the UK will no longer be able to have a say in drawing up the rules. We will effectively be a rule taker rather than a rule maker. In fact, the UK courts will no longer have the facility to refer questions of interpretation of European Union law to the European Court of Justice after Brexit, which could see damaging divergences between UK and European Union competition rules that may leave businesses confused and over-burdened.
Business leaders continue to warn that we could see more red tape, not less, after the transition period because, as I have suggested, businesses operating in both the UK and the European Union—this applies to many businesses operating across Europe—will be required to deal with both the CMA and the European Union competition authorities simultaneously on mergers and competition investigations. Will the Minister confirm that that will be the case and that they will have to have regard to those authorities’ regulations? Can he offer any assurances that UK businesses will not be burdened with red tape, and will he outline how the CMA will keep that in mind?
Finally, I hope the Minister will use this opportunity to lay out how he and his Government will make sure that businesses and the public will continue to be safeguarded against unscrupulous competition practices in future. As I have suggested, the European Union has used its competition powers, and looks to do so even more in the future to address the lack of competition in data, digital and platform markets. Although we see the European Union making progress in that area, we have had no indication from the competition Minister as to whether the UK will also address the unhealthy lack of competition in platform, data and digital markets.
Paul Scully
I thank the hon. Member for her considered comments and for agreeing that these regulations are the way forward. As I have said, they are needed to give effect to the provisions that we have already agreed in the withdrawal agreement, so they very much relate to a specific set of cases. I will try to cover the areas that the hon. Lady talked about. We have the Penrose review into the competition regime in the UK. As soon as that comes back, we will consider it and come up with the changes and improvements that we need. We both agree that healthy markets need to function well together to ensure a fair deal for other competitors, and consumers as well. It is really important that consumers are at the heart of what we do.
Chi Onwurah
Will the Minister indicate when the Penrose review will be completed?
Paul Scully
The review is working at pace. I cannot give a timescale at the moment, but as soon as the review comes back we will consider it quickly, because we want to make sure that we have the best competition regime. As the hon. Lady stated at the beginning of her speech, UK competition specialists were at the heart of the EU regime. We are leaving the regime, but we are leaving with our competition experts, so they will be at the heart of what we do. We have made it clear in our published proposal for the comprehensive free trade agreement with the EU that we intend to maintain international co-operation on competition enforcement. The EU has expressed a desire to maintain UK-EU co-operation on competition law matters in its own proposals as well. We want to make sure that the CMA continues to participate in multilateral networks such as the international competition network and the OECD.
Without the regulations the UK would fail to implement its obligations in competition law under the withdrawal agreement. Inconsistencies between the withdrawal agreement and competition law would cause significant uncertainty for UK businesses, the CMA and UK courts. The changes that I have described today are required to complete the process of preparing the UK statute book for the transition. I hope the Committee approves the regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Reciprocal and Cross-Border Healthcare (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 5 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Reciprocal and Cross-Border Healthcare (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Miller, and to serve under you. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has laid before the House this statutory instrument, which concerns reciprocal and cross-border healthcare. In summary, it is a technical instrument that updates the 2019 legislation, taking into account the withdrawal agreement, which was not in place when the legislation was made in 2019 and offers significant healthcare protections for those relying on reciprocal healthcare arrangements in the EU. The aim is to ensure that the statute book is ready for the end of the transition period.
The Government are introducing the statutory instrument under section 8 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and under the Healthcare (European Economic Area and Switzerland Arrangements) Act 2019. On 31 December 2020, the transition period will end and the EU withdrawal Act will automatically retain the relevant EU law, and the domestic implementing legislation, in UK law. If we did not legislate further, the retained law would be incoherent and unworkable. There would also be uncertainty and a lack of clarity about patients’ rights to have UK-funded healthcare in EEA countries and Switzerland.
In April 2019, the Government made three statutory instruments to correct the deficiencies in retained EU law relating to reciprocal healthcare, as part of the UK’s preparations for leaving the EU without a deal. The UK has since agreed with the EU reciprocal healthcare arrangements under the withdrawal Act and entered a transition period. The purpose of this instrument is basically to fix this issue—first, to reflect the transition period and the withdrawal agreement by making consequential and technical amendments to four EU exit instruments, which will come into force on 31 December. Those are the Social Security Coordination (Reciprocal Healthcare) (Amendment etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, the National Health Service (Cross-Border Healthcare and Miscellaneous Amendments etc.) (EU) Exit) Regulations 2019, the Healthcare (European Economic Area and Switzerland Arrangements) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 and the Health Services (Cross-Border Health Care and Miscellaneous Amendments) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. I will refer to those, for ease, as the 2019 EU exit regulations.
The purpose of this instrument is, secondly, to update references in NHS legislation to EU forms, to entitlements under EU treaties and to concepts such as “EU rights” that will no longer be appropriate after the end of the year; and, thirdly, to set out clearly the rights of patients in a transitional situation who will access pre-authorised or ongoing treatment in the EEA under the cross-border healthcare directive following the end of the transition period. This instrument will allow the Government to complete the funding of those patients who are in the middle of treatment at the end of the year, or if they have already applied for authorisation.
As the instrument is quite technical, I am sure that members of the Committee will welcome a summary of the 2019 EU exit regulations. As Committee members all know, those regulations were made in preparation for our exit from the EU and will come into force at the end of the transition period. They revoked the EU reciprocal healthcare legislation and social security co-ordination regulations, as well as the domestic legislation implementing the cross-border healthcare directive, in relation to England, Wales and Northern Ireland. As the arrangements are inherently reciprocal, it would not be possible to operate them without reciprocity from the member states.
The regulations enabled the continuation of reciprocal healthcare arrangements until 31 December 2020, to the extent that that was agreed with member states through bilateral reciprocal healthcare arrangements. They made provision for the UK to protect patients in a transitional situation accessing reciprocal healthcare on exit day in the event that the UK left the EU without a deal, in so far as that was possible unilaterally. The regulations conferred functions on the NHS Business Services Authority and on health bodies—that is, NHS England and devolved Administrations’ health boards—to implement aspects of reciprocal healthcare arrangements. That includes the administering of healthcare payments.
In addition, in March 2019 the House passed primary legislation—the Healthcare (European Economic Area and Switzerland Arrangements) Act 2019— providing the legal basis for funding and implementing future reciprocal healthcare arrangements.
I will now outline the reciprocal healthcare arrangements that have been agreed with the EU under the withdrawal agreement since the 2019 EU exit regulations were made. In practice, the agreement that we have reached with the EU means that there are no changes to the reciprocal healthcare access for state pensioners, workers, students, tourists and other visitors, the European healthcare insurance card scheme, or planned treatment before 31 December 2020.
From 1 January 2021, reciprocal healthcare arrangements will not change for those individuals who are in scope of the withdrawal agreement. This means that, regardless of any future healthcare arrangements, state pensioners and workers who have moved to the UK or the EU and are resident there before 31 December 2020 will continue to have lifelong reciprocal healthcare rights for as long as they live in that country and are covered by the agreement.
The agreement also protects UK and EU nationals who find themselves in a cross-border situation over the end of the transition period. For example, somebody whose holiday begins before 31 December 2020 but ends afterwards can continue to use their EHIC to access any treatment they need until they leave that country by travelling to another EU member state or returning to the UK.
A student who habitually resides in the UK but is studying in the EEA or Switzerland before 31 December 2020 can continue to use their EHIC to access immediate and necessary healthcare in the country of study for the duration of their course. People receiving planned medical treatment in the UK or through the EU S2 route will be able to commence or complete their treatment, provided that authorisation was requested by 31 December 2020. This provides certainty to patients, as it guarantees that they will be able to complete their course of treatment.
I will now address the amendments made by the instrument and the reasons for making the changes now. As I have just set out, the withdrawal agreement protections mean that several transitional measures under the 2019 EU exit regulations have now been superseded by the withdrawal agreement protections. Therefore, they are being revoked through this instrument.
One element, namely cross-border healthcare under the cross-border healthcare directive, was not included in the withdrawal agreement. It will no longer apply as a matter of EU law from 31 December 2020. The cross-border healthcare directive is separate from the reciprocal healthcare rights under the social security co-ordination regulations, for example for pensioners, students, tourists and workers, which relate to the free movement of people. The directive is linked with the single market and the free movement of services, which is ending with the UK’s departure from the EU. The directive facilitated patients’ rights to travel to another EEA country and to receive qualifying healthcare and reimbursement, capped at the cost of state-provided treatment in their own country.
As the cross-border directive is ending, this instrument will ensure that the Government can finish funding those who have received or applied for treatment through this route, and those who are in the middle of treatment at the end of the year. This will provide reassurance for patients, as people will not face an abrupt change in their access to healthcare at the end of the year, and it ensures that their reimbursement rights are protected.
The withdrawal agreement also means that the 2019 provisions that allowed the UK to maintain current reciprocal healthcare arrangements until the end of 2020 are no longer required. These provisions were subject to bilateral agreements with EEA countries and Switzerland. The withdrawal agreement automatically continued current agreements with those countries during the transition period and therefore the 2019 provisions are being revoked as redundant.
As many hon. Members will know, the Healthcare (European Economic Area and Switzerland Arrangements) Act 2019 provides powers to give effect to healthcare arrangements, including those that may be comprehensive, bespoke or different from the current arrangements provided by the EU framework. The Act also provides the legislative framework to implement long-term complex reciprocal healthcare arrangements with the EU.
Finally, other technical amendments made by the instrument include updating EU references that will no longer be appropriate following the end of the transition period. The devolved Administrations have been consulted in the drafting of this instrument at every stage and they have provided consent for the Government to proceed. The instrument also makes provision in relation to and on behalf of Northern Ireland and Wales.
I am grateful for the continued collaborative approach in this area. Indeed, the Department and the devolved Administrations have had excellent engagement and clear arrangements in place to ensure the implementation of reciprocal healthcare arrangements after the end of the transition period. I am pleased to say we have worked openly and collaboratively with operational partners in NHS England, NHS Improvement and the NHS Business Services Authority, ensuring that reciprocal healthcare arrangements will be successfully implemented.
Looking to the future, reciprocal healthcare arrangements with the EU are subject to ongoing negotiations. The UK has been clear that it wishes to establish arrangements that provide healthcare cover for tourists, short-term business visitors and service providers.
I am also pleased to report good progress with Ireland on agreeing a specific healthcare arrangement between the UK and Ireland, under the auspices of the common travel area. That will seek to ensure that the residents of the UK and Ireland continue to be able to access necessary healthcare when visiting the other country, as well as benefiting from co-operation between UK and Irish healthcare providers, regardless of the outcome of negotiations with the EU.
Finally, as this instrument proposes no significant changes to the current regulatory regime, we estimate there will be no significant impact on industry or the public sector. As this instrument makes technical amendments, and does not introduce new policy, we have not conducted an impact assessment.
In summary, the overarching aim of the instrument is to ensure that the UK statute book is functional, reflecting the withdrawal agreement and EU exit. It also ensures that reimbursement rights are provided for people accessing healthcare at the end of the transition.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller. We will not vote against the regulations because they provide some certainty for some citizens in terms of cross-border healthcare arrangements after 31 December, as set out in the withdrawal agreement.
I want to put on record the concerns of Opposition Members and a range of patient groups and healthcare organisations that the regulations do not go anywhere near far enough in protecting rights to healthcare for British citizens who travel to the EU. They could leave some people with underlying health conditions not completely covered and cause real problems for the NHS, at precisely the time when it needs to be totally focused on dealing with covid-19 and the backlog of health problems that has caused. It is important that the Government secure agreement with the EU and do not end up with no deal.
As the Minister has explained, the regulations update existing regulations, so they reflect reciprocal healthcare arrangements as set out in the withdrawal agreement. United Kingdom nationals who live and work in EU and European Free Trade Association countries on or before 31 December will continue to be entitled to healthcare in that member state, under that member state’s rules, and have access to an EHIC issued by that member state. That is good.
European Union and EFTA nationals registered in the UK on or before 31 December will continue to be entitled to NHS services and a UK-issued EHIC, which is also good. S1 holders, essentially UK state pensioners who live in EU or EFTA countries on or before 31 December will continue to be entitled to UK-funded healthcare as well. That is also good.
Can the Minister confirm who and what is not covered by the regulations and therefore will not be covered if we end up in the disastrous situation of no deal? Can she confirm that after 31 December, if the UK Government fail to reach agreement with the EU, UK citizens who are normally resident in an EU member state will not be entitled to free NHS care when visiting the UK, unless and until any bilateral arrangement is reached with that individual member state?
Can the Minister confirm that UK citizens who go on holiday, or a business trip in an EU member state, will no longer be able to use their EHIC card and therefore have to buy travel insurance to make sure they are covered? Can she confirm that if someone falls sick in France or Italy, they may get immediate emergency treatment but could then be required to pay for it afterwards, as well as for any follow-up care? Will she spell out the estimated additional cost of buying this travel insurance for the 50 million people a year who go on holiday or on business trips to the EU—or at least did, before covid-19? Will she also set out the Government’s estimate of the number of people who may be unable to get insurance because of an underlying health condition?
For example, we know from Kidney Care UK that the 30,000 people on dialysis can currently travel throughout Europe and receive their dialysis free of charge because of the EHIC. Even though dialysis is a life-sustaining treatment for kidney failure, it is not covered by travel insurance, and without reciprocal healthcare arrangements, it will cost up to £1,000 per week. How many more thousands of people with pre-existing health conditions will not be able to get insurance and could be put in the same situation if the Government fail to reach a deal? Have the Minister or the Government made any estimate of how many people this could affect?
Will the Minister also spell out the cost to the NHS, in terms of time and red tape, of trying to get reimbursement for EU citizens having to use healthcare here? Each of the four nations of our great United Kingdom manage their own recovery costs, and within each nation, individual trusts or health boards are responsible for directly charging patients for the costs of their care. The Minister will know how difficult it has been for trusts to reclaim costs from patients from outside the EU. What is her estimate of the cost to the NHS, in the event of no deal, or of no individual bilateral arrangements, of hospitals in this country having to reclaim costs from every single EU person who comes here and ends up needing healthcare?
The Brexit Health Alliance—a group of organisations that want to ensure that the views of healthcare users and providers are reflected in the Brexit negotiations, including the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, NHS Providers, the Richmond Group of Charities and the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry—says:
“The current arrangements involve minimal bureaucracy for patients and healthcare providers, underpinned by well-established systems for reimbursement between member states. The NHS will face unwelcome increased resourcing burdens, if it is required to handle new, more complex administrative and funding procedures when providing care to EU citizens in future.”
I am sure that every hon. Member agrees that that is the very last thing the NHS needs when it is facing the biggest health crisis of its life, with a huge backlog of untreated conditions because of covid-19. I also ask the Minister, if there is any dispute between the UK and an EU member state about a cross-border healthcare arrangement, who would have jurisdiction? Would it be the European Court of Justice? I think people would like to know the answer.
As I said at the beginning of my comments, we will not oppose the draft regulations, because they at least provide some security and certainty for some groups of people. However, the Minister will know that there are huge gaps that must be filled. The British Medical Association says that failure to reach a deal would
“lead to significant disruption to…individuals’ healthcare arrangements, an increase in costs of insurance, and uncertainty regarding accessing healthcare abroad. Moreover, the NHS would face a drastic increase in demand for services, which could dramatically increase its costs and place greater pressure on doctors and clinical staff.”
The Government say that, if they cannot reach agreement with the EU as a whole on these issues, they will negotiate individual bilateral deals with individual EU member states, but when? How long will that take? What will happen to patients and NHS staff meanwhile?
The Prime Minister spent the last general election saying that he had an “oven-ready deal”, but on healthcare arrangements, as in so many other areas, that deal is, so far, nowhere to be seen. Holidaymakers, businesspeople, patient groups, healthcare professionals and NHS organisations urgently need clarity. The Government must deliver.
Jo Churchill
There was quite a lot there, and I will try to canter through what I can. As the hon. Lady knows, my door is always open. The majority of what she alluded to is the subject of ongoing negotiations, which are currently being handled with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. We are working hard to ensure that people can enjoy the travel that they have enjoyed thus far.
I fully recognise that it is challenging for those with pre-existing conditions. I know how difficult it is to secure travel insurance in the current environment when travelling outside the EU. However, the Money Advice Service has recently launched an insurance directory for people with serious medical conditions, which brings together specialist firms with the aim of making it easier to find travel insurance that provides the right health cover. Working with the FCDO, the DHSC stands ready to support UK nationals who might find themselves in difficulty.
On cost recovery, identified income from NHS costs for overseas visitors has increased significantly over the past five years, rising to £760 million in 2019-20. NHS Improvement is working closely with NHS trusts to improve cost recovery. As I said, we have been most grateful for the work that the NHS Business Services Authority has done with us to enable that work to go forward. As the hon. Lady well knows, many of these things will become clearer in the next few weeks, but there have already been good conversations with some member countries. It is hoped that we will shortly be able to have more clarity on the matter.
I want to assure members of the Committee that the overarching aim of the SI is to ensure that the UK’s statute book is functional by reflecting the withdrawal agreement and EU exit, and to ensure that reimbursement rights are provided for people accessing healthcare at the end of the transition period, when the directive will no longer apply to the UK. The withdrawal agreement provides a robust framework for reciprocal healthcare, which includes significant transitional and longer-term protections, as the hon. Lady mentioned. To support people in understanding their entitlements, the Government have published guidance on people’s rights under the withdrawal agreement on gov.uk, and we are keeping the information updated regularly so that people are clear about the reciprocal health rights, their rights and the actions they might need to take as they prepare for the end of the year.
Looking ahead, reciprocal healthcare arrangements with the EU are subject to ongoing negotiations, as I said earlier. Finally, I thank again the devolved Administrations and our operational partners in the NHS, who are working extremely hard. Their collaborative and constructive engagement means that we have clear arrangements in place and assurance for patients’ healthcare at the end of the year. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Timber and Timber Products and FLEGT (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 5 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury (James Morris)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Timber and Timber Products and FLEGT (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
The regulations were laid before the House on 5 October and amend the Timber and Timber Products and FLEGT (EU Exit) Regulations 2018, on the trade in timber and timber products. The technical amendments in the statutory instrument address deficiencies that have arisen since the 2018 exit regulations were made. They relate, in addition, to the implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol. The minor amendments in the statutory instrument will ensure that the regulations for the trade in legally harvested timber will operate effectively in the United Kingdom.
I should make it clear that all the amendments made by the statutory instrument are technical operability amendments and do not introduce any policy changes. The policy is considered to be reserved, and we have worked with the devolved Administrations on the regulations.
The licensing regulations address the issues of illegally harvested timber through two measures. On the supply side, the FLEGT regulations provide for a licensing regime with countries that have entered into a partnership agreement, allowing them to issue licences that prove legality of harvest. On the demand side, the timber regulation prohibits the placing on the market of illegally harvested timber and requires businesses to exercise due diligence on timber to ensure its legality.
Illegal logging is a significant driver of deforestation, which is a major contributor to climate change and leads to the loss of biodiversity and critically important ecosystem services. It directly affects rural communities that rely on forests for livelihoods, and results in revenue loss for Governments and legitimate businesses. The timber regulation and FLEGT licensing system are therefore vital tools in preventing the illegal trade in timber and the associated economic, environmental and social costs.
The main purpose of the statutory instrument is to make amendments to the 2018 exit regulations, to facilitate operability within the context of the Northern Ireland protocol. That is achieved by substituting, in several instances, “Great Britain” for “the Community” and “the United Kingdom”. There are several instances in which references to the United Kingdom are retained from the 2018 regulations. That is to do three things: first, the definition of a “partnership agreement” in the UK FLEGT regulations will continue to refer to an agreement with the UK. The UK reference is necessary because a partnership agreement is a treaty, and only the UK may enter into treaties with other states.
Secondly, for the purposes of the UK timber regulation, reference to the UK defines the market on which timber is placed in the United Kingdom. If that market were to be defined as Great Britain, it would have the effect of imposing the obligation to exercise due diligence on businesses importing timber from Northern Ireland to England, Scotland or Wales. That would represent a new check on goods moving from Northern Ireland to Great Britain, so the definition “the United Kingdom” is retained.
The third retention of “the United Kingdom” is in relation to monitoring organisations. Those are approved businesses that are able to offer access to their due diligence systems to those placing timber on the market. The regulations set out requirements in relation to where businesses must be legally established if they are to apply to be a monitoring organisation. If this area were to be defined as Great Britain, it would preclude businesses in Northern Ireland from being able to apply to be a monitoring organisation under the UK regulations. As such, the definition “the United Kingdom” has been retained.
This instrument also amends the dates on which the first reports on the UK timber and FLEGT regulations are required. This is to ensure an appropriate amount of time between the implementation of the regulations and the first report being produced. Without that amendment, the first report would be due just three months after the regulations came into force.
The regulations also correct a typographical error in the 2018 exit regulations by changing “in” to “by” in relation to sanctions imposed by the United Kingdom on timber imports or exports.
This instrument also amends the reporting period for the FLEGT regulation to the calendar rather than financial year, to bring it in line with other reporting schedules. This amendment was necessary to deal with an amendment to the EU regulations made after our 2018 exit statutory instrument.
Finally, the instrument substitutes “IP completion”—for the implementation period—for “exit” in the context of the date at which existing monitoring organisations established in the UK will retain recognition. This change is simply to correct a deficiency that has arisen since the 2018 exit regulations.
This instrument has always been intended for the affirmative procedure. Both the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee have formally considered the instrument without comment. The instrument was not subject to consultation as it does not alter existing policy.
In line with published guidance, there is no need to conduct an impact assessment for this instrument, as no, or no significant, impact on the private or voluntary sectors is foreseen. The instrument relates to the maintenance of existing regulatory standards, and the cost of any direct impact from the instrument falls under £5 million. The territorial extent of this instrument is the United Kingdom. This is considered a reserved policy; devolved Administrations were engaged in the development of the instrument and are content.
The office for product safety and standards—part of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy—is the delivery body for the regulations and will continue in that role for both Northern Ireland and Great Britain. It has been involved in the development of the instrument and has no concerns relating to implementation or resources. Its expertise in the enforcement of the regulations, and its history of working with businesses to understand and meet their obligations, will ensure a consistent and transparent transition.
The UK has a long and proud history of work in this area, and the Government’s 25-year environment plan has made clear our commitment to support and protect international forests. These regulations will ensure that we can continue to protect valuable global resources, safeguard the livelihoods of some of the world’s most vulnerable people, and contribute to tackling climate change. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard, and it is very good to see the Minister in his place. I commend him on his very full introduction and I pass my good wishes to his colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), who we look forward to seeing tomorrow to continue discussions.
This all sounds very straightforward, as of course we are all in favour of reducing illegal logging. It is perhaps worth starting with the European Timber Regulations 995/2010, which the UK was at the forefront of helping to create. It says in its introduction:
“Illegal logging is a pervasive problem of major international concern. It poses a significant threat to forests as it contributes to the process of deforestation and forest degradation, which is responsible for about 20 % of global CO2 emissions, threatens biodiversity, and undermines sustainable forest management and development including the commercial viability of operators acting in accordance with applicable legislation. It also contributes to desertification and soil erosion and can exacerbate extreme weather events and flooding. In addition, it has social, political and economic implications, often undermining progress towards good governance and threatening the livelihood of local forest-dependent communities, and it can be linked to armed conflicts.”
This is a big, important issue, although it may seem at first sight to be a fairly dry one. We also commend the Government for taking further steps to tackle illegal logging abroad by consulting on due diligence on forest risk commodities. Although the Government may be doing well on that, I gently point out that they are not doing quite so well at home, either on meeting the tree planting targets or on environmental protections, which are being decimated by the Environment Bill.
Once again, we are noticing errors and deficiencies in these SIs. I have huge sympathy for those who draft them, because they are very complicated, but it would be useful to know whether the Department is tracking the number of errors that we have to deal with. I should point out that I do not expect the Minister to have all the answers to my questions this afternoon—I quite understand the situation.
I take issue slightly with some of the points about there being no need for consultations because the instrument does not alter existing policy and has no impact on business. We hear those points in a succession—if we track back, the same was said for the previous instrument, which this one amends—and frankly, out in the real world, that seems absolutely laughable. For those involved in the trade, everything to do with this whole area has led to more bureaucracy, more duplication, more complexity and inevitably more cost.
David Hopkins, chief executive of the Timber Trade Federation, told me that he supports the introduction of UK timber regulation:
“However this will increase bureaucracy for members (on top of many other layers of increased bureaucracy). At present, any goods originating from or being imported into the EU are subject to due diligence by the “First placer”, i.e the company that first places the goods on the market. The goods can then be traded freely among the other members of the Single Market.”
He provided an example:
“If hardwood from West Africa is imported to a warehouse in Belgium, the Belgian importer would conduct due diligence for this. That Belgian company could then sell it to a UK importer without the UK importer having to conduct further due diligence. This is because the EUTR sees the whole of Europe as having “one” (or the same) risk profile.
Now, under the UKTR, we will no longer be able to trade freely. This will mean having to conduct due diligence on ALL imports from Europe where currently there is none. Secondly, it will mean treating different countries as having different risk profiles (e.g. rather than seeing Sweden and Poland as both being “part of Europe” we will have to separately evaluate the risks inherent in each. It is another layer of bureaucracy most business could do without! It is also a doubling up of efforts which have already been conducted within the EU and now repeated in the UK on the same goods.”
Minister, please, let us have some real-world analysis of the harm that these changes do; just saying “there is no impact” is not good enough.
Sadly, that is not the end of the harm being done, because the voluntary partnership agreement negotiated by the European Union with tropical countries, particularly in the Congo basin, has been crucial to forest preservation. Again, the Timber Trade Federation has said:
“We are very saddened and angry that the UK will lose its decision making voice within the EU about this important area of climate and forest protection. The UK was a leading advocate and really pioneered this ground-breaking approach. Right now, the UK should be showing leadership, not walking away from the table where decisions are made.”
The changes do not just mean more bureaucracy and more cost, they mean no influence. Will the Minister tell us just how the UK plans to work with those VPAs? Are we to set up parallel agreements? How much will that cost? Will we need duplicate monitoring systems, and again, at what cost? What will we do through the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation to regain lost ground?
The Northern Ireland issue is a detail that the SI tries to address. The Timber Trade Federation described the situation as “an enormous headache”, as Northern Ireland businesses will face having to do due diligence on goods coming in from Great Britain, opening up a potential weak spot for smuggling, and because there will be widespread confusion about goods that used to be marked with the longstanding CE designation will have to be marked UKCA—UK conformity assessed. Who knew that this would be so complicated?
I do not expect the Minister to have all the answers, but the regulations were discussed the other day in the House of Lords, where some questions were raised, so let us try some of those. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson queried whether NI companies could use only monitoring organisations on the approved EU list. The rather elliptical reply from the Minister in the other place was:
“officials are not yet able to provide a forensic answer”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 October 2020; Vol. 807, c. 180.]
I love that. I ask, one week on, whether the officials any closer? In fact, a July 2020 note from the European Commissioner throws some light on that issue, and I am grateful to Clotilde Henriot of ClientEarth for drawing my attention to it.
My Labour colleague in the Lords pressed the Minster there on the voluntary partnership agreements, and I echo her questions, including on the key matter of divergence. If the EU makes new or improved agreements, will we mirror them, do we follow them, do we have any influence on them, and what are the follow-on impacts on Northern Ireland? The Minister in the Lords revealed that a further instrument will be introduced in January 2021, relating to the FLEGT scheme in Indonesia. My understanding is that the UK already has a VPA with Indonesia that dates from April 2019. If the regulations need amending because of Brexit, what happens between 1 January and the date that the instrument takes effect?
What of the other VPAs that the EU already has in place with Cameroon, the Central African Republic, Ghana, Indonesia, Liberia, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Vietnam, as well as those that have already been initiated with Guyana and Honduras, and those under negotiation with Côte d’Ivoire, Gabon, Laos, Malaysia and Thailand? When my colleague queried the impact on Northern Ireland if the UK and EU diverge on VPAs, the Minister in the Lords cheerily admitted:
“There are questions that remain unanswered”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 October 2020; Vol. 807, c. 181.]
Frankly, that really is not good enough, some three or four weeks out.
In his opening statement, the Minister gave us some explanation of how some of this might be resolved. Paragraph 7.3 of the explanatory memorandum states:
“In order to ensure unfettered market access between Northern Ireland and GB, through the avoidance of new checks, the definition of the internal market has been retained as the United Kingdom.”
When I read the detail of the instrument, I was not entirely sure how that was put into effect. I have read those lines many times. It seems that the Government are saying that, for those purposes, the GB-NI divide that has been created is somehow wished away and we are treated as one. I am not quite sure how that will be achieved, and although I recognise that the Minister might not have an immediate answer, I would be grateful for a written explanation, not least because the matter is one of the major conundrums that we face, and it cannot just be wished away.
James Morris
I thank the shadow Minister for his characteristically detailed contribution. He asked how the UK intends to work with voluntary partnership agreements. I will write to him on that. He also raised a number of issues to do with the Northern Ireland protocol. Again, I will write to him with an explanation of how the instrument operates with the protocol, if that is satisfactory to him.
James Morris
The instrument would make no change to the existing policy to tackle the trade in illegally harvested timber. The Government’s 25-year environment plan sets out our continued commitment to protecting and restoring the world’s forests and to supporting sustainable agriculture. The instrument would ensure that we have the operable regulations that we need to address that.
As I have outlined, all the changes that the instrument would introduce are technical operability amendments to ensure that we can continue to operate the regulations and protect global forest resources after the end of the transition period. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Education (Exemption From School and Further Education Institutions Inspections) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 5 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Education (Exemption From School and Further Education Institutions Inspections) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Fovargue, for the first time. It is good to be here.
In the light of the coronavirus pandemic, Ofsted’s routine inspections are currently suspended. We have always said that we would keep the resumption of routine inspections under review, and the Prime Minister’s announcement on Saturday about further national restrictions over the next four weeks means that, more than ever, we will need to continue to do that, in collaboration with schools and colleges. We are working through the implications with those affected, and we will have more to say on that. When the time is right, we believe that every category of school and college should be inspected routinely, and that that will contribute to our wider reforms to raise standards.
Inspection is a vital part of our system, and Ofsted was founded on the principle of universal inspection. It was right in 2012 to introduce the exemption, as there was a need to increase the autonomy and freedom of our best schools and colleges, and it meant that Ofsted could focus on excellence and concentrate on where inspection was needed most—to drive up standards in underperforming schools. Standards have risen: 86% of schools are now rated “good” or “outstanding”, compared with 68% in 2010.
Autonomy and trust in our best schools and colleges are important principles that remain relevant, but that must be balanced against the need to ensure that inspection arrangements offer an appropriate level of assurance to parents, students, employers, schools, colleges and the public more generally. Many exempt schools and colleges were judged outstanding under previous Ofsted inspection frameworks, which placed different expectations on them, which is starting to lead to a loss of confidence in the outstanding grade.
Last autumn, following extensive consultation, Ofsted introduced a new education inspection framework. This is a real step forward. It strengthens the focus on having a carefully considered and sequenced curriculum and makes improvements to judgments on leadership, personal development and behaviour. All schools and colleges should benefit from an independent assessment under Ofsted’s new framework and an up-to-date, rounded picture of quality and performance. That is why we should lift the exemption.
I take this opportunity to thank the external organisations, teachers and individuals who took the time to respond to our public consultation at the start of this year. We received strong support: around 90% of respondents agreed with the removal of the “outstanding” exemption for schools and colleges, and around 80% agreed with our proposed approach to doing that.
The draft regulations revoke the current set of regulations that provide for the exemption, meaning that all outstanding schools and colleges will once again be subject to routine inspection. They also introduce requirements on when routine inspections of formerly exempt schools must take place. Specifically, the chief inspector will be required to carry out an initial inspection of all these schools before 1 August 2026, and in some cases, where the initial inspection shows that outstanding performance may not have been maintained, there will be a follow-up inspection before 1 August 2027. Thereafter, subsequent inspections must take place within the five-year window that applies to other schools. The timescales for college inspections are not prescribed in regulations, but as a matter of policy will follow a similar approach to schools.
If hon. Friends and hon. Members look at the explanatory memorandum that accompanies the draft regulations, they will see the policy behind the timing of new inspections of those outstanding schools. There is a difference in approach between schools that were last inspected before September 2015 and those that have been inspected and found to be outstanding more recently than September 2015. Our intention is that the resumption of routine inspections for formerly exempt schools and colleges will align with a planned general restarting of Ofsted’s routine inspections. The regulations do not signal that resumption, but they enable it at the appropriate time. So that all schools and colleges can benefit from having an up-to-date picture of their performance, we must now lift the exemption. I propose that the regulations be approved.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure for me, too, to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Ms Fovargue. I know the result everyone is waiting for today is to find out whether this Committee will agree the regulations, which have already been agreed in the other place. We do not want to detain anyone for too long.
It will come as no surprise to the Minister that we support the regulations, not least because they reverse the legislation that was incorporated in the Education Act 2011, which we opposed at the time. We agree with the case set out by the Minister: schools can change rapidly due to a wide range of factors, which makes another inspection necessary. As we have just heard from the Minister, the Ofsted framework has changed significantly, particularly in relation to, for example, greater emphasis on the importance of pupils’ emotional and social development and relationships within schools. It is right that that element is inspected in order to give the public confidence in the judgments that are applied to the school by Her Majesty’s inspectors.
As we saw from the consultation, the changes are widely supported by the people who responded. On stakeholder views, we absolutely agree with Geoff Barton from the Association of School and College Leaders, who said:
“We support plans to remove the current exemption from inspection of schools that are rated as outstanding by Ofsted. The exemption has resulted in parents going too long without the assurance provided by an inspection, and this situation is untenable.”
That view was shared by Nick Brook from the National Association of Head Teachers. He made a broader point that we would also endorse:
“To boost educational standards the government needs to rebalance holding schools to account with helping to improve.”
Over successive decades, there have been significant advances in educational standards in our country, and it is right that we are working with all schools to raise those standards even further and to get the very best out of those who are responsible for educating children and young people in our schools and adults in further education settings. That view is shared by the chief inspector of Ofsted, who has also called for the exemption to be lifted. We agree with all of that.
As we are here this afternoon, and without wishing to detain the Committee for too long, it seems like a good opportunity to probe the Minister on the Department’s view on the resumption of routine inspections in January 2021. We can all see the circumstances in the country at large. The fact that we are going into a new national lockdown tomorrow reinforces in everyone’s minds the challenging circumstances that the pandemic continues to place on all of us.
It seems highly unrealistic to believe that Ofsted inspections will resume as normal from January. We have to go back to first principles and ask ourselves what the purpose of inspection is. What is it that we expect inspectors to find? How do we ensure that the inspection provides a judgment that is fair to the school and the staff within the school, and which is informative to parents and others who use inspection reports? These are not normal circumstances. The idea that normal inspections would take place as usual from January seems not just highly improbable but undesirable. I wonder what thinking the Department is doing on that subject and whether it has any plans to make any changes.
What consideration is the Minister giving to how we might best use Ofsted during this period? Ofsted thematic reviews have been widely accepted and respected as valuable, right across the education profession. Might we better use the considerable resources and expertise of Ofsted to conduct thematic reviews during this period, particularly looking at issues such as remote learning? That is obviously at the forefront of our minds, given the challenges facing schools and families where children are isolating at home.
I am thinking particularly about the way in which, in the current climate, schools are having to rethink the curriculum they provide. The Government have also commissioned a wide range of providers for catch-up learning for pupils. Conducting a thematic review of those catch-up programmes would be a good use of Ofsted resources, to identify weaknesses and, more importantly, best practice. I fear that, as a result of the considerable disruption experienced by children and young people in their education this year, we are going to be talking about catch-up for many years to come.
Nick Gibb
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support for these regulations. That is not surprising, given comments made in the other place this week. I agree with the comments of the NAHT that we have to balance accountability and support. As I have said, we have gone from 68% of schools being graded good or outstanding in 2010 to 86% today, but we are not satisfied with that and are focusing on that 14%. We want every local school to be good or better, so that parents can be confident about sending their children there. We have a range of support measures for schools, that require improvement, particularly those that have had two or more gradings of “requires improvement”. A whole range of measures are available if a school is put into special measures following an Ofsted inspection.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about deploying Ofsted staff. Ofsted has been deployed in local authorities during the period of suspended routine inspections, providing important professional support to those authorities in dealing with the consequences of the pandemic at a local level. He also referred to the catch-up programme, and said that Ofsted should focus on monitoring and reporting on that. These are things that will come out of any routine inspection, including how successful a school has been in helping children to catch up.
It is a huge priority for us as a Government to help young people catch up with any education lost due to the pandemic. We have secured £1 billion to help children to catch up; £650 million of that will be distributed to schools on a per pupil basis—£80 per pupil—and £350 million specifically targets the most disadvantaged pupils, through the national tutoring programme organised by the Education Endowment Foundation and the academic mentoring programme organised by Teach First.
These are important programmes, and we share the hon. Gentleman’s objective of ensuring that all our young people can catch up. No young person, no child, should have their long-term prospects blighted as a consequence of this pandemic. That is our overwhelming objective in the year ahead. On that note, I propose that we agree that the regulations have been considered.
Question put and agreed to.
Petition
Support for the travel industry
Westminster Hall
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sexual Abuse and Exploitation
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the new call list system and to ensure that social distancing can be respected. Members should sanitise their microphones using the cleaning materials provided before they use them and respect the one-way system around the Room. Members should speak only from the horseshoe. Members can speak only if there are on the call lists. This applies even if debates are undersubscribed. Members cannot join the debate if they are not on the call list and Members are not expected to remain for the wind-ups.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of sexual abuse and exploitation.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. When we think of overseas aid workers, we imagine altruistic individuals using their skills to provide essential support to people in need across the world, often with little compensation or formal recognition. Peacekeepers, especially those from the United Nations, also enjoy a favourable public image associated as they are with reducing fatalities and helping communities damaged by conflict to rebuild and recover. When they perform their roles correctly, they represent the best of humanity but when they abuse their positions of responsibility, they harm their relations with the host country population, jeopardise peacekeeping and development efforts and leave victims behind, damaged and with no idea of where to obtain redress. I intend for this debate to focus on how to protect the victims of sexual exploitation and abuse by international peacekeepers and overseas aid workers and prevent further victims from being made in the future.
The involvement of international peacekeepers and overseas aid workers in sexual exploitation and abuse and the difficulties experienced by their victims in obtaining redress has been known about for years. To provide some examples from the Select Committee on International Development report on “Sexual exploitation and abuse in the aid sector” published in 2018, I point to the revelations in 2002 about children being abused in Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone. In 2007-08, the vast majority of surveyed victims of sexual exploitation in Kenya, Namibia and Thailand said they did not know where or how to report their abuse. Last month, staff from a variety of organisations, including the United Nations, the World Health Organisation, UNICEF, Oxfam and World Vision were discovered to have exploited and abused girls and women in the Democratic Republic of Congo. This is going on again, again and again.
Host countries damaged by poverty and war naturally have displaced people and it is not the case the peacekeepers and overseas aid workers are merely passive participants in the effects of deprivation and misery in host countries. Sometimes their arrival can actively create the problems. A note by the Secretary-General of the United Nations from 1996 entitled “The Impact of Armed Conflict on Children” concluded:
“In six out of 12 country studies on sexual exploitation of children during armed conflict, the arrival of peace-keeping troops has been associated with a rapid rise in child prostitution.”
Most obviously international peacekeepers and overseas aid workers have access to money, food, supplies and other resources that enable them to exercise influence over the population of the host country. This influence is frequently used improperly—for example, to obtain transactional sex. Women sometimes even have to sell their young daughters for food and supplies. That may be shocking but the fact that it happens just shows how desperate the victims are.
As I said at the beginning, overseas aid workers and international peacekeepers have incredibly important roles supporting the most vulnerable across the world. When they engage in sexual exploitation and abuse, they undermine the trust of the people they are meant to protect and of the people who support them at home. Public trust in charities has fallen since these matters were reported, so have donations. Ultimately, sexual exploitation and abuse undermine the efforts of those workers who conduct themselves properly.
Reading the reports of historical sexual exploitation and abuse by international peacekeepers and overseas aid workers, and the responses of organisations involved, provides a sense of déjà vu. First, there are the apologies, often expressed in general terms about falling short of standards, which are undefined. Secondly, there are frequent platitudes about “lessons being learned” and the interests of victims being at the forefront while ultimately inconclusive investigations are commissioned. During that stage, the perpetrators can be allowed to resign quietly and are free to take employment with another organisation operating in a different country, where they continue their abusive behaviour. Thirdly, there is a gradual loss of interest in the issue until, in five or six years’ time, the exact same thing happens again and the same people make the same excuses. That complacency has led to the trend of the last three decades and it must stop.
While ever I am on a Committee looking at how the aid budget is spent on behalf of our taxpayers, I will keep asking the questions that many do not want asked, which I have been doing since I first heard about this shocking problem at the world humanitarian summit in 2016 in Istanbul. I heard about the problem at one of the fringe meetings, where panellists from several different countries discussed the problem and admitted that nothing could be done about it. From that moment on, I asked about it in almost every IDC evidence session until it was recognised that something had to be done, but only when the Oxfam and Save the Children scandal happened was I finally taken seriously.
There are already fears in the current IDC that the latest round of complacency has arrived. In the evidence session on 7 May 2019, we were given an assurance by Frances Longley, then chief executive of Amref Health Africa UK, who said:
“As a sector, we are passionately committed to making that reporting better and more effective, and we absolutely stand side by side with you on that.”
But I wonder what is actually happening. Tracey Smith, then chief executive of British Expertise International, stated:
“The companies have shared best practice. They have looked at the way the sector operates. They have collaborated together, but it is felt that those specific, strategic issues, the support for survivors, cultural change, minimum standards, organisational capacity and capability, are covered by the code of conduct.”
Passion, collaboration and discussion do not produce results and will certainly not do so if they fall back on a vague code of conduct that has hitherto abjectly failed to ensure the safety of the most vulnerable women and girls across the world.
Three problems must be addressed to discourage potential abusers from exploiting women and girls and to support those who have been abused. They relate to reporting, investigation and whistleblowing. Victims of sexual exploitation and abuse encounter significant problems when they attempt to report their experiences. Many different legal regimes may operate in the context of international peacekeepers and overseas aid workers in mission host countries. There is international law, which often comes with immunity in respect of certain actions; the law of the perpetrator’s country, which may or may not provide redress; and the host country’s law, which cannot be reliable if the host country is in political turmoil.
Generally, victims lack the expertise to pursue their cases without legal assistance, and of course they lack the ability to pay for that legal assistance unless they rely on those organisations that may have been responsible for their abuse in the first instance. Different organisations have different structures and complaints procedures, and there may be so many operating in one area that it is impossible to know which the abuser belongs to. Reporting rape and sexual assault is difficult in the best of places, but as Professor Andrew MacLeod stated in the IDC’s evidence session on 6 October this year, in the context of host countries,
“It is like asking the victim of rape to report to the rapist”.
Often, the women or girls cannot read, so notices that we have been assured are pinned up for the victims to read go unread and therefore the complicated systems for reporting such abuse are a complete waste of time.
This situation is not improved by the behaviours of the institutions involved. In the evidence session on 6 October, Sienna Merope-Synge characterised the “practical reality” of the UN’s assistance as
“usually a black hole of information; that is the standard. At best it may be some charitable crumbs to the victim that is not based on an acknowledgement of legal rights and responsibility.”
In the minority of cases that are reported to the organisation involved, there is no guarantee that effective remedial action will be taken against the perpetrators, even when they are known and identified.
The Oxfam scandal of 2018 is probably the best known example of that. After an investigation by The Times in February of that year, it emerged that senior staff in Oxfam’s mission to Haiti, including the Belgian country director Roland van Hauwermeiren, had hired prostitutes at a villa rented by the charity. An internal investigation commenced, in which several of the abusers admitted using “prostitutes”. The internal report concluded that there was a culture of impunity among Oxfam staff and that some of the “prostitutes” could have been under age, yet that report remained confidential. The perpetrators were allowed to resign and the details disclosed to the Charity Commission were inadequate.
Shockingly, The Times reported that Dame Barbara Stocking, the chief executive of Oxfam at that time, offered van Hauwermeiren a “dignified exit”, because sacking him would have had potentially serious implications for the charity’s reputation. In other words, Oxfam was more concerned with looking good than doing good, and acquiesced in one of its top staff members enjoying all the acclaim of his position while performing none of his responsibilities towards the vulnerable people he was meant to protect. He had already been investigated for inappropriate sexual activity in 2011, when he had worked for Merlin, but he had been allowed to resign and go to another job elsewhere.
In numerous evidence sessions to the IDC, it has become apparent that the problem is not exclusive to Oxfam. Nevertheless, what I want to know is why they believe that women or girls are “prostitutes” rather than victims. How many people in this Chamber went to school with somebody who said, “When I grow up, I want to be a prostitute?” Exactly: these women or girls are victims, as are all sex workers.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. When someone applies for another job—ever mindful of their experience and what they have done before—is there not an obligation on that charitable body, or whoever, to ensure that when it seeks a character reference it contains the full details of what the person did before they left their former job?
Mrs Latham
I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. I think that the problem with character references is that those giving them can be sued, and they often have to be public. Often, the person applying for a job has to know what has been said in their character reference, which I feel is completely wrong. Very often, what someone has done is known about, but they resign before the end of the investigation into their activity, which means there is no blot on their copybook; nobody knows about their behaviour and they move on. That is a serious problem and I hope that we will hear from the Minister as to how he will address it.
Reporting sexual exploitation and abuse is often discouraged by those organisations that do not have transparent structures. Many whistleblowers, having approached the media or other organisations, are summarily dismissed and unable to work again in a similar role. These are not isolated examples; there are many examples.
One recent example that attracted notoriety is that of Anders Kompass, a former employee of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. In 2014, he approached French authorities regarding sexual exploitation and abuse that he had learned about by French peacekeepers in the Central African Republic. He was suspended for not having gone through the formality of asking his superior for guidance before whistleblowing and for including personal details of the victims in his report. He was later exonerated by an independent panel. The UN’s allegations were spurious. However, six years later the investigations into the allegations against the French peacekeepers have still not been completed. It is often difficult to avoid the impression that organisations complicit in sexual exploitation and abuse are more concerned with protecting themselves than with punishing the perpetrators, with scant regard for the victims. Given the difficulties at every stage, from perpetration and reporting to whistleblowing and investigating to obtain redress, fundamental changes must be implemented to ensure the safety of women and girls in the world’s most deprived areas. We must not forget that it is a problem for a few boys as well, although a much smaller number than for girls.
Currently, frontline aid workers do not require Disclosure and Barring Service checks to operate in host countries. DBS checks ensure that people working with children and vulnerable adults do not have a history of abuse, which is an effective move towards protection. Since overseas aid workers support mainly very vulnerable children and adults, a requirement that they obtain DBS checks or something similar might improve the situation. There is an aid worker registration scheme that would prevent perpetrators of sexual exploitation and abuse from moving around the sector after their abuse has been detected. The scheme could be made effective if donors and Governments were encouraged to make their donations conditional on an organisation being a member of the scheme.
Twenty-one of the 30 major donors that form the Development Assistance Committee of the OECD have agreed to pilot the scheme. Regular reporting of safeguarding and misconduct data would also ensure that victims are actively sought out rather than expected to report their abuse to organisations that, understandably, they do not trust. The establishment of an ombudsman by the international aid community could reduce the complexity of legal systems and complaints procedures that contribute to the chronic under-reporting of sexual exploitation and abuse. Such abuse by peacekeepers and overseas aid workers is an appalling fact of life for vulnerable people in the world’s most deprived and war-torn areas. It is thought that because sexual exploitation and abuse of under-age children has been tackled primarily in the churches, particularly in this country through the Scouting and Guiding groups and all those other places where it was happening, many of the perpetrators are gravitating towards the aid sector because they can go abroad where they are anonymous and can get away not with murder, but with sexual exploitation and abuse. My hope is that effective reforms will be implemented to improve the situation and that the victims are not simply forgotten, as they have been time and again.
When my right hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) was the Secretary of State for the Department for International Development, she had an international summit just across the road, where many of us present believed that much would be done and achieved as a result of a spotlight on the problem. Things have changed, but nowhere near enough. The whole culture must change, not only to ensure that proper reporting is done, but to stop men’s abuse of women and girls. Men need to know that there is absolutely no tolerance of such behaviour, and that if it happens they will be sacked immediately and will be unlikely to get another job where they have access to the most vulnerable.
I wish to ask the Minister what solutions the new Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has come up with to ensure that this country does not in future become complicit in any form of sexual exploitation and abuse of anyone, never mind the most vulnerable people in the world. What will the Department do to stop it from happening again and again? How does the new, mighty Department plan to follow on from the female Secretaries of State for DFID?
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
The debate can last until 11 o’clock. At three minutes before 11, I will call Pauline Latham to sum up the debate. That means I am required to call the Front-Bench spokespeople no later than 10.27. The guideline limits are 10 minutes for the SNP, 10 minutes for Her Majesty’s Opposition, and 10 minutes for the Minister. Until 10.27 we are in Back-Bench time. Five very distinguished Back-Benchers seek to contribute. Members should bear in mind that the longer they speak at the beginning, the less time a distinguished colleague will have to speak at the end, but we have until 10.27 for Back-Bench contributions. I call Sarah Champion.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I apologise for my tardiness this morning, Mr Hollobone; I got a little over-excited with the one-way system. I am incredibly grateful to follow in the wake of my colleague and friend, the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham). I use the word “wake” determinedly and decidedly, because she has really ploughed a way that the rest of us have followed. I can honestly say that the work of the International Development Committee has been led by her championing this, and I am incredibly grateful for that.
The IDC first started to work on this topic in February 2018, following the Haiti scandal. I am really glad that the Government took this seriously and, as the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire said, held the summit. We had high hopes for that, and I speak of my optimism both as someone who has campaigned for child protection and now as the Chair of the IDC. The non-governmental organisations took up the challenge led by the umbrella organisation, Bond, that put in place training, policies and lots of resources. The UK NGOs saw this as an opportunity to better their practice and get on top of the issues.
Unfortunately, what we have seen is an endless cycle of scandals leading to policy change, rather than work to address the actual problem that is obvious to all of us if we only take the time to look. It is quite simple—people who prey on the vulnerable go to where the vulnerable are. We have seen big movements within faith organisations and children’s organisations to prohibit and prevent this sort of behaviour, to call it out and to prosecute, and I am incredibly grateful for that.
I am, however, shocked that the aid sector is probably 20 or 30 years behind that. The culture that existed, for example, in faith organisations, still exists within the aid sector. They see themselves as doing good work, as being virtuous, and think that everyone is there for the right reasons, so they do not dig down into the fact that perhaps a very small minority is there for very, very wrong reasons.
Abuse can always happen where there is a power imbalance. By very definition, aid workers work with the most vulnerable people on the planet. The IDC is currently running an inquiry into the sexual exploitation of beneficiaries by aid workers, and I have discovered that there is a very unpleasant layering of racism, colonialism, and deep, deep sexism coming from the aid workers to the beneficiaries. We have to challenge this. We really need to see the Government stepping back onto this platform.
I spoke to a number of women aid workers who belong to a Facebook group that they set up when one of them was raped and did not know where to turn. There are now 8,000 women aid workers in that Facebook support group. They set it up to support one another when they were sexually harassed and abused by their colleagues, but when I spoke to them about the beneficiaries they said, “Of course it is going on there. If they do it to us, of course they are going to be doing it to the beneficiaries, where there is even less comeback or awareness and the power imbalance is even greater.” They described it as the wild west: these men—and it is almost exclusively men—coming in as saviours on their white horses, but now they tend to be white UN Hummers and Land Cruisers.
I want to focus a little bit on the UN, because a lot of the abuse we are seeing is by UN peacekeepers. We are very grateful that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and UNICEF appeared before our Committee. They are the two branches of the UN that have been on the front foot in trying to address abuses in the system. However, there are many branches to the UN and unfortunately the abuse is repeated time and again. It should not be. In 2013, a UN investigation declared sexual exploitation and abuse
“the most significant risk to UN peacekeeping missions, above and beyond other key risks including protection of civilians”.
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon himself asserted that “a single substantiated case” of SEA
“involving UN personnel is one case too many”.
Yet civilian and military personnel associated with peacekeeping operations continue to perpetrate sexual exploitation and abuse, despite the development of policy frameworks designed to prevent it and hold perpetrators to account. However, the cycle of abuse—oh, shock!—and action, rather than focusing on prevention, is the reason we are constantly in this loop; and it is a loop and has been going on since that statement. Haiti continued from 2004 to 2017, with peacekeepers stationed there trading sex with children for food, and dozens of women left pregnant from rape.
I have discovered that there is almost a currency exchange going on. I speak to different peacekeepers and aid workers in camps around the world, and it is standard: “If you want a tarpaulin, I spend the night with your daughter.” That is the exchange that we are allowing to be perpetuated. From 2013 to 2015 in Central African Republic, more than 108 cases were investigated, including the sexual abuse of women and children. Twenty-six peacekeepers, from France, Chad and Equatorial Guinea, were accused of forcing children into acts of bestiality. Human Rights Watch also documented gang rapes by armed UN peacekeepers near the base where women were scrabbling around looking for food. They were then threatened with death if they reported it.
In 2017 in the Democratic Republic of Congo, UN peacekeepers were accused of rape, sexual abuse and exploitation, accounting for roughly a third of all allegations against peacekeepers in 2017. Women, again, were left pregnant and forced to care for children on their own. Video from Tel Aviv in 2020 shows a woman straddling a man in the back seat of a vehicle from the UN Truce Supervision Organisation unit.
The reason it keeps on happening is that the focus is on the victims to report, and then on banning the perpetrators once they are discovered. It is just not realistic. In the DRC, one organisation had 23 reporting mechanisms, but they were not being used and it took journalists to uncover what was going on. We keep hearing, particularly of the UN, that there is a culture of impunity. The UN says that it has zero tolerance, but in the DRC, UN-marked vehicles were driving the perpetrators to hotels to “interview” the women for jobs. There was also a lot of hostility in DRC towards aid workers. Are we really surprised?
Yesterday, we had a session looking at the report by the Independent Commission for Aid Impact on abuses carried out by peacekeepers, and it became clear that there was a lack of commitment in middle management, leading to that feeling of impunity. There is no regulatory body for the UN. The UK could push for that. Transactional sex versus sexual exploitation: there is allowed to be a grey area for what is or is not acceptable. Let us just say that sex with any beneficiary is not acceptable. The UN’s whistleblower protection is, to be honest, useless.
We need an independent mechanism to give confidence to victims. To make lasting change we need strong leadership. I say that, because I know the Minister can do this: he can give us that leadership and take personal responsibility for tackling sexual exploitation and abuse in the aid sector, and make it his priority. He can ensure that the UK uses its diplomatic ties with the UN and Governments around the world to start meaningful discussions on how we can get justice for victims and survivors.
Why does the UK not contribute to the UN trust fund in support of victims of sexual exploitation and abuse? As to prevention, mechanisms to prevent SEA and provide support for victims and survivors should be incorporated in the design of all aid programmes, and budgeted for, from the start. The Government should fund only aid organisations that can demonstrate how to militate against sexual exploitation and that that is integral in all of their work. Aid organisations should challenge the extreme power imbalances between the people delivering aid and the local populations receiving it. The Minister should be championing that and challenging those imbalances. I understand why we are shifting resources from the ongoing humanitarian crisis to the covid-19 response, but we still need to do the base work. The Government have put significant time, energy and resources into looking at the perpetrators and how to prevent them from working, but we need to put the same energy into preventing those abusers from having access to potential victims.
I echo the final point made by the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire: we cannot expect victims to come forward and report. We need to be there on the ground—preventing, looking and, most importantly, listening. I have one final ask for the Minister, which is really simple. Currently, NGOs cannot access DBS checks. We need to expand what is classified as regulated activity, and then we can stop this parade of people going to exploit the most vulnerable in the world.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) not just on the work that she is doing today by highlighting this issue, but on all the work she does to highlight the sexual exploitation of women and child marriage. The Minister could do very well to listen closely to what she says at all times, because it is built on many years of experience.
It is with great trepidation that I follow the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), who is another expert on these issues. She has dedicated many years to talking about sexual exploitation not just in the international sector—as she has so eloquently just done—but in the domestic sector. Again, the Minister could do very well to listen to the Chair of the Select Committee, because she brings incredible expertise on these issues. They are complex and difficult to solve, and trying to solve them overnight is not something that we will be able to do; it has to be for the long term.
There can be few people in this country who were not shocked to the core by the revelations that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire talked about. They challenged our trust in organisations that are household names—organisations that many of us would freely give to on a regular basis were being brought into the frame for overseeing some of the most horrendous abuse in places such as Haiti and far beyond. We have heard heartbreaking accounts from victims, and we have been shocked at the way that perpetrators were simply allowed to move from organisation to organisation, almost as a matter of right. I was glad to hear about today’s debate because of the ongoing work that the Select Committee has done on this issue, but also because of the inability to find a solution and the need to hold the Government to account.
At the time of the revelations, I was contacted by some of the whistleblowers in one of the international organisations. I was absolutely shocked to the core at the lack of reporting mechanisms. Indeed, as I think the Chair of the Select Committee said, the fact that victims had to report the abuse to the perpetrator is completely unacceptable.
Through their work over the past 10 years, the Government have put themselves at the centre of international development. The UK Government are an acknowledged world leader on these issues, which is why it is important to hear from the Minister how they are taking forward that leadership position. If one thing is for sure, the UK Government cannot step back from that now. We have to step up to the plate and continue to use vigorously our international development clout, which we undoubtedly have, for the good of the sort of people we are talking about.
In their response to the most recent Select Committee report—the Committee has produced two and I think it has almost finished a third report on this issue—the Government rightly said that things cannot be changed in a short period of time. It requires a sustained commitment from each Minister who holds the portfolio that my hon. Friend the Minister has at the moment so that we can see a change, not just in the mechanisms, as has been said today in this debate, but in the ingrained culture that pervades these organisations.
That culture is pervasive because, as the Chair of the Select Committee has said, people who prey on the vulnerable go to where the vulnerable are, whether it is at home or abroad. The recent evidence that the Select Committee has taken for its third report has underlined that. We are talking about a group of workers who have remote and insecure tenure and we have a group of people who are in need of support and have no power at all; they are the most vulnerable people on the planet.
We need clarity from the Government, both today in this debate and in the long term, as to where the international development portfolio sits within the new Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. I am an enormous supporter of the merging of the two Departments, as it could be a power for good to have the leadership of the Foreign Secretary on these issues. That is not to take away from previous International Development Secretaries, but that leadership puts it at the heart of the most powerful people in our Government. However, I am not clear as to exactly where the international development strategy lies within the former Foreign Office’s body of work on a daily basis. I would be grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister if he could set that out today.
I believe that the FCDO—or the former Foreign Office—has a fantastic track record on issues to do with women’s rights around the world, whether under William Hague, when he was dealing with women in areas of conflict, or, indeed, when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had that role, dealing with education for girls around the world. This is strongly within Foreign Office culture , but the Minister needs to set out today and as the weeks go on, exactly how that strategy will be embedded in the new departmental structure, as it is important that people understand that.
I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire has talked about this: the 2018 to 2030 strategic vision for gender equality on international development is crucial. It is an important piece of work that sets out the Government’s long-term commitment to issues of gender equality around the world. The issue of sexual exploitation is at the heart of that.
Can the Minister reconfirm the Government’s commitment to that strategic vision in its entirety at this stage, as well as looking at the more practical measures that the Select Committee has now put forward on two occasions to make sure that there is lasting change on issues of sexual exploitation? Embedding measures around whistleblowing and reporting are crucial, as well as having that strategic vision at the heart of the Government’s work.
In conclusion, under the newly-formed FCDO, the Government have an opportunity to renew their international credentials on these issues of support for women around the world. Sexual exploitation, unfortunately, is not going away. Action taken over the last 10 years has put this Government at the centre of these issues on the global stage, and we must not stand back now. Tackling sexual exploitation needs to be at the heart of the FCDO’s strategy for gender equality as we move forward.
I know my hon. Friend the Minister is a great champion of these issues. He is a man of great integrity, and I know that he will bring that to this job. I look to him to ensure that within the Government’s work, this is not just something that is talked about in Westminster Hall debates, but is tackled on a daily basis—not just within his portfolio, but by all of his colleagues within the newly formed Department.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) on bringing forward the case and presenting it so well. I almost feel in awe of those who have spoken before me, including the hon. Lady for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and the right hon. Lady for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), who both do incredible work in this department. I think we owe a debt to those three ladies in particular. I am not taking anything away from those who will speak after me, including the hon. Members for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall). I just think that those three ladies have put a wonderful case and we thank them for their work. I am pleased to see the Minister. I am not quite sure whether this is an order, Mr Hollobone, but I think he might be at Westminster Hall more often than I am. It is good to see him.
You may be aware, Mr Hollobone, that I hail from what is not only the most beautiful country in the UK but the most generous. I say that factually: it is understood that Northern Ireland donates the most money per capita to charity than anywhere else in the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We are that sort of people. I am not taking away from anybody else, but that is what we do. The facts indicate that. I am a great believer in the need to help others. I am a well-known advocate in this place for retaining our international development funding and for using NGOs and Christian charities on the ground. I know many churches that do incredible work. They do it—I say this honestly—because they are generous people and they want to help. That is what it should all be about.
I was very shocked and saddened by reports of exploitation in Haiti by NGO workers. It is clear that, although it is good to use NGOs on the ground, we must be certain that there is no abuse on the ground. I read with dismay a number of briefings presented to me by different NGOs and by Bond, which represents a number of NGOs, indicating the serious response of charities to the thought that any of their staff, anywhere in the world, would take advantage of the most vulnerable people.
It makes my blood boil when I hear that those in power have used and abused their important positions for a loaf of bread. Would anyone here give someone a loaf of bread with a condition attached? No, we would not—or at least I would not, and neither would anyone else in this Chamber. We would give it to them because they wanted it. Would we give someone a tarpaulin because they wanted and needed it? Of course we would, and we would not attach a condition to it. Why is it that these people, including UN peacekeepers and some charity workers, are using their position in such an obscene, violent and criminal way? They are there to help; they are not there to abuse underage children. It absolutely shocks me to the core when I think of what those people have done. I tell you what—no, I cannot say what I was about to say; that would be wrong. I will just say this: let the law of the land take control and bring them to account.
Bond has suggested a number of ways in which we in this place can play our part. First, we should make safeguarding in aid and development a political priority, ensuring that core safeguarding is funded effectively through the grant and contracting processes. I say to the Minister that that is key. It is about making sure that those NGOs and charities have in place a methodology that makes these people accountable.
We need a requirement to ensure that new systems reach the most marginalised and invest in prevention. Bond states:
“In the past two years, increased resources have been dedicated to the development of policies, systems and structures, providing a sound platform for reports to be sensitively and effectively handled and responded to. A vital next step is to ensure that these new systems reach marginalised people in the communities in which NGOs are working.”
NGOs are on the frontline. They have a position of incredible responsibility, but they should be using it for the vulnerable people—for those people who need help. Just help them—do not take advantage of them. Bond adds that investment should go
“prevention, rather than waiting for people to speak up when the damage has been done”.
We also need UK legislation to widen the meaning of regulated activity. Perhaps legislation needs to be tweaked in order to provide an obligation for NGO workers to have DBS checks, and to require NGOs to report to the DBS any cases where harm has been caused, so that these individuals can be not just legally barred but made accountable in the courts of the land and prevented from working with children and at-risk people. Making such checks available to NGOs should be a priority, so I ask the Minister: how will that protection be provided? I know that he is going to reply to the debate, but speaking honestly and from the bottom of my heart, I think we all want that to be in place.
You have been clear about the time, Mr Hollobone, so I will conclude with this. There are many issues that we cannot control, but there are others that we can and we must sow them. This new way of doing things must take priority. We must put in place a new system of working in partnership with NGOs that goes beyond funding. Were direct Government workers to be found guilty of exploitation, we would make changes to prevent repeats. If that is our approach in this land, let us do it in other lands as well. I know that the responsibility for running these charities does not belong to us in this House, but we still have an obligation to make safeguarding changes that permeate through the NGOs, as we seek to ensure that every penny that we put into the charities helps people and does not abuse and exploit the vulnerable any further.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
There are 12 minutes of Back-Bench time left and two contributions to go. I call Fiona Bruce.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I will be brief. It is always a pleasure to honour my friend, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I support what he has said and I deeply respect the contributions that have been made by other eminent Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham), the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller). I want to take a slightly different line, because I do not want to repeat what they have already said with such gravitas.
I want to focus for a moment on the abuse that has been suffered by women and girls in Pakistan, a country to which the UK pays an estimated £383,000 per day in aid. Many are very young girls from minority groups who are abducted, forcibly married and sexually abused—girls like Huma Younus, who was 14 at the time of her abduction, Maira Shahbaz, who was 14 at the time of hers, and Saneha Kinza Iqbal, who was 15. The list goes on. Research suggests that approximately 1,000 such girls, often from religious minorities, are abducted and sexually abused in Pakistan every year. Unfortunately, not many will see justice.
Should we really be paying a reported £383,000 per day in British taxpayers’ money by way of aid—that adds up to £2.8 billion over 20 years—to a country where the rights of so many women are trampled on, where the rights of minorities are ignored, and where there is no freedom of speech or belief, as enabled by Pakistan’s unacceptable blasphemy laws? Can we allow that to continue without calling it out at the highest level as part of the FCDO strategy and on the ground?
I want to talk a little bit more about Maira Shahbaz. The details come from Aid to the Church in Need, which I commend for its reliable information. I have had the privilege of working with that organisation for 10 years. Aged 14, Maira was abducted during the covid lockdown. She was taken from her home in Madina Town, Pakistan, in April this year. She was bundled into a car at gunpoint by three men—a 14-year-old girl. Her life was suddenly turned upside down. She was filmed and photographed being raped and then forced to convert to Islam and marry one of her abductors. In a statement to the police, she said:
“They threatened to murder my whole family. They have also shown me my naked video and pictures which they have taken on their mobile while raping me.”
She was placed in a shelter for women and girls, but what is really shocking is that when her case was heard in court, the Lahore High Court judge determined that she should be returned to her abductor. She actually had to return to his home. Fortunately, however, she managed to escape. Her lawyer states:
“Maira’s life is in constant danger because she is condemned as an apostate by her abductor and his supporters. Unless Maira and her family can leave Pakistan they will always be at risk of being killed.”
Aid to the Church in Need has launched a petition on her behalf. Her case is ongoing, but she is now forever in danger in her home country. There is the threat of honour killing. Extremists in Pakistan have said that they will kill her at the first chance. Her lawyer has said that men are looking for her, knocking on doors and asking for her whereabouts.
That is all happening while the UK Government continue to pay millions of taxpayers’ money to Pakistan. We need to ask some really important questions. What is being done to protect these vulnerable minority women and girls? How is some of the money being used to support them? What are our aid workers doing on the ground to address this issue? It is not a small issue—thousands of young women are affected. What challenges are our Government making to a judicial system that returns the abused to her abuser? Are the Government putting in place strategic plans to address the issue? To which projects does UK aid contribute to support these vulnerable women and girls? What effective challenges have been made by the UK Government against the utterly unjust blasphemy laws, so often cited to justify such atrocities? Why should such enormous amounts of money continue to be paid to a country that so blatantly fails to address such breaches in fundamental human rights?
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. There are five distinguished Back-Bench Members present. I do not include myself among them, but I am humbled by the words of those who have spoken before me, who have worked on the International Development Committee and other long-standing initiatives.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) on securing the debate, on her long-standing work on the issue and on the IDC report on sexual abuse in the aid sector. It is a staggering example of why the IDC needs to continue in future years, which is something I will be pushing for in the coming weeks and months.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire talked about the need for agencies not to look good, but to do good. I hope I will add to that point in due course. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) talked about shattering the culture of impunity, which is something I am working on with her. My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) talked about the need for a sustained course of action. The UK Government have no excuse, because in 2014 we launched an initiative on preventing sexual violence in conflict. Six years on, nothing has happened, other than lip service. We need more to be done in the short term, so I agree with everything she said about that.
In any conflict or crisis, the sight of aid agency workers or peacekeepers should be welcome. They are the first responders, the international community’s emissaries of good will, peace and assistance. For those suffering from the horrors of war, famine and disease, our NGOs and international organisations, such as the UN, should be welcomed. Their arrival reflects not just medical assistance, food aid and peacekeeping missions, but a realisation that the international community is paying attention to the plight of a people and of a conflict.
Yet, in recent years the bond of trust and faith in our NGOs and those multilateral organisations has been severely damaged by persistent examples of sexual exploitation and abuse by aid workers, some of which has already been mentioned. In 2002, the UNHCR and Save the Children reported that there had been 67 allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse by 40 aid agencies and nine peacekeeping battalions in Africa.
In 2004, Kate Holt documented sexual exploitation and abuse by UN peacekeepers in the DRC. In 2007 and 2008, a study documented that sexual exploitation and abuse was widespread and common knowledge in aid agencies in Kenya, Namibia and Thailand. The list goes on and on. The same can be said for 2008, 2015 and 2018, which saw exploitation in Syria, the DRC and the Central African Republic. These are not exceptions; they are just the incidences that we know about. That is where the problem lies. Imagine the horror of recognising that those who are there to help turn out to be the exploiters and abusers who harm the very people they are there to protect.
Earlier this year, the UN recognised the International Day of UN Peacekeepers. Across this country, we marked the extraordinary work of many peacekeepers across the world. It was right to do that, but it was also a reminder of the work we have to do to ensure that sexual exploitation and abuse is eradicated. Although many in this Chamber joined me in marking that day, I was struck by the remarkable number of people who chose not to do so due to the reports that I have just referenced.
Despite the reports that have been published and the press attention that come with them, the matter is under-reported. The lack of attention given to the matter does not reflect the incredibly high level of abuse and exploitation. We need to rectify that by collating and documenting information, and protecting survivors so that we can identify abuse and prevent it in future years.
Fortunately, I believe there is a solution. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on preventing sexual violence in conflict, and having worked with Lord Hague when he set up that initiative in 2012, I believe there is a way in which we can end the culture of impunity and tackle sexual abuse and violence in conflicts and crises around the world. One-hundred and forty-seven nations have signed our UN resolution on this topic. It is time we took the action we promised all those years ago and ended the mindset that those who perpetrate such crimes can escape justice. We need radical action to ensure that no one, in any place across the globe, will be able to escape justice if they commit acts of sexual abuse and exploitation.
As faith in multilateral organisations has been so severely hampered over the last few years, I believe that the UK should look to create a new international body that documents crimes, supports survivors and helps to launch prosecutions. Not only would an organisation with this three-pillared approach be a conduit for international organisations to feed in their accounts of sexual exploitation and abuse; it would also allow citizens of every country to seek assistance and to know that the international community is safeguarding their rights, in order to restore the faith that has been so badly lost.
Next year we hold the presidency of the G7. I believe this would be the most opportune moment to launch such an international body—I apologise to the Minister, because I made the same point to him yesterday in this Chamber, but we might as well be consistent. Coupled with a 3% ring fence of our aid budget to tackle gender-based violence, I believe that would reassure people at home and abroad that the UK is still a force for good and that we will not shirk our international responsibilities.
To conclude on a slightly more positive note, I was delighted to read earlier this year about the first ever Pakistani female engagement team, who were deployed to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The team, which included psychologists, stress councillors, doctors and nurses, was the right step to help rebuild faith in our peacekeeping missions across the globe. I hope that many other organisations will be taking note and will do the work that is so desperately needed to rebuild the relationship between survivor and aid agency.
Later this month, on 25 November, it is International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. I am working with Parliaments across the world on a statement of intent and action. We will be holding our own debate in this place on gender-based violence and the merger of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development, which I am sure the Minister will probably respond to. I am incredibly grateful to the hon. Member for Rotherham, who has already agreed to sign the letter, copies of which I will be sending out later. We have the opportunity to take action. The UK has the platform to do so next year. We need a new international body, and it should be here in the UK, where we are leading by action, not just warm words.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) on securing this debate on such an important and distressing subject. It has been a genuine pleasure to hear so many distinguished contributions from Members who have taken a long-standing and deeply principled stance on exposing this scandal, doing all they can to highlight it to other Members and the public at large, and seeking genuine reforms that can make a real difference to many people in vulnerable situations around the world. We have heard harrowing cases cited from many countries, including Liberia, Guinea, Sierra Leone, Namibia, Thailand, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Pakistan. They include cases of exploitation of women and girls in particular—albeit not exclusively—but above all people at their most vulnerable. These cases involve the abuse of power and the power imbalances in the relationship between those there to deliver aid and help on the ground, and those in need of that help. It is about who has power in those situations and who does not. It is about who has control—or, in many cases, who is thought to have control—over access to food, shelter, medicine, jobs and life opportunities, and over the immediate future for people, their families and perhaps even their wider communities.
When that relationship is abused, it undermines trust not only in aid workers, who are there to assist how they can, but in the agencies and the work itself. That is not something that we should allow to stand, because that undermining of trust is hugely debilitating for all concerned—not only for the wellbeing of those in need of the aid, but for those who are exploited indirectly through that and for the aid agencies themselves, which rely on their public standing to carry out all the work they do.
According to Professor Andrew MacLeod of Hear Their Cries, a charity fighting sex abuse in the aid sector, there is almost a culture of impunity for abusers at the moment. As we have heard from many speakers this morning, the organisations frequently act as if they are above the law. In many cases, they find it more convenient to cover up than to act and eradicate this problem. Professor MacLeod also said:
“Predators now target the aid industry to join because they know they get away with it.”
As a result of recent enquiries in Parliament, humanitarian groups and five of seven UN agencies, including the WHO, UNICEF, the International Organisation for Migration, World Vision and the medical non-governmental organisation Alama, have now announced inquiries into the matter. Although I welcome that recognition of the problem, which is overdue, it is far too easy just to talk of “zero tolerance”. Those words come very easily; the challenge is in actually doing something about it. Sadly, it will take a great deal more than simply expressing disapproval to ensure that lasting change is to happen, as the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) said.
Yes, there needs to be a culture of safeguarding within aid agencies and organisations—we are all familiar with that and need to ensure it happens—but there also needs to be a culture in which concerns can be reported and taken seriously without fear of consequence, apart from the consequences that need to arise from those concerns being reported. People need to know that their concerns, when expressed, will be taken seriously, particularly victims, but also those within aid organisations who know what is going on and perhaps do not feel that they have the power to report their concerns.
When we deal with aid agencies, we are dealing with organisations that are by definition at the sharp end of the human experience, operating as they do in areas where civil society has perhaps broken down, whether through conflict or chaos. Many of our own domestic institutions have struggled to deal with accusations of sexual abuse, in a country with a functioning judiciary and legal system. We should not underestimate the difficulties of trying to tackle sexual abuse in situations of chaos and conflict, but that cultural change needs to happen nevertheless. One fundamental thing that we could do that would greatly assist that would be to ensure that more women are represented in aid agencies in leadership, management and frontline positions—I am pleased to see so many hon. Members nodding—to ensure balance and supervision that might not otherwise be there. I do not mean to decry the men working in aid agencies who do their very best and are not party to the abuse, but we need that balance, which could help to bring about and embed the necessary cultural change to challenge the abuse that operates in plain sight.
We need to provide mechanisms to ensure that those who are abused never have to report that abuse to an abuser. We need to find ways of ensuring that recipients of aid—no matter where they are or what their situation, their level of literacy or their access to technology—are made aware that aid is not a transaction: that there is no cost to them and that aid agencies are there to provide aid unconditionally. All that requires leadership, clarity, organisational effectiveness and an improvement of culture in the aid organisations, and is urgently necessary to maintain public confidence, particularly among those who receive the aid.
It is also fair to say that a Government response is required. As I draw my remarks to a close, I will make, I hope, a few constructive suggestions, which I would be grateful if the Minister considered. The UK Government’s reputation in international development is long established and well earned. That authority, together with membership of the permanent five on the UN Security Council, gives the UK Government a particularly strong leadership role in demanding reforms of the United Nations and its agencies—the UN sets a standard that many other agencies will follow. Our leadership position would allow us to embed that culture of internal and external accountability.
We could also do more to facilitate the prosecution of alleged perpetrators of abuse. Too often, it is left to the jurisdictions of the countries where the aid is distributed to deliver justice, when civil society may have substantially broken down and there is chaos. We could allow for prosecution at home. We could allow for a special tribunal to carry out those sorts of prosecutions and to make sure the rights of whistleblowers are defended, particularly regarding abusers but also those who are accused but not as yet deemed guilty, to protect everyone’s rights and also to make sure that mechanism of accountability exists.
The FCDO could also lead in establishing a global register of aid workers, which could allow us to track perpetrators of abuse as they seek to move around countries and agencies. I do not underestimate the challenge, but I think it would be a strong declaration of intent, and a practical way to try to eliminate that sort of behaviour and keep those who are not entering the aid sector with positive motivations away from the most vulnerable as they move around agencies and around the world. We could do a great deal more to build up civil society, strengthening the role of women not only within aid organisations but within civil society, as we seek to rebuild it in those zones that are receiving aid. There is also work to be done to embed a culture of training aid workers to spot abuse and empower those they are there to help, and to help people be aware of their rights and how to challenge and report abuses.
In drawing my remarks to a close, I will say that we have a position of leadership. Many of us—certainly in my party, and I know others across the House—had some concerns about the merger of DFID and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. We need to be assured that the Government will dedicate the efforts and resource needed to play a part and, more importantly, to help to restore the reputations of aid agencies around the world. We are in a unique position to do that, and I look to the Minister to tell us how we can carry that out.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) for securing this crucial debate. It was a real pleasure to serve with her on the Select Committee on International Development, and I commend that Committee and its excellent Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), as well as her predecessor, Stephen Twigg, for their consistent and relentless attention—particularly that of the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire—to these crucial issues over many years. We have heard some excellent contributions today, from the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall)—I know he said he was not distinguished, but I thought it was an excellent and absolutely sincerely meant contribution—as well as the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), and of course the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), as well as the spokesperson for the SNP, the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson).
Consistent attention to this issue is absolutely crucial, because as we have heard today, simply investigating and responding in a reactive way to each incident in an isolated fashion is not, and will never be, good enough. I regret to say that these issues have been and are systemic, and not just in the aid sector, among international aid agencies, or among private sector contractors working in international development or peacekeeping. They are systemic in all contexts where vulnerable people exist and, crucially, where there are power imbalances, not least gender-based power imbalances, imbalances that exist between donors and recipients, or those that exist between so-called protectors and the people they are supposed to be protecting.
This is a crucial point because, as many of the Members who have spoken today have said, we have to recognise that predators and abusers actively seek out the vulnerable, and usually manipulate and take advantage of such systemic, specific power imbalances. We know this from decades of our own experiences, domestically as well as internationally. Whether in parts of the Church, among celebrities, in sport, in the media or with looked-after children, we have seen those tactics used to find and exploit victims. It is absolutely right, as has been done, to highlight environments of conflict, extreme poverty and distress as particularly vulnerable environments with vulnerable individuals, and I have seen those myself around the world.
I think of one of the first visits I paid to Malawi when working in the NGO sector, when I went to a World Food Programme feeding station that was responding to food shortages in southern Malawi. I was 25 years old. I was taken to a village where hundreds of people were queuing up to receive their assistance from the WFP, yet they had to wait for their food while I was sat on a chair, in front of everybody else sitting in the dust, for me to give a speech. I was taken aback by that, but unfortunately it is the culture that exists: me as a 25-year-old white man, sitting there on a chair while other people sat in the dust, waiting for their food. In those first experiences, it was clear to me how such a situation can turn into one where there is abuse, imbalance and misuse of power.
The resolute and consistent cross-party action of the International Development Committee in pursuing these issues underpins the Committee’s value and why, in scrutinising our official development assistance, our role in these matters is crucial. I hope the Committee or one similar will continue to scrutinise our official development assistance budget. I urge the Minister to consider that point, which has had support from across the House.
I have seen NGOs, peacekeepers and others do huge good around the world but, I am sorry to say, this is not the first time I have had to speak on these issues. As a former staff member of Oxfam and World Vision, I was utterly horrified by what I heard was happening in Haiti. At the time, I said:
“I completely share the horror and revulsion about the revelations…I feel let down. I know that many current Oxfam staff members feel completely let down, too, both by the actions of those who carried out these terrible incidents and by the failure to deal with them”.—[Official Report, 20 February 2018; Vol. 636, c. 53.]
That is absolutely crucial.
Some years later, I was horrified to hear of another example. I will not read out the name of the individual at the heart of the allegations in Haiti, not least because I cannot pronounce it, but also because he does not need his name repeated. I spoke to a former civil servant for the Department for International Development, who said that that man was well known throughout the sector and had moved from agency to agency before ending up in that situation with Oxfam.
That is a tragedy, because organisations mentioned today such as World Vision have led work internationally on these matters. One of the first issues I worked with them on was tackling the loophole that allowed paedophiles to travel to south-east Asia to abuse children. World Vision did incredible work on that, so it is a great tragedy for me that some of the organisations that have led in the fight to protect vulnerable people find these problems in their own organisations.
We have heard many excellent contributions and recommendations today, which I wholeheartedly endorse on behalf of the official Opposition. I hope the Minister will explain what progress has been made on working globally with others to implement the recommendations that the Committee has made in its several reports, not least in the light of new allegations in relation to the DRC.
I want to highlight a particular recommendation that the IDC made in its report. We cannot have platitudes, as the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire said. It is simply not good enough. The Committee said:
“Whilst we recognise the value of developing best practice guidance and ensuring that it is widely available, we learned from our initial SEA inquiry that the existence of good guidance is only valuable to the extent that it is followed in practice.”
The Committee also warned:
“Voluntary self-regulation of safeguarding standards allows failures on sexual exploitation and abuse to slip through the cracks: in our view the case for an independent ombudsman remains strong.”
I want to highlight another area from the IDC report, which said:
“Protection for whistle-blowers should form part of all frameworks for reporting sexual exploitation, abuse and harassment of both beneficiaries and staff.”
Insufficient attention is being given to these issues. The protection of whistleblowers and the freedom of people to come forward and speak out on these issues is crucial. I wonder how the Minister will respond to those key points.
The New Humanitarian and Thomson Reuters Foundation recently exposed shocking reports regarding the DRC. They have horrified hon. Members across the House. The investigation was released in September and refers to 51 women who have accused aid workers of sexual exploitation and abuse during the Ebola response in the DRC. Organisations involved, allegedly, include the World Health Organisation, World Vision, UNICEF, the Alliance for International Medical Action, Oxfam, Médecins sans Frontières and the International Organization for Migration.
Many of those accounts were backed up by aid agency drivers and local NGO workers, exposing multiple incidents of alleged abuse. Given the number and similarity of the accounts from the women in the eastern city of Beni—one of the epicentres of Ebola—it is likely that the abuse was widespread, but the investigation only focused on Beni. We have to accept that in these situations we are not getting the full picture of what has been going on.
I do not need to further detail the stories, which have already been mentioned, of women being plied with drinks, ambushed in offices and hospitals, some being locked in rooms by men who promised jobs or threatened to fire them if they did not comply, and, of course, forced pregnancies as a result of abuse. It is absolutely extraordinary. Men from countries including Belgium, Burkina Faso, Canada, Côte d’Ivoire, France and Guinea were named as abusers. Many women were afraid to come forward and speak out about their experiences.
With the shadow International Development Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill), I wrote to the agencies implicated in that response. I am sorry to say that we have not heard back from many of them, but I commend Oxfam and World Vision for responding very robustly and rapidly. Oxfam pointed out in particular that it has now joined the inter-agency misconduct disclosure scheme, which aims to highlight perpetrators. But again I have to ask: is that working? We see these platitudes in these letters; we see these warm words. What is the reality on the ground? These examples keep happening again and again. We asked some extremely tough questions and we will continue to do so.
Oxfam also pointed out research that it was doing that had uncovered a range of aspects that prevent people from coming forward. It pointed out the issues of people not being willing to speak in certain country contexts, preferences about the way to report incidents and so on. I am not sure that that needs research. A lot of it is absolute common sense and blatantly obvious to anybody who has looked at these examples. We need to see less dilly-dallying and dithering by agencies. We need to see action on the ground, and the Government need to be supporting that.
I have some questions for the Minister, not least about the response of the FCDO itself. People may think that the issue is just aid agencies, peacekeepers or others, but unfortunately Governments and international agencies are also involved. Therefore, although we welcome the change to the new FCDO terms and conditions and human resources policies to ensure that sexual relationships between staff and beneficiaries and partners are considered unacceptable and will be treated as potential gross misconduct by the FCDO, can the Minster explain who is included within that category of staff and whether the same treatment will be applied to all staff who are contracted to Departments that are spending UK official development assistance? Is the FCDO providing adequate funding to ensure that safeguarding is at the heart of our ODA programmes with agencies, contractors and multilateral agencies?
Then there is armed forces training. The Minister will know that we give a lot of support to, for example, peacekeepers. Will he explain what is happening on that and how we are ensuring adherence to the highest standards in those we are training? Given that there needs to be co-ordination, will he also explain how the Government are looking at monitoring individuals as they move between organisations? That is one of the crucial issues that have come to light.
In conclusion, we must accept that there is a systemic problem. We have to drive systemic and cultural change within organisations in the sector and ensure that there is prevention, not just reaction.
The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) not just for securing this debate, but for having been a passionate voice in this area for a considerable time, and long before this issue was in the broader public consciousness. I will go through some of the UK Government’s actions, but I think that one reason why we find ourselves in a leadership position on this is that there have been voices such as my hon. Friend’s, which have been making this case for far longer than others.
I pay tribute also to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for her chairmanship of the Select Committee and to the members of that Committee, who have pursued with alacrity this incredibly important issue.
I thank all those hon. Members who have made contributions today. We all joke about how Westminster Hall is a much better debating place than the main Chamber of the House of Commons, but with this debate it has been shown once again that, sometimes, difficult and challenging questions can be asked in good faith, with a desire to bring about positive change, rather than just as a short-term political stick to beat each other with across the aisle. I will respond as much as I can to the points that have been made.
Sexual exploitation, abuse and harassment are completely unacceptable, especially in a sector whose purpose is to help the most vulnerable. My concern sometimes is that these stories are used by critics of ODA spending as an excuse for the UK to withdraw from its international commitments. I will say this clearly: no, it is a reason for us to work harder to address these issues rather than to step away from them.
In 2018, the aid sector’s failure to tackle sexual exploitation came into sharp relief, and it has been raised by a number of people today. We now realise—indeed, it is very clear—that it was far from an isolated incident. That has been reinforced today. The hon. Member for Rotherham highlighted the pernicious cocktail of attitudes that are, unfortunately, if not prevalent, then certainly not isolated in the aid sector, and that lead some people to believe that the people they are meant to be helping are somehow lesser than them.
The case is therefore clear: we must do more to drive up safeguarding standards, and we must act quickly. Inevitably, there will be a power and wealth imbalance in the sector that we are talking about, but we must never accept the inevitability that that should lead to sexual exploitation and abuse.
Since 2018, the UK has spearheaded work to tackle sexual misconduct in the aid sector. We launched a £10 million multi-year initiative with Interpol to identify and stop perpetrators from working in the sector and, with a UK commitment of £10 million, we developed tools to help organisations with their safeguarding. The misconduct disclosure scheme, backed by the UK, prevented at least 36 people with track records of sexual misconduct from being employed by NGOs in 2019. Following wide consultation, we have designed a new multi-million-pound programme of support to survivors and victims. We will provide further details in 2021.
Yet cases still occur far too frequently, as we have seen in the horrific reports from the DRC, and the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) is absolutely right that we have to assume that that is just the tip of the iceberg. Reporting has increased—which perversely, I suppose, is a positive sign. We know that there has been, as is often the case with sexual abuse, huge under-reporting, both domestically and internationally.
Tackling sexual misconduct is a priority for the UK Government. In September, we published our first aid sector safeguarding strategy. The UK is pushing for change in three areas. First is sector-wide change. The UK is providing global leadership to tackle the issue from the top. The Prime Minister is a member of the UN Secretary General’s Circle of Leadership to prevent and end sexual exploitation and abuse. The UK brings together donors, NGOs, the United Nations and others to ensure a coherent international approach. We adhere to global standards on sexual misconduct and require our partners to do the same. In 2019, we helped to write and signed the OECD Development Assistance Committee’s recommendations on the issue, with 29 other DAC members.
Organisational change within the UK Government is our second priority; that means a comprehensive look at our own cultures and practices. We have sent a clear message out to all staff that safeguarding is a responsibility for everybody, and we hope that will alleviate the challenge of where victims have to report to their abusers. At the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, that includes a clear statement in our staff code of conduct that sexual exploitation and abuse based on power imbalances, including paying for sex—my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire is absolutely right; I will not describe that as prostitution, because that is not what it is: it is abuse—is gross misconduct. All ODA-spending Departments have signed up to that language.
Thirdly, we want to raise standards among those who deliver UK programmes overseas. We have strengthened our due diligence assessments and aligned the safeguarding language in our multilateral funding agreements with other donors, clearly setting out our collective expectations. Reaching our standards can be a challenge for some small grass-roots organisations, so the UK has created the resource and support hub to help build up their safeguarding capabilities. Some might argue that we are not tough enough and should cut funding to all organisations where any allegations occur. Our concern is that that would introduce a perverse incentive to cover up the very issues that we need to see more of.
Stephen Doughty
Does that apply to all staff in all Departments spending ODA and all those contracted to those Departments? That is important.
James Cleverly
On the language that I used about gross misconduct, the t’s and c’s of the FCDO can apply only to the FCDO, but all ODA-spending Government Departments have agreed with the wording underpinning that. All Departments signed up to the language in the UK strategy. It is about trying to ensure that we do not introduce perverse incentives that would drive the issue back underground, as we have seen before.
Regrettably, safeguarding cases will still occur from time to time. However, we collectively work to reduce the risk, and we will not tolerate a lack of effort or action. That is why we require our partners to do all they reasonably can to prevent sexual exploitation, abuse and harassment and to respond sensitively to the victims and robustly within organisations. We will not fund partners who do not reach those standards.
Let me end by saying that more needs to be done. Sadly, we have heard that this issue will be an enduring challenge, and the UK will remain at the forefront. We will place the rights, needs and wishes of victims and survivors and the centre of our response. The UK strategy sets out four commitments for all Departments delivering UK aid: we will continue to provide global leadership; we will hold ourselves to the same high standards that we expect of others; we will transform the aid sector so that everybody is treated with dignity and respect; and we will hold ourselves to account through transparent reporting and external scrutiny. Safeguarding against sexual exploitation, abuse and harassment is everybody’s responsibility, and the Government will continue to lead the way on this issue.
Mrs Latham
First, I do not wish to condemn all aid workers, because there are some amazing aid workers out there. However, far too many are abusive to women and need to be stopped, so I am pleased to hear some of the things that the Minister has said.
I believe that whistleblowers need much more support. They need support to be able to come forward, and they do not need condemning, which has sometimes been the case. They also need to be guaranteed a job afterwards, because many of them come forward and never work again. It is a shocking state of affairs.
I thank all hon. Members present for their support. What I find most interesting is that two current members of the International Development Committee, and some past members, have spoken powerfully of the IDC. The other Back Benchers who have spoken have made excellent contributions. It is interesting that the Back Benchers we have heard from include four women and two men, whereas the Front Bench spokespersons are all men. That is not to decry their abilities or anything else, but one of the problems that we have in this debate is that there are not enough women at the top. There are not enough women leaders in charities and in peacekeeping areas—the men tend to rise to the top. It is important to accept that we need to ensure that more women are involved.
I would like to see no abuse happening. That is unlikely, but we need to make it much easier for people to come forward. I believe that victims will feel much more comfortable coming to talk to women than to men—that is just a fact of life.
I thank the Minister for his response. I am sure he will appreciate that we must continue to scrutinise the aid budget not just through FCDO, but through the other Departments, because who will look at that funding if there is no follow-on Committee from the IDC? It will be in nobody’s remit to do that, and it is important that somebody is watching out for sexual exploitation. We need to continue the IDC’s work not just on this issue, but on many others. Spending a large amount of taxpayers’ money needs scrutiny. In this case, it is vital that somebody is looking at it through the different Departments.
I thank the Minister very much for his assurance that things are happening in FCDO, but he has no influence, of course, over what happens in other Departments. It is vital to move on and move forward with the changes that have happened in his Department—
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Order.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the sitting for two minutes.
A14: Junction 10a
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Junction 10a of the A14.
I thank you, Mr Twigg, for taking over the Chair for this debate and welcome you to your position. I thank Mr Speaker for granting this debate. I welcome the Minister to her place. I declare an interest as a member of Kettering Borough Council and the new North Northamptonshire shadow authority.
Junction 10a of the A14 does not exist. At the moment, it is just a blob on a Department for Transport map, but it is a junction that the people of Kettering very much need if our town and borough are not to grind to a halt because of all the new house building taking place locally. There are important plans for 5,500 new houses to be built to the east of Kettering, with about 460 completed already. These will be built between the town of Kettering itself and the village of Cranford and were, in effect, imposed on Kettering Borough Council in the dying days of the previous Labour Government in spring 2010.
We have to ensure that those houses form a vital, liveable community and do not simply become one big, soulless housing estate. In order to make that happen, we must ensure not only that the infrastructure is in place to serve those new houses but that the quality of life of existing residents in other parts of Kettering is not impacted. For local people, the construction of this “sustainable urban extension”, to use the planning term, is the equivalent of bolting on to the town of Kettering itself another town the size of Desborough, which is also in the borough of Kettering, located a few miles away.
This development to the east of Kettering has been called the Kettering East development, but it is now called Hanwood Park and it received planning approval from Kettering Borough Council in 2010 for up to 5,500 new houses. The first 2,700 are within phase 1, to be followed by a further 2,800 in phase 2. Overall, the development covers an 820-acre site. Fortunately, the local design code is set at a high standard. This sustainable urban extension will allow the town of Kettering to plan the delivery of local housing. The design will ensure good internal and town centre connectivity with access to trunk roads, including the A6, the A43 and, importantly, the A14.
To place this in a national context, I should say that Hanwood Park is one of the country’s flagship housing extensions. Ministers have already toured the site on several occasions, especially when the initial release of housing with funding from the Department for Transport’s road infrastructure strategy 1—RIS 1—funding plan was fully supported. Local delivery of the houses is supported by all the local authorities and contributes to the Government’s housing targets. It sits within the Oxford-to-Cambridge arc. A funding partnership with Homes England results in the development now having a primary school, surface water attenuation, adopted foul sewers, three principal access roads and junction improvements on the town roads.
This is one of the country’s largest sustainable extensions. Homes England, which comes under the purview of the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government, is funding the major early infrastructure works. There is strong delivery momentum, with Taylor Wimpey, Barratt, David Wilson, Persimmon, Avant, Orbit and Bellway all involved. The scheme is of local strategic importance and is classified as the highest priority in the north Northamptonshire investment framework, but the major hurdle to delivering these houses, which the Government need, is providing the continuous delivery of the so-called Grampian condition for the new junction 10a on the new A14. The new junction is required if the development is to exceed the initial 2,700 houses.
Local land values will not allow the development of this junction to be funded without Government intervention, and that is why we need public funding. Developer contributions exist for up to half the project. The junction was fully supported by the Department for Transport in its RIS 1 funding allocation in 2016, when the Department promised £20 million—to be matched by a further £20 million from the developer. However, there were sustainability issues with the development of the housing extension and it was agreed to defer the RIS 1 allocation to RIS 2. Since then, the junction has been excluded from RIS 2. The junction is absolutely essential to the full delivery of this 5,500-house urban extension. It needs to be provided before 2,700 houses are completed.
The extension was stalled for some time because of viability issues, but they were overcome in 2018-19 following refinancing by the developer and this was enabled by a £60 million loan from Homes England under the purview of the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government. The repayment of this loan to another Government Department will be at risk if the development cannot fully proceed. Homes England considers this site in Kettering to be its highest priority in the UK. Its delivery will satisfy multiple strands of Government housing policy, including, importantly, the encouragement of small and medium-sized builders and sustainable development practices. The junction works were included in the Department for Transport’s RIS1 funding stream, on the basis of a 50% contribution to the total cost by the developer. That developer commitment has not changed; the developer continues to be committed to match-funding the construction costs.
Upwards of 2,750 new homes are probably at risk if the junction cannot be secured, as the developer may cease activity fairly soon if progress beyond 2023 cannot be guaranteed. If there is a pause in the development, the local authority will no longer have a five-year rolling land supply. That renders our local area subject to speculative planning applications which, if successful, will make no contribution to local infrastructure.
Martin Hammond, the lead official at Kettering Borough Council, has said of the importance of the development:
“Delivery is now gaining momentum at Hanwood Park and new parcels are being brought on stream, alongside infrastructure constructed this year, but for the full scheme of 5,500 houses with associated community education, health, transport and employment provision, Kettering requires an additional junction on the A14, a principle established in 2014, otherwise only 2,700 houses can be occupied in the foreseeable future, which is only half of the intended development.”
The planning for a new road junction takes an incredibly long time. The local council has been advised that it can take up to four and a half years to develop such a major junction. The problem is that if the Government do not commit around about now to including funding for the junction, either as an appendage to the RIS2 scheme or for inclusion in RIS3 after 2025, the developers may pause the development because of the lack of future certainty. It is expected that the 2,700 houses mark could be reached as early as 2025.
The Government announced in August that they were setting up an acceleration unit to speed up transport infrastructure projects and build back better from covid-19. I welcome that development. It will be headed by Darren Shirley, currently the chief executive of the Campaign for Better Transport and formerly of Which? magazine. The unit will be directly accountable to the Transport Secretary.
Encouragingly, the unit will engage experts with significant experience in delivering infrastructure projects, including—this is important for Kettering—Highways England’s director of complex infrastructure projects, Chris Taylor, who oversaw the construction of the £1.5 billion A14 scheme further down the road towards Cambridge, which was not only delivered on budget, but eight months ahead of schedule. No doubt Mr Taylor will be familiar with the A14 going past Kettering.
I make my plea on behalf of the local people in Kettering. The local borough council and all the local authorities have engaged with the various Government Departments at all stages of rolling out the new sustainable urban extension in Kettering, but in order to deliver the project in full, we need a commitment from the Roads Minister that the Government will contribute half the cost of the new junction. We do not need that commitment in 2025; we need the commitment now.
Unless we can get on with planning that junction and giving the developers the surety they need that the Government will deliver their funding, there is the very real risk that the roll-out of the extension will be paused and stop. The problem then is that the Government will not get the houses they need, which is primarily the responsibility of MHCLG, and there is a risk that Homes England will not get the repayment of the £60 million loan.
For local people, the tragedy will be that we could have a very large number of houses built, potentially up to 2,700, without the necessary road infrastructure to take us beyond that level. There is also a very real risk of gridlock in the town of Kettering, with all these initial houses having been provided but with the Government not having come up with the funding for the new junction 10a.
My plea to the Roads Minister today, on behalf of people in Kettering, is to recognise—please—the fundamental importance of the new junction to people in Kettering and to make a Government commitment to fund it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Rachel Maclean)
I heartily congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) on securing this debate about a new junction for the A14. He has highlighted how important it is for his constituents in Kettering, saying that it would provide access to one of the country’s largest urban extensions and that there would be a sustainable design with access to trunk roads, which is very important for his area. The housing development would provide good-quality housing for his constituents in the local communities, and is part of the very important and strategically recognised Oxford to Cambridge arc. It will contribute to Government housing targets, and encourage small and medium-sized builders to develop the properties there, which is part of the MHCLG’s larger strategy.
However, my hon. Friend has also highlighted to me, in my capacity as Roads Minister, that this development could potentially be at risk. In particular, he highlighted that 2,700 homes may be put at risk if the funding is not secured within the timeframes that he outlined. That would potentially put his area at risk of speculative housing applications, and he has strongly emphasised to me that Kettering requires that junction to deliver the entire development as planned, along with all the other facilities, such as schools and health services, that we know local communities want and need.
My hon. Friend has done a really good job of highlighting those priorities. In the time available to me this morning, I have three main points to make, to respond to his speech and to reassure him. First, there is the importance that we attach to the A14 as a vital connection between our east coast ports and central economic areas. Secondly, our ambition is that strategic roads and other transport infrastructure support wider policy goals for housing and economic growth. Thirdly, I will set out how the Department for Transport is working with Kettering Borough Council and others to progress the specific proposals for junction 10a.
It may be worth reflecting a little on what we now call the A14. It is 127 miles of dual carriageway that has become part of the landscape. Indeed, it is a stretch of road that may be taken for granted by some, but not—I am sure—by my hon. Friend. That seamless link across East Anglia from Felixstowe and Harwich, two of our nation’s key ports, into the heart of the midlands is vital to our economy. It neatly bypasses Ipswich, Newmarket, Cambridge and, of course, Kettering. It is an artery that feeds both the M1 and the M6, keeping traffic out of our town centres.
Yet before 1990, the A14 barely existed; a piecemeal set of improvements had begun, but a wide range of options faced any new arrival at the ports. In 1990, on completion of what was then the A1-M1 link road, new opportunities and more reliable journeys beckoned. That is what new roads that are well planned and in the right places to serve the needs of the country can do. The A14 has continued to evolve, to meet the ever-expanding needs of the freight and logistics sector as well as those of other road users.
However, no road of such importance can be considered complete and simply left to get on with its job. So, in recent years we have seen a £200 million investment at Catthorpe, which means that the A14 now links smoothly to the motorway network without the series of roundabouts and turns that users of the road previously faced. We have also seen £1.5 billion of investment in the new Cambridge to Huntingdon section, which opened—ahead of schedule—earlier this year. That was a huge achievement. When work on it began in 2016, it was the biggest civil engineering project in the United Kingdom. It has involved 12 miles of new bypass for Huntingdon, 10 miles of widening and other improvements, and a half-mile viaduct over the River Nene. It has created a new road that reflects the needs of industry and road users, while employing the best possible environmental standards. More locally to Kettering, we have invested over £40 million in widening the A14 southern bypass between junctions 7 and 9, to ensure that the road keeps pace with its users’ needs.
Given the reliance on that important route for moving people and goods across the country, it is no surprise that we continue to explore the priorities for further investment. For example, we have asked Highways England to develop an upgrade of the Copdock interchange where the A14 meets the A12 to enable smoother journeys through the junction.
The process of identifying enhancement priorities on the strategic road network—the roads, like the A14, managed by Highways England—and then committing to funding for their development and construction is all part of our long-term approach to infrastructure investment. The Government set out their strategic vision for the network through periodic road investment strategies, and specify what Highways England must deliver in terms of road enhancements and day-to-day performance.
To inform the content of those strategies, the Department for Transport and Highways England develop a substantial evidence base about the network, its current performance and likely future pressures. That is the product of several years of research, analysis, public engagement and consultation. In March, we published the second road investment strategy—a vision of the network through to 2050. We also provided £27.4 billion of funding for its operation, maintenance, renewal and enhancements through to 2025. The strategy made clear our ambition that strategic road investment support the delivery of housing and economic growth in ways that are respectful of place and minimise the impact of roads on the environment and air quality.
In that light, the Department for Transport and Highways England are working with Kettering Borough Council and the local developer to progress proposals for the new junction 10a on the A14. That junction would unlock the capacity needed to connect a new phase of much-needed housing at East Kettering, as my hon. Friend has laid out in detail. He has explained that the junction is needed before housing numbers can be delivered, while also making clear the positive impacts that the junction would bring, and the risks of not delivering.
Work on the junction scheme commenced under the first road investment strategy, which covered the period 2015 to 2020, on the basis that the local developer would meet half the costs and Highways England the other half. However, the work was put on hold when it was found that the local development did not require the capacity provided by the new junction during that period.
Based on the pace of development now, construction work on the junction will need to start early in the next road investment period, which is due to start in 2025. I want to reassure my hon. Friend that Highways England is now looking at how to achieve the earliest possible start date. That encompasses the cost and timescale of activities required to complete the development work, and will inform further discussions with Kettering Borough Council and the local developer, which I anticipate will pave the way to an agreement about how best to proceed.
My hon. Friend made several references to the importance and urgency of those discussions’ taking place to a faster timescale; highlighted the Department for Transport’s focus on urgency; and mentioned the acceleration unit—an initiative of the Transport Secretary. That is what we at the Department for Transport are trying to achieve across all parts of the UK. To that end, I recommend that my hon. Friend have a meeting with my noble Friend Baroness Vere of Norbiton to discuss in more detail some of the timing issues for work on that road, which is so important for his constituency.
I share my hon. Friend’s appreciation of the strategic importance of the A14 for Northamptonshire and for the nation, and specifically for his constituents who depend on it day by day. The interventions that have been undertaken on that route in recent years reflect the importance that the A14 holds for the Department for Transport. I thank my hon. Friend for the efforts he has made to promote the case for that junction, which could help unlock the new housing that people in his constituency want and need.
Question put and agreed to.
Further Education Funding
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered funding for further education.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mr Hosie.
The question before the House today is one that has been considered many times over recent years, which is testament to its importance. I am grateful to hon. Members for participating in this vital debate. Indeed, the debate might never have been so necessary because, as for all aspects of society, coronavirus has shone a light on the devastating impact of austerity and the rampant inequality in our society. That is particularly apparent in the further education sector.
Education is potentially the most powerful tool for lifting people out of poverty, with further education presenting unique opportunities to do just that. Not only does FE prepare many school leavers for higher study and provide them with the skills for meaningful employment, but it allows many adults to learn, whether that means new skills or building on existing ones. The FE sector and the many colleges and sixth forms within it have proven an accessible source of further and higher education, providing opportunities for learning to students who are disproportionately from more deprived areas and disproportionately from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds. It is of note that the 16 to 19-year-old students in colleges are twice as likely to claim free school meals as those in schools or sixth forms.
Given the deep cuts that the sector has experienced in recent years, it has attracted many nicknames. I agreed with the Secretary of State for Education when, in what can only be described as a total lack of self-awareness, he came up with one more, saying that the FE sector stood for “forgotten education”. I am sure that many other Members have reminded him that he has voted for cut after cut to the FE sector since 2010 but, in case they have not, I will take this opportunity to detail briefly the impact that forgetting the sector has had.
The Government have started talking up further education and skills, but colleges and sixth forms continue to have to deal with the lingering reality of austerity, with grave concerns about the prospects of many colleges in the future. As schools and colleges began to return, the Association of Colleges estimated that colleges face a £2 billion shortfall this academic year, despite the Government investing an extra £300 million for the year. An assessment by the Institute for Fiscal Studies found that to bring spending in the FE sector to 2010-11 levels would cost a total of £1.1 billion. The citing of such vast sums from the AOC and IFS shows as plainly as possible the enormity of the challenges that face us.
I do not doubt that the Government want to see the potential of the further education sector utilised fully. Time and time again, however, it feels like the issues that have arisen because of prolonged underfunding are papered over, instead of addressed fully. A report from the National Audit Office found that although there were strong measures to prevent colleges falling into financial difficulties, they were extremely costly. Many colleges remain in financial difficulty.
I agree with the assessment of the Select Committee on Education which, in its report on a 10-year plan for school and college funding, said that the post-16 education sector had not moved on following the financial crash in the same way that other sectors had, that political decisions had created the lag in post-16 education and that that had a detrimental impact on outcomes while undermining efforts to tackle social justice. Without delving into the lack of lack of funding for managing estates, and the additional costs incurred by colleges and sixth forms, the further education sector clearly needs serious investment, not only to survive in the long term but to deliver the widespread upskilling that our country needs to see as we come, I hope, to the end of the coronavirus pandemic.
I cautiously welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement of a lifetime skills guarantee. With such significant job losses across the country, people need the opportunity to learn new skills or improve existing ones. I also welcome the devolution of funding for adult education, such as the £36 million that Sheffield city region is set to take responsibility for. Local leaders understand the needs in their area best and are most connected to those who will benefit from these funds. However, I do not believe that these funding streams are a fix-all that addresses the serious need for a financial overhaul of the further education sector, which must come from a national approach.
The skills package fails to address the key skills challenge and the 68% drop in qualifications for health and social care workers since 2010. Funding for Sheffield city region is not available to be used until August 2021. While its promises seem bold, I fear that it is too little, too late. For all the talk of ambition, the plans coming forward are too slow and not bold enough in what they hope to achieve.
The Association of Colleges has once again highlighted the enormity of the task at hand. It has called for an extra £3.6 billion to upskill those at greater risk of the economic impact after the coronavirus pandemic moves on—whenever that will be—as well as ensuring quality places for every 16 to 18-year-old and expanded traineeships and apprenticeships. That is echoed by the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, which goes further, calling for a one-off skills package of £8.6 billion and urging Government to allocate £4.5 billion of that to address the serious underfunding of adult education.
The coronavirus pandemic has highlighted and exacerbated the digital divide in the country. When schools and colleges are shut, students have to adapt to online learning overnight, which requires access to good quality IT equipment and reliable broadband. However, many students from low-income backgrounds, who did not have access to a laptop or PC at home, and had until then relied on using library computers, were left unable to complete remote learning or had to work from a unsuitable device, such as the small screen of a phone.
During the lockdown, I had a Zoom call with the Red Cross, which works very successfully with hard-to-reach learners. I was told that many of those learners’ parents only had a pay-as-you-go phone. If they were to take part in the Zoom call and get the support they needed, their data could be gone in minutes, because a mobile phone is not a way to try to learn. That makes it even harder for young people to access the learning that their better-off peers can.
The Government have made clear that they expect colleges and sixth forms to use existing funds, namely, the 16-to-19 bursary and the adult education budget, to purchase IT equipment. There is concern among the industry that further education providers may struggle to meet this cost, and that the provision of pre-16 schemes should be extended to the further education sector.
Students without access to effective equipment are at real risk of being left behind if the Government do not step in to ensure that every further education student has the tools that they need to complete their education in these challenging times. Funding for colleges to supply students with this equipment has fallen short of what is necessary. Although colleges have welcomed back students, many are moving once more to online learning.
The Government announced, at the 11th hour, changes to the criteria for schools to receive laptops, a decision that the NASUWT says has meant schools receiving up to 80% less than promised. With many pupils and students having to self-isolate, remote learning will be a feature of our educational system for a long time to come. The issue is, therefore, still pertinent, and it is not too late for the Government to step in and fix it while the academic year is still quite new.
We are at a crossroads. The country has faced and continues to face one of the greatest challenges in living memory. After the second world war, our leaders knew that we could not go back to business as usual and, in the wake of such destruction, rebuilt our country. The economic challenge we will face in the months and years to come cannot be overcome by bringing public funding back to 2010 levels. We must go further to meet the challenges that lie ahead, and that takes vision; I know that the Minister has that vision, but I fear the Treasury does not share it.
I am looking forward to hearing the contributions in this debate, and hope that the Minister will listen to the wide range of voices in support of the FE sector ahead of the publication of the White Paper. I hope that when it is published, it will finally provide the funding the sector has been calling for, year in and year out, and that this funding will allow it to play its part in rebuilding our economy. I hope that our people, young and old, will be supported by the Government to face a very different post-coronavirus world in which they will thrive, and I urge the Minister to ensure they are not abandoned to a future without hope.
Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)
Before I call the next speaker, I want to start the summings-up at around 3.38 pm, but given that we are slightly sparse, I am not going to put on a time limit at the moment, even an informal one: just ca’ canny.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
As usual, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) has said, at a time like this, with so many people losing their jobs, further education and its ability to agilely shift to retraining people are particularly important. It is very concerning that we have seen real financial sustainability issues in FE, a topic that the Public Accounts Committee has raised a number of times. That sector has come into this crisis working from a challenging base, with its funding base for adults in 2020 still at 2013 levels.
As the Minister knows as a former member of the Public Accounts Committee, this sector has been on a difficult trajectory for seven years. She has been involved in some of those discussions, so I do not need to run through the figures with her: I am sure that as a former member of the Public Accounts Committee and with her business background, she is hot on the numbers, and the numbers matter here. That base funding causes a lot of the difficulty and the inability to be as agile as the sector can be, because of the way in which the sector is used to working with adults—of course, it works with young people as well, but I am mainly talking about adults today. Those adults have sometimes come from challenging or different educational backgrounds, and have not followed a traditional trajectory in training: level 2, level 3, and so on.
We on the Public Accounts Committee will be looking again at this topic; that inquiry is coming up, and we will increasingly be looking at sixth-form colleges as well, because that is obviously a concern. However, I particularly want to talk about FE today. There are particular issues with the covid pandemic, so I will talk about funding first, and then some of the practical issues.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
We are here for a debate about funding for further education, which my hon. Friend is coming to, and many of us are concerned about the overall amount of funding. However, alongside that, we are seeing things such as the Government sending £330 million allocated for skills back to the Treasury because it has not been able to be spent under the apprenticeship levy. There are other examples, which I will come on to, where the issue is not just the overall amount being spent, but the fact that how it is being spent means that it ends up not being used.
Meg Hillier
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I am going to touch on the apprenticeship levy. It was an interesting and bold policy initiative, but as he has rightly highlighted, it has its pitfalls and, indeed, is not always going to the right places. If I have time, I will touch on that as well, but I want to get the immediate funding issues around covid on the record first.
As the Minister will know, the last time that FE colleges were encouraged to come together to save costs—part of the challenge of living on a low funding basis—Hackney College became part of New City College, a consortium of colleges. It has been keen to keep recruiting 16 to 18-year-olds, because in the current climate it wants to make sure that it does not turn students away. It has managed to recruit 200 above its funded target, which is costing it £1.2 million a year: that is a cost to the college directly, money that it is having to take out of its own base costs if it is not funded, and I hope that the Minister will look at that issue. We should not be turning people away from study, and it is great that New City College is not turning people away, but obviously that money has to come from somewhere, so another part of the system is losing out.
The funding tolerance for adults is also a very interesting point. In London—this is a happy circumstance for my constituency—if the colleges meet 90% of their adult rate, meaning that they keep those students in place, they get 100% of the funding. Nationally, the figure is 97%. It is difficult enough to keep in place adults from a different education trajectory who are perhaps juggling families and sometimes jobs as well as study; it is harder than if people are in compulsory education. Add to that the complexities of covid: ill health, and people perhaps dropping out after having to self-isolate because they had covid or have long covid. They can enrol and lose out. That means the figure can very quickly drop below 97%.
Nationally, the Minister needs to look at the tolerance level. As she knows, I am not for wasted money or deadweight money; it is certainly not something I would advocate. There is a very high threshold at the best of times but, with covid, it is particularly challenging. A bit more tolerance would enable colleges to plan and focus. As agile and clever as they are, I am sure they could find ways to fill gaps in those places. I will come to explain how they can be really agile by providing short courses for people.
The costs of covid compliance have to be mentioned, because it is expensive. Fewer people are in the building, and there is less activity in some ways. New City College spent £200,000 from its reserves to support students in the first lockdown. As the Minister knows, many colleges up and down the country have run out of money due to their challenging financial circumstances. There will be a crisis point if those colleges are not supported to survive.
We do not ever want to see a college go bust. Colleges are the main education providers in small towns, but they might be hampered by previous loans from Government, some of which we know have been converted to grants. Even then, however, such colleges are in great difficulties financially. If they go bust, where will the adults in that area go? The Government have an agenda of levelling up areas of the country that have traditionally not recovered from some of the post-industrial job losses in previous decades. If they lose their FE colleges, where will the training come from for the people who are now losing jobs in some of the sectors that are particularly suffering because of covid?
I want to touch on capital funding. It is good that the Government have said they will match-fund capital expenditure to ensure that colleges can patch themselves up, but the constraint of having to spend the funding in the current financial year is challenging. We are already in November. Although the announcement on funding was made a while ago, some of the projects that could be delivered are a bit longer range or are very disruptive to the working of a college. Add in the covid measures and it becomes even more challenging. We all know that a lot of work goes on in schools and colleges during the long summer recess or the breaks, but the summer recess comes after the end of the financial year. Although I recognise that it is difficult in some ways, it is not beyond the wit of Government to look at extending the deadline and perhaps making it a two-year capital funding programme, so that colleges can plan.
The Minister knows as well as I do that if things are done in a rush because the money has to be spent by a certain point, they are not necessarily done well, or the right things are not necessarily done. We should allow colleges to spend that capital money as effectively as possible. It could be spent on better covid measures to enable people to work more easily in those circumstances, or on enhancing facilities for the sort of job creation that we will need and that they will need to train for. I will touch on that in a moment.
It would be good if we could have more flexibility. An example of why this is needed comes from Hackney College, where there is an atrium with a leaking roof. It is a £500,000 job. The matched funding is very welcome, but it is a big job and will really disrupt things. If that has to be done before the end of the financial year, it will be challenging—if it even gets done.
I will move on to how we train people for the jobs that will still exist after covid, and for the ones that will emerge. I hope the Minister will tell us what shared intelligence there is of the local and regional skills that will be needed. Having a strong London authority means that there is some understanding of the jobs that are available in London but, given the nature of their work, a lot of London workers now do not have to live in London. There will be an interesting and challenging job for everybody in working out where people will be and where the jobs will be available. If somebody is working in care or certain other jobs, they clearly have to be physically present, but that is not the case for lots of jobs.
There really needs to be some analysis. I hope the Minister can shed some light on what analysis is being carried out not just in her Department, but across Government, about what jobs and skills might be needed. It might seem early to start thinking about that, but it is never too early to start planning. Things might shift and they might change, but if we do not start thinking about it now, there will be far more people without jobs in the right places. Imagine retraining for a job that does not exist in a year’s time because we have not got it right. We need to be thinking about that and sharing intelligence as much as we can. I am not saying the Government have all the answers, but they have a very strong role in co-ordinating this effort.
We need to move quickly. Existing mechanisms for funding new courses are very slow. Let us consider some of the jobs for which need might be rising. With Brexit looming, the health and social care sectors face a real struggle. I know from looking at the issue with the Public Accounts Committee that getting people to work in social care in the Minister’s own constituency is very challenging because of the costs. If the Government are serious about levelling up and investing in infrastructure projects, construction will be vital. Digital enablement of all sorts of careers will also be important. I happily represent Hackney South and Shoreditch, where understanding how to work digitally and adapting quickly has been a hallmark of people’s success in surviving and coming through the pandemic so far, so it is definitely something in which we need to train people.
Those examples are the reason for my hunch about what might be necessary. Putting people on six-month intensive courses—my local college reckons that that could be done for between £3,000 and £3,500 per person— could quickly get them out of unemployment, off benefits and into work. Alternatively, as they may still be on furlough with their job winding down, facing redundancy even if their sector survives, it might be better to train them before they have to claim support from the state.
There is a constraint, however, about which I hope the Minister will give us some reassurance, even though it is not her remit alone. Those six-month intensive courses, for which I just gave the costs, would entail only 15 hours per adult per week, because under the current rules the college cannot start planning a longer course. If anyone studies for 16 hours or more, they are no longer eligible for benefits. That trap will be devastating as we come out of covid. People will be trapped on benefits because they have lost their jobs, but they will not be able to train for other jobs because they would no longer be able to claim benefits. We would find ourselves in a Kafkaesque circle of doom.
I hope the Minister will try seriously to tackle that. If that time threshold were raised, colleges could be so much quicker and more efficient in targeting and supporting adults back into work. Funding for that sort of short-term, swift reskilling would usually come from the approved national skills fund, which is, again, something over which the Minister can have some very direct influence, I hope.
That fund is normally released in the summer. We are now in November and already in our second lockdown, meaning that people will lose their jobs. The Minister knows that one of my bugbears about all Governments is what I call cost shunting, which is something that the Public Accounts Committee highlights all the time. If we do not get that money to train people now, many of them will start claiming benefits and there will be all sorts of ramifications for their lives, homes, livelihoods and so on. That will cost them, the state and the taxpayer a lot more in the long run.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough mentioned the apprenticeship levy. The Public Accounts Committee has looked at this and we were concerned that, in order to get the money out of the door, it is quite easy for companies to put money into MAs and other higher-level apprenticeship programmes. I think we would all acknowledge that the levy was really intended to train people in much lower-level careers, so that they could either reach higher levels or change career.
I do not have all the answers, but the Government need to look at how the levy works. As the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins), has said, it is criminal for that money to be levied, only to then go back into Treasury coffers. I am sure that we would all back the Minister if she took on the Treasury and demanded that that money be syphoned back into education. We might find a harmonious point of cross-party agreement in these challenging times. I launch that campaign here and now, and tempt the Minister to agree with it when she responds.
I am sure that the Minister has our support to act fast. We need safeguards in place, but I have no desire to see more of my constituents lose everything just because we have a bureaucratic deadline of next summer rather than November and the 16-hour rule that prevents those who are studying from claiming benefits. We need to unjam the system so that people who want to work and retrain are encouraged to do so with every tool in the box. Colleges stand ready and waiting. I pay tribute to East London Advanced Technology Training, which trains people in my constituency but is already losing students because of the loan scheme.
Will the Minister also look at the loan scheme for level 3? Many people will not take on the debt now, but they need support to ensure that they are retrained and can work and support themselves. My constituency is poor, but there is no poverty of ambition. I now have the new poor: people who had good jobs and want to work again. They just need a little leg up. They do not want a handout—they want a hand up. I hope that the Minister has heard me and will answer my questions.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) on securing this important debate. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier). She made all the points that I intended to make, so I can be nakedly self-interested about my own constituency and one of my FE colleges. She raised a number of very important issues, not least this Kafkaesque circle of doom, which I am not sure any of us would want to see our constituents in. I thank her for her comments and look forward to listening to the other speeches. I apologise that I may have to leave early, as my name is on the call list for the main Chamber.
All of us across this House recognise the power of education in boosting the life chances of young people across our country and for growing our economy. None of us can question the importance of higher education, not least in light of the covid pandemic. The progress being made towards delivering mass testing, new and more effective treatments, and, most importantly, a vaccine that will allow us to resume our normal daily lives, is being led by British scientists with first-rate degrees from our world-leading universities, which are frequently in the top 100 of the global league tables. Graduates are supporting cutting-edge technology sectors, including in the photonics industry, which has a strong presence in my constituency through the Electronics and Photonics Innovation Centre in Paignton.
That said, it is fair to say that successive Governments have focused too much on higher education to the detriment of our further education system. In our eagerness to send as many young people to university as possible, we have failed to deliver sufficient options to empower those who do not feel that higher education is right for them.
In my previous life, I worked in Singapore. Any Member doubting the transformational impact of further education on boosting life chances and economic growth should look to that country. In the immediate post-war period, Singapore was less wealthy than Jamaica. It had no natural resources and so Singapore’s first Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew, set out a strategy to develop the country’s only available natural resource—its people. Between 1960 and 2010, Jamaica’s GDP per head of population increased by 30%. Singapore’s increased by 1,100%. A journal article produced by the University of Southern California compared the two countries’ approach to education and the economy across this period. It concluded that the different outcomes were largely as a result of Singapore’s heavy investment in vocational and technical education, and its approach of actively seeking to boost the prestige of VTE. We must and can learn from Singapore by their example, and by investing more into further education and championing the role it plays in helping young people to achieve their dreams. The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch made a good point that there is no poverty of ambition anywhere in this country and that is something we should harness.
I am fortunate to have in my constituency South Devon College. It is the jewel in the crown of FE colleges and I am working closely with the principal, Laurence Frewin, and his staff to ensure that it has further support and opportunities now and in the future. Each and every time I visit, I meet young people who are aspiring to become engineers, boat builders, thatchers, plumbers, electricians, coders—and anything else imaginable. This college is helping to create a new workforce that is in demand now. It is focused on producing opportunities for those industries and sectors that are the backbone of south Devon’s economy, as well as championing innovation and creativity for tomorrow’s businesses and industries. The latest figures show that 90% of apprentices in Torbay, in my constituency, go on to find sustained employment within a year of completing their courses. As such, it is clear that the first-rate further education providers, such as South Devon College, play a pivotal role in empowering these young people to achieve their dreams.
That is why I welcome the Government’s lifetime skills guarantee, set out by the Prime Minister at the end of September, offering adults without A-levels or equivalent qualifications a free and fully funded course, which will help those who missed out on further education to boost their skills and achieve those opportunities before them. I look forward to looking at what will be available within that scheme. Of course, more can be done.
I would not be representing the people of Totnes and south Devon if I did not speak about our fishing sector, which will have the opportunity to regain access to the catches denied to us for more than 40 years by the common fisheries policy. Our fishing fleet has fallen by almost one third since 1996, which raises the question whether we still have the capacity to take full advantage of our new-found freedoms. Put simply, we need more fishermen. To encourage people into this fantastic and in many cases lucrative sector, we need a maritime college as part of South Devon College. I am working with the principal and the staff on implementing a fishing school at Noss on Dart. That school will help encourage people into the industry, teaching them the required skills and giving them the opportunity that comes with such an important sector. I hope the Minister will visit when the maritime college is developed next year.
The Government should not waste the opportunity to support the FE sector. I know from my conversations with her how dedicated the Minister is to driving it up the agenda. More funding in both capex and opex will see us create the homegrown skills and talent that we have had in the past and that we will so desperately need in future. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough said that she welcomed the FE White Paper and looked forward to seeing it. I agree with her, because the sooner we can see it, the sooner it will help shape the future of our colleges. I commend the Government for ensuring match funding on capital spending. We have a unique opportunity to provide and help people into a different range of jobs. I hope the Government will work with all Members across the House to develop a strategy that will be efficient and effective at getting people back into the workforce and give them the security that they so desperately need.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie, and to follow the many good points that we have already heard this afternoon.
I have been a strong supporter of further education and Bath College, which I visited almost immediately after I became a Member of Parliament. It has been pointed out, and I think it is absolutely true to say, that we talk about schools and universities and often leave out further education colleges. We should always say “schools, further education colleges and universities” in one breath. Indeed, it has been a struggle to get the significance of further education colleges into our minds. I do not think we need to go as far as Singapore to see examples of how education is done well. This country has looked with envy at the skills training and technical and vocational training across the continent, and has wanted to follow it. We have talked about it, but it never seems to happen, which is a shame. I hope that the Minister can make her voice heard and make sure that the Treasury is listening, because, in the end, investing properly in further education will be a financially clever thing to do.
There is no better time to talk about the importance of properly funding further education. The pandemic brings with it a great deal of financial uncertainty for many people across the UK. It is more critical than ever that we invest in helping workers to retrain and reskill. Our workforce and our economy must be ready to adapt to a post-covid world. Also, in the context of the climate emergency, we keep talking about how important it is to prepare for the jobs of the future in order to get to net zero. I have spoken before about the excellent work of Bath College. In my constituency, our local universities, businesses and the council are working on exciting ways to address the pandemic’s economic impact on our city.
In addition to the many points that have already been made, I want to draw attention to the value of the union learning fund, co-ordinated by the TUC. The fund supports more than 200,000 workers a year in job-relevant learning and training, guided by trade union reps who understand the nature of the workforce, the business and the skills gaps. When I talked to a TUC rep, I learned that Ministers had for a long time been looking at cutting the union learning fund, but then they decided that that was not a good idea and have kept it going. I want to use my time today to make this strong plea. It is clear that the model works. On average, training volumes are 19% higher in unionised workplaces. It is counterproductive that the Department for Education has decided to end the ULF from March 2021. Union learning gets working people into skills and training that they would not otherwise access. It reaches people that other Department for Education programmes do not. Despite Government funding, the take-up of English and maths qualifications for adults has declined by 30% since 2010. By comparison, ULF projects continually exceed annual targets for these learners.
My constituency of Bath has been no exception. Local members’ learning events have included IT and management skills, apprenticeships and CV writing workshops. Providers have also responded rapidly to covid. Unison worked alongside our local authority during lockdown to help start book clubs in the workplace. Unionlearn launched a new campaign promoting online learning for furloughed workers, those working from home and those who have been made redundant. Again, that shows the need for a flexible response and the fact that Government need to understand that covid demands that we act flexibly.
Courses and initiatives such as the ones I have described provide huge benefits to my constituents and thousands of others across the country. Research from the University of Leeds shows that 77% of employers believe that union learning has a positive effect on their workplaces, and 68% said that unions could reach and inspire reluctant learners to engage in training. More widely it is estimated that the ULF contributes about £1.4 billion to the UK economy through a boost to jobs, wages and productivity. Again, I hope that the Minister will take the message back to the Treasury that such learning ultimately helps to save taxpayers’ money.
A recent CBI report suggests that nine in 10 UK employees will have to reskill by 2030 as a result of the pandemic. Unless we invest properly and strategically in adult education, we risk skills shortages and long-term unemployment. As I understand it, the Government are focusing particularly on FE colleges for 16 to 19-year-olds, but the beauty of FE colleges is that they are about lifelong learning. It is no good giving to Peter to take away from Paul. I hope that the Ministers understand that the decision to stop the union learning fund is clearly not a good one and should be reversed. Please do the right thing and make sure that the ULF is reinstated.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is pleasure to serve under you, Mr Hosie, and to follow the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse). I wish to start on the point with which she ended. I have seen the power of the union learning fund and how it can transform people’s lives and prospects. At a time such as this, when we know that so many people will lose their jobs, we see the importance of the fund. It is not just about the fund; it is about the union learning reps who accompany people into training and support them through it in the workplace. That is the transformative element that the trade unions have worked on, offered and developed, It is not just a beacon in the workplace, but a springboard to take people forward in their career.
Meg Hillier
I thank my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse). The fund is so much better value for money because through it people can be properly supported into training and that does not involve throwing good money after bad. Someone is properly trained and qualified when they have completed their course.
Rachael Maskell
I thank my hon. Friend for that point. She is absolutely right. When a course is completed, we see the impact on productivity. We know that the Government have had a real problem improving productivity, so I would have thought that would have seen the value of something that helps them with that. If the ULF is ending, I trust that a Rolls-Royce version of a new fund will come forward that embraces the value of trade unions on the ground. They are there to work alongside workers.
I want to touch on my local colleges in York. We are fortunate to have two: York College under its principal, Lee Probert, and Askham Bryan College, our agriculture college under its principal, Tim Whitaker. They face specific challenges in this covid period and I thank them both for their leadership and all the staff for what they have done over the past few months. It has been a really challenging time in ensuring that their environments are covid secure and that they are gearing up to support our economy. They certainly need help.
The two colleges have come together with York’s two universities to form Higher York, which does not look inwards in education, but looks out to localities, society and the economy to see how we can rebuild our city’s economic base, which is so important at this time, and so release the potential opportunities for our community. That will be particularly important at a time when unemployment in York will be absolutely devastating—among the worst in the country. We are staring down that barrel at the moment, and it is deeply disturbing. Higher York needs more support to deliver that transformative agenda, which we desperately need.
Higher York can drive the economic recovery in our city, and I believe that further education, blended with higher education, is the key that is needed to unlock our economic recovery at this time. As Higher York is proving, we need colleges to be at the heart of shaping the local economy and the skills base that will be required in the future. Taking a local economy place-based approach to skills planning is so important. I recognise the matrix of needing to look at sector skills, which has very much driven skills strategy for a long time, but we also need to look at local place. With devolution and many other measures being put in place, the local economy is very much coming to the fore.
Given how our economic base is developing, with specialism in particular segments of the economy, skills provision can really boost the local economy and blend with employers’ opportunities and needs now and in the future. A lot of work has been done in York on the green economy and how we can sustain the bioeconomy, which I spoke about in this Chamber only a few weeks ago. That could see a growth of 25,000 people through a skills process to enhance skills. That is at the root of how we build a recovery into the future.
I want to address a number of things with regards to covid. The first is what I shall call the basic need of having a covid-secure environment. The Government have come forward with the obligation to provide that, and rightly so, but there are costs, none of which are recoverable at the moment. York College, for example, has spent £400,000 on becoming a covid-secure environment. That is money that the college wants to put into education, and therefore it is important to see some of it recovered.
Secondly, cash-flow issues are particularly acute at the moment. My colleges have come forward with a simple solution to help—something the Minister probably barely needs to ask to change, but it could make a real difference—which is the alignment of the economic cycle between the Education and Skills Funding Agency, the funders of FE, and the colleges. The ESFA funding year runs from April to May and the colleges’ from August to July. That causes a real cash-flow difficulty. A little tweak to the system would make a world of difference.
On the issue of capital funding, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) mentioned earlier, Askham Bryan College in particular is an old college. The facilities are tired and yet the match funding is prohibitive, especially at a time such as this, with the additional pressures the college is facing. I ask that the issue is revisited, so that some more capital grants can be made available to FE, because the estate is important to delivering vital education to young people and adult learners.
The fourth issue is the wider funding formula, which we know is crucial in order to gather skills. We often look at the minimum cost of provision, but there is a wider cost. We need to look at the wider costs of not investing in our learners, particularly in things such as the recruitment and retention of staff—technical as well as teaching staff—which is really important. Obviously the wider economy is a draw, but we must ensure that we can deliver classes. Class sizes at the college in York are getting bigger and bigger, and the opportunities in the curriculum are getting smaller and smaller, in order to try and balance the books. This should be a key investment. I would therefore welcome a further education White Paper if it had a proper funding formula for FE hardwired into it.
My fifth point is about mental health investment. Many young people have felt the stress and strain of covid. I know from discussions with the principal and previous principals that York College has had challenges around the mental health of its students. We need to ensure proper mental health facilities are in place. It does not have the resources that are invested in universities and is not benefiting from any of the investment in the schools mental health programme. I ask the Minister to look at a mental health approach for FE, and for proper resourcing for facilities.
Finally, I want to talk about the longer-term opportunity and planning for further education. We have a really big challenge ahead in the skills that people are going to demand for the new economy. As I have said, it is for local areas to plan their approach. It will improve productivity and rebuild the economy, but, more importantly, it will give people a bridge from their current place of employment into new employment, without having to go through the massive dip of unemployment. That is what I fear. That linking through for every person on the cusp of losing or their job—or even before that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch pointed out powerfully—would enable us to sustain our economy and protect people. Everything should be done to enable that process. I am working with the trade unions and the local not-for-profit sector, as well as Citizens Advice and the jobcentre, to see how we can ensure that there is a skills-based approach to recovery injected into our city, but we need support from the Government.
I was concerned about the impact of the apprenticeship levy being returned to the Treasury; it is a lost opportunity for investment. Back at the beginning of the current crisis, there was a call-out for shovel-ready projects to try to kick-start the economy and build skills. I would ask for shovel-ready apprenticeships and opportunities in order to use that money wisely and to invest in the skills that are needed now. Colleges would welcome the opportunity to reach out further.
I have a final point on asylum seekers, who are arriving at this very difficult time and are being placed in difficult circumstances. There is a lack of connectivity into FE. In my city, young people have been placed in a hotel, without a connection into college and skills. I appreciate that that could be quite a transient group, but there is an opportunity to engage young people who are coming here and to ensure that they are on that learning journey. It is a good use of resource and time, but the connectivity between the Home Office and education is not there. It would be really good to see more investment in those connections at a time when people are waiting for their applications to be processed, not least because it is taking so long at the moment.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Hosie. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) for securing this important debate.
I speak as one of the vice-chairs of the all-party parliamentary group on sixth form education. We have heard much that I agree with around FE colleges, Unionlearn and covid-secure colleges, but I want to focus on sixth-form colleges; I am a governor of the fantastic Luton Sixth Form College.
While the covid-19 health restrictions have been critical to tackling the spread of the virus, the Institute for Fiscal Studies states that school shutdowns are likely to have accentuated the socioeconomic divide in educational attainment. We need immediate action to tackle that widening divide—that point has already been well made—particularly the digital divide.
Increasing the national per-pupil funding rate for 16 to 18-year-olds would be a considerable step forward to closing the divide. Education funding for 16 to 18-year-olds has been cut since 2010, alongside rising costs, an increase in the complex needs of students and the Government demanding more from colleges and schools. The national funding rate for 16 and 17-year-olds was frozen at £4,000 per student in 2013, and was actually reduced to £3,300 per year for 18-year-olds in 2014. While in 2019 the Government announced that they would raise the rate for 16 and 17-year-olds to £4,188 per student, that was only a one-year deal, in contrast with the three-year funding deal for five-to-16 education.
Will the Minister explain why the rate was not increased for 18-year-olds? Particularly in the context of this year and the coming year, many students have been impacted— for example in terms of exams—and may well need that extra year at sixth-form college to ensure that they can progress on to the right next step for them, be that an apprenticeship, further education college, higher education college or the world of work. I also want to ensure that the rate increases in line with inflation each year. In January, the Government confirmed that the national funding rate of £4,000 per student in 2013 amounted to £4,435 in 2019 prices, so even the recent increase falls well short of meeting the cost of inflation since 2013.
Sustained under-investment in sixth-form funding over the past decade continues to impact on the education of students. A funding impact survey carried out by the Raise the Rate campaign in 2019 showed that, as a result of funding pressures, 51% of schools and colleges have dropped language courses, 38% have dropped STEM subjects—science, technology, engineering and maths—78% have reduced student support services or extra-curricular activities and 81% are teaching students in larger class sizes. Those last two points are particularly important to reflect on in the context of the impact of covid-19. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) talked about the mental health of students and the support that they need, as much as the costs of covid-secure teaching environments.
Research from London Economics found that £4,760 is the minimum level of core funding required to increase student services such as mental health support to the required level; to protect subjects such as modern foreign languages from being dropped because they are deemed unviable; to increase the time available for extra-curricular activities—for example, around employability, skills and work experience; and to improve the range of enrichment activities, particularly for 16 to 18-year-olds in the state sector, so that they can get that social capital to compete with their better-funded peers in the independent sector.
High-quality education that equips young people with the knowledge, skills and experience that they need to flourish in higher education and skilled employment will be critical to our recovery from covid. That point has been expressed in many ways during the debate. I press the Minister to explain whether the per-pupil funding rate will be increased in the comprehensive spending review. Others have talked about the relationship with the Treasury in finding that out.
The Sixth Form Colleges Association estimates that the number of 16 to 18-year-olds participating in full-time education will increase over the next eight years by about a quarter of million. It also states that capital funding for 16 to 18-year-olds is insufficient and calls on the Government to create a dedicated expansion fund to cater for this increase.
The Sixth Form Colleges Association estimates that it costs around £2.5 million to expand an existing sixth-form institution to accommodate an additional 200 students, which works out at about £12,500 per student. However, analysis of Department for Education data indicates that the average 16-to-19 free school costs about £11.5 million to build, including land purchase, and educates on average 397 students, which works out at about £29,000 per student.
The absence of a dedicated capital fund for sixth-form providers means that expansion is simply not an option for many institutions, as sixth-form colleges and academies must bid from a single condition improvement fund for all phases of education, with the vast majority of funding directed to capital improvement, rather than capital expansion projects. The creation of a dedicated capital expansion fund for high-performing sixth-form providers should be a major priority in the comprehensive spending review and could be modelled on the existing expansion fund for grammar schools.
I ask the Minister again to outline what plans the Government have to increase capital funding for sixth forms.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) for securing this timely debate and for the passion and determination with which she continues to speak up for the further education sector. It is hugely welcome that for the second time in two weeks we are here to debate the sector. I know how important it is to many Members.
Our colleges are incredibly important. They are at the heart of all our communities. They are an education and skills hub relied on by employers and learners. They are crucial providers of skills and play an incredibly important role in bringing employers and learners together. They are the institutes of second chance for many people who have had their lives turned around by the further education sector—even in my own family. My son went to an FE college and subsequently went to university, which would not have been predicted when he left school. I know that his experience is commonplace.
People who go to our colleges can study vocational or academic subjects, and foundation and life skills. Colleges are incredibly important for adult education. People who go to colleges are more likely to be younger, and more likely to be black or from an ethnic minority, than the average population. Colleges are an incredibly important cog in a functioning education system. I think that the passion for that has come across today.
I was particularly struck by what my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough said about the extent to which the skills and productivity crisis that we face existed prior to coronavirus. It has been much exacerbated by the virus, but many of the issues existed long before, and it is important for us to focus on that. As we think about the value of adult education, and learning at all stages of our lives, I am sure I am not the only one who has today learned, in far more detail than they knew it before, the geography of Wisconsin and what the obscure states around America are all about. It just shows that every day is a school day.
It is important to make the point that we already had a skills and productivity crisis before coronavirus. We already had an apprenticeship levy where there was a huge reduction in apprenticeships at small and medium-sized enterprises and in the number of 16 to 19-year-olds obtaining access to one of them. We already had an underfunded further education college sector. We already had a huge flight of experienced college lecturers, after years of real-terms pay cuts. They left the profession and left colleges less able to provide the support that is needed. We already had a Government who were making further education the enemy of higher education, rather than seeing them as complementary providers whose success depends, in part, on each other.
Coronavirus has only exacerbated those challenges, with a huge reduction in apprenticeship starts. The colleges that focused most on apprenticeships and commercial partnerships are the very ones with the biggest financial challenge. Many apprentices’ college courses were suspended, and they were either furloughed or made redundant, and a generation of workers of all ages who need retraining find that the careers and adult education offers that would help them right now have been obliterated.
On finances, the Ney report exposed the fact that the Government’s destruction of the civil service and its capacity means that the Department for Education has been ill equipped to work with colleges that hit financial trouble. On capital funding, which other Members have referred to, the Minister’s written response to my recent question exposed the unprecedented capital funding cuts we have seen over the last 10 years. This debate is timely, Mr Hosie.
In the last decade the further education sector has seen its funding slashed by a third, but adult education, which is so crucial at this time, has taken an even bigger hit, with a 50% reduction. By the end of this year, an estimated 1 million young people will be neither in employment nor education and training, and will be facing the toughest jobs market in a generation. Even when faced with the urgent need to act this spring, Ministers ignored calls from the Association of Colleges to have that education and training offer in place for September, at the start of this academic year.
On capital funding, £2.61 billion was invested in further education capital expenditure in the final five years of the previous Labour Government. In the five years that followed, the Government reduced that spending in actual terms by a shocking 64%. When we hear the Government now proudly boasting about a £200 million increase in capital funding, we need to place that in the context of the cuts we have already had. Even with the additional money that has been spent, Government are spending less now than they were 10 years ago—purely in cash terms, not even taking into account inflation.
When colleges urgently need funds to make structural changes to cope with the demands of coronavirus, it is staggering inaction on the Government’s part to say that there will be a plan coming along in April. The Association of Colleges has exposed that the average college has spent between £200,000 and £300,000 on covid-related improvements to keep their college safe, as my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) reflected.
A powerful point was made by the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), who brought her experience to bear, as well as her passion for the sector. In her contribution she talked about the frustration that we all feel when money that has been allocated by the Treasury and is finally in the skills sector is then subject to systems that mean we cannot use that money, and it is sent back to the Government. It is infuriating.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough spoke powerfully about the digital divide. In this crisis, we have seen the importance of young people being able to access broadband and devices. The case she made about the lack of laptops was powerful.
On the subject of money being sent back, in a debate a couple of weeks ago I asked the Minister about the “Get Help to Retrain” scheme, which was being wound up after its pilot. She said that it had not been scrapped, but was being incorporated into the national retraining scheme. FE Week recently published evidence that the leftover cash from the £100 million, earmarked for the retraining scheme, would not be added to the new skills fund and Ministers have confirmed that the money will be sent back to the Treasury. Once again, we have a situation where money has been allocated and it ends up not being spent on our young people, when it should be. That is becoming something of a pattern.
The tweaking of the apprenticeship levy to enable large employers to pass levy funds down to companies in their supply chains is welcomed. The hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) talked about the importance of his college in Devon. He made a powerful case for the importance of the FE sector, focused on local needs, in small towns and rural communities.
The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) spoke about adult education, as I have, and she referred to the decision to scrap the union learning fund. I see that decision as entirely vindictive. The fund is a tiny proportion of the money being spent on skills, and it is being scrapped at a time when we know that the Government cannot even spend the money that they have. The decision does not seem to be based on any evidence that shows that the programme does not work—it does work—but on the Secretary of State’s antipathy towards the trade union sector.
In a wide-ranging speech, my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) once again demonstrated what a great advocate she is for her local college, and spoke about the state of the college estate. The FE colleges that have been hit hardest by the pandemic are those that took the Government’s advice, developed training in association with large employers locally, focused on apprenticeships and built up commercial partnerships. It is a tragedy that those are the ones most badly affected.
As the Secretary of State focuses his aims in the White Paper on creating a German-style education system, it is important that the Government should have cognisance of the difference between the kind of economy we have and that of Germany. I would love to see more of a skills-based approach, but it will not stand in isolation from a proper industrial strategy.
It is clear that Ministers’ rhetoric about FE funding is a long way from the reality of the policies we have seen over the last decade. This Government are constantly keen to distance themselves from the last 10 years of their own record. However, whether they have really made a damascene conversion to FE remains very much to be seen.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) on securing this important debate. I know that FE is close to her heart; she has first-hand experience, having served on the board of governors for Sheffield College. I am delighted to be discussing the vital issue of funding FE for young people and adults, and agree with all hon. Members who have said that it is especially important as we seek to recover from the impact of the global pandemic.
FE delivers not only high-quality provision for our 16 to 19-year-olds, but lifelong learning for adults. It provides learners with fundamental skills and gives them the opportunity to partake in learning that they may have missed out on in school, giving them a vital second chance, as the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) said. Equally, it gives learners the opportunity to retrain, to learn new skills, to go on further in learning and to progress in their careers.
All hon. Members here are passionate about this issue—that comes through in their speeches—and their constituents are really focused on it as well: it means such a lot for their everyday experiences and for the opportunities of their children. I am personally truly committed to the sector, having left school at 16, started an apprenticeship and been trained by an FE college in Merseyside that unfortunately is no longer there—much like most of my schooling, actually; none of the places I went to are there any more. Hopefully, there is no correlation between that and the fact that I attended them.
Over the last decade the level of FE funding has fallen, and Governments have had to make difficult choices about public spending, but we are now making real, positive changes for the FE sector and I know hon. Members will all be delighted with what they see in the FE White Paper. The spending review of 2019 saw the first FE funding uplift in a generation, and we have increased 16 to 19-year-old funding by £400 million. Of course people will call for more, but that is a 7% increase—the biggest injection of new money in a single year for a very long time, with funding increasing faster for 16 to 19-year-olds than for five to 16-year-old schooling. That has been welcomed by the sector.
Meg Hillier
I cannot let a figure glibly spoken like that pass—it may be, in percentage terms, the biggest injection of cash in a single year, but that is because for at least seven years, if not more, there has not been even an inflation-level rise in funding for local authority FE colleges. The Minister should be a bit more cautious about how excited we are supposed to be about even trying to begin levelling up FE to where it should be.
Gillian Keegan
I appreciate the hon. Lady’s comments. FE funding is quite complex, because at the same time over this decade we have also invested £2.5 billion in apprenticeships, and we will come to the many new areas of investment, all of which have benefited FE colleges. We have already announced one of those: the £1.5 billion capital programme for the transformation of the FE college estate to make colleges great places to learn. That will enable our colleges across England to have buildings and facilities that can deliver world-class tuition. We are not limiting ourselves to a single country, but we want to be world class, and I am committed to that.
We want to give people of all ages the opportunity and means to participate in lifelong learning, to learn valuable skills and to have the confidence to retrain in new areas. That is why we have also committed £2.5 billion to the national skills programme. The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) mentioned the national retraining scheme, but we have replaced what was left of the £100 million with that £2.5 billion, which is a massively increased investment. There is no way that that is not an increase.
Wera Hobhouse
I am listening with interest to where the Government are putting money in, but I still cannot quite understand the reasoning behind taking away the union learning fund. I would be interested to hear why that decision was made.
Gillian Keegan
I was going to come to that, but I will address the hon. Lady’s question. Effectively, we have increased a lot of the basic entitlements—obviously with English and maths, and with the digital entitlement. We are trying to streamline the delivery partners, including to the devolved areas, to ensure that it is simpler for people to get easy and broader access. That was the decision, and I have communicated that personally to the general secretary of the TUC.
I recognise the challenges that providers face as a result of covid-19. My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) mentioned the response to covid and the world-leading scientists working on vaccines, and so on. However, I also want to mention—as he has given me the opportunity—the many apprentices working on our response to covid, whether they are lab technicians, science and engineering apprentices, or those in nursing, health, social care, everything digital, and many, many more areas. As he also mentioned fishing, I should also tell him that a level 2 fisher apprenticeship is under development, and I am sure there will be many more to come as we develop the sector.
I thank the FE sector for its continued hard work to make sure our learners can continue to access high-quality education and training, which includes the move to remote learning. The hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), who I always seek to remain harmonious with, mentioned that. We have introduced a lot of flexibilities to shift towards online and blended learning and to increase the flex vis-à-vis attendance. Many of the colleges have appreciated the flexibilities that we have introduced, and we have done that all the way along.
In June, I had the pleasure of meeting students and leaders from Barnsley College, who, from the first day of lockdown, successfully moved 100% of their curriculum online. We have heard from many colleges about how covid-19 forced a behavioural and cultural change towards a more flexible approach of blended learning, which might otherwise have taken years. I have been so impressed by the sector. In fact, I know that it has even surprised itself, given how well the whole sector has moved to absolutely excellent interactive online learning.
We are helping to ensure that all young people and adults can access the skills and training they need to get on in life, despite all the economic and other challenges posed by the pandemic. That has included giving people access to digital devices and dongles, which goes to the point that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough made. Data is vital. We know that, which is why part of what we have broadened access to, for those who need them, includes data, PCs and dongles. We have enabled the discretionary bursary fund to be used for that and have also put in place a very simple business case to enable providers to ask for an uplift if it runs out, because it is being used for different things, and 38 have benefited from that uplift.
Of course, we recognise the impact of lockdown. As part of the £350 million national tutoring programme, we have made available a one-off ring-fenced grant of up to £96 million. Those are important additional funds to help students who, in some cases, may have missed the last six months or the last year of their GCSEs, as the hon. Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) referred to. We know this is always a challenge for colleges, so we have specifically put that funding in place for them to provide small-group tutoring activity, to enable our most disadvantaged students to catch up.
There have been some additional costs, and we have looked at making sure we provide financial support, as the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch mentioned. The financial health of colleges is absolutely vital and key, so we have put that support in place, and we have a team of people who have been there to support colleges. As those colleges’ funding has changed—their commercial income and sometimes their apprenticeship income—that has impacted their overall income, so that support is in place, as is emergency funding. To date, five colleges have requested that emergency funding and have received it, but we are ready to help others, and keep very close to the sector to make sure that no colleges close. Clearly, we need to keep learners in focus throughout this period.
Mr Perkins
The Minister has previously spoken about the five colleges that have had direct financial support, and 40 colleges she has identified that might need that support. Can she update us a bit more on what progress is being made, and how many more she thinks are likely to need further support?
Gillian Keegan
I am very happy to, because I asked that question just as I was leaving to come here, and the number of requests for emergency funding has not changed: it is still just those five colleges. However, things clearly will change, and we are now going through other changes as well. Another month’s lockdown could have impacts on other incomes, apprenticeships and so on, so we keep this issue constantly under review, and keep a team in place to help people and make sure we are aware of any stresses and strains on the system.
Meg Hillier
The Minister obliquely referred to the 97% tolerance level—that is, where 97% of students stick to their course, the funding is given at 100%, whereas in London if 90% of students stay, the colleges get 100% of the funding. Is that something that she will be looking at, or can have a discussion about? That little bit of tolerance can give a little bit of flexibility to colleges, and perhaps prevent them from getting to the point where that is a contributory factor in their coming to the Department for emergency funding.
Gillian Keegan
The flexibility that we have introduced is to make sure that attendance is not impacted by coronavirus, through having blended learning and dual systems in place. That is going to be increasingly important, because some people may be shielding or may be with people who are shielding, and will have concerns. That is why we have insisted on having the capability and flexibility to offer that learning in many different ways.
For those people who are not able to take up a job or a work-based learning offer when they come to the end of their learning, we are investing over £100 million in a brand-new offer of classroom study in high-value subjects to support 18 and 19-year-old college and school leavers to progress into employment. These courses are aligned to priority areas for economic recovery and well-paid, rewarding jobs, and as the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch mentioned, in some cases that could lead to increased numbers for those particular courses. We are considering the impact that this will have, and are considering providing extra funding during the year to help support those colleges.
For those who have minimal work experience and lack the skills or confidence to enter employment or start an apprenticeship, we are making £111 million available to triple the scale of traineeships. These are like pre-apprenticeships, and they can be very flexible, specifically tailored to the needs of young people and adults to help them into the workplace. They provide opportunities to develop further skills, work preparation training, work placements and sector-focused vocational learning or support a transition into work or an apprenticeship. They are also designed to help people get on to the next stage of an apprenticeship.
A number of hon. Members have mentioned apprenticeships. Some £2.5 billion a year is invested in apprenticeships, and we have introduced a lot more levy flexibilities to try to ensure that all that money can be utilised. We have put in place 25% to transfer within a sector or a supply chain, which I know has been welcomed. We need to work more to make this function better, because it is a bit clunky at the moment.
We need to focus on SMEs and the opportunities that they provide for apprenticeships. We also have a redundancy service, which we have just put in place, for apprenticeships. There are some signs of good news. More than 1,000 employers are advertising vacancies and opportunities at the moment on that service for those who find themselves redundant.
It is essential that every young person has access to an excellent education when they finish compulsory schooling at 16. The Government plan to spend over £7 billion this academic year to ensure that there is a place in education or training, including apprenticeships, for every 16 to 18-year-old. I appreciate that the base rate of 16 to 19 funding has been static for many years, so I am pleased that we were able to increase it by 4.7% this year.
We are also transforming technical education in this country, providing a lot more opportunity, particularly through the introduction of new T-levels. These pioneering qualifications will create a highly skilled generation of students who are able to meet the needs of industry. It is fantastic to see that providers have begun the roll-out of T-levels for 16 to 19-year-olds. I am sure hon. Members will visit their local colleges and I urge them to see the students there. It will give hon. Members a real boost. One chap said to me, “When I saw the curriculum and I heard about it in my school assembly, I thought it was too good to be true. Now I am on my eighth week and it is even better than I thought.” To hear young people so excited about those qualifications is amazing. They are also welcomed by the sector, because they attract a significant amount of funding and capital investment. I look forward to rolling those out, because that will provide another stream of funding—up to £500 million per year when they are all rolled out.
I recently visited my local college in Chichester and met some of the trailblazing students. Their enthusiasm and excitement is really catchy. The state-of-the-art technologies that they are using are brilliant to see. I have seen the latest equipment in manufacturing and the latest technology and software. I have seen them using virtual reality and immersive technologies. Those are the gold standard in technical education, which is why I feel confident that we will have a world-beating system.
We want to support and encourage providers to deliver programmes that will really help young people and adults to succeed in the labour market and, in particular, are valuable to employers, even if they cost more to deliver. That is why we have introduced a premium pay to providers to deliver level 3 qualifications, which are of high value to businesses but cost more to deliver
We need to provide the skills that employers and businesses are looking for. It is vital that we are in step. It is such a fast-moving market; we have seen that even more with coronavirus. I have worked for 30 years, and technology has impacted businesses’ operating models unbelievably quickly. We need to ensure that we keep in step.
The lifetime skills guarantee will give adults who missed out on that first opportunity the chance to succeed by fully funding their first full level 3 qualification, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch. I hope that is welcome, because it is a breakthrough and it is something additional. It will really give adults a great chance to progress further in their careers or change careers completely.
Rachael Maskell
In the light of the current economic situation, will the Minister look at extending that opportunity to allow people who have already achieved a level 3 qualification to change the direction of their career and secure future employment?
Gillian Keegan
I think the hon. Lady will accept that we have only just announced this initial opportunity. We are considering providing other opportunities to upskill and reskill. We are providing digital bootcamps and we are providing learner loans for levels 4 and 5. Digital bootcamps can really help to provide opportunities to fill in-demand vacancies. Those will be targeted. The digital bootcamps will start first of all in some of the areas in the west midlands, Greater Manchester, Lancashire and Liverpool city region. They will then be developed out to Leeds city region, heart of the south-west, Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire.
We will keep that model under constant review. It is quicker to respond. The courses are intensive over 12 to 16 weeks and are delivered in a specific way. If the model works, we will look to expand those courses further. We are also looking at other industries that may benefit from that approach. We are trying to respond quickly.
Meg Hillier
A few moments ago, the Minister said that there would be some discussion about potential in-year funding for colleges. Does she have a date for that, or do we need to wait? Is she expecting it to be announced in the forthcoming spending review?
Gillian Keegan
I do not have a date right now—I will come back to the hon. Lady—but it is something that we are discussing and it has been raised a number of times.
We are acting quickly, and in a way that we have not had to do and have not done before. The skills toolkit, which we have put together to give people something to do while they are on furlough, is a great example of that. We have discovered that during the last lockdown about 22 million people took to learning, so there is a massive appetite among people to learn. We need to look at those opportunities, and the skills toolkit offers many different courses. I encourage hon. Members to promote that far and wide to their constituents, and to the many people in their constituencies who may want to signpost people to those courses, because they have been developed by employers and with employers, are of a really high quality and can help people to upskill in their own time.
The Government are committed to supporting and encouraging high value, but of course we do not want to neglect the basics; the basics are important. A digital entitlement has just been introduced—from August—and that is key. Half the adult education budget is devolved, including to the Sheffield city region, from next year, which is in line with the commitments. Of course, we also have the European social fund, which is in place till 2023, and the UK prosperity fund, which will increase it.
I want just to touch on capital, which was mentioned. The £200 million is the initial £200 million of the £1.5 billion, so there is £1.3 billion still to go—I am proudly boasting that we have £1.3 billion more to go. We brought the £200 million forward for two reasons. One was that there are a lot of repairs and day-to-day things that colleges want to do; but also we wanted to encourage them to kickstart some of the local market in terms of construction, so there was a “Build, build, build” element to that as well.
We are also investing up to £290 million in institutes of technology. Those are across the country; there will be 20 of them. That fantastic collaboration will make a massive difference to the opportunities for young people as well.
Our FE sector is diverse and resilient. It supports learners of different ages and backgrounds to develop the vital skills that they need, including for green jobs.
Gillian Keegan
I will not, if the hon. Lady does not mind, just because I want to give the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough some time at the end of the debate.
The policies that I have outlined highlight the Government’s commitment to making FE a more attractive choice for all, improving the quality of provision and providing more flexible ways to learn. I again thank the hon. Member for initiating this important debate. My message to her, as well as to colleagues across the House, is that we will continue to work with you to improve our FE sector, to take advantage of the new funding, to shape the new funding and particularly to shape it in response to coronavirus. We will soon publish an FE White Paper, which will set out how FE is absolutely central not only to our economic recovery, but to reskilling and levelling up the nation and ensuring that high-quality technical education is available throughout the country.
Gill Furniss
I thank everyone who participated in the debate, because at the moment this issue of the utmost importance. I pay tribute to the Sheffield College, where I worked and was also a governor. A big shout-out also to Longley Park Sixth Form, which I am immensely proud of, because that sixth-form college is only there because of a Labour Government. One of my predecessors, David Blunkett, ensured that our constituency, our area, where there are low-income families, got a fantastic facility. I was at the opening, which the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, attended. That was some years ago, and during the time that that sixth-form college has been there, it has transformed people’s lives. It has enabled people from non-traditional backgrounds, who would not be expected to get to university, to get to university, including two of my own children, who attended as well. We can never overestimate the part that such a facility can play in regenerating that sort of society.
As I am from Sheffield, and Sheffield is obviously associated with steel, I used to be the shadow Minister for steel. In the late 1970s, the steelworks were, very sadly, closed. That was when I first went to work in FE, and there were some fantastic schemes whereby the steelworkers were brought into college on nine tenths of their salary. It was a construction college, and they learnt different trades in order to get over that bump in their lives and move on to a better future. That is what I would like the Minister to ensure is there for people today—more and more of them, as each day goes by, finding themselves in circumstances they never expected.
Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)
Order.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Universal Credit: Effect of Child Element on Separated Parents
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the effect of child element of universal credit on separated parents.
It is a tremendous pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mrs Murray.
There is a lot of evidence that children who have positive relationships with both parents are happier, healthier and more successful. When families choose to have children, in the vast majority of cases they hope and expect to stay together as a couple for the foreseeable future and the rest of their child’s childhood, but alas, it does not always work that way. A sad fact of life is that parental separation is commonplace: there are 2.5 million separated families with almost 4 million children across Great Britain.
Separation is in itself a traumatic experience for everyone involved, in particular for the children. It is also an incredibly financially stressful time for parents. It can lead to mental health issues, depression, homelessness and many other difficult consequences. It is therefore incumbent on all of us in this place to do all we can to protect children in such circumstances and to support them to have as stable and successful a relationship with both parents as possible.
The process of separation can often lead to considerable hostility between the parents, and that can spill over into financial disputes. Through the Child Maintenance Service, the Government already involve themselves in supporting the process of one parent providing money to the other, but that still leaves the thorny issue of who is eligible to receive child benefit. That issue also has consequences for the housing allocation and as a gateway to other benefits.
One of my constituents, Lee Waterhouse, has two such issues. He and his former wife were in dispute over some matters. I do not propose to go into the detail of their case, but while the Government will allow parents who share care for two children to agree to receive child benefit for one child each, when there is not agreement, as in this case, it means that one parent is considered to be the parent with care and the other parent neither receives child benefit nor is eligible to be housed as a parent with caring responsibilities—that parent therefore becomes eligible to be charged the bedroom tax.
That issue affects Lee, as he is classed as having a spare room, though he needs somewhere for his children to be when they stay with him for about half the week. The Social Security Advisory Committee, which examined this subject in October 2019, acknowledged that one of the most difficult issues for successive Governments has been to design and operate an effective financial regime for separated parents.
The committee’s report went on to recognise that it is difficult for the social security system to reflect complexities, especially of shared care arrangements. One recommendation was that there was a strong case for the Government to take a more strategic approach to separated parents and social security. The committee outlined that it felt the welfare system needed to be updated, given that a key principle is that it should centre on the welfare of the child, in line with the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, but that in doing so it should consider the impact on the child’s welfare of the living standards of both parents—not just the parent with the main responsibility—and their ability to share care.
The report went on to highlight that the current system does not meet those principles, pointing to the presumption that there is one main carer, despite the range of shared care arrangements in place within separated families. The report stated that, as a result, some parents without main caring responsibilities are being pushed into hardship, may face poor work incentives and are unable to share care of their child, which may not be in the best interests of the child’s welfare. I have to ask the Minister, what is the merit of the state deciding who is the main carer in situations where children are shared equally between two parents?
The committee pointed to Scotland as an example of best practice, given that the Scottish Parliament has established a cross-party working group looking at separated parents. It was recommended that the Department for Work and Pensions should join up with that group to ensure a joined-up approach and to learn lessons from the progress made so far. Chesterfield Borough Council has enabled Mr Waterhouse to have a discretionary housing benefit allowance payment that can be used in cases where the Government’s unfair bedroom tax applies. However, the Government are specific that it is a transitional payment to allow claimants to make arrangements to move into more appropriately sized housing. In this case, Mr Waterhouse’s property is exactly the right size when his children are with him. Although we have managed to get Chesterfield to extend the discretionary housing benefit, relying on that means that the Government have outsourced responsibility for the fairness of welfare policy on to Chesterfield Borough Council rather than the Department for Work and Pensions taking the responsibility, which is where it should reside.
In addition to having the bedroom tax imposed upon him, Mr Waterhouse is unable to receive the housing portion of child benefit, given that his children live with him on what is seen as a part-time basis, albeit 50% of the time. Given that my constituent is unable to work owing to a long-term mental health condition, he is now struggling to make ends meet. That is without the additional stresses placed on him by the current benefits system. He does not qualify for any child benefit entitlement. Again, as he has his children on a half-time basis, despite the lack of funds, my constituent is expected to care for his children when they stay with him. From what he has put on social media and from reading the evidence from many other parents in a similar situation, it is clear that his situation is not unique. He is often forced to go without to prevent his children going hungry.
It is difficult to quantify the scale of the situation as there is currently poor quality data available in relation to parents without main caring responsibility. The family resources survey in 2017-18 estimated that as many as 30,000 young non-resident parents were likely to be affected by the housing benefit shared accommodation rate policy. I understand that the situation is a difficult one, particularly in circumstances where parents are in a dispute over custody or child maintenance payments.
In the Social Security Advisory Committee report that I referred to earlier, the committee believed that a cross-departmental working group should be set up to instigate urgent action on these issues. It suggested that such a working group should consider the impact of policy on the living standards of both parents and the net impact of that policy on children’s welfare. It should consider how the social security system could better reflect modern shared care relationships that are not detrimental to the parent without main caring responsibility. What actions have the Government taken as a result of the Social Security Advisory Committee report and has the cross-departmental working group been set up to instigate urgent action on the issues that the committee raised?
The committee went on to say that the group should also consider how to ensure that the benefits system and interactions with the child maintenance formula do not unduly result in poor work incentives or push one parent into hardship, with all the impact that that would have on the children, and it should consider how to ensure separated parents can easily access the right information and support from the social security system. The Government’s sorting out separation website was a welcome step, but much more needs to be done to help both parents effectively navigate the complexity of the system. The committee also suggested that the social security system and interactions with the child maintenance system affects the hardship of both parents, including those not classified as having main caring responsibility, while also affecting and creating hardship for children.
When examining the housing element of universal credit, the committee recommended that the system should be reformed to enable young parents under 35, who share custody of their children, to have them to stay overnight without imposing a financial penalty. Another key recommendation of the committee was that the Department for Work and Pensions should consider options for the system to support all non-residential parents with more than one child to stay with them overnight.
I do not underestimate the challenge, given that it is difficult to design a system that takes into account every personal circumstance, but I do say that there should be safeguards in place to ensure that any social security system is not open to abuse and does not work against the interests of separated parents when one parent has decided not to support a collective approach. We also need to make sure that children are protected in the eventuality that one parent is negligent in carrying out their responsibilities, and I recognise that striking a balance is a difficult matter, but it is incredibly important. It is clear that the social security system is currently not fit for purpose to reflect the complexities of modern family life and that reform is necessary.
In summary, it cannot be right that the benefits system forces parents already in dispute to fight it out between themselves as to who receives the money needed to support their children. Nor can it be right that parents who do the right thing and want to care for their children are hit with the bedroom tax for having their child’s bedroom empty for half the week. In addition to the Minister telling us what the Government have done in response to the Social Security Advisory Committee report, will he tell us what steps they are planning or can take to ensure the equity of payments in these situations? Is the gender of the parent a factor that the state considers when deciding who should be regarded as the main carer? Does the Minister think that the Government do enough to support separated fathers to continue to be there for their children? Will he explain why it is not appropriate for benefit payments to be shared as a matter of course when parents are sharing responsibilities rather than relying on parents coming to some mutual arrangement? I do not underestimate the difficulty in finding arrangements that work fairly and equitably for all sides but will the Minister tell us whether there are any specific concerns about an assumption towards shared payment?
Protecting children who have suffered the trauma of a divorce is something that we should all feel passionately about. Supporting their parents when they are suffering ill health is one of the most tangible ways that we can deliver on that. The report has exposed the failures in the system so I hope that this debate and the Minister’s response can be a step towards getting greater fairness and security for many of the 3.9 million children who will look to us to act.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Will Quince)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray, on your first occasion in the Chair. I thank the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) for securing a debate on this hugely important issue.
The hon. Gentleman rightly raises some of the challenges faced by separated families. I have listened very carefully to the points that he has made. Following this debate, I and the DWP Lords Minister, Baroness Stedman-Scott, will be happy to meet him to discuss the issues further. Baroness Stedman-Scott has responsibility for the Child Maintenance Service and the reducing parental conflict programme, so there is clear crossover there.
I will start with the principles of universal credit. One of the core principles is to enable families to manage their own affairs. We believe that the current arrangements whereby one designated party receives the whole child element payment are fair and allow families to make their own decisions on how it is used.
To touch on the most recent support, we have taken immediate action to protect jobs and incomes in the face of the pandemic and the Treasury analysis of these measures is that they have been targeted at those most in need. We have injected more than £9.3 billion into the welfare system, including an increase to the universal credit standard allowance of up to £1,040 this year and we have increased the local housing allowance rate to the 30th percentile of local rents from April, so for UC and housing benefit claimants, we are giving additional financial support for private renters to support them through this difficult period. For an average family, that is worth about £600.
Yesterday, we announced that the current easement of the suspension of the minimum income floor in universal credit that was due to expire on 12 November will be extended to the end of April 2021. This sits alongside a generous package of additional support already announced by the Chancellor, including further grants through the self-employment income support scheme and an extension to the furlough scheme until December.
The hon. Member for Chesterfield spoke about who receives the child element of universal credit when separated parents share custody, including arrangements where it is shared 50:50. Where a separated couple have joint custody for their children, the parent who receives the child element is the one the child normally lives with, but if the child normally lives with both, it is the parent who has the main responsibility for the child who receives it. That is decided by the parents, or by a Department for Work and Pensions decision maker if the parents cannot agree or the decision maker does not think that the nomination accurately reflects the arrangement. It is important to stress that similar rules apply to child tax credit and to child benefit, both of which are administered by Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs.
I appreciate the points the hon. Gentleman made and I have huge sympathy with some of them. This is a hugely complex situation and there are no simple or easy options, as he said. There are many different kinds of childcare arrangements that families can come to; that is why our policy is to pay the child element to one parent, and then leave it to families to decide how it is shared between different parties who care for the child or children. Our view is that separated families are able to make their own private arrangements regarding the sharing of resources for children without state intervention.
It might assist and add some important context if I set out some details of how universal credit awards are calculated. Universal credit is a unitary benefit made up of different elements. There is a standard allowance, plus additions to help with additional expenses; for example, the cost of raising children comes via the child element. These elements are all subject to prescribed maximum amounts and paid as a single monthly award, which is calculated at the end of a claimant’s assessment period. Consequently, certain elements, such as the child element, cannot be ring-fenced or separated from the monthly award. Attempting to ring-fence individual components or extract them from the calculation would ignore the all-important interaction between the different stages of the calculation and would not correctly reflect how universal credit is designed in legislation and how it operates in practice.
I understand the case the hon. Gentleman made for his constituent, and we have corresponded on it. There is a 50:50 shared care arrangement, but the ex-partner receives the child element for both children. I understand that that means the constituent does not receive housing support for the additional bedroom that he has. As I have pointed out in correspondence with the hon. Gentleman, we have provided resources to local authorities so that additional financial support for those facing a shortfall in meeting their rental housing costs can be given through discretionary housing payments. We have provided about £1 billion in discretionary housing payments to local authorities since 2011, and they are designed to help the most vulnerable and disadvantaged to meet their housing costs.
Mr Perkins
I seek clarity on that point. It is the understanding of Chesterfield Borough Council that discretionary housing payments are a transitional payment for local authorities to work with vulnerable people so that they can get themselves out of the position of having a spare bedroom. In this particular case, and many others like it, however, it is not a transitional arrangement. The man will have a long-term need to accommodate the children. The council is under the impression that the Government do not want it to use discretionary housing payments as a long-term support. Has the council has misunderstood the guidance? If it has not, what does the Minister suggest for this case?
Will Quince
We have provided £180 million in discretionary housing payments this year; that is an additional £40 million in this financial year. We deliberately do not give prescriptive guidance on how discretionary housing payments should be spent by local authorities, because they are precisely that: discretionary. They are there for the local authority to use its discretion to support people who sometimes face very complex situations at the point of need. That discretion is deliberately with the local authority. We also do not prescribe how long discretionary housing payment can be paid. In cases such as this, people may have to apply multiple times for a discretionary housing payment, but we do not say that payments can only be, for example, handed out once, twice or three or four times. It is wholly at the local authority’s discretion.
Just one more point: I gently suggest to the hon. Gentleman that, even if the Government were to agree with his suggestion and I were minded to agree with him—I stress that we do not agree—any proposed change of this nature would require significant structural system change or a manual intervention, which would take considerable departmental resource, along with any legislative change. The Department simply does not have any capacity to make that kind of change at the moment.
To add some context, we have had to divert huge amounts of resource across the Department to the processing of claims throughout this unprecedented period, with claims for universal credit going up from 2.2 million to some 5.7 million. It is important to point out, despite that unprecedented shift, that more than 94% of people were paid in full and on time. We simply do not have the capacity to make big structural system changes, even if we were minded to agree with the hon. Gentleman, but we are committed to providing a strong safety net for those who need it.
Mr Perkins
The Minister talked about the Government wanting parents to work together and leaving it to parents to decide, but clearly, this is not a unique situation. After a separation, there is often contention and disagreement between former partners. When both are looking after the children 50:50, how is it fair for the Government to decide that one of those parents is the main carer and therefore gets the support with housing, child benefit and the gateway that that opens, and the other parent gets nothing? It seems patently unfair. To dismiss that by saying that is how the system is and it would be difficult for the Department to work on it in a different way is not really good enough, not just for Mr Waterhouse but for many others in that situation.
Will Quince
The hon. Gentleman hits the nail on the head when he says that these situations are extremely complex. Every family is different. In the vast majority of cases, families come to individual arrangements that work well. The answer cannot always be state intervention. He says that it is not fair. That may well be the case; in many of these situations, there is an element of unfairness. There are often situations of family breakdown and separation that are hugely regrettable and there are situations that are deeply unfair, but we, as the state, try to encourage families to come to arrangements themselves. We have programmes such as the reducing parental conflict programme and the Child Maintenance Service precisely for situations where parents are not able to come to individual arrangements themselves, or need the support of the state to do so.
The question comes down to this: how much state intervention and involvement do we want? That is why I said I am happy to sit down with the hon. Gentleman and hear more about his constituent’s case and about his ideas for how we might reform the system. I just gently say to him that fundamental or large-scale system reform would not be an easy or quick thing to do. That does not mean we should not explore it or look at it for the future, but it is certainly not something that we could do in the short-to-medium term. As a Government, we are always looking to see what more we can do to support families and to support separated families, be that one family unit or a unit migrating into two or multiple units.
Mr Perkins
I remind the Minister of the question I asked and invite him to respond. Is the gender of each party a deciding factor in who ends up getting the original payment? Certainly, the view of Mr Waterhouse and many others is that there is a sort of natural bias in the system, so that where both parties share the care, the woman is treated as the main carer. Is that how the system works, and what more can he tell us about that aspect of it?
Will Quince
My understanding is that that is not the case, but I think that if the hon. Gentleman and I sat down with officials from the Department, it would give him a level of comfort about the procedure when individuals from separated families cannot reach an agreement, and how the DWP decision maker will consider all the facts of the case and then come to a conclusion and make a judgment. I would be very happy to have that meeting with him and with officials to go through that process.
As I said, we are deeply committed to providing a strong safety net for those who need it, which is why we continue to spend over £95 billion a year on welfare benefits for people of working age. We believe that families should be free to make their own decisions about how their benefits are used, without Government intervention. As I also said, there are no current plans to change arrangements for the payment of child benefit to separated families. I appreciate that that is not the response that the hon. Gentleman hoped for, but I repeat that I and the DWP Minister in the Lords, Baroness Stedman-Scott, will be happy to meet him.
This Government will continue to reform our welfare system so that it promotes work as the most effective route out of poverty, and is fairer to those who receive welfare and to the taxpayers who pay for it.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (in the Chair)
Would the hon. Gentleman like to have two minutes to respond?
Mr Perkins
I am never knowingly quiet, Mrs Murray. [Laughter.]
I appreciate the Minister’s response and his offer to continue our dialogue after this debate. I recognise that creating a system that works in individual cases is difficult, but there is inherent unfairness at the heart of this system, and a real danger that it will make it more difficult for fathers who are on benefits and who may suffer with mental health or physical health problems, or who are for whatever reason reliant on the benefit system, to be the parent that they would like to be. We recognise that we have a safety net to support parents and families and their children, so investigating whether there is more that can be done to allow for the reality of the situation, which is often that responsibility for children is shared and that therefore benefits need to be shared, is something to work towards. I will take the Minister up on his offer to meet further.
Question put and agreed to.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (in the Chair)
Order. In order to allow the safe exit of honourable Members who have participated in this debate, and the safe arrival of those Members who will participate in the next debate, I am suspending the sitting for two minutes.
Protections for Emergency Service Workers
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mrs Sheryll Murray (in the Chair)
Before I call the hon. Member for Stockton South (Matt Vickers), I remind all hon. Members that the matter of appeal of proceedings relating to the convictions of two people, and the sentencing of three people convicted of the manslaughter of PC Andrew Harper, are sub judice under the terms of this House’s resolution; reference should not, therefore, be made to either the merits or otherwise of the convictions or sentences in that case. I thank the hon. Member for his courtesy in consulting the Table Office in advance of his debate. I remind any other Member participating in the debate to be equally mindful of the sub judice resolution and matters still before the courts. The debate can go on until 5.45 pm.
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered protections for emergency service workers.
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. I thank everybody for taking the time to contribute to this debate.
The pandemic has reminded everyone of the important role our emergency service workers play in protecting, defending and saving lives. Doctors, nurses, police officers, paramedics, fire service personnel and everyone else on the frontline have served with fortitude and commitment during these unprecedented times. While the country has retreated to the safety of our own home, our emergency service workers have rolled up their sleeves to protect and save lives. They have held the hands of dying patients, provided counselling to distraught family members, maintained order in some of our most vulnerable communities, and upheld hope in our everyday lives. I am proud that in Stockton we have an award-winning hospital that is filled to the brim with a talented and passionate workforce. Throughout the pandemic, I volunteered at University Hospital of North Tees and saw at first hand the commitment of a workforce who give 110% to caring for local people.
While this pandemic has made us appreciate those who work in the health service, it has also allowed us to see the diverse roles that other frontline workers play. In Cleveland, we have frontline police officers who are second to none. To most of us, it seems perverse that anyone would want to assault another person for doing their job. Abusing someone who, by definition, goes to work and dedicates their life to helping others is simply wrong, but during a night shift with my local police force, I witnessed the horrid abuse our emergency service workers face. I shadowed police officers as they attended a call to deal with an aggressive, drug-fuelled individual who was making it his business to abuse the hospital staff who were trying to help him. Matters then turned physical, and the individual lashed out at officers, throwing fists and feet in an effort to evade arrest.
Whether physical or verbal, abuse is abuse, and it should never be tolerated. Sadly, incidents like the one I witnessed are not rare. In 2019, more than 11,000 people were prosecuted for assaulting emergency service workers, and it is thought that this number has risen by as much as a third this year. In our year of crisis, when we are more reliant on our emergency service workers than ever, the number of assaults has increased. We cannot allow that to go on.
Between 2008 and 2019, 92 police officers lost their lives while on duty. Some 39% of officers across the country have been assaulted. Between August 2019 and July 2020, 6,668 were assaulted, which is an average of 18 assaults on officers every single day. Within those national statistics are even darker pockets of local problems. In Cleveland, in the year to October 2019, there were 440 assaults on emergency service workers. That is 440 too many. This year, that has risen by more than 50%, to 662. Whatever we are doing is not working, and we must do more.
It would be impossible to discuss this issue and not think about a man who embodied duty and service, and who committed his life to uphold, defend and protect. That man is PC Andrew Harper. At the time of the incident, Andrew Harper had finished his shift and, like many other emergency service workers across the country, he carried on to do a few more jobs, to help colleagues and his community. I realise that we are not allowed to discuss the details around the case and the sentence imposed, but let us be honest: I do not think anybody here is not aware of the case. The nation has been shocked by a story that has pierced the public consciousness and has been inspired by PC Harper’s wife in her quest for justice.
PC Harper’s wife, Lissie, has shown unbelievable courage, bravery, energy and passion in her effort to ensure justice for her husband and the family of any other emergency service worker who might find themselves in such a horrific situation. Lissie’s online petition, calling for life sentences for those convicted of killing emergency service workers, has attracted more than 730,000 signatures. It is a new movement for change from a British public who want to see protection for their protectors, and justice for them and their families.
I am delighted that Lissie’s drive and relentless pursuit for positive change has been recognised by the Government. Through discussions with the Lord Chancellor, I am aware that the Government are looking at options for strengthening the law in relation to those who kill emergency service workers while engaged in unlawful activity. I hope that through debates like this one we can continue to push the issue up the agenda.
When someone signs up to work for our police force, our NHS or our fire service, and gets up each morning and puts themselves in harm’s way for us, they should do so with confidence that if things go wrong we will stand by them and, when necessary, ensure that justice is delivered for them and their families. We must do more. I know that the political will is there and appreciate the progress that has been made.
The Government’s sentencing White Paper, “A Smarter Approach to Sentencing”, includes proposals to increase the maximum penalty for assaulting an emergency service worker from 12 months to two years. It is a good start, but I see it as only that. It is a starting point to build, so that the law can act as a deterrent and deliver real justice.
I am proud to support the Government’s announcement of a police covenant to recognise the sacrifices of those who work in policing. The covenant will recognise the huge contribution made by our officers and ensure that they are not disadvantaged as a result of their commitment and that they have access to justice.
Having spent time on duty with my local police officers, I know the solution lies not just with tougher sentences for those who do harm to emergency workers, but in what we give our officers to do their job. Some say a workman should never blame his tools, but I believe everybody should have the right to ask for the tools they need to do their job safely.
In March 2020, the Home Office provided £6.7 million to English and Welsh police forces to purchase more than 8,000 new tasers. The equipment is there, and I welcome it. However, access to training is sometimes a stumbling block. Looking forward, we should aim to set a standard. If a police officer wants the training to be able to use a taser, he should be entitled to it.
Perhaps most crucially of all, almost every officer I have spoken to has impressed on me the importance of high-quality body-worn cameras. In fact, I have seen at first hand how a poor standard body-worn camera can fail when needed most. My local force is now led by an excellent chief constable and the body-worn cameras have been upgraded and replaced. At that time, an officer down the road, working in Durham, was afforded an acceptable camera. Officers working in my constituency were not. They were put at the risk of harm, with inadequate kit.
There must be a minimum standard. Officers should not be left without the necessary equipment to do the job, just because they work in one force rather than another. There has been a cultural shift away from supporting our emergency services workers. Many mourn the lack of respect, the verbal abuse and the gotcha culture. They are constantly subjected to it. Social media is full to the brim with those gotcha moments—people pushing their phones against the noses of emergency services workers while shouting in their faces. Body-worn cameras act as now-essential security to an officer when that happens, nipping in the bud the threat of false allegations that unjustly create so much anxiety for our emergency services workers.
Our frontline officers must have the highest-spec body-worn cameras—no ifs, no buts. If we are putting people in harm’s way to uphold our laws and to protect and save lives, we need to give them the equipment that they need to protect themselves. When things go wrong and that protection is not enough, we must stand by them and ensure that justice is done.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (in the Chair)
Order. I intend to call the Front-Bench spokesmen at about 5.25 pm. There are 11 Back-Bench Members wishing to speak. I am sure that you can all do the maths. If you speak for about two or three minutes each, we should be able to get everyone in.
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to take part in the debate under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. I thank the hon. Member for Stockton South (Matt Vickers) for bringing forward what I think is a timely debate.
I represent an area in Northern Ireland where an element of the community believes it is only right and proper to target the Police Service of Northern Ireland. I will use that as an example. It is our police service, and those people have been brought up to treat its members as second-class citizens. They target the police on every occasion. If police are responding to something in the community, to try to help, elements there will target them. As for the protection that is given to them, unfortunately the courts are not necessarily all that lenient to and understanding of a police officer who takes action. I am not talking about breaking the law, but taking action to protect himself, his colleagues and the community. Sometimes, because of that, other people can take legal action, and they are helped, through the legal aid system, to do so. That is a major problem.
I am glad that body-worn cameras were mentioned. Without the use of body-worn cameras to provide back-up evidence, many allegations would have been upheld against the fire and ambulance services. It is vital that they have equipment to protect them to that degree. I have great admiration for those who, on the occasions when everyone else is going away from a problem, have to go in and deal with it. They should not face abuse. Abuse comes in many and various forms. It can be verbal or physical, and often the verbal abuse can be as damaging to an individual as physical abuse. We need to address that and ensure that it is a priority, and that we protect those who put themselves on the frontline to protect our society.
My father was a police officer and unfortunately witnessed abuse at first hand, to such a degree that he was injured on duty. He was given no protection. I am talking about the early times in the troubles. Unfortunately he spent quite a long time in hospital. Those who perpetrated the crime were never pursued. I hope that such a case would never happen today.
We need to highlight the situation of firemen. Young people think that it is a bit of fun to throw stones and bricks at a fire engine. We have had that happen in Northern Ireland. We have to ensure that the penalty for being involved in this is not just getting a slap on the wrist, but a penalty that will work through the rest of those people’s lives and ensure they will not be involved in it. I know that we have a short time limit, so thank you very much for the opportunity to take part in this debate, Mrs Murray.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. I take this opportunity to thank all the emergency service workers the length and breadth of this country for the vital work they do day and night, under what must be incredibly difficult circumstances. I know first hand from my experiences as an MP and as a resident of Hull West and Hessle how dedicated and conscientious they all are: every day, they put their personal safety second to that of the public they serve. I will quickly mention the 12 officers of Humberside police who have been nominated this year for the national police bravery awards in recognition of their heroism. I give my personal thanks to Keith Hunter, our police and crime commissioner; Chris Blacksell, the chief fire officer; Lee Freeman, the chief constable; all the officers, staff and prison officers; and of course everybody working in the NHS.
The sad fact is that nationally, assaults on police officers increased by 20% during the first period of lockdown, and many officers will doubtless be worried when looking forward to the next four weeks. I want to share a couple of statistics with the Minister: first, from January 2018 to December 2019, 999 Humberside police officers were assaulted in the line of duty. They were punched, kicked, spat at, verbally abused and bitten, and suffered bruising, cuts, swelling and even broken bones, as did our firefighters and paramedics. During the period from April 2018 to March 2019, Humberside Fire and Rescue Service reported a total of 17 attacks, 11 of which were attacks against firefighters. Last year, on average, a prison officer was assaulted every hour, 24 hours a day.
We need to ask ourselves, “How did it come to this?” We need to look at the cuts to those services, and the fact that all our emergency services have been asked to do so much more with fewer staff and fewer resources. While no one would fail to welcome the increased investment in police officers, I want the Minister to reflect on the impact on police staff. Some of the feedback I am receiving from police staff is that police officers are being used to replace duties that were being done by police staff, because police staff numbers continue to be cut. I give personal thanks to all our police community support officers, because they do incredible work in building relationships with local schools in the area and talking to local communities. However, as the Minister knows, they are classified as police staff, and some of those positions are vulnerable as police staff numbers and budgets continue to be reduced. I urge the Minister to look not just at the investment in police officers but at the importance of police staff, because we sometimes think that police staff are only there to answer the phones but, as I am sure the Minister is aware, they do so much more.
It is quite right that there should be severe penalties for assaults on emergency service workers, but we also need to look at how, for some people, prison is a revolving door for persistent criminal behaviours. We need to consider how the National Probation Service can seriously encourage rehabilitation and stop those persistent criminals from bouncing in and out of prison and assaulting our officers. I have mentioned the 12 officers from Humberside nominated for bravery: they received their nominations for tackling a man armed with a machete terrorising staff and shoppers in the town centre. That man was severely mentally ill, and has now been detained indefinitely. No jail tariff would have deterred him, and while it may seem strange to be talking about adult mental health support in respect of the safety of our emergency service workers, it is not. If we want to reduce assaults on those workers, we need to look at the link between adequate mental health support and those people who go out there and attack our officers.
The proposed police covenant sounds very welcome, but will it have teeth? Will it be mandatory? How will it be enforced? How can we make sure it is adopted up and down the country, in every area, and how can the covenant be turned into concrete mental health support for officers and all the people involved in the emergency services? It is vital that the voices of those on the frontline continue to be heard by Government, and after that listening must come the action.
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve
under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (Matt Vickers) on securing this debate and on making such a powerful case in support of our emergency workers. This cause could really unite the people of our country. In seeking to protect those who protect us, our emergency service workers are among the finest in our society, and I am sure that Members from right across the House will join me in thanking them.
I have had the great pleasure, as I am sure have many Members across the House, of visiting my local teams, including the Yorkshire Air Ambulance, our firefighters, our NHS hospital services and West Yorkshire police and its training centre. I have been on patrol with local officers on a number of occasions, and often they help the most vulnerable in society at their time of greatest need. I have been shocked every time I have been out on patrol by how many call-outs were for people with severe mental health issues.
Emergency service workers face the most extraordinary pressures daily, and we ask so much of them. They often face appalling levels of abuse. In West Yorkshire last year, we had some shocking statistics. In 2019-20, some 2,185 assaults on West Yorkshire police were recorded in Leeds and the wider region, up 15% from the previous year. I am sure that colleagues across the House agree that any abuse is unacceptable. It should not become part of their job to face such abuse and violence from those whom they protect. I believe that the Government get that and understand that this situation is unsustainable. It is our job, our duty as policy makers, to find a solution and put an end to this trend and protect emergency workers. I have raised the issue with the Home Secretary, and I believe that there is strong understanding in Government of what needs to be done. I welcome the Government’s sentencing White Paper, “A Smarter Approach to Sentencing”, which includes proposals to increase the maximum penalty for assaulting an emergency worker from 12 months to two years’ imprisonment.
The law is ultimately moral, and as a society we should say that there is fundamental justice in abuse or violence against our emergency service workers resulting in the strongest sentence possible. I reiterate my support for what my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South said, and I continue to support the Government in bringing this injustice to an end. We must protect those who protect us and thank them for all they do in this country.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Stockton South (Matt Vickers) on his presentation. I remember very well as a child running about in Ballywalter in Northern Ireland—the ’60s and ’70s were my early days. If we ever had any altercations with the PSNI, or the Royal Ulster Constabulary as it was then, dear help us, it was not only the police we had to worry about; when we got home, our mums and dads would be waiting. My dad was of the old school. I know that we are now allowed to do this any more, or at least are not supposed to, but if I got it wrong with the police, I got a clip round the ear, and the one from my dad was always worse than the one from the policeman. By the way, a policeman would also have clipped you around the ear—that was a fact of life. However, it has completely changed; we are in different times, so I understand. I will just make a couple of quick point in a very short time.
I will refer to Northern Ireland, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Paul Girvan) did. The Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service reported a 20% increase in emergency calls and responses on a recent night, Saturday 31 October. Its crews dealt with hostile members of the public throwing missiles, including fireworks, as they responded to calls. There was a debate here on Monday—I could not attend because I was in the Chamber—on the misuse of fireworks, which each and every one of us will be aware of in our own constituencies. Even though it was really important that crew members were there, they had to withdraw for safety reasons.
The issue is quite clear: when it comes to the emergency services, including fire and rescue, ambulance and police services, we must have a zero-tolerance policy, backed up by the Crown Prosecution Service dealing with it. There is no better Minister to answer this than the one who is here, but it is not only about the Minister and where he is; it is about the CPS and where it is. We need the law of the land coming down hard on those people.
Some 1,600 physical assaults against the UK ambulance staff were recorded between January and July as the country battled the covid-19 crisis. Obscenely, that is the equivalent of more than seven attacks every day during the covid-19 crisis. There were also 149 sexual assaults against ambulance workers. I tell the Minister that we must legislate to ensure that the message from this House is clear: anyone who attacks emergency service personnel will be arrested and prosecuted—end of story.
There is something really wrong in society if people attack those who have been tasked to protect us, including the police and those ambulance service workers who were taking injured people to hospital. There is something wrong with society. It is time for society to grasp what is wrong and do something about it, and I look to the Minister for that response.
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con)
It is reassuring to serve under your diligent stewardship, Mrs Murray. The pandemic has shown us all the strength and resilience of our frontline emergency services and workers, whether they are in the police force, fire service or national health service. I know that I speak for everyone in the House when I say how grateful we are for their hard work, especially during this incredibly difficult time.
It is unsurprising that those who work on our service frontline are becoming physically worn out and mentally exhausted. Some nurses and doctors serving the NHS are still suffering from the trauma of the first wave of coronavirus. Worse, police officers are increasingly becoming targets of assaults and violence. In 2019, 10,033 cases of violence against prison staff were recorded. Only this summer, several officers were bloodied and wounded at the hands of Extinction Rebellion and Black Lives Matter protestors. So grave is the situation that the Police Federation is now running a campaign entitled Protect the Protectors, to raise awareness of the need for greater support for those who serve in our police forces.
Our police officers are entrusted to defend us all. As citizens in uniform, their authority is granted only through communal consent by citizens. I maintain that an attack on any officer is an attack on all of us and those who commit such heinous crimes should be granted no quarter when it comes to their prosecution and punishment.
I welcome the Government’s White Paper entitled “A Smarter Approach to Sentencing”, which includes a proposal to double current maximum sentences from 12 months to two years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (Matt Vickers) stated, this is but a good start to the journey, not the destination.
We Conservatives have and will continue to invest in, support and defend our police forces. In March 2020, the Home Office provided £6.7 million to English and Welsh police forces to purchase over 8,000 new tasers. The Conservatives stood on a manifesto that promised to recruit 20,000 new officers. In the first wave, between November 2019 and March 2020, 6,435 new officers have been recruited.
Enabling and ensuring tougher sentences on those who attack our police officers is a continuation of our values and commitments to our police. I stand foursquare behind any decision on tougher sentences for those who assault any emergency worker. I hope to see the proposal to double the maximum current sentences implemented.
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (Matt Vickers) for securing this important debate.
This year more than most we are relying absolutely on the work of our emergency services, as we work to tackle the impact of covid-19. We are forever indebted to the people who put themselves between us and harm, whether that is the 7,300 police officers, with 194 new colleagues on the way, the 19,000 frontline NHS staff or the 2,100 firefighters who serve my constituency, Heywood and Middleton, and the wider Greater Manchester community. It is our duty in this place to ensure that we look after the people who look after us.
Eight years after the event, Greater Manchester still remembers the loss of Greater Manchester police officers Nicola Hughes and Fiona Bone. The then Prime Minister David Cameron rightly called their murders by Dale Cregan a despicable act of pure evil. On that occasion, their killer received a whole-life tariff, and rightly so, but that should never be in question. Criminals should know the consequences of taking the life of one of our bravest. I do not believe in the death penalty for a number of reasons, legal and moral, but there should be no just opposition to the idea that someone who takes the life of one of our emergency workers should be removed from decent society permanently.
I support calls led by the families of fallen frontline workers—Lissie Harper in particular—for a review of how the law works in such cases. There should either be a new law relating specifically to the killing of people in frontline service positions or reform of existing laws on homicide. The Law Commission already recommended introducing degrees of murder, along with other reforms, just over 10 years ago. While some of those changes were adopted, I feel there is an opportunity to complete the reforms and bring our legal system into line with the society it serves.
I will not speak for much longer, as I know this is a popular debate. Support for our frontline personnel is an area on which we can all broadly agree. I will conclude with an extract from the police oath, in which they promise to serve
“with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people”.
We owe them nothing less from this place.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. I want to begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (Matt Vickers) for leading the debate. Although Darlington lies a little upstream from Stockton South, he and I both represent Tees Valley constituencies, where the work of our emergency services is highly valued.
My stepfather was a fireman who served in Cleveland Fire Brigade. I recall my horror and disbelief at his retelling of incidents whereby, on certain shouts, the officers on the attending appliance would be pelted with rocks. It would not be uncommon for the shouts to have been the result of a hoax call. Sadly, the number of recorded cases of violence against our emergency services personnel continues to rise, and we must do more to protect them.
In preparation for the debate, I spoke to temporary Chief Inspector Chris Knox, who heads up neighbourhood policing in Darlington. Chris has done phenomenal work in the town I represent and will be a sad loss to our community when he retires next year, although I wish him well for a long and happy retirement. Sadly, County Durham police have suffered 298 assaults since 1 May this year, with 56 taking place in Darlington.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (in the Chair)
Order. There is a Division in the House, so I will suspend the sitting for 15 minutes, or for 25 minutes if two Divisions are expected. We will continue when we return.
Peter Gibson
It is a pleasure to continue serving under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. I was speaking of temporary Chief Inspector Chris Knox of County Durham police. Chris said to me:
“It is imperative that the law protects officers because every day we are expected to protect the public and we need the government to back changes”.
Andrea Jenkyns
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is pretty bad form for the shadow Minister in Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition to be scoring political points while Members are making their speech? Surely, on an issue as important as this, we should be united across the House.
Peter Gibson
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. She makes an important point about the scoring of political points during the national pandemic that we are facing.
In my regular discussions with the chief executive of the North East Ambulance Service, Helen Ray, she has highlighted to me the fact that her colleagues want to see community sentences handed down to assailants that are served in the service that they committed the offence against. That would ensure that punishment was restitutional and perpetrators fully appreciated the impact of their offences on the people who risk their lives serving us. It is unacceptable that, in the course of this year, there have been more than 1,600 assaults on ambulance staff and more than 2,000 cases of verbal abuse.
We must do more to protect our emergency services. We must do more to prevent assaults on emergency services. And we must do more to ensure that the punishment fits the crime.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. I would like to make a few brief comments. I thank emergency service workers in Ipswich, especially for what they have been doing as the pandemic has been happening, and in particular Suffolk police. I do not think anyone who joined Suffolk police ever thought that they would have a role in policing social interactions and enforcing social distancing rules. Indeed, I do not think any police officer ever thought that they would have to do that. It is not something that they want to do or that is very easy. I thank Suffolk constabulary for getting the balance just right and being acutely sensitive to the need to ensure that the virus is contained, but also not overstepping the mark. Huge thanks go to them and also to the Kestrel team, whom I was out with a few weeks ago on a patrol across Ipswich. They are dedicated and truly exceptional professionals.
With regard to the tragic death of PC Andrew Harper, I have been moved, like most of the country, by that story and the fantastic campaign that Lissie has run. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (Matt Vickers) and other hon. Friends, including the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan), who have also been involved. I was very sad that I was not able to meet her. I was due to a few weeks ago, but because of self-isolation, I was not able to do so. I was very glad, though, to co-sign, with 21 colleagues, a letter to the Attorney General, calling for tougher sentencing in this area and mandatory life sentences for those who are found guilty of appalling crimes against our emergency service workers.
Many of the points that I wanted to make have been made by others, so I will just say, as cogently as I possibly can, what I truly believe and I think other people and colleagues also believe, which is that our emergency service workers are the best of the best. They have come to the fore more than ever before during this pandemic, and we need to back them up and hold to account those who commit crimes against them.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (Matt Vickers) for securing this important debate. It gives us a chance to bring into the light the real risks that our emergency service workers face.
Police officers are asked to confront violent and dangerous people every day—day in, day out—and other emergency service workers also run towards danger when other people run away. I want to pay tribute to my dad, who served more than 30 years as a policeman. I have yet to meet a braver man than him. While growing up, I listened with fascination to stories from his work. Only as I got older did I understand the risks that he took in taking on criminals on behalf of the public he served. I am equally proud of my sister, who followed in his footsteps. She is blessed with two young children, and I know that it occasionally crosses the mind of everyone in our family how horrific it would be for them if anything happened to her.
I vividly remember hearing on the news, in 2012, that two female police officers had been killed and fearing that my sister was one of those officers. The two police officers who were killed were PC Nicola Hughes and PC Fiona Bone. They were called to a false burglary report and killed in a gun and grenade attack. They were killed while carrying out their duties as police officers. They were killed while working to keep us all safe.
Every time anyone who has a police officer in their family hears something on the news about harm to or the death of a police officer, we worry it might be our family member. Tragically, 1,600 police officers have paid the ultimate price while serving in uniform. In September, we had the case of Sergeant Matt Ratana, who was killed while serving in the Metropolitan police. Earlier today was Sergeant Matt Ratana’s funeral, and my thoughts and condolences—as I am sure all Members agree—go out to his family and friends on this difficult day.
Eighty-eight per cent. of officers who responded to a national police safety survey said that they had been assaulted at some point during their careers. However, we are all very aware that it is not only the police who experience assault. We all heard the disgusting stories about the abuse and assault that NHS emergency workers faced during the pandemic. Firefighters and prison officers are also assaulted. Many other workers face such abuses, and that cannot be tolerated.
I fully support the proposal in the Government’s sentencing White Paper to increase the maximum penalty for assaulting emergency service workers from 12 months to two years, but that must be a starting point. If we do not see a big drop in the assaults taking place, we need to look at that again. Anyone who harms emergency service workers carrying out their duties must face justice.
That brings me to my concluding remarks, about another area where we should and can go further. The killer of PC Nicola Hughes and PC Fiona Bone was sentenced to a whole-life tariff, which means that he will never leave prison. That is justice for their families. Too often, I have come across intellectual snobbery about people who want justice—but that is a valid, legitimate and moral perspective. I am afraid, however, that not everyone gets justice.
I am mindful not to make reference to any particular case, but I am happy to join my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South in his campaign to support the widow of PC Andrew Harper, Lissie Harper. As others have mentioned, she is campaigning for life sentences with a minimum term for the killers of emergency service workers, whether an intentional act or not. PC Andrew Harper was killed in the line of duty. I pay tribute to his bravery, in pursuing criminals without thought for his safety and in signing up to be a police officer in the first place. Legal precedents already distinguish between different types of manslaughter, but Lissie has made a strong case for us to put in a new law as supported by her campaign, to ensure that proper protections are in place.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (Matt Vickers) on securing this debate on a topic that I think everyone in this House can support. Our police and emergency workers do some of the most difficult jobs out there. They put their lives on the line, confronting violent situations every day to keep the public safe. They pick up the pieces when things go wrong and do their best to bring calm to some of the most challenging situations.
This morning, I heard from Jamie Thompson, who is the chair of the Cheshire Police Federation. He told me that legislation passed in 2018 has made a difference to sentencing in Cheshire, but cases of attacks on police officers continue to rise and we need to be tougher. In 2019, there were 30,000 assaults on police officers in England and Wales, with 625 in Cheshire. I am particularly grateful to the Cheshire constabulary, who, over the past few months, have seen an increase in antisocial behaviour during the pandemic. I commend them for their hard work in tackling that for local residents.
To be clear, any attack on a police officer, prison officer or emergency worker is completely unacceptable. I suspect that I might be the only Member speaking in this debate who has used the legislation in a judicial capacity over the past couple of years. As a magistrate, when dealing with cases in which ambulance staff have been attacked as they carry out their work, or a prison officer going about his job has been knifed, I hear the personal impact statements from those brave members of our community who have to live with both the physical and mental consequences of such terrible incidents. Earlier, someone mentioned the impact of seeing body cam footage and, as a magistrate, having watched some of those terrible experiences, I can only imagine the heartache that those brave people go through.
I welcome the fact that the Government have been clear that Ministers will keep maximum penalties under review to ensure that they appropriately reflect the seriousness of the crime. In another point, will the Minister feed back to the Attorney General that decisions taken by the CPS when charging are critical, and that it should be encouraged wherever possible to charge assaults under section 47 rather than section 39, in order for a case to go to the Crown court for a more serious and lengthy sentence?
Finally, I welcome the introduction of the police covenant, which is a critical step. It will provide formal recognition and a clear sign of the value that the Government place on supporting police and their families.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (in the Chair)
I congratulate Back-Bench Members on actually sticking to the time—we have got all of you in. I now call the SNP spokesperson.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. As others have done, I commend the hon. Member for Stockton South (Matt Vickers) for securing the debate, which is very timely, particularly as we all think about the role of emergency service workers who are performing extraordinarily at the height of a global pandemic. At this juncture and with your forbearance, Mrs Murray, I pay tribute to the fire station staff in Easterhouse in my constituency, the police staff in Shettleston and Baillieston, and the Lightburn ambulance crew based in Carntyne.
As hon. Members will know, one of the obligations on the SNP, as the third party, is to provide summing-up for a debate. I appreciate that the subject of the emergency services is a devolved matter, so I hope to share a few thoughts about what we do in Scotland and how that can be of help as we have this debate here in Westminster.
The Emergency Workers (Scotland) Act 2005 provides protection for emergency workers across Scotland so that they can continue to do their jobs at protecting communities and keeping Scotland safe. The SNP has extended the Act in order to cover GPs, other doctors, nurses and midwives when they are working in the community. We want to ensure that no one faces abuse or violence while at work, and we have put in place severe penalties for those who abuse emergency service workers. The penalty applicable under the Act is up to 12 months’ imprisonment, a £10,000 fine or both. For more serious incidents, the Crown Office may choose alternative common law offences that attract higher penalties of up to a life sentence. The average custodial sentence for offences against emergency workers has increased by 12% over the past 10 years, from 151 days in 2009-10 to 169 days in 2018-19. The Act has also given the police, prosecutors and courts the necessary tools to ensure that people who attack public-facing workers face reasonable and effective penalties.
At this stage, I pay tribute to NHS frontline staff, who really are under the cosh at the moment. There are a range of services that NHS Scotland staff can access for their physical and mental health, which I think we would all agree is particularly important in the light of the covid-19 pandemic. They include employment assistance programmes, trauma counselling services and pastoral support. Of course, we offer such services to ensure a safe working environment. Police Scotland have the necessary support in place and it is backed up by the chief constable, who has pledged to reduce the impact of violence, to improve the safety of officers and staff, and to provide appropriate support when violence occurs.
I will finish by saying that this year has thrown up unprecedented challenges for our frontline staff. The pandemic will undoubtedly leave many lasting legacies for us as a society, but I agree with the fundamental point made by the hon. Member for Stockton South that, be it in Westminster or in the Scottish Parliament, it is our duty as legislators to guarantee that all emergency workers receive the support they need alongside protection from any abuse or violence that is experienced while working. We would all agree that such violence is totally unacceptable. On that basis, I am happy to commend the hon. Member.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stockton South (Matt Vickers) on securing this important debate. It was harrowing to hear of the incident that he witnessed when he rode out with the police. I have had similar cases in Croydon, and I agree with him entirely in his conclusion that whatever we are doing, it is not working.
As mentioned previously by hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan), who made a thoughtful speech, today was the funeral of Sergeant Matt Ratana. He was killed on 25 September as he prepared to search a handcuffed man at the custody centre in my borough of Croydon. Sergeant Matt Ratana, who was just a few weeks away from retirement, served in the Metropolitan police for 30 years, spending his last years in Croydon as a neighbourhood police officer and then as a custody officer, as he thought he could have a bit more of a peaceful time before his retirement. I am grateful to the Minister for visiting Croydon to meet local officers who worked with Matt. The shadow Home Secretary and the Mayor of London also visited. As others have done today, I pay tribute to Matt and all our emergency service workers who have lost their lives in service.
As part of the brief I am so fortunate to hold, I am touring the country virtually to speak to police and crime commissioners about their area and the issues. Recently I was on a virtual visit to Cleveland, where I met police officers and the chief constable from the area of the hon. Member for Stockton South. I heard about the great pressure they are under, dealing with high crime levels and the impact of covid with a much reduced workforce, following 10 years of cuts.
The messages from the Government are undoubtedly confusing and challenging when it comes to this huge covid crisis, but I think we all agree that the police have done an absolutely brilliant job of dealing with what has been a very difficult task. I thank all emergency service workers who have gone above and beyond during the covid pandemic.
At last year’s Conservative party conference, the Home Secretary said, quite rightly, that emergency workers
“need to know they have a Prime Minister, a Home Secretary, and a Government that stands beside them.”
I want to ask the Minister a few questions today about how we are going to make that commitment a reality. As has already been said, over the past five years assaults on police officers have risen by almost 50%, and there has been a 21% increase in officer assaults during lockdown. That is more than 10,400 assaults with injury on the police just last year, and 30,000 including those without injury.
That comes at a human cost, but it also has a financial cost. The College of Policing has estimated that 71,000 days were taken as sick leave in 2018-19 as a result of assaults on police officers, which has an estimated cost heading for £5 million. Between January and July this year, there were more than 1,600 physical assaults on UK ambulance workers. In London, there were 355 physical assaults on ambulance workers and 239 verbal abuse incidents.
As we know, violent crime has risen by more than 150% since 2010, meaning the police are now dealing with 1 million more violent offences with thousands fewer officers. The dramatic cuts to the police workforce have meant that single crew day patrols are the norm for lots of police forces, leaving those officers alone to deal with the risks every time they respond to a situation. Last week in New Zealand, a police officer was shot and her colleagues are asking why she was on her own in that patrol car and not with a co-worker. Heaven forbid we should see that happen here.
Cuts to mental health services mean that the police are very often the ones picking up the pieces, as has been mentioned. Only a few weeks ago, a police officer told me about an incident where a police officer was stabbed after breaking into a home to access somebody who was suffering from a mental health breakdown, having been asked by the NHS to do so.
There are five immediate priorities. First, we desperately need a bigger workforce. We welcome the increase in police officer numbers, but we know that that number will not replace those we have lost.
Secondly, the rising number of attacks on police officers is unacceptable and needs to be addressed. What work is being done to understand exactly why assaults are increasing and what can be done about it? What is the link between the reduction in the number of police officers, the use of single crewing and the increase in recorded assaults? Is there any? What research is the Home Office doing?
Thirdly, the Government need to tackle sentencing—a point that has already been raised. It was a privilege to meet Lissie Harper and I am seeing her again this month. The shadow Home Secretary and I met her to talk about her campaign, to which I pay massive tribute—it really is very powerful. The families of attacked or murdered officers would like to see a much tougher approach to assaults on police officers, and I think they are right. There should be stronger penalties for those who attack the police and the emergency services. What progress have the Government made on obtaining legal advice on the issues that Lissie Harper has raised with the Home Secretary? We welcome the sentencing White Paper, but I ask the Minister to set out a clear timeline for when they will bring that important piece of legislation to Parliament.
Fourthly, the issue of protective equipment has been raised. It has been brought to the surface starkly during covid-19, with horrible spitting at emergency service workers. We welcome body-worn cameras and the use of spit guards in policing. What work has been done to learn the lessons of what has happened during covid to make sure that our police officers are protected in future?
Finally, when will we have the legislation that has been committed to, with proper legal protections for police officers when they pursue suspects on the roads? We know that the police put themselves in incredible danger to ensure suspects are caught, and they should not be criminalised for doing that job.
Can the Minister confirm when the covenant will be introduced? It is incredibly important for the police.
I am running out of time, but I pay tribute to the Police Federation’s Protect the Protectors campaign that has been running for several years, which the hon. Member for Wakefield (Imran Ahmad Khan) mentioned. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch), who has led a lot of the work done by the shadow home affairs team, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) for the private Member’s Bill that doubled the maximum sentence for assaults against emergency service workers. Our brave workers put themselves in harm’s way every day, and they have the right to get all the protection that they deserve from us.
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray, in what is a very well-timed debate, given the increasing period of difficulty and complexity the whole country is going into, which will yet again present challenges for our frontline emergency workers, not least the police. I am grateful to Members for their heartfelt contributions and their recognition of the amazing job the police have done during the lockdown, alongside their emergency worker colleagues.
Our brave workers, across all emergency services, do an extraordinary job in the most difficult of situations, keeping us safe, day in and day out. Those jobs can be tough. Many of them face more danger in a week than most of us will see in our lifetime. I am only too aware of the sacrifices that our police officers and other emergency workers make to protect us. They face the danger so we do not have to. That has never been more apparent than over the past few months. They continue to serve our country courageously, day after day, and I cannot speak highly enough of the bravery, commitment and sacrifice they make each day during these difficult times. As somebody who has spent a lot of my adult life involved in policing, I have seen that on a particular and singular basis on the frontline, many times.
Tom Hunt
I am glad that the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) mentioned spitting and the appalling situation of police officers being spat at, particularly with covid about. It has caused great anxiety for many police officers. Will my hon. Friend assure me that there are robust punishments in place for those individuals who use covid as a weapon?
Kit Malthouse
I am just coming to that point, if my hon. Friend will bear with me for a moment. I hope that my speech will cover most of the issues that have been raised during the debate, but I will come to one or two questions at the end.
A number of Members made the point that it is completely right that we should support and protect our emergency workers to the greatest extent possible. It goes without saying that an assault on an emergency worker is completely unacceptable in any circumstances. There is no excuse for it—there is no excuse in background, circumstance, resourcing or any other wider issue.
Throughout the year, we have heard reports of people deliberately spitting and coughing on emergency workers in an attempt to weaponise the virus against those who look to protect us. Such behaviour is utterly disgraceful, and personally I cannot understand what is going through the twisted mind of somebody to do such a monstrous thing. It is vital that those offenders face the full force of the law. Their actions constitute an assault.
Throughout the year, we have seen examples of tough sentences imposed on those using coronavirus as a threat against emergency workers. In April, an individual was sentenced to a total of two years in prison for assaulting police officers, including biting and coughing at them, claiming they were infected with coronavirus. Someone who deliberately coughed at a police community support officer and assaulted another officer was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment a week after the incident.
However, the Government want to go further and send a clear message that those kinds of attacks will not be tolerated. That is why we recently announced our intention to legislate to double the maximum penalty for assaults on emergency workers from 12 months to two years—an example that I hope colleagues north of the border in Scotland will follow.
We must also look at what happens when much more serious attacks take place—so serious that in some instances they have claimed the lives of those who put themselves in harm’s way to protect us. The deaths of Sergeant Matt Ratana, whose moving funeral I had the privilege of attending virtually this morning, and PC Andrew Harper epitomise the kind of bravery and extraordinary sacrifice that will not be forgotten. We are determined to do everything in our power to protect those who put our safety before their own, by ensuring that the police have the tools and resources they need to keep themselves and us safe.
The Home Secretary and Lord Chancellor were pleased to meet Andrew Harper’s widow, Lissie, who has been mentioned by a number of Members, to discuss Harper’s law, and I hope to meet her myself soon. We will continue to work with the Ministry of Justice to ensure that assaults on emergency workers are handled with appropriate severity across the criminal justice system, and that includes the Crown Prosecution Service and the judiciary. It might be interesting to compare the sentences given for assaults on police officers, for example, with those given for assaults on judges.
Dealing with traumatic incidents and helping people who often experience traumatic events can have real consequences, and not only for the victims. These are not jobs that can be left at the office: the pressure of the role will leave its mark on a person’s personal and family life. That is why the Government have invested £7.5 million in a new national police wellbeing service. Following two years of development and piloting, that wellbeing service was launched in April last year, providing evidence-based guidance, advice, tools and resources that can be accessed by forces, as well as individual officers and staff. There is an emphasis on prevention and on helping forces to identify mental health issues early through psychological screening, giving officers access to support before a problem takes hold. The wellbeing service offers a wide range of services, from practical workshops to individual guidance.
However, as hon. Members have mentioned, the Government are going to go even further to ensure that our police get the support and protection they need. We have accelerated work to introduce a police covenant, and remain absolutely committed to ensuring that it has a meaningful impact on those working within, or retired from, policing roles, whether paid or as a volunteer. We expect to establish a robust governance structure in the coming months to drive progress, and policing partners have already been involved in those discussions. The covenant will be enshrined in law, and the Home Secretary will have a duty to report annually on progress. Our focus will be on health and wellbeing, physical protection, and support for families. We will continue to work closely with policing partners to ensure the covenant has a lasting impact on our police.
Those of us who have been out with police officers, as hopefully many Members have been, know that they confront violent situations every day to keep the public safe. The recent review of officer and staff safety conducted by the National Police Chiefs’ Council highlighted a number of areas where improvements can be made and where partners can work together to improve the protections for our police. To carry out their vital roles and stay safe, it is essential that police are equipped with the right protection, training and tools, including the latest, most accurate Taser, body armour, and body-worn cameras, as the review quite rightly highlighted. This, along with the police covenant, provides an opportunity for us to make a significant difference to the lives of those working in policing and their families.
However, we should not forget that there are other emergency service workers who are worthy of protection, not least in the NHS. The NHS violence reduction strategy aims to protect those workers against deliberate violence and aggression from patients, their families and the public, and to ensure offenders are punished quickly and effectively. We also know from the tragic events of Grenfell Tower and from major incidents like Whaley dam the extent of the physical and psychological challenges our firefighters can face, as hon. Members have referenced.
In 2018, the Government launched the fire and rescue national framework, directing all fire and rescue services to have in place a people strategy to support their staff, including a specific focus on mental health and wellbeing. I am pleased that this has inspired positive action, and that the National Fire Chiefs Council’s wellbeing board continues to instigate positive change across the sector, focusing on prevention, early intervention and individual support.
The emergency services are among the most selfless and courageous members of our society. They deserve every support and protection we can give them, and I know it will have been heartening for them to hear the unequivocal support they have received from every Member who has spoken this evening.
Matt Vickers
I thank hon. Members for their heartfelt and valuable contributions to this important debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his response, and for the work he is doing to put more police officers on our streets and properly equip them with the powers and equipment they need to tackle crime. All of our emergency services run towards danger when we run away, and that is why we have to do more, be on their side and protect them.
When I talk to frontline officers and doctors and nurses, they all talk about the word “respect”, and we have to re-instil that respect for our emergency service workers. The work that we do on sentencing is about creating a deterrent and about sending a signal to our society. I thank the hon. Members for South Antrim (Paul Girvan) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for a unique perspective on the challenges in Northern Ireland and on the PSNI. I look forward to the hon. Member for Strangford coming back for a “clip around the ear” debate at some point, because I think that might work.
I thank the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) and my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Andrea Jenkyns), who discussed the mental health challenges faced by modern-day emergency services, probably like never before. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Imran Ahmad Khan), who spoke about the continuation of our values. That is what it is about: we made a commitment to put more police on the streets, and we also made a commitment to toughen up sentences for the worst crimes. There are few crimes worse than attacking the people who go out every day to help us.
My hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson) is clearly a right winger like me, and wants to get tough, get real and hand out real justice. When we look at other countries—
Written Statement
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
UK Terrorism Threat Level
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
On Tuesday, the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre, JTAC, raised the UK terrorism threat level from substantial to severe. This means that an attack is highly likely.
JTAC’s assessments are made independently of Ministers and are based on the latest intelligence. The threat level is kept under constant review.
JTAC’s decision to change the threat level has been driven by a number of factors, including the recent attacks in France and Vienna.
Our police and security services work tirelessly to protect the UK from terrorism and will continue to do so. The public should remain vigilant and should report any concerns to the police.
[HCWS553]
Grand Committee
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
My Lords, the Hybrid Grand Committee will now begin. Some Members are here in person respecting social distancing, while others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I must ask Members in the Room to wear a face covering except when seated at their desks, to speak sitting down and to wipe down their desks, chairs and other touch points before and after use.
The microphone system for physical participants has changed. The microphones will no longer be turned on at all times, in order to reduce the noise for remote participants. When it is your turn to speak, please press the button on the microphone stand. Once you have done that, wait for the green flashing light to turn red before you begin speaking. The process for unmuting and muting for remote participants remains the same. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded, or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes.
Medicines and Medical Devices Bill
Wednesday 4th November 2020
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021 View all Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 116-IV(a) Amendment for Grand Committee (for Fifth Marshalled List) - (3 Nov 2020)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
A participants list for today’s proceedings has been published by the Government Whips Office, as have lists of Members who have put their name down to the amendments or expressed an interest on each group. I will call Members to speak in the order listed, but ask noble Lords to note that both the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, have had to withdraw. Members are not permitted to intervene spontaneously. The Chair calls each speaker. Interventions before speeches or “Before the noble Lord sits down” are not permitted.
During the debate on each group, I will invite Members, including Members in the Grand Committee Room, to email the clerk if they wish to speak after the Minister, using the Grand Committee address. I will call Members to speak in order of request and will call the Minister to reply each time. Groupings are binding, and it will not be possible to degroup or amend for separate debate. A Member intending to move formally an amendment already debated should have given notice in the debate. Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. When putting the question, I will collect voices in the Grand Committee Room only.
I remind Members that Divisions cannot take place in Grand Committee. It takes unanimity to amend the Bill, so if a single voice says “Not content”, an Amendment is negatived, and if a single voice says “Content”, a clause stands part. If a Member taking part remotely intends to oppose an amendment expected to be agreed to, they should make this clear when speaking on the group. The proceeding today will cease at 4.30 pm, earlier than originally planned. We will now resume debate on Amendment 27.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their patience in waiting a full week to hear the response to what was a very useful and detailed debate. By way of compensation, I hope my response today reassures them that my time has been put to good effect: I am sure they will let me know if that is not the case.
Amendment 27 was tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. I reassure both noble Lords that the Government and the MHRA remain committed to ongoing international collaboration for the benefit of patients and the life sciences sector in the UK. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, set out some of the work the MHRA is doing to deliver on this commitment after the end of the transition period in his opening remarks on this group. I am pleased that noble Lords had the opportunity to hear from and question the MHRA directly on this and other issues this week. The Government heard the request from noble Lords to ensure that this is part of an ongoing dialogue with the regulator and parliamentarians.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I am reluctant to revisit the debate on alignment with the EU, which we have already had in this Committee, as well as in many previous debates. However, I reassure him that the UK is seeking mutual recognition with the EU on a number of areas, including batch testing, good manufacturing practice and continuing co-operation on pharmacovigilance. Certain aspects of medicine regulations are also harmonised at an international level and we are committed to those international standards in all areas. Indeed, to further support the aim of continued international collaboration, we have tabled Amendment 48, which I will come to shortly.
Turning to Amendment 118, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, I reassure her that this amendment is unnecessary. The MHRA and the VMD are both recognised globally as leading regulators and will retain their regulatory sovereignty regardless of any trade deals agreed. This will include the MHRA’s duty to consider the safety and efficacy of human medicines placed on the UK market. We will ensure that our new FTAs provide flexibility for the Government to protect legitimate domestic priorities; we have made this clear in our published approach to trade negotiations with specific trading partners.
On the price the NHS pays for medicines, the Government have made clear that this is not on the table for negotiations. The prices of branded medicines will continue to be controlled through the 2019 voluntary scheme for branded medicines pricing and access—VPAS. To be absolutely clear, the powers in the Bill do not enable regulations to be made that relate to the pricing of medicines or medical devices. In relation to data, the UK has a strong system to protect health and care data, as set out in the Data Protection Act 2018 and covered by the common law duty of confidentiality. Our objectives for trade negotiations are explicit that we will maintain the UK’s high standards of data protection. Again, to be absolutely clear, it would not be within the scope of the powers in the Bill under Clauses 1, 8 and 12 to create exceptions to or modify the provisions of our data protection legislation.
I heard in last week’s debate that questions of safeguards and data protection were at the heart of noble Lords’ concerns about the government amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Bethell, to which I will now turn. These amendments would allow us to share information regarding these areas with international regulators or networks where this is required to give effect to international agreements or arrangements. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and others about the motivation behind these amendments, which have been identified as necessary as part of the work to support the future relationship with the European Union, and to protect and preserve existing work that the MHRA does. On his question about source codes and algorithms in medical devices, I make two points. The UK-Japan trade deal, as with the EU-Japan trade deal that came before it, provides for safeguards against IP infringement on the question of source code and algorithms. However, to protect patient safety, and for effective regulation, there remains provision for a regulator or conformity assessment body to request source code and algorithms as part of their regulatory responsibilities.
The MHRA and the VMD presently share and receive intelligence from their counterparts through our membership of the European Union, which will come to an end. The MHRA and the VMD will be the UK’s independent, standalone regulators and require appropriate legal powers for their own reciprocal information-sharing arrangements with other nations and forums. Without this, the UK may not be able to comply with its information-sharing obligations under international agreements; nor would it be able to participate in international arrangements facilitating the mutual exchange of intelligence regarding medicines and medical devices. These exchanges of information are of vital interest to UK patient safety. For example, intelligence sourced from international regulators through the EU has ensured access to life-saving medical devices for UK patients during Covid and has enabled the MHRA to trace suppliers of non-compliant testing kits. This is vital and will continue to be so going forward.
Future reciprocal information-sharing agreements with international regulators will help the MHRA and VMD to take swift regulatory action on medicines and medical devices that pose a risk, removing them from the marketplace if necessary. I reassure noble Lords that this data is limited to the data that the MHRA holds. The MHRA will always anonymise patient data before it is shared internationally, under the powers in the Bill. For the purpose of pharmacovigilance, for example, the MHRA might need to share information received through adverse incident reports. However, the information would always be anonymised and is usually kept at a high level—for example, description of the safety signal, or a trend report to identify whether another country has also identified an issue with a particular product or manufacturer.
I appreciate that there has been some concern over the use of the word “person” in the drafting of the amendment. We used that word, rather than specifying particular organisations, because we anticipate that international agreements will require the UK to share information not only with overseas regulators but with other bodies, such as overseas Governments, international organisations such as the World Health Organization, and international networks such as the International Medical Device Regulators Forum.
The wording is necessary because it provides the breadth, for example, to share data with international networks that might not be formalised. If we were to list all the organisations, networks and relationships that might be involved, it would simply not be possible to keep that list live on the face of legislation. Debate has been categorical that the MHRA needs to be a front-footed international regulator, and to limit it to the relationships it has now, rather than being flexible with regard to new regulatory forums or relationships, would restrict that aim.
The noble Lord, Lord Patel, asked pertinent questions about the data protection provisions in the new clauses. I have to admit to noble Lords that I had the same reaction about their potentially circular nature when I first read them, and I hope that I shall be able to unpack their effect here. The GDPR sets out seven key principles for processing personal data, the first of which involves “lawfulness, fairness and transparency”. We are providing a lawful basis for processing personal data by inserting these powers. That does not remove the other protections under the Data Protection Act that apply to the sharing of information under these clauses.
Where personal data are sensitive personal data, which are now called special category data, the GDPR requires further conditions, under Article 9, to be met for the processing to be lawful. Patient health data are a type of special category data. Relevant conditions under the GDPR, of which there are 10 that could be relied on to disclose patient data under the clause, would include “explicit consent”, reasons of “substantial public interest”, health or social care reasons, or public health reasons.
The GDPR also sets out further requirements where personal data are to be shared internationally. There must be an adequacy decision in place confirming that the third country or international organisation ensures an adequate level of data protection. In the absence of an adequacy decision, appropriate safeguards must be put in place that provide enforceable data subject rights and effective legal remedies, which can take the form of a legally binding agreement or contracts between parties. In the absence of an appropriate safeguard, data could be transferred only if it were
“necessary in order to protect the vital interests of the data subject or another natural person where the data subject is … incapable of giving consent.”
Equivalent safeguards for personal data and commercially sensitive information are already in place in Clause 35 for information relating to medical devices. This is solely to facilitate the appropriate sharing of information to give effect to international agreements and arrangements. They are critical to ensuring we can regulate effectively and uphold high standards of patient safety and access.
Amendment 45, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, seeks to achieve what is already standard and long-standing practice. Existing arrangements already ensure that timeliness, openness and transparency are key to the fees regime, and they are published online and available on GOV.UK. We will ensure that the industry and any other interested stakeholders know about any future fee changes in good time. We have laid statutory instruments to implement changes at the end of the transition period, as the cost of providing some regulatory services has fallen, so the fees charged will need to be reduced.
On the basis of the reassurances I have provided on Amendments 27, 45 and 118, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Patel, feels able to withdraw Amendment 27, and that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, is similarly assured and will not move her amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
I have received a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I gave the Minister notice last week that I might well want to speak after her, and I am doing that, for two reasons. One is to remind the Committee that, although we will allow the government amendments to go through without any objection, we do not agree with them, and will probably seek to amend them at a later stage.
The second point is to do with the word “person”. I thank the Minister for going into some detail, but frankly, that alarmed me more than reassured me, so I think we may have to engage with this, and discuss how to remove that word. It would be much too dangerous and risky to have such an amorphous expression in the Bill. Perhaps the Bill team could find some expression that, although it does not list all the different things that the person is supposed to be, provides some protection to cover the range of bodies that need to be consulted. I accept that we do not want long definitions in the Bill, but I am concerned about our having such an open definition, and we may discuss this again at a later stage.
Baroness Penn (Con)
To reassure the noble Baroness, I can tell her that the Opposition’s position on the government amendments is well noted. We will take away and reconsider the use of the term “person”, but there is a view that the safeguards that the noble Baroness is talking about are built in elsewhere, in how the clause would take effect. That does not mean, however, that we would not be happy to go away and look at those exact concerns, and see whether we can provide further reassurance. I am not a lawyer drafting the Bill, but that would be about looking at the terminology as well.
Lord Patel (CB) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister most sincerely for her full and comprehensive—I might even say persuasive—response. She is right to say that it has been a week since we debated this group, and even I had forgotten some things. Certainly, the venom certainly seems to have gone out of our debate.
The Minister reminded us what our anxieties were. She is right to point out that I referred to the word “person” in the government amendment, and also to the GDPR. I am pleased to hear that, on reflection, she, too, had realised why we were concerned about the use of data that might not be protected through the GDPR. Some questions remain.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, has raised some important points, and I am glad that we may debate this subject again. It would be useful to have a discussion beforehand, if possible, because the word “person” is too amorphous—unless the definition could be confined as to what kind of person is meant. In her response, the Minister mostly covered organisations that might be involved in the regulation of medicines or in recommendations regarding medicines and devices, but the proposal as drafted goes much wider than that and would go beyond that. I will not say any more about that now.
The meeting that the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, arranged with the MHRA was useful, and it would have been better if we had had some of the information earlier. The information that I gave with regard to my Amendment 27 I had acquired from the industry. Of course, we got the same information from the chief executive of the MHRA. It would have been better if we had had that earlier—but that is water under the bridge. We know that there will be new ways of keeping us informed, and that will be good. At this point, I thank the Minister sincerely for her response, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 28. I remind noble Lords that anybody wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate.
Amendment 28
Lord Patel
“Innovative Medicines Fund
In section 261 of the National Health Service Act 2006, after subsection (9) insert—“(9A) The Secretary of State must make a scheme to promote the availability of innovative medicines for human use within the National Health Service and must provide monies paid to him or her under subsection (9) for the benefit of that scheme to be known as the “Innovative Medicines Fund”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to establish the Innovative Medicines Fund, as foreshadowed in the Conservative 2019 Manifesto; and provides that it is funded from rebates paid to the Government under the terms of the Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme.
Lord Patel (CB) [V]
My Lords, this amendment was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, who unfortunately is not able to attend today. My name is on the amendment and I am very pleased to move it in his name.
This is an amendment that normally one would have thought the Government would have no difficulty in accepting, because it was in the Conservative manifesto at the time of the election. So if you are going to choose an amendment, choose the one that they cannot turn down. I am in the good position of making two speeches, one in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and one in my own name. It will be interesting to see which one the Minister accepts, because I am not going to tell her which one is which—I may as well enjoy this while I can.
Patients in the UK often face delays in accessing breakthrough innovations due to the NICE technology appraisal process. This is particularly true of treatments for smaller patient populations, such as patients with rare diseases, where there is greater uncertainty around effectiveness due to the challenges of collecting sufficient data to satisfy NICE’s requirements. To overcome similar challenges and enable access to the latest cancer treatments, in 2016 changes were made to the Cancer Drugs Fund, to increase NICE’s flexibility in decision-making. Between July 2016 and November 2019, approximately 41,000 patients were registered to access 79 drugs, used to treat 160 different cancer conditions. Despite the clear benefits to patients, similar flexibilities have not been extended to other areas such as gene therapy and gene silencing—treatments for rare diseases where there is not much treatment available.
Amendment 28, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, would add a clause to the Bill that would require the Secretary of State to establish the innovative medicines fund. This fund was promised in the 2019 Conservative manifesto. Like the Cancer Drugs Fund, its purpose would be to bring innovative medicines into use in the NHS. It would give NHS patients in England access to the latest new medicines, as advised by clinicians, and would give the NHS and NICE valuable data on their effectiveness, often adding information about drugs being used in clinical practice which is not normally available through clinical trials alone. There is an increasing need to extend these access schemes to disease groups beyond cancer, including neurodegenerative conditions such as motor neurone disease and Parkinson’s, as well as haemophilia, cystic fibrosis and sickle cell disease. These are diseases with a high unmet need for treatment, but also with real hopes for new treatment options, including gene therapy and gene silencing, as I have already mentioned.
This amendment would amend Section 261 of the NHS Act, which provides powers for the pharmaceutical voluntary price and access schemes, often known as VPAS, as amended by the Health Service Medical Supplies (Costs) Act 2017. An essential part of VPAS is to improve access to innovative medicines. The new fund would help to deliver this, alongside the MHRA Early Access to Medicines Scheme that we have already heard about. The predecessor to VPAS was the Pharmaceutical Pricing Regulation System. However, over the years, lack of access to innovative medicines has been a source of angst in the industry about the scheme and, for many of us, is part of a system that fails patients. It was not only industry that did not like the scheme; it was denying treatments to patients. We should not have a stand-off between the NHS and drugs companies, with patients losing out in the process. We should have a scheme that adequately rewards the value that is inherent in medicines and also ensures that the NHS is able to provide the treatments that patients need.
The current VPAS sets a budget limit on the NHS drugs bill. If it is exceeded, the industry will provide a rebate. In the past, the NHS has seen rising drug costs but has not seen the rebate—so the NHS took the rebate but did not reinvest it in other innovative medicines. By way of the Innovative Medicines Fund, the NHS, the life sciences sector and patients would all see the benefit of the rebate. The proposed new clause would require the rebate to be made available to the fund, and it is that rebate which will provide the money for the fund. I hope—and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, will agree—that it will be open to Ministers to take advantage of these powers to provide additional resources to the fund, according to its needs. The clause will provide the means by which the Government can deliver on their manifesto pledge and, in doing so, deliver to patients, some of whom are in great need.
I do not see how the Government can resist Amendment 28; they can only improve on it. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am glad to support the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and I have a great deal of sympathy with this amendment. Of course, I speak as one of a long line of former Ministers who have wrestled with the tension between a cash-restrained NHS and the imperative to invest in new medicines and devices. I have come to the conclusion that we are not going to see the investment we want to see in these new medicines without a radical change of approach.
When we debated access in Grand Committee a couple of meetings ago, the Minister used words to the effect that he would not go anywhere near reimbursement. That is at one with the way the NHS regards drug costs: as a price and a cost to be pared down rather than as an investment in patient care. The unwillingness of Ministers to tackle the issue of reimbursement to the industry in a way that incentivises the use of new medicines is, I think, very disappointing. I do not think that there is any way around this, unless we top-slice some of the resource for the NHS and distribute it separately for investment in new medicines.
The noble Lord, Lord Patel, referred to current and previous agreements with the industry. I want to go back to the 2014 PPRS agreement, which does I think provide a model for us. It provided assurance on almost all of the branded medicines bill for the NHS, so the bill stayed flat for the first two years of the scheme and grew slowly after that. The industry made quarterly payments to the Department of Health when NHS spending on branded medicines exceeded the allowed growth rate. The quarterly payments that the industry made could have been used to fund new medicines—but, as the noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy, mentioned last week, it is very hard to explain what exactly happened. With a cap in place and with reimbursements being made by the industry, the NHS proceeded to try to ration drug costs at local level. So, instead of having a virtuous circle where essentially the industry guaranteed the cap on drug costs in order to allow for investment in new medicines, we had a double whammy. The industry price was pared down and the NHS continued in its bad old ways of trying to prevent new medicines being accessed by patients.
Lord O'Shaughnessy (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for moving this amendment. I also pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Lansley for laying the amendment and for creating the template for the innovative medicines fund—the Cancer Drugs Fund—in the first place. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, described the tens of thousands of patients who have benefited from that scheme. It has been a fantastic innovation and something I am sure we all want to build on.
It also seems entirely appropriate that I am following the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who gave a powerful speech. When I was a Minister, he was unrelenting in pointing out the weaknesses in the PPRS when it came to supporting innovation. He was right then and he is right now. That is why I needed no persuading to support this idea and this amendment. It was something that I tried and failed to introduce in the VPAS when I was a Minister, but perhaps a seed was planted then. It was fantastic to see the commitment made in the Conservative party manifesto in 2019 to create an innovative medicines fund.
As the noble Lord, Lord Patel, said, there are many areas, particularly, but not exclusively, rare diseases—and I have a daughter with a rare genetic condition—where experimental drugs seem to offer great hope, whether that is cannabinoids for epilepsy in children, or gene therapies for children with spinal muscular atrophy, or the many other conditions where the promise seems huge but the data does not yet convince. It feels to me that if we accept circumstances in which it is right to give cancer patients access to those kinds of therapies, it should also be right to give all other patients access to those kinds of therapies too. That is really what the innovative medicines fund is about.
I think that we have seen the shape of the future innovative medicines fund and what it would look like. The VPAS allows for confidential, complex deals for the first time. We have seen CAR-T therapies come through that route. We have also seen a deal signed for Inclisiran—originally from the Medicines Company, now Novartis—with testing of that in a real-world situation following a very successful large-scale clinical trial that was largely focused in the UK. This provides a template for how we might go about doing business for common conditions, as well as for rare ones.
I am sure my noble friend the Minister will agree with everything she has heard today, so I want to ask her what the timetable is for introducing the scheme. Questions have been raised by the BIA and ABPI and others, and I very much agree with them that an ambitious definition of innovation is required. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, made an excellent point when he forcefully said that we must make sure that the rebate is recycled into innovative medicines, rather than just going back to the Treasury—there does not need to be an additional expenditure control mechanism. I will be grateful for my noble friend’s guidance on that.
One other thing that has come up in our debate in Committee so far—and of course this is more difficult because it takes it outside medicines and into other areas—is the exciting potential in devices, digital and diagnostics. There is no rebate scheme or automatic source of third-party funding that could provide for that. Is the Minister prepared to entertain exploring the potential for expanding the innovative medicines fund into something broader, and beyond medicines, perhaps not in its first iteration but in the future? I look forward to hearing what she has to say.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
I call the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff. Lady Finlay? I think we had better move on and we can come back. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly.
Baroness Jolly (LD) [V]
My Lords, this amendment would require the Secretary of State to establish the innovative medicines fund, as promised in the Conservative’s 2019 manifesto. It provides that it is funded from rebates paid to the Government under the terms of the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme.
The Cancer Drugs Fund was a Cameron initiative from the general election of 2010, and the 2019 general election saw a Johnson extension: the innovative medicines fund. He promised that
“doctors can use the most advanced, life-saving treatments for conditions such as cancer or autoimmune disease, or for children with other rare diseases.”
The promise was to increase the funding to £0.5 billion. Can the Minister confirm the figure and clarify how “innovative” will be defined? Importantly, how will the fund address the UK issue of combination pricing, where some new cancer treatments are not cost effective, even when the price is nothing?
There are questions about what drugs outside of cancer drugs could qualify to go into the new fund. Can the Minister help with a response here? There might be candidates from medicines selected for the early access to medicines fund, a pre-licensing indicator of promising innovation given by the MHRA. This would allow them to be funded while further evidence is generated. Given the focus on innovation and the very reason for EAMS to designate a drug as a promising innovative medicine, which is a prerequisite for any drug to get a full, positive EAMS designation, there looks to be a good fit, and we support it.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, I support this amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Patel. It is very much the ambition to ensure access for UK patients to the latest and most innovative treatments. This is reflected in many of our amendments to this Bill, relating to attractiveness, clinical trials and regulatory alignment with the European Medicines Agency.
We fully support the Government’s commitment to extend the Cancer Drugs Fund into a £0.5 billion innovative medicines fund to be used for
“the most advanced, life-saving treatments for conditions such as cancer or autoimmune disease, or for children with other rare diseases”.
If, at last, the principle of using the rebates from the pharmaceutical rebates scheme could be achieved so that they are used for the benefit of the NHS and patients, then this will represent progress indeed, particularly ensuring that the money is used as an additional source of income and revenue for the NHS and is not part of expected and planned funding.
Like other noble Lords, we are very much looking forward to hearing from the Government the detail of their proposals, when they intend to commence the promised consultation and the proposed timetable for implementation.
We heard in previous debates important questions as to how the new fund will relate to the current NICE process for reviewing new cancer drugs, particularly those to treat rare cancers, and, more broadly, around what drugs will qualify, outside of cancer, to be covered by the new fund. For example, there may be candidates from medicines selected for the early access to medicines fund, the MHRA’s pre-licensing indicator of promising innovation, allowing them to be funded while further evidence is generated. Given the focus on innovation and the very reason for EAMS to designate a drug as a promising innovative medicine, a prerequisite for any drug to get a full, positive EAMS designation, what consideration have the Government given to this?
Detail, too, is needed, as we have heard, on the criteria that will apply to any prospective drug for the fund. I certainly endorse the comments of the noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy, on needing to have an ambitious definition of innovation. Will the criteria mirror the current processes that the NICE committee considers for funding under the CDF, or will it be widened to reflect and include some of the criteria for highly specialised technologies, where NICE takes a different approach to treatments for some of the rarest conditions?
One of the key concerns in earlier discussions in Committee was the need for reassurances about NICE’s work to support innovation and to ensure that the current NICE review of its methods and processes is open and transparent and delivers real and effective change. As was made clear, it is important that we learn lessons from both the strengths and criticisms of the CDF, and that we ensure speedy access to new medicines going forward. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
I thank the Committee for allowing me to come in a bit late; I apologise for that.
Noble Lords have made the main points that I would have made but I simply add this. A large number of molecules are held by pharma, often with a good scientific rationale, for use in a rare condition, and we have drugs that are licensed for other uses that could be reused or repurposed. If we can speed up all these processes, and provide an incentive for medicines development, those with rare conditions—who are often absolutely desperate to try something new and very keen to be part of a monitored development—could access medicines. That would put the UK in a stronger position in the long term.
In addition, the concept of this seems so sensible that I have also put down an amendment, later in the Bill, to try to replicate it for innovative devices. We have complex situations where medical engineers may come with up a device, but we will deal with that the next time round.
In the meantime, I am most grateful to all noble Lords for the important points they have made. I await the Minister’s reply with interest.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, this debate has once again focused the Committee’s mind on the importance of innovation and the way in which it can have a transformative impact on patients’ lives.
As noble Lords have spoken of, the success of the Cancer Drugs Fund in providing interim funding means faster access to cancer drugs, saving valuable time—up to eight months in some cases—for patients accessing those drugs. Patients are now able to access cancer drugs that have received a draft NICE recommendation from the point of marketing authorisation. As noble Lords have noted, this provides the template for the innovative medicines fund.
The success over the lifetime of the Cancer Drugs Fund to date did not need legislation. It was a response to the immediate need to target access to cancer drugs. In expanding the fund to become the innovative medicines fund, I do not think legislation would advance the fund’s purpose, capacity or delivery in any material way. It will be a managed access scheme delivered by NHSEI and NICE to expand the range of medicines that could be supported by that funding.
I understand that my noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy and other noble Lords would like this debate to cover an update on progress towards delivering that fund. I assure noble Lords that proposals for the innovative medicines fund are in development as we speak. We know that patients will be keen to understand the impact on them, as well as pharmaceutical companies and the NHS. It is our intention that NHSEI and NICE will lead an engagement exercise in the first quarter of 2021 to get the fund established.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
I have received a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, before the noble Lord winds up, I want to thank the Minister. Clearly, the fund is welcome, but it will cover only a limited number of medicines. The debate goes wider than that.
I want to ask the Minister about the financial contribution that her department receives under the current voluntary agreement with pharma for sales of branded health service medicines. Does she not agree that it is a strange position we have reached where, if the cost to the NHS of those branded medicines goes above the agreed rate, her department receives a rebate? That is excellent, but why then does the NHS continue to treat drug costs almost as a pariah and hold down its investment in new medicines? Why cannot that rebate be used as a way to incentivise a switch by the NHS to new medicine?
I have debated this with the noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy, and his predecessor. It is a real issue. The NHS itself believes drug costs to be a major problem, but the department has essentially solved the problem at a national level through the rebate scheme. Somehow, instead of a virtuous circle, we have got the very opposite.
Baroness Penn (Con)
The noble Lord speaks with great passion. He is right that the debate goes wider than the innovative medicines fund, but it might also go somewhat wider than the scope of the Bill. I am, however, happy to write to him on the points that he raises.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
I have also received a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy.
Lord O'Shaughnessy (Con)
I apologise for my email ineptitude.
I am grateful to my noble friend for her response. I was not planning to do so, but I have to again underline the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. We have trapped ourselves in a vicious, rather than a virtuous, circle that could well be undone. That may not be a discussion for now, but I want to underline its importance.
I want to ask my noble friend a very practical question. What did she mean by engagement? That could mean anything; it could mean pre-consultation discussion or a formal consultation. She will have garnered the strength of feeling on the topic, even in this small debate, and I am sure that will not dissipate as move forward to Report. The more detail and specificity she can give us on that process, the better.
Baroness Penn (Con)
I am reminded that my noble friend Lord Lansley referred to the collective noun for former Health Ministers as a “frustration” of former Health Ministers. I can tell my noble friend that the engagement exercise will involve the pharmaceutical industry, the NHS and associated bodies and patient groups. That is the level of detail that I can give to him today. I was very pleased with being able to say “quarter 1” next year; it felt to me like a very specific timeframe for when that engagement exercise would be undertaken.
Lord Patel (CB) [V]
Thank you, my Lords. I apologise to the Chair for jumping in. I forget that, in the new world, I do not speak unless instructed to do so.
I thank the Minister enormously for her response. She mentioned the frustrations of the former Ministers. If she thinks that former Ministers get frustrated, think about us lesser mortals who have suffered the former Ministers when they have not listened to our arguments. Maybe that should be taken into account, too.
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part. They have spoken with passion and commitment. This has been referred to by several people, but I do so again. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, has been pursuing this passionately and eloquently for a very long time. He has made an important point: if the medicines are available and people are suffering, why do we keep arguing about health and drug budgets and how to deliver it? The principle should be how we can get those drugs to the patients who might be suffering. He is right. If a rebate is available, where did the money go? The rebate was a drug fund rebate to be reinvested, you would have thought, in people getting the medicines.
No doubt the Minister is aware that there seems to be complete consensus around this amendment. I hope that it does not need to go to Report but, if it does, Ministers will be aware that there will be complete consensus. I hope that the Minister makes rapid progress with sorting this out. In the meantime, I thank all noble Lords and the Minister most sincerely for taking part. In begging leave to withdraw the amendment, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, will feel that we gave it enough airtime and passion.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 30. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate.
Clause 3: Falsified medicines
Amendment 30
Baroness Thornton
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment tightens the provisions to avoid unintended consequences of data being used for purposes other than to ensure that medicines are safe.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
This clause deals with falsified medicines and is a very important clause, and it is important therefore that we get this right. Amendment 30 would tighten the provisions to avoid unintended consequences of data being used for purposes other than to ensure that medicines are safe, and Amendment 33 would place a duty on the Secretary of State to act with a view to, rather than having regard to, the importance of ensuring that information is retained securely when exercising powers. The amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, whom I thank for supporting mine, are similarly concerned with the safety of information and accountability.
The MHRA said that the Falsified Medicines Directive will cease to apply in the case of a no-deal Brexit, because UK pharmacies will no longer have access to the database that holds false medicines data under the FMD. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, during Second Reading described the measures as “legislative creep” with regard to how any data could be used. He said that the clause
“considerably broadens the original data-collection provisions of the Falsified Medicines Directive”.—[Official Report, 2/9/20; col. 391.]
That is the whole point of these amendments. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, also said at Second Reading that the Company Chemists’ Association had raised concerns around the clause. Malcolm Harrison, the chief executive of the CCA, said he had grave concerns about the wording of Clause 3(1)(b), which relates to the development of a UK system to prevent the supply of falsified medicines. Jerome Bertin, general manager of SecurMed UK, said
“it is hard to determine if this would broaden the rights of access to such data, but the use of ‘for any purpose’ might suggest wider access rights, though for which stakeholders or regulators is unclear”.
Clearly, there needs not to be any ambiguity in this Bill. The wording of the clause therefore needs to be adjusted to ensure that there is no confusion and that there is a clear direction that data should not be used for any other purpose than ensuring that medicines are safe. Jerome Bertin also said that the Bill
“does not go anywhere near the detail of the EU directives (2001/83/EC superseded by 2011/62/EU) so it is hard to assess whether the FMD style protections would be diluted in a UK-only falsified medicines regulation”.
That is a legitimate question that needs to be answered.
There is no mention of this clause or this issue in the Explanatory Notes or the impact assessment for the Bill. With such a big issue regarding extremely sensitive data, there should be a more clearly outlined direction and a better thought-out way of introducing this clause for falsified medicines that also protects the extremely sensitive data that comes with it.
These amendments aim to ensure that data is protected and will not be used for any other purpose other than to ensure that medicines are safe. It is crucial that we get this right to avoid any unintended consequences, which could have grave repercussions. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
I very much support my noble friend in these amendments. As they have with her, a number of organisations have raised with me their concerns. The clause refers to the
“use, retention and disclosure, for any purpose to do with human medicines”,
which is very open-ended. In relation to information collected by such a system, it considerably broadens the original data-collection provisions of the Falsified Medicines Directive. Yet the Explanatory Notes make no mention of this. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is not with us today but, when we debated it earlier, he referred to it as “legislative creep”—and, I must say, I agree with him.
In the Commons, the Health Minister Jo Churchill said in Committee:
“The Bill, in the main, does not deliver any immediate change to the regulation of medicines and medical devices.”—[Official Report, Commons, Medicines and Medical Devices Bill Committee, 8/6/20; col. 7.]
So it is very surprising to see this clause as currently drafted.
We have had briefings from the Company Chemists’ Association and ABPI, in addition to the ones that my noble friend mentioned. Because of the issue of commercially sensitive data, Article 54a, regarding the protection of personal information or information of a commercially confidential nature generated by the use of the safety features, was inserted into the preamble of the Falsified Medicines Directive. The principle of “whoever generates the data owns the data” was enshrined in Article 38 of the associated delegated regulation of 2016, which followed the Falsified Medicines Directive.
The Minister’s department already has access to a wide range of data on medicines’ sales and use in the UK under the Health Services Products (Provision and Disclosure of Information) Regulations, which we debated at some length a little while ago in your Lordships’ House. Of course, Ministers can request more detailed information if required. Given this access and the known sensitivities around falsified medicines data in general, it is unclear why the department wants to extend the purposes for which data is collected under a future UK system and why this has not been discussed with stakeholders in the existing Falsified Medicines Directive scheme. Why was such little reference made to it in the Explanatory Notes?
It is not unreasonable to ensure that the Bill is amended to enshrine at least a duty of full consultation with stakeholders before it goes through your Lordships’ House.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
The noble Lords, Lord O’Shaughnessy and Lord Clement-Jones, have withdrawn. I therefore call the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly.
Baroness Jolly (LD) [V]
I should apologise to noble Lords: my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones is unable to be part of today’s Committee, so I will be speaking on his behalf—at some length but without, I suspect, his bravura.
Amendment 30 seeks to tighten the provisions in Clause 3 to avoid the unintended consequences of data being used for purposes other than to ensure that medicines are safe. Amendment 31 also seeks to do this, by requiring a framework for data to be used as agreed in consultation with the pharmaceutical industry, and Amendment 33 places a duty on the Secretary of State to
“act with a view to”,
rather than
“have regard to the importance of”,
ensuring that information is retained securely when exercising powers.
There is no doubt that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones are travelling down the same road, and I have very similar concerns. That is why we signed Amendment 30, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for his support for the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones.
As explained at Second Reading, there are grave concerns about the wording of Clause 3(1)(b), relating to the development of a UK system to prevent the supply of falsified medicines. The clause refers to
“the use, retention and disclosure, for any purpose to do with human medicines, of information collected”
by such a system. This is an attempt to unreasonably broaden the original data-collection provisions of the Falsified Medicines Directive after the transition period.
The background to the current legislation is very clear. By the early 2000s, pharmaceutical companies were concerned about falsified, counterfeit products entering the legitimate medicines supply chain—especially high-value items such as Viagra. At that time, this was the only real way to distribute such products at scale. Schemes involving pack serialisation were proposed to reduce the risk of reputational and trading losses from counterfeit and falsified medicines entering the supply chain, and to reduce the potential risk of harm to patients.
A stakeholder model was established which is governed by the main groups in the supply chain and funded mainly by manufacturers—branded, generic and parallel trade—with smaller contributions to costs from wholesalers and pharmacies. These proposals became the EU Falsified Medicines Directive 2011/62/EU. In the meantime, the issue of falsified medicines had moved largely to the internet, where they are sold from trading platforms and/or unlicensed pharmacies.
So why is data use so important? As the Company Chemists’ Association has pointed out, data is a very sensitive commercial currency. All parts of the medicines supply chain need access to broad patterns of medicines usage for the purpose of planning or adjusting manufacturing, marketing, prescribing, buying and stock control. But access to pack information—who is handling which packs—could highlight purchasing decisions, the margins being made and those trading for import/export purposes.
So the principle of “Whoever generates the data owns the data” was enshrined in Article 38 of the associated delegated regulation of 2016. As a result, general access to FMD data is restricted to pack information—name, batch, expiry, serial number—and active/inactive status, with some exceptions for investigating incidents and national competent authority use for reports, reimbursement, and pharmacovigilance and pharmacoepidemiology research.
The Department of Health and Social Care already has access to a very wide range of data on the sales of medicines, and their use in the UK, under the Health Service Products (Provision and Disclosure of Information) Regulations 2018. These require manufacturers, wholesalers and pharmacies to provide summaries of products sold and prices paid. Ministers can request more detailed information if required.
Given both this access and the known sensitivities around FMD data, it is unclear why the department has included the sweeping provision of Clause 3(1)(b) on the use, retention and disclosure for any purpose of data collected under a falsified medicines system, and why this has not been discussed with stakeholders in the existing Falsified Medicines Directive scheme.
The pharmacy community has concerns not just that the department might accidentally release commercially sensitive data—this is covered by Clause 3(3)—but that it might use such data to gain unfair advantage by abusing its monopoly position as the main purchaser of medicines in the UK. Pharmacies wish to see data use under any future system being part of an agreement that has been subject to discussion with stakeholders and approved by Parliament. My noble friend understands that the department has said that the details of any proposed use under a new falsified medicines system would be contained in a statutory instrument by the affirmative procedure.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, I understand that the intention of Amendment 30, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, is to prevent the use of data for any purpose other than preventing the supply of falsified human medicines. The noble Baroness raises an important question. Let me reassure her that we have thought very carefully about these powers. There is an important precedent already for using the data held in the current EU Falsified Medicines Directive “safety features” system for wider purposes. For instance, as well as using the data to investigate instances of falsified medicines, data on the EU system can be used for the purposes of reimbursement, pharmacovigilance and pharmacoepidemiology. The effect of this amendment would be a step backwards on what any potential falsified medicines scheme introduced under Clause 3 could deliver.
We know from implementation of the EU system that the checks involved could generate a rich source of data, and that there may be circumstances where we would want to be able to use that data to support the safe and effective use of medicines. For example, information in a future falsified medicines scheme could be useful in the event of a product recall to help quickly identify individually affected packs. I recognise that information about the supply of medicines through the supply chain can be commercially sensitive—the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, made this point very well. That is why Clause 3 ensures that, in making regulations under this power, the appropriate authority must ensure that information is retained securely. Information will be subject to strict controls set out in regulations, including what purposes the data could be used for, who would have access to or use it, and under what conditions.
I turn to the noble Baroness’s second amendment in this group, Amendment 33. While I understand the desire of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, to ensure that we have robust requirements around the safeguarding of information, this amendment would cause difficulty for the appropriate authority making regulations under the provision in Clause 3. This is because it would require action to secure retention of data even where the regulations themselves may not concern data—for example, provisions related to who may set up the infrastructure.
Amendments 31 and 32, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, would operate together to place an obligation on the Secretary of State to seek to agree and lay a framework on the use of information collected for the purpose of preventing the supply of falsified medicines. This would be done within six months of the Act coming into force.
We can all agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and others that close collaboration through consultation with stakeholders, including with pharmacists, is essential to getting something like this right, not least given the importance of data security. However, Amendments 31 and 32 would not create the right mechanism for providing this. I can reassure the noble Lord that we have planned fulsome engagement and consultation with a wide range of stakeholders. This can be achieved without this additional obligation, but I would be glad to commit to an engagement session with noble Lords and officials if noble Lords would find this helpful.
The Government have committed to exploring all options in regard to a falsified medicines scheme to ensure that patients continue to be protected from the public health threat posed by falsified medicines. As part of this, we will explore with stakeholders what information needs to be collected as part of any national scheme. Only once we have established how any scheme could work can we fully consider how the information that it collects could be used to deliver the most benefits for the UK and for patients. However, this amendment would force us to consult on an agreed framework outlining the use of information within six months of Royal Assent, without necessarily having the full picture of how a national scheme could work.
We also want to explore creative uses of information as long as they are for public interest purposes. Therefore, we do not want to constrain or limit options ahead of engagement with stakeholders.
I should make it very clear that the overarching principles of the Bill as set out in Clause 1 also apply to our powers here. The scope of the purposes mentioned is not unfettered. The appropriate authority must be satisfied that regulations dealing with anything under Clause 3—not just around how the information will be used—will promote the health and safety of the public. In making that assessment, the appropriate authority is required to have regard to the three considerations discussed previously in Committee.
I remind noble Lords that Amendment 126 in my name ensures that this will be a public consultation, while Amendment 131, also in my name, places an obligation on the Secretary of State to review regulatory changes made under Clause 1(1). The consultation will consider how the information collected as part of the scheme could be used, and any regulations providing for the use of information would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny under the affirmative procedure. In light of these reassurances, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, will feel able to withdraw her amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will be content not to press his.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his detailed response. I just have to wonder why the consultation did not take place before the Bill was drafted. You have to ask why stakeholders were not involved in the discussions prior to this happening and why they then felt the need to get in touch with those of us involved in this Committee to express their concerns. So I have to say to the Minister that I will certainly be discussing with stakeholders their reaction to what the Minister has said and whether that allays their frustrations and anxieties.
The process that the Minister described, which I shall read in detail and think carefully about, looked circular. It looked like a process that involves consultation, powers in the Bill that we have already questioned, and the affirmative procedure. All those things may not be satisfactory, so we will probably need to return to discuss this at a later stage of the Bill—or, preferably, before. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 40. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate.
Amendment 40
Lord Patel
“(f) about requirements to consider babies, children and young people in research about new medicines, in a manner similar to the EU Paediatric Regulation.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to ensure that in the development of new medicines and clinical trials, data related to children is taken into consideration.
Lord Patel (CB) [V]
My Lords, I shall curtail my remarks, as time is limited and this is very much a probing amendment. It draws attention to the need to ensure that paediatric regulation-specific measures that preside over the licensing of medicines to better protect the health of children, are reflected in future legislation regarding clinical trials in the United Kingdom.
New medicines licensed in the EU are currently subject to an EU Parliament directive that requires research about new medicines to consider babies, children and young people. The directive means that standardised procedures are in place for sponsors to plan and conduct studies. To get new medicines intended for use by children licensed for marketing in the EU, sponsors must have in place a paediatric investigation plan that aims to ensure that the necessary data are obtained through studies in children. In short, new medicines applying to be licensed for use by children must be trialled by them. It is often the case that medicines trialled in adults are then given in lower doses to children.
New medicines trialled in the United Kingdom are currently subject to this regulation. Moving on, there are clear clinical reasons why it is important for babies, children and young people, as they may show differences from adults in their response to and tolerance of medicines. To ensure that new medicines are safe for their use, they must be involved in clinical trials. That is the important point of my modest amendment.
Furthermore, there is a commitment and a key pledge in the NHS long-term plan to raise to 50% by 2025 the involvement of children and young adults in clinical trials. If there is no regulation requiring that data be collected in clinical trials with children, we will not achieve this. So all I seek is an assurance from the Minister that the Government and the MHRA are well aware of this and that the paediatric regulation will be considered whenever the clinical trials regulations are drawn up by the MHRA. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My understanding is that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly.
Baroness Jolly (LD) [V]
My Lords, since March 2011, the European Medicines Agency made available information on clinical trials in children via a public interface, the European Union Clinical Trials Register. The register is based on the information stored in EudraCT, a European database that contains information on all clinical trials with at least a site in the EEA. Can the Minister clarify whether this information will be available to researchers and paediatricians in the UK? Can he confirm whether this point has been part of EU negotiations? Can he further clarify whether there is any difference with data from joint research projects operating across the island of Ireland? Are all data equally accessible? We support the amendment.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I will not add much more, as I am very interested to hear what the Minister has to say. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, has done the Committee a great service by tabling the amendment and asking this question. I was not aware that there was an issue here, which there clearly might be, and I will be interested to hear the answer. If this is an area that is covered by European Union regulation, and we are therefore creating a new regulatory framework for children’s data in clinical trials, it is important that we know that and how it might happen. I am very interested to hear what the Minister has to say.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, in response to the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, the noble Lord, Lord Patel, is right: paediatric trials are very important, and they have sometimes been overlooked. However, that does not detract from the fact that the UK has a strong international reputation for paediatric medicine research. The MHRA authorised 177 new clinical trials that included children in 2019—more than any other country in the EU. The Bill, in Clauses 4(1)(d) and (e), already enables us to make regulations about requirements to be met before the clinical trial may be carried out and on the conduct of the clinical trial. That can provide for a number of different options, including paediatric clinical trials. I reassure the noble Lord that the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 will include provisions equivalent to those of the EU paediatric regulations when amendments come into force at the end of this year. These include requirements for the review and approval of paediatric investigation plans. These plans are aimed at ensuring that the necessary data is obtained through studies in children.
I recognise that the EU regulations played an important role in promoting the development of paediatric medicines, so that children are not forgotten when adult needs drive drug innovation. I am happy to commit to write to the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, on her questions about EU statistics on that matter.
I understand that there is currently ongoing evaluation of the EU paediatric regulations and that this may bring about changes to the legislative landscape. This Bill will allow us to adapt the UK regulations based on patient needs and to keep pace with any changes in any other jurisdiction, including the EU. It gives us the opportunity to go even further to enhance the UK system and to encourage UK paediatric trials.
It is critical that the UK paediatric regulatory framework remains flexible, to adapt to emerging paediatric research challenges, and supports UK innovation, while also supporting global development plans. I reassure noble Lords that the MHRA has already published guidance on a new UK approach to paediatric investigation plans. This is part of the GOV.UK transition period guidance for businesses and citizens. The UK will simplify the PIP application process for applicants conducting paediatric research by offering an expedited assessment where possible and by mirroring the submission format and terminology of the EU PIP system. This approach ensures that the UK can continue to provide incentives and rewards to support innovation in paediatric drug development and to encourage manufacturers to bring medicines to the UK market.
The MHRA will aim to continue to participate in paediatric scientific discussion among the global regulators at an early stage and during the conduct of clinical trials. This will facilitate the exchanging of emerging information during the studies to minimise the exposure of children to medicines that do not work or are unsafe, and we will aim to maintain a national position of influence, so that the final paediatric development aligns with, and supports, global regulators’ requirements.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Patel, has had sufficient reassurance that the amendment is unnecessary and feels able to withdraw Amendment 40.
Lord Patel (CB) [V]
I thank the Minister for his response, as I thank all other noble Lords who have spoken. A small point was raised, with a good, short debate and the right response. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Bethell
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the amendment in the Minister’s name inserting new subsection (1A) into Clause 5.
“(1A) Regulations under section 1(1) may not provide for an offence to be punishable with a sentence of imprisonment of more than two years.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and the other amendment to Clause 5 in the Minister’s name, ensures that regulations under Clause 1(1) may not provide for any offence to be punishable with a sentence of imprisonment of more than two years.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 46, and I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate.
Clause 6: Emergencies
Amendment 46
Baroness Wheeler
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes provision for the disapplication of regulatory provisions in an emergency to be made subject to conditions set out in a protocol published by ministers, which is not subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
I am pleased to move Amendment 46 in the name of my noble friend Lady Thornton, which, alongside other amendments in this group, amends provisions in Clauses 6 and 15 and removes provisions for the disapplication of regulatory provisions in an emergency to be made subject to conditions set out in a protocol published by Ministers.
We understand why the Bill confers emergency powers on the Government to disapply existing health medicine regulations in circumstances which give rise to the need to protect the public from a serious risk to public health. However, we are concerned that the disapplication authorised in the regulations can be subject to conditions specified in the regulations, or conditions set out in a protocol published by the public authority. Furthermore, no formal requirements are set for the form, publication or dissemination of a protocol. It may simply be a document published on a website by the appropriate authority. This is completely inappropriate and unsatisfactory.
The Minister will be very aware that both the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Constitution Committee raised concerns about this provision. The Constitution Committee noted that:
“In other bills emergency powers are time-limited and there are often requirements for periodic reviews of their use”,
and yet
“No such constraints or safeguards exist in this Bill. These powers are subject only to the negative resolution procedure and can be adjusted by the amendment of a protocol which is not subject to parliamentary scrutiny”.
As the DPRRC commented at paragraphs 39 and 42:
“On a number of occasions, we have drawn the attention of the House to provision in Bills which enables Ministers to make what are, in effect, legally enforceable rules under the radar of the Parliamentary scrutiny that is afforded to primary and secondary legislation … Allowing regulations to make the disapplication of legislation subject to conditions set out in a ‘protocol’ is yet another example of ‘camouflaging legislation’ … we consider that, where those powers are to be used to provide for legislation to be disapplied in an emergency, any conditions to which disapplication is to be subject should be set out in the regulations themselves and not in a ‘protocol’ which is not subject to Parliamentary scrutiny.”
The Constitution Committee concurred and recommended that
“the use of these powers should be time bound, subject to periodic review and that any conditions on the disapplication of legal provisions should be set out in regulations.”
Although the Government have yet to publish their full response to those reports, as we know, the Minister has tabled, and indeed moved, a number of amendments in Grand Committee which are intended to address the concerns of the DPRRC and the Constitution Committee. This amendment provides an excellent opportunity for the Minister to explain to the Committee exactly why he has not therefore tabled an amendment ensuring that the disapplication of legal provisions is invariably set out in regulations, as recommended. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am very glad to support my noble friend Lady Wheeler. I will not repeat what she said, because I thought she put across the points very powerfully. She quoted extensively from the Delegated Powers Committee, which complains that no justification whatever has been given for what the Government seek to do.
It is worth saying that the committee has drawn the attention of the House to this kind of mechanism being adopted in a number of Bills over the past few years. I was very struck by the assurance it sought from the Government that they would not continue the practice of what it called “camouflaging legislation” as guidance. In response to the committee’s report on both the Ivory Bill and the Mental Health Units (Use of Force) Bill, the Leader of the House, the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, wrote:
“As you will be aware, it is Government policy that guidance should not be used to circumvent the usual way of regulating a matter. If the policy is to create rules that must be followed, the Government accepts that this should be achieved using regulations subject to parliamentary scrutiny and not guidance”.
Lord Patel (CB) [V]
My Lords, I support these amendments. They touch on the issues and arguments returned to in respect of amendments to Clauses 15 and 42, which set out the procedures to be followed in exercising these powers, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, its unjustified use of negative procedure and this case of protocols. Clauses 6 and 15 provide that the Secretary of State can disapply certain provisions of the medicines and medical devices regulations
“in circumstances which give rise to a need to protect the public from a risk of serious harm to health.”
Such provisions may be within the Human Medicines Regulations 2012, the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2004, and the Medical Devices Regulations 2002. However, they also may refer to those provisions that are still to be drafted at the current time and are thus unknown and not yet subject to scrutiny.
I recognise that it is necessary to be flexible in the face of an emergency situation as in the current pandemic. However, in its present form this is another example of broad-reaching powers falling outside of that which is reasonable and proportionate. While the disapplication of certain provisions using this power can be exercised to regulations under the affirmative procedure, they may also be passed in certain circumstances by the negative procedure, and, as in these amendments, by protocol. The use of a protocol, in particular, bypasses Parliament, and therefore is unnecessary. I support these amendments.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly.
Baroness Jolly (LD) [V]
My Lords, we support these amendments, which relate to the disapplication of regulatory provisions in an emergency. As the Bill stands, the Secretary of State may make regulations about these provisions. This can be subject either to
“conditions set out in the regulations”
or in
“a protocol published by the appropriate authority.”
As the protocol is not subject to parliamentary scrutiny, the amendment in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Lord Patel, would remove this provision from the Bill so that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, said, conditions would have to be set by regulations alone.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the lockdown debate later this afternoon brings home the significance of an emergency like Covid. It requires swift, dramatic change to protect public health. Clauses 6 and 15 are essential. They would allow us to make provisions about the disapplication of a medicine or medical devices provision where there is a need to protect the public from a serious risk to health. We would need regulations to do this, because to act in breach of an otherwise applicable provision would be an offence.
Medicines is a highly regulated area. Regulations apply from development of medicines to delivery, right the way down to the pharmacy. It is a complex and overlapping system, designed to protect the end-user, the patient. But there are times when we need to switch off a circuit of the system to respond to an emergency. This is most vividly apparent when we speak of a Covid vaccine. This is end to end, from port arrival, to the logistics of its delivery, to who may administer it. We need to be able to pick this circuit out of the whole and isolate it. Otherwise, to disapply regulation without being highly specific is to disapply regulation not just from the vaccine but from other medicines as well.
This is the point of conditions that go alongside the disapplication. Where we know what the conditions will be, of course it should be in the regulations. But often we cannot know what the specific conditions are. That is where the protocol comes in that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, with her Amendments 46, 47, 93 and 94, would like to remove. I acknowledge that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee objected to the use of a protocol. I note that its condemnation was not limited to this Bill but was a broader point about other legislation as well. I hope that I can explain why such a protocol is necessary here.
Protocols are a last resort in any emergency that provides critical flexibility in highly regulated areas. They would be time limited to provide flexibility and administrative detail, tailored to the professional audience that requires it and in language which they are familiar with. A protocol will be used only where it is not be possible to determine all the necessary conditions of disapplication at the pace needed to deal with an urgent threat. The protocol allows for the finer details to be sketched in, while giving Parliament the structure of the regulations to consider. We can debate the principle of disapplying certain provisions of the regulations, without always having the specific names of medicines or vaccines in front of us.
There are existing provisions in the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 that allow for the disapplication of regulatory provisions on how prescription, pharmacy and over-the-counter medicines may lawfully be supplied. These are limited to circumstances in the event or anticipation of a pandemic disease. This formed part of the response to the swine flu pandemic in 2009. Six protocols were issued in relation to specific antivirals for the treatment of swine flu, enabling them to be supplied by authorised staff who would not normally be able to supply prescription-only medicines. This involved separate protocols for different strengths of oseltamivir, a demonstration of just how specific we would expect the protocols to be.
We have made an SI this month introducing provision for the use of protocols in relation to coronavirus and influenza vaccinations. That SI seeks to anticipate the certain flexibilities that might be needed but it is not possible to cover all eventualities. It anticipates the need for rapid supply and the potential mass administration of medicines, since the anticipated vaccine may be delivered by injection.
However, until we are presented with a vaccine, we cannot know how many injections are required, for example. That is a finer point of detail that has implications for the scale of operation required. The SI makes clear that the disapplication of existing regulatory provisions about supply and administration of medicines will be subject to conditions set out in the protocol. These conditions of disapplication will include specifics around the class of persons permitted to administer the vaccines, and the protocol would specify the process by which a person in that class is designated as a person authorised to do so. It will provide for supervision and recording requirements that must be met when the vaccine is administered. These requirements will change depending on the necessities of the specific vaccine. Parliament can debate the regulation, but until we know the detail of that vaccine, we simply cannot establish how this operation will run.
The emergency powers allow us to go broader in terms of disapplications than what is currently available, a reflection of the type of emergency we face. In the illustrative SI published on introduction we have provided some clarity on our intent. It gives an example of what might be needed to ensure the disapplication could be relied upon in response to other circumstances, including a spread of toxins, pathogenic agents, and so on, that give rise to the risk of serious harm to health. This too would operate alongside a protocol.
Amendments 93 and 97 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, relate to emergencies involving medical devices. Provisions already exist in the Medical Devices Regulations 2002. These provisions allow particular devices to be put into service without being subject to CE marking, following a duly justified request if the Secretary of State considers this to be in the interests of the protection of health.
The ventilator challenge allowed us to fulfil the clinical need for ventilators through a combination of CE-marked devices, and devices which were granted an exemption from the requirement. They were required to conform to bespoke technical specifications as a condition of the exemption being granted, and the technical specifications evolved as they needed to. That ensured that the only devices in service without a CE mark were those that met the highest possible standards.
Online publication will also support dissemination to the required audience, to whom it will be targeted, such as operators in the supply chain, enabling conditions to be quickly understood by those who must use them, referring to concepts, processes and so on that they are familiar with from their field.
Protocols are a last-resort power. Where we can anticipate what the conditions of disapplication will be, we will put these into regulations, but I cannot say now how many injections will be required for a Covid vaccine or how many staff will be needed to deliver it. Parliament has our intent, our plans and our proactive preparations now, but not technical specifications—nor do we. I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and her team for all they do to hold us to account. It is right that they look at how we can write good legislation, although we need legislation that allows for practicality in a crisis. Therefore, I hope I have provided enough assurances for her to feel able to withdraw her amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, I have received a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Patel.
Lord Patel (CB) [V]
My Lords, I say respectfully to my friend the Minister that he is putting up smokescreens. As he mentioned, he already has the power under the 2012 Act to do much of what he wants to do. Furthermore, the arguments used all relate to the Covid emergency. He alluded to this afternoon’s debate and the measures that are about to be taken, but he already has those powers, otherwise he would not be able to do it. We have emergency legislation related to Covid, which includes immunisation through vaccines. By the way, how many doses would be required? It is not necessary to have that in legislation: it is a clinical decision based on the effectiveness of a vaccine. I do not require legislation to tell me how many tablets I should prescribe to my patients for any disease, so I fear that these are smokescreens. He already has powers of disapplication in an emergency, and I continue to support the amendment.
Lord Bethell (Con)
I welcome the challenge from the noble Lord, but the examples we have given are also more recent, from the 2009 swine flu attack. The protocols were also used in the Salisbury Novichok attack. I know from my own experience that public health disasters can throw up extremely unexpected hurdles and barriers to action, in the form of legislative surprises. Therefore, these powers are not considered to be frequently used. In fact, they are never used—noble Lords will all breathe a sigh of relief—but public health challenges are likely to be a feature of the future, and it is prudent to put in place the protections we need in order to provide for them.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions in supporting the amendment—the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, reinforced by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly. I was particularly interested to hear the quote from the Leader of the House on this matter, and I am glad that that has now gone on record. I certainly echo the comments by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, about what he calls smokescreens, and his underlining of the powers the Government already have for dealing with such situations.
I thank the Minister for the very detailed explanation he offered on this issue, and for telling us why the Government feel that they do not need to address the DPRR Committee’s concern and table amendments. He also talked about protocols being a last resort, and I was grateful for that—and also for the fact that they would be time limited. I note those two things. This is a complex issue, not least for me. I need to look carefully at the Minister’s response, and, if necessary, come back to this issue on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Bethell
“Disclosure of information in accordance with international agreements
(1) This section applies to information which a relevant authority holds in connection with human medicines.(2) The relevant authority may disclose information to a person outside the United Kingdom where required for the purpose of giving effect to an international agreement or arrangement concerning the regulation of human medicines. (3) The relevant authority may not disclose commercially sensitive information in reliance on subsection (2) unless the relevant authority—(a) considers that it is necessary to do so for the purpose mentioned in that subsection, and(b) is satisfied that the making of the disclosure is proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by it.(4) Except as provided by subsection (5), the disclosure of information in accordance with this section does not breach—(a) an obligation of confidence owed by the person making the disclosure, or(b) any other restriction on the disclosure of the information (however imposed).(5) Nothing in this section authorises a disclosure of information which—(a) contravenes the data protection legislation (but in determining whether a disclosure would do so, take into account the powers conferred by this section), or(b) is prohibited by any of Parts 1 to 7 or Chapter 1 of Part 9 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016.(6) In this section—“commercially sensitive information” means commercial information whose disclosure the relevant authority thinks might significantly harm the legitimate business interests of the undertaking to which it relates;“relevant authority” means—(a) the Secretary of State, or(b) the Department of Health in Northern Ireland;“data protection legislation” has the meaning given by section 3(9) of the Data Protection Act 2018.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause makes clear that information held by the Secretary of State or the Department of Health in Northern Ireland in connection with human medicines can be disclosed, subject to certain restrictions, to persons outside the United Kingdom in order to give effect to a relevant international agreement or arrangement.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
That concludes the work of the Committee this afternoon. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
House of Lords
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber, respecting social distancing, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally.
Royal Assent
Wednesday 4th November 2020
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Prisoners (Disclosure of Information About Victims) Act 2020 View all Prisoners (Disclosure of Information About Victims) Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 138-I Motion for Consideration of Commons Reason - (30 Oct 2020)
Arrangement of Business
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, Oral Questions will now commence. Please can those asking supplementary questions keep them short and confined to two points? I ask that Ministers’ answers are also brief.
HMS “Queen Elizabeth”
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord West of Spithead
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to change the level of support that will accompany HMS Queen Elizabeth’s deployment to the South China Sea in 2021.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
My Lords, HMS “Queen Elizabeth” will sail on her first operational deployment during 2021. Detailed planning continues, but we have yet to announce our programme or destination. A Statement will be made to Parliament in due course, once planning is complete. All Royal Navy deployments and decisions on support are planned carefully, in line with operating environment, and constantly reviewed over time. The first operational deployment programme of HMS “Queen Elizabeth” will be no exception.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her Answer. We are in a dangerous world; no one can predict what will happen tomorrow, let alone a few months hence. There are real concerns about Chinese behaviour, and I believe it is right we should show solidarity with our friends in the region. This year, Australia has increased defence spending by a massive 70% and Japan by 8%—a seventh consecutive annual increase. Both countries have cited concerns over China’s aggressive actions. There is a need for strong alliances in the region. Sending a carrier task group is a good way of showing support, but we must not deal in half measures. Since 2010, our military has been grievously damaged. Can the Minister confirm that the “Queen Elizabeth” carrier battle group, deploying to the Indo-Pac region, will have its complete array of ships and aircraft and its air wing, weapons, weapons stocks and support to be able to conduct, if necessary, operations at every level of intensity? Only then can we be sure it will not be called upon to do so.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
As I indicated to the noble Lord, I cannot comment on where the “Queen Elizabeth” is going, how she is going to get there or what route she will take. All of that will be unfolded to Parliament in due course. But the noble Lord makes an important point about the purpose of our military and naval capability. Certainly, I want to reassure him that HMS “Queen Elizabeth” will operate as part of a maritime task group, which will include allies and will be tailored to meet the required task. The destinations and precise number and mix of vessels deployed will depend on the operational circumstances in 2021.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, the deployment of HMS “Queen Elizabeth” to the South China Sea would show that Britain is prepared to make a contribution to the protection of freedom of navigation through the South China Sea, which is vital to protect rules-based free trade in the region. Does the Minister agree that our involvement in naval operations in Asia necessitates not only an increase in joint exercises with friendly nations, such as Japan, but deeper co-operation in procurement? Would she also agree that this strengthens the case to pursue opportunities to collaborate where such countries have similar requirements?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I say to my noble friend that he is correct that the UK has enduring interests in the Indo-Pacific and south-east Asian regions. That is without prejudice to what the “Queen Elizabeth” may or may not do. But he is also correct to identify that we are committed to maintaining regional security, and we are certainly committed to asserting rights to freedom of navigation and overflight, as laid out in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. We continue to challenge any coastal nation’s excessive maritime claims.
Lord Boyce (CB) [V]
My Lords, the deployment of our carrier strike group next year is to be welcomed. If that is to include the Indo-Pacific, would the Minister confirm that the opportunity will be taken to refresh our ties with the five-power defence arrangements? Would she also agree that, if there are not already plans to do so, there would be great merit in establishing links with the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, known as the Quad, consisting of the United States, Australia, Japan and India, and that, furthermore, we could act as a catalyst in bringing the FPDA and the Quad together, which would both be beneficial to our alliances in the region?
Broness Goldie (Con)
The noble and gallant Lord identifies a number of significant issues. The unique attributes of the carrier strike group mean that it can provide a global presence wherever the Government require it. The carrier and its supporting ships and aircraft can be configured to support a range of joint operations. We enjoy good relations with the parties to which he has referred and we see our purpose as a global influencer. We will do what we can that is in the best interest of upholding law and setting a good example.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, if the “Queen Elizabeth” is to be deployed as planned, with all the necessary and vital support, what are the implications for our flexibility and speed of response, and for the role that must be played by the Royal Navy in such a response, if something arises elsewhere in the world? Will we become a bit tied and muscle-bound by where we are down there if we do not have the flexibility to respond elsewhere?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I reassure the noble Lord that the deployment of the carrier strike group 21 does not leave the Navy short-handed for other priorities. The Royal Navy has sufficient ships and submarines to meet its global commitments.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, the Minister’s predecessor, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in his inimitable reassuring way used to suggest that the support vessels would come not necessarily from the Royal Navy but from our allies. Have the Government assessed whether the support will be there from our allies in the context of the likely or possible outcomes of the American elections?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
The noble Baroness’s crystal ball must be bigger than mine, because the answer to the outcome of the United States presidential election is unclear to me. As she will be aware, the United States is of course a very important ally. It is very significant to our defence relationships across the world. We work with Administrations of whatever hue. That is what we have done in the past and will do in the future.
Lord Touhig (Lab) [V]
My Lords, on 13 March last year, during a Question about deploying HMS “Queen Elizabeth” to the Pacific, I said:
“When the Americans deploy a carrier they provide an escort of a cruiser, four destroyers, a carrier wing, a submarine and 7,500 sailors.”—[Official Report, 13/3/19; col. 1019.]
I asked whether Britain can do that. Unfortunately, I am still waiting for an answer.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I am not sure the noble Lord will get one this afternoon, but I will do my best. As I indicated, the carrier strike group is importantly constructed to operate with the support of allies. By way of illustration, within the UK’s capability, the October group exercise brought together all the CSG elements—a carrier, jets, helicopters, escorts and supporting assets. Building on that success, the carrier strike group then participated in the annual NATO exercise Joint Warrior off Scotland, which was a massive exercise and in total involved 6,000 people on land, sea and air. I reassure the noble Lord that the carrier strike group will be a formidable presence.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, can the Minister say whether any other deployments of this nature are planned, for example to the south Atlantic?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I thank my noble friend. I am unable to comment in detail as to future deployments for the very same reasons that I am unable to comment in detail on the immediate deployment of HMS “Queen Elizabeth”. He identifies an important point. The south Atlantic is strategically significant and is becoming more so. That is an aspect of our global approach that we keep under constant review.
Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB) [V]
The Minister will be aware that the proposed deployment of HMS “Queen Elizabeth” was conceived when there were many justified concerns about the overall size of the surface fleet and its ability to meet the Royal Navy’s standing maritime tasks at home and around the world. Can she therefore confirm what risks are likely to be taken against those standing tasks to provide adequate escorts for the deployment of HMS “Queen Elizabeth” next year?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
The noble and gallant Lord will be aware that, in contemplating any deployment, we make an extensive and robust assessment of risk in all respects. That is what we do at the moment and what we shall continue to do.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. It was a rather leisurely session, which means that three Members were unable to be brought in. We now come to the second Oral Question.
Union with Scotland
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Lexden
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to strengthen the union between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, the Government recognise the importance of the union. The UK is a family of nations that share social, cultural and economic ties that together make us far safer, more secure and more prosperous. As we have seen throughout the Covid crisis, it is the economic strength of the union and our commitment to the sharing and pooling of resources that has supported jobs and businesses throughout Scotland. It is the strength of our union that will enable us to rebuild our economy following this crisis.
Lord Lexden (Con)
Why are the Government, composed of members of the Conservative and Unionist Party, with a self-proclaimed Minister for the Union at its head, not making the case for the union with vigour and conviction as a possibly landmark Scottish election approaches? What are the specific recommendations in the as yet unpublished Dunlop report on the union, which are now apparently being implemented, as I was told in a Written Answer given on 5 October? How will they help strengthen our great but seriously imperilled union?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The message behind my noble friend’s Question is that we must do more to ensure that Scottish people see and understand the benefits of being part of one of the most successful partnerships of nations. The Prime Minister has created the Cabinet Committee on Union Policy Implementation, which will drive forward the message that Scotland benefits directly from the UK shared prosperity fund, for example. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Dunlop, many of whose recommendations we are implementing. The Government have committed to publishing the review in due course, and before the end of the year, we hope alongside the successful conclusion of our joint review of intergovernmental relations.
Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab) [V]
Does the Minister agree with Douglas Ross, Leader of the Scottish Conservatives, that
“we need to deliver formal representation for our nations and regions”
in a reformed House of Lords? Does he think that such a step would help to strengthen relationships within the United Kingdom?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I will not be drawn into commenting on that, but I will use this opportunity to say that we strongly believe that Scotland should remain, and is better off remaining, within the UK. So much comes from south of the border, such as delivering growth deals at a cost of £1.5 billion to every part of Scotland, preparing trade deals across the world, establishing at least one free port in Scotland, improving transport links and holding COP 26.
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
My Lords, elections to the Scottish Parliament will indeed take place in six months’ time. Can the Minister confirm that if a majority of Members of that Parliament are elected on a manifesto committed to holding a referendum on independence, the UK Government will respect that mandate and work with Scotland’s Government to facilitate such a referendum within a reasonable timescale?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The noble Lord will not be surprised when I say that Scotland had an independence referendum in 2014 which was legal, fair and decisive. The people of Scotland voted by a significant margin to remain part of the UK, and we are committed to respecting and upholding that result. The noble Lord will know that the Prime Minister wrote to the First Minister of Scotland in January confirming that he cannot agree to any request for a further one.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, it is difficult to keep a marriage together when one party wants a complete separation. I must say to the Minister that rough wooing will not win her ladyship back. Does he agree that some in Whitehall still do not get that Britain is not England? Can he ensure that this message is sent round the departments? Can he also tell us how he will get the Government to explain their policies better? For instance, the furlough scheme seems to have been invented in Holyrood as far as the Scots are concerned, not in London, and is not funded by the English taxpayer.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I will certainly take back my noble friend’s first point. The furlough scheme, including the self-employment income support scheme, has supported the jobs of more than 930,000 people, so we can see how the Scots benefit. But the Prime Minister has said that if other parts of the UK need to go into measures that require the furlough scheme, it will be available to them not only now but in the future. However, it has been made clear that this would be a decision for the Chancellor, liaising with the Prime Minister.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD) [V]
My Lords, when we think of the relationships between the various nations of the United Kingdom, we realise that there are advantages to belonging to the United Kingdom, as well as the benefits of remaining with our own identities. I cherish my Welsh identity, but I also see advantages in our four nations working together. Would a federal solution not be the way forward, and in any ballot to have not simply “in” or “out” but three options: to stay as we are, with Scotland staying as it is; to leave 100%; or to build a federal United Kingdom?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The noble Lord leads me nicely into saying that there we are looking at two reviews: the Dunlop review, which I mentioned earlier, and the intergovernmental review. The noble Lord will be aware that there is a balance to be struck between devolving powers to the nations and having Great Britain—or England—supporting the nations too. The successful devolution of powers to legislatures and Ministers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland has taken place gradually over the last 20 years, with the Scotland Act and the Wales Act. Now is the time to review that, which is what we are doing.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con) [V]
My Lords, in its 2016 report, The Union and Devolution, the Constitution Committee stressed that the four nations of the United Kingdom are stronger together than apart, and reiterated what it said in 2014: that the Government must
“devise and articulate a coherent vision for the shape and structure of the United Kingdom, without which there cannot be constitutional stability.”
The Minister has just stressed the benefits of the union to all parts of the United Kingdom, but what is the Government’s coherent vision for the shape and structure of the United Kingdom?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Notwithstanding the reviews that I have mentioned, one of the key policies that has been rolled out is the presence of the new Queen Elizabeth House in Edinburgh. This opened in September and is a powerful example of the UK’s wanting to show greater commitment to Scotland by liaising more closely with the Scottish Government, local authorities and communities. We want to emphasise once again that Scotland clearly is stronger as part of the UK.
Lord Davidson of Glen Clova (Lab) [V]
My Lords, there is a clear surge in Scottish opinion supporting independence. The single factor identified behind this surge is the unpopularity of the Prime Minister. How do Her Majesty’s Government propose to remedy this danger to the union?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The measures that I have set out regarding what we are doing to help Scotland need to be put forward more clearly. The essence of my message today is that, from the unit in No. 10, we need to work harder on our communications, explaining and ensuring that the Scottish people understand what we are doing for them in all kinds of respects, from big infrastructure projects to new transport links.
Lord Greaves (LD) [V]
My Lords, the existing constitutional arrangements throughout the UK, including in England, are increasingly unstable and unsustainable. A major cause is the economic, social and political dominance of London and south-east England and the London-based elites in all areas. Would the Government not be better setting up, in co-operation with other political parties, a constitutional convention covering all parts of the United Kingdom, including the regions of England?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Let us see what comes out of the reviews that I have mentioned. The noble Lord will be aware that on 1 January 2021, we will see the single biggest transfer of powers to the devolved Administrations in history, as the EU structures fall away and new powers transfer to the Administrations in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. It comes back to this balance, and the importance of ensuring that the nations know that they are better off together.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con) [V]
My Lords, what can the Government do to reduce the tensions with the devolved Administrations when legislating for an internal market?
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
We want to engage with the devolved Administrations on the UK internal market in order to manage the potential for market divergence and deliver a shared solution. We have a well-established government structure with the devolved Administrations to ensure collaboration on these policy issues, including the Joint Ministerial Committees and bilateral agreements.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We now come to the third Oral Question.
Planning: Accessible Homes
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Greengross
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that changes to the planning system will deliver more homes that are accessible for people with disabilities.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, with the permission of my noble friend Lady Greengross, and at her request, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in her name on the Order Paper.
The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
My Lords, the Government place great importance on the provision of suitable homes for people with disabilities. This is why we are currently consulting on making higher accessibility standards mandatory in reviewing the provisions for accessible and adaptable housing within building regulations. Our consultation has proposals to see more homes delivered, and authorities still need to plan for the housing needs of different groups within their communities, including the needs of people with disabilities.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, housing with care, sometimes described as assisted living or extra-care housing, provides a vital alternative to residential care for those older people who can no longer live on their own but do not need 24-hour complex medical supervision. It protects safety and security while boosting independence, health and well-being. Will the Minister say what the Government are doing to support housing-with-care developments in any new planning system?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, we are currently consulting on the accessibility standards. I propose that we wait until the end of the consultation, which completes on 1 December, for our response to that.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I support the proposal made by many groups representing those with a disability that Part M of the Building Regulations should be raised to what is known as the adaptable and acceptable standard, or M4, Category 2. This would enable more people to live healthy and independent lives without having to move. Further to what my noble friend just said about the consultation document, when will the results be published and when will its conclusions be implemented?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My noble friend should know that the response to the accessible-homes consultation will be published by March 2021. The implementation of any change will depend on the course of action that the Government take.
Baroness Prashar (CB) [V]
My Lords, the need for accessible housing is increasing and we urgently need homes that meet appropriate needs. Delaying provision of such housing and doing nothing is not an option. How quickly are the Government intending to implement the outcome of the consultation?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
I refer to my previous answer. The results of the consultation will be published by March 2021.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
The Minister indicated that more homes were needed, as well as more accessible homes. We know that the viability test often puts the lid on accessibility being built into the equation by developers when they say that they cannot afford to provide these standards. Can the Minister assure the House that, in this consultation, the Government will not allow developers to hold them to ransom, as well as those in need of these higher levels of accessibility in their homes?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, the Government recognise the importance of accessible housing for the elderly and the disabled. I point to the strengthening of the policy approach in the NPPF in July 2018 and in the planning guidance issued in June 2019 on housing for the disabled. These point to the direction in which we are travelling to ensure that there is enough accessible housing. As your Lordships know, we have been looking at Part M of the Building Regulations as well.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, while my noble friend the Minister is looking at the consultation process, will he also look at the new ways of designing housing within an urban planning system? That really should be reflective of the 21st century. Covid has made us all realise that mental as well as physical well-being is essential, and intergenerational living is something that we should seriously consider. We should think about housing for the elderly or disabled not just as separate from us but rather as integrated with us.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend is right: we are living longer and getting older. It is important that we have accessible housing for the elderly and learn from models across the country where there is both public and private housing. Proposals for accessible housing have to be relevant to older people, as she so rightly states.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I draw the attention of the House to my relevant registered interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and as a trustee of the United St Saviour’s Charity in Southwark. As part of the modern almshouse that we are building, 11 of the 57 units will be for people with physical disabilities and fully wheelchair-accessible. This whole development has been the result of collaboration, with the developer delivering on its obligations to the community, Southwark Council providing the land and investment from United St Saviour’s to develop and manage the facility. What guarantees can the Minister give to the House to reassure us that this sort of development will be encouraged and supported in the new planning regime?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, we recognise the importance of the almshouses and that they are growing at their fastest rate in more than a decade. We are currently consulting widely on the proposals for reform set out in the planning White Paper and will listen carefully to all the representations made, including from those representing almshouses.
Lord Best (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is excellent that the Government seem likely to be raising standards of accessibility for all new homes. When the volume housebuilders object that this will damage profits, will the Minister recall that when housebuilders made similar complaints last time around—when the standards were raised 30 years ago—extra costs actually proved minimal? Profits did not fall and hundreds of thousands of households have enjoyed better homes. This time, will the Government stand firm again?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, this Government will not seek anything other than an upward drift in the standards that we need for the 21st century. We recognise that developer profits are far greater than those of the construction industry, where they are typically about 4%; it is often up to a third for large-scale developments. The noble Lord, Lord Best, is therefore pointing in the right direction in respect of our ability to raise building standards.
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford (Con) [V]
My Lords, accessible homes need accessible transport. While it certainly makes sense to reduce health inequalities through promoting active transport, there will always be some people with disabilities who need to use cars door to door. We are not lazy or bad citizens: we are just trying to play a full part in society while managing our condition. A poorly executed and abrupt shift from car use to congestion charges, large pedestrian areas and public transport that is not yet disabled-accessible risks no-go areas for those with limited mobility. Will the Minister commit to smarter community design options that achieve public health aims without designing in exclusions or penalties for those with limited mobility?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for pointing out a report which is just over a year old. With the Covid-19 pandemic, we are seeing a massive impact on our town centres and we need good policy to ensure that we have more inclusive and smarter options for urban design. Of course, we will look carefully at that report.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester (LD) [V]
My Lords, following on from the question from the noble Lord, Lord Best, does the Minister agree that changing the regulations for homes to be built to accessible and adaptable standards should not mean that fewer homes will be built, as the additional costs per typical dwelling are very small?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I made clear in response to the noble Lord, Lord Best, that we can raise standards while continuing the drive for the numbers of homes, of all types and tenures, that this country so badly needs. However, we have to wait to have time to respond to the ongoing consultation.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans [V]
My Lords, with regions such as the north-west, the north-east and Yorkshire hosting less than one disabled-access home for every 100 homes, and regions such as the West Midlands hosting just over one disabled-access home for every 300 homes, given that 15.2% of the population is elderly and 18% of the population is disabled, is it now time that the Government mandated targets for disabled-access homes rather than simply relying on local authorities?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I am afraid I am the wrong person to answer that. I spent 20 years in local government and have every confidence that local councils know the needs of their communities, and can respond to them in a way that ensures we see the drive for standards and improved accessibility needed in our homes.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, I am glad to report that all supplementary questions have been asked and we now move to the next Question.
Covid-19: Contracts and Mass Testing Programme
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harris of Haringey
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many contracts they have placed for the purchase of (1) personal protective equipment, and (2) the mass Covid-19 testing programme, (a) with suppliers identified as “VIPs”, and (b) using fast-track procurement procedures since 1 March; what is the total value of any such contracts; and what steps they are taking to demonstrate that such contracts (a) represented value for money, and (b) involved no favouritism.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, 289 contracts with an estimated value of £6.1 billion have been awarded by the DHSC to private sector suppliers to support test and trace, and 370 contracts worth an estimated £8.3 billion for the delivery of PPE. These figures are currently being validated with the National Audit Office. A direct award of a contract—an option available under the procurement regulations in cases of extreme urgency—has been used in the great majority of these cases. I reassure noble Lords that suppliers are evaluated by departmental officials and awarded contracts in line with the DHSC’s standard contract terms and conditions.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord must realise that he is in danger of appearing complicit in the stench surrounding these procurements. On 6 April, he met with Meller Designs, which provides beauty products. It is owned by a man who was the finance chief of Michael Gove’s leadership campaign and a donor to the Conservative Party, while the noble Lord, Lord Feldman, who also sat in on that meeting, was chairman of the party. A few weeks later, the company was awarded a series of contracts amounting to £155 million for face masks and hand sanitisers. Those did not go through the normal procurement processes. What was discussed on 6 April? Will the Minister publish all documentation relating to every one of these VIP and fast-track procurements, including emails or messages suggesting specific contractors, and show how decisions were based on value for money rather than favouritism?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord will remember that at the beginning of this year the global supply of PPE, in particular, and other medical supplies completely collapsed. There was a global drought in the supply of key materials necessary for the protection of doctors, nurses and front-line healthcare staff. In those circumstances, we relied on a very large network of contacts and formal and informal arrangements in order, under extremely difficult circumstances, to reach the people who could manufacture these supplies, often moving their manufacturing from one product to another.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
Would noble Lords please not interrupt the Minister.
Lord Bethell (Con)
We have published 80% of the contracts to date and are working on publishing the rest. I hope that that will meet noble Lords’ expectations.
Lord Sikka (Lab) [V]
KPMG, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Deloitte and Ernst & Young have been fined for audit failures and have regularly been chastised by the regulator, even though they have been doing audits for over a century. They have no experience of test and trace or of dealing with viruses but have received multimillion-pound Covid contracts. What due diligence checks were carried out by the Government and how? Will the Government inform Parliament and allow a public audit of all their checks on these firms?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the circumstances of the pandemic were exceptional, and I am not sure that any large company had any experience of putting together a national test and trace programme. The firms to which the noble Lord refers have considerable consulting experience and the capacity to support the national rollout of a large organisation such as NHS Test and Trace. They have provided invaluable support to the country at a time of need. All our contracts are scrutinised extremely closely by the finance function in the DHSC, and we are supported in that by the government legal service and finance staff from the MoD and the Cabinet Office, for which we are enormously grateful.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, in July, a company called Topham Guerin was given a £3 million contract, without any tender process, to test public understanding of health messages relating to Covid. It did not have any experience in health messaging; those running the company appeared to be friends of Dominic Cummings and Michael Gove. Will the Government now publish the tender that has subsequently been issued, the research findings and the evaluation relating to this contract? As the country goes into lockdown, it is fair that taxpayers know whether we are paying money for old rope.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the insight into how the public react to key messages associated with our healthcare and health advice has been absolutely critical. Behavioural change and asking the public to step up to extremely challenging requests from the Government require a huge amount of analysis and study. The support from our own communications team has been supplemented by agency support, which has both the capacity and the expertise to provide the necessary insight. That insight has been critical to the success of our messaging.
Baroness Warsi (Con) [V]
My Lords, there is little doubt that one of the main reasons we are re-entering lockdown this week is the failure of Serco’s track and trace system, which the Prime Minister promised would be world beating. I do not want to go into the detail of the connections between Serco and the party and key members of the Government. However, on a general level, can my noble friend justify renewing the Government’s contract with Serco when it has failed so badly, resulting in loss of life and livelihoods—a situation that SAGE has warned will decline further in the future?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I do not accept the assumption that we are going into a second lockdown because of the failure of tracing. The tracing system has led to the isolation of more than 1 million individuals, which has done an enormous amount to break the chain of transmission. However, there is more that we could do. I completely acknowledge that the Government are focused on improving performance in tracing, and we will use the opportunity of the next month to ensure that that performance gets better.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests in medicine. Given that 55% of GPs, 35% of physicians and 11% of surgeons recently reported that they lack confidence in adequate PPE being available during the ongoing pandemic, when will the Government issue revised guidance to all NHS managers insisting on a duty of care to all front-line staff to ensure that staff are supplied with quality-certified appropriate PPE that is in date and fit tested under a risk assessment for the well-being of the clinical workforce? Have the Government commissioned research into reusable UK-manufactured PPE?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, we take the duty of care to our staff and patients extremely seriously, and that is already well documented by the NHS. I reassure the noble Baroness that purchase orders have been raised for 32 billion items of PPE in anticipation of a second wave; 18.6 billion items have already been delivered, 2.2 billion are with our delivery partners, and a further 16 billion are on their way. This is a massive investment in PPE and I reassure her that it will be made available to healthcare staff in abundance.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, it seems to me that, however urgent the requirement for PPE and other services, transparency becomes even more important in those circumstances. The Minister will be fully aware that the Ministerial Code says that Ministers are responsible for ensuring that no conflict exists, or appears to exist, between their personal interests and their public duty. As the former chair of a procurement committee for MyCCG, I received extensive NHS training on conflicts of interest, which are defined as
“a set of circumstances by which a reasonable person would consider that an individual’s ability to apply judgement or act, in the context of delivering, commissioning, or assuring taxpayer funded health and care services is, or could be, impaired or influenced by another interest they hold.”
Perception is as important as reality. Has the noble Lord declared the interests that arise out of the meetings that other noble Lords have mentioned today? Where are they recorded and published?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Baroness is right that transparency is key. I take those principles extremely seriously, and that is why we are publishing the contracts. I encourage anyone who is interested in looking at them to look at my Twitter feed, where I published a link to the Contracts Finder service yesterday. I reassure her that, although some connections were made through networks, absolutely every contract had exactly the same technical assurance, exactly the same contract negotiation and exactly the same procurement scrutiny. Those were done by civil servants, and value for money for the taxpayer and the people was guaranteed by that process.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, the Minister seems to say that there is nothing to see here, whereas some of us think that there is a whiff of uncertainty and of some things being not quite right. Therefore, will he agree to appoint an independent forensic auditor to carry out an independent report that can be published publicly to show exactly what has happened with PPE procurement?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I do not want to give the impression that absolutely everything is perfect. Those were desperate days and we had to do extraordinary things to protect our healthcare staff. I remind noble Lords that other countries were flying in their representatives with bags of cash on private jets in order to seal contracts and some of our supplies were literally taken from under our noses on the runway at Hong Kong airport. They were extremely difficult times and I do not pretend for a moment that everything was absolutely perfect, but I reassure noble Lords that the right procedures were put in place by officials, and I reassure the noble Lord that these figures are currently being validated with the National Audit Office.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed and it brings Question Time to an end.
Covid-19 Lockdown: Economic Support
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the announcement that the Self-employment Income Support Scheme grant will increase to 80% for November is welcome. However, the Chancellor still has not moved on the issue of the thousands who are not eligible for payments. When will the Government act to ensure that the scheme provides wider and fairer coverage, rather than awarding a 55% grant to some and nothing to others? In addition, can the Minister confirm whether the test and trace support payment will be extended to those who receive a notification via the NHS app? Will the size of the payment remain the same even if the Government reduce the self-isolation period to seven days, as has been reported in recent days?
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office and the Treasury (Lord Agnew of Oulton) (Con)
My Lords, we are very aware of the pressure on self-employed people at the moment, and it is important to remind the House of the level of support that we have given. Up to 19 July, there were 2.7 million claims for SEISS, totalling £7.8 billion. On the second grant, up to 22 October, we had 2.3 million claims of up to £5.9 billion. We keep under review the whole issue of trying to protect those who have fallen through the cracks. As the noble Lord will know, in relation to the universal credit system, yesterday we announced that the removal of the minimum income floor has been put back until April, which will help. In relation to his very specific questions about linking the isolation payments to NHS Test and Trace, I will have to write to him, which I will do as soon as possible.
Baroness Kramer (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Minister did not answer the question on the 3 million people excluded, who are largely self-employed and just seemed too complicated to deal with last spring but surely could be provided for now? Will he specifically address that? Businesses are under extreme pressure: they are being asked to cope with constant stopping, starting and change in support schemes. Will the Minister now commit to extend 80% furlough and related schemes until the end of June, when we expect a vaccine, so that any business that will be viable, if it can survive the pandemic, can cope with the short-term constraints and closures?
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
As the noble Baroness will know, we have no certainty about when a vaccine will be available in quantity. She mentioned June next year, which is a possibility; it might be sooner or later. That is why we are not able to make long-term commitments. I tried to answer the questions that the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked about support for the self-employed and mentioned various mechanisms. She will know that, if they are businesses that have their own premises, we are providing support at £3,000 a month to go towards fixed costs like rates and running costs.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, my noble friend the Minister will know that I have written to him about a local business that I am sure is not alone in that, since the beginning of lockdown, its business, which is in exhibitions, has shrunk by 90%. It does not see any business coming back until autumn next year. It has taken out loans, made redundancies and done everything sensible, but the business rates keep having to be paid month on month on month, and that is getting extremely hard for it. What can the Government do to help businesses in that sort of circumstance?
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
I share my noble friend’s concern about small businesses: it is absolutely ghastly for all these people. I want to explain to him that all eligible businesses in retail, hospitality and leisure will pay no business rates in England for 12 months from 1 April 2020 until March next year. This support is worth almost £10 billion to business, and an estimated 735,000 retail, hospitality and leisure properties will be included in this over that period. There is no rateable value threshold on the support; businesses large and small can benefit. In addition to the business rates holiday, the Government have announced further measures in response to the second lockdown: as I mentioned to the noble Baroness a moment ago, cash grants of up to £3,000 a month, and the extension of the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme until 2 December.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans [V]
My Lords, there has been a particular problem in the rental market, whereby renters and landlords have suffered as a result of these latest measures. Given the temporary protection from eviction for those living in tier 2 and 3 areas, could the Government confirm whether an eviction ban will now be extended across the country and whether they will now develop a strategy to help tackle arrears brought on by Covid to avoid a tragic spike in homelessness?
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, we will keep all these issues under review. As the right reverend Prelate will probably be aware, we have extended payment holidays on mortgages and certain consumer credit products to take pressure off individuals. In relation to his rental suggestions, we will keep them under review and will keep the House notified.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, yesterday in the Commons, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury responded to repeated questions from all sides of the House about whether the furlough scheme would continue at 80% in Scotland and Wales after 2 December if there was a continued lockdown. He said:
“the Government will always be there to provide support to all parts of the United Kingdom.”—[Official Report, Commons, 3/11/20; col. 166.]
We know that the Government will always be there, but will they provide support at 80% if the lockdown continues beyond 2 December? Will they provide that support not just in Scotland and Wales but in the north of England if the lockdown continues as it is at the moment?
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, as I am sure the noble Lord knows, we have provided some £14 billion of funding to the devolved authorities. That is important because £1.3 billion was announced on 9 October. It is there to support businesses: in Scotland, for example, we have been able to support nearly 1 million jobs, some 6,500 businesses and 240,000 people in employment. I am aware of no proposal to change the 80% furlough either in England or in Scotland.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the economic support being provided by the Government, which is unprecedented in our peacetime history. Despite that, is it not the case that, as we approach Christmas, very many individuals and businesses face an uncertain future, particularly in retail, hospitality and leisure? Therefore, does my noble friend agree that, for the economic health and well-being of our entire nation, it is vital that the second lockdown does not extend a moment beyond 2 December?
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
I absolutely agree that it is a top priority that we do not stay in lockdown for a day longer than we have to. It was done with great reluctance because of the very rapid expansion of the virus across parts of England, which had not seen it accelerating at the pace that it has in the last week or so. Nobody wins from a lockdown, but we are also very aware of the pressure on health services and need to ensure that the NHS is able to cope with the surge that is inevitably coming at us, as we know from the data we have now. This is one of the advantages that we have over the first lockdown: we see this tsunami of infections approaching a little further ahead than we did six or nine months ago. Therefore, we are trying to react to that, but I absolutely agree that we do not want to stay in lockdown for a moment longer than we have to.
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
My Lords, when the Government put England into a new lockdown, it was announced that the furlough scheme would be extended for England. When the Prime Minister was challenged whether this would likewise be the case for Scotland, he said of course it would, so why did the UK Government refuse the Welsh Government’s original request that furlough be available for businesses in Wales at those times when Wales is in lockdown, thereby ignoring the pressing needs of business in Wales and causing unnecessary uncertainty?
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
As the noble Lord will be aware, we have made very substantial payments to the devolved authorities over the last few months and increased those payments in October by £1.3 billion. We are all in this together, as my right honourable friend the Chief Secretary said yesterday. We keep all these situations under continual review.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, some firms are facing considerable difficulties in obtaining CBILS loans; I speak as chairman of the Cumbria Local Enterprise Partnership. This appears to be because some banks are reorganising their own internal arrangements in response to the crisis, while some are reluctant to deal with businesses that are not regular customers. What are the Government doing to ensure that these problems will be resolved and that the CBILS arrangements work as intended before the potential borrowers’ money runs out?
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, my honourable friend the Economic Secretary is in constant dialogue with the banks on how all these schemes operate; he continues to try to help to improve them. If the noble Lord would like to write to me on the specific concern he mentioned, I will ensure that it gets the proper attention.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. I apologise to the noble Baronesses, Lady Redfern and Lady Uddin, who were not able to put their questions.
Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome this Statement and the Foreign Secretary’s representations about Nazanin’s case generally, including his rightly voiced opposition to her potential return to prison during a second trial. Yesterday, James Cleverly welcomed the fact that she had not been sent back to prison. However, can the Minister confirm whether the Government have made specific representations to Iran on this possibility? Can he also detail any further multilateral action at the UN to secure her release and that of other British dual nationals incarcerated in Iran?
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his support. I know that this issue has cross-party support and we are working together on this aim. On his final point, yes, we are working with partners to apply maximum pressure for all dual nationals arbitrarily detained in Iran to be released. On this specific case, we have made specific representations, both through the interactions of my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and at ambassadorial level.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, the cases of the dual nationals being held in Iran are clearly appalling. Following the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, I would like to probe the Minister on whether the Government carried out a risk assessment of the safety of Nazanin and others due to the postponement of the IMS debt. We have not had an answer to that either in the Commons or here. Exactly when did the Government ask to attend her trial and what answer did the Iranian authorities give?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, on the noble Baroness’s second point, as she will be aware, the Iranians do not recognise Nazanin’s dual national status. We made that representation; it was declined. On the IMS dispute, I assure the noble Baroness that discussions are ongoing to explore further options to resolve this 40 year-old case, but it would be inappropriate for me to comment further on the case at this time because of those ongoing discussions.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, the shocking treatment of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe throws into sharp relief the appalling human rights track record of Iran, does it not? Will the Minister therefore talk specifically about the recent executions of some of the 2019 protesters and the despicable intimidation of members of staff at the BBC Persian service and their families?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I join the noble Lord in recognising that the UK has a long-standing opposition to the death penalty, whatever the reason and in whichever country. We continue to make that case to Iran and other nations. Iran’s criminalisation of co-operation with the British Council and the attacks against BBC Persian employees are also deeply concerning. The Government continue to provide support to defend them repeatedly at the highest levels in Iran.
Lord Polak (Con)
In the Statement, the Minister in the other place said that
“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.”—[Official Report, Commons, 3/11/20; col. 185.]
The Foreign Secretary suggested on television this morning that there are flaws but until something else is out there, it is the only option. What work has the FCDO undertaken to create an alternative? It has also been suggested that the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has shamelessly harassed Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe. To save my noble friend the Minister from telling us that he cannot discuss future proscriptions, I ask this: given that the Minister in the other place was clear on the concerns about Iran’s destabilising activities throughout the region, can my noble friend tell the House what possible further destabilising activities the regime and the IRGC can get up to before we act in a tough and appropriate manner?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lord, on my noble friend’s second point, we are acting in conjunction with our E3 allies to ensure that the JCPOA remains alive and on the table. It prevents Iran becoming a nuclear state, which must be a priority.
My noble friend raises concerns about the IRGC. We share them, particularly regarding Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s case and the challenge that she has been presented with the IRGC. On the efforts that we are making, we continue to work with our US allies and E3 partners to ensure that the current ban that was lifted on arm sales to Iran can also reach a conclusion that satisfies our allies across Europe and in the US.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, in April 2019, the Government granted diplomatic protection status to Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe—a very welcome signal that the UK treats the case no longer as a consular matter but as a formal legal dispute between Britain and Iran. Has that change of status been reflected in any change in the Government’s approach to this matter? What difference has it made, if any?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, exercising diplomatic protection to Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s case formally raised it to the level of a state issue. We continue to take further action where we judge that it will help to secure her full and permanent release. For the time being, we welcome the fact that she has been allowed to return home and has not been taken to prison.
Baroness Goudie (Lab) [V]
My Lords, following on from my noble colleagues’ questions, can the Minister assure us that Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe will be able to have medical check-ups through the embassy every week and that a permanent person will visit her every other day from the embassy? At the moment, I feel she is in a very fragile state, with no continuity of people to be with her besides her family.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, we as Her Majesty’s Government cannot guarantee this, but I assure the noble Baroness that we continue to implore the Iranian authorities that she should receive whatever medical attention she needs.
Viscount Waverley (CB) [V]
My Lords, what is holding back a resolution? The issue must be more complex than we understand it to be. Is practical horse-trading really going on behind the scenes? For example, have the Supreme Leader’s personal representatives, who are based in London and directly responsible to him, been sat with? If so, with what outcome? What price freedom? Is Iran holding out on its internal judicial process by saying no to the return of the £400 million-plus owed by the Government rather than having the UK turn this into an advantageous negotiation position that could also be put to the benefit of the desperate lot of Iran’s long-suffering people, having been instructed to do so by a UK court? Where is the best practice in the UK’s rule of law in all this?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I agree with the noble Viscount that our argument and challenge are not with the Iranian people; they have suffered for far too long. We are engaging on this issue at the highest level. From the Prime Minister downwards, we are engaged in getting Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, and other dual nationals who are arbitrarily detained, released on a permanent basis.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it seems clear that the Iranian regime is using the court process as a negotiating tactic. This does not affect dual nationals just from the United Kingdom but also from France, Germany, Australia and the United States. We can probably anticipate that some of these practices will be accelerating ahead of the presidential elections in Iran in June. Have we had discussions with our partners to protect dual nationals across the board and to take joint action?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I welcome the noble Baroness to the House and assure her that we work very closely in conjunction with our partners, including those who have detainees who are arbitrarily detained. On the future elections, it should be in our mind that Ayatollah Khamenei, as spiritual leader, also has ultimate adjudication powers on any decision taken by the Iranian Government.
Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]
My Lords, is there any truth in the allegation that some other countries—Australia, France, Germany, Canada and the USA—have had greater success in getting their people back? Is this only because their people were not dual nationals? Secondly, have the Iranians ever mentioned the money in the course of our negotiations with them about Nazanin’s release?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I have already commented on the ongoing discussions that we are having on the issue of the debt. On the noble Lord’s first point, I believe that he answered his own question. He is quite right that those detainees have been successfully released because they hold a particular nationality. Regrettably, Iran does not recognise dual nationals and that has been its persistent response to our lobbying on this case and others.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have now been asked.
United Kingdom Internal Market Bill
Wednesday 4th November 2020
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 View all United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 135-V Fifth Marshalled list for Committee - (4 Nov 2020)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, hybrid proceedings will now resume. Some Members are here in the Chamber respecting social distancing, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House.
I will call Members to speak in the order listed in the annexe to today’s list. Members are not permitted to intervene spontaneously. The Chair calls each speaker. Interventions during speeches or “before the noble Lord sits down” are not permitted.
During the debate on each group I invite Members, including Members in the Chamber, to email the clerk if they wish to speak after the Minister. I will call Members to speak in order of request and will call the Minister to reply each time. The groupings are binding and it will not be possible to degroup an amendment for separate debate. A Member intending to press an amendment already debated to a Division should have given notice in the debate. Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. When putting the question, I will collect voices in the Chamber only. If a Member taking part remotely intends to trigger a Division, they should make this clear when speaking on the group. We will now begin.
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 149. Anyone wishing to press this, or anything else in this group, to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Clause 38: Information-gathering powers
Amendment 149
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes explicit reference to legal professional privilege in Clause 38(8).
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 149. It will not surprise the House to learn that I am very grateful to the Law Society of Scotland for its help in briefing me and preparing this amendment. I state once again for the record, as on the register, that I am a non-practising member of the Faculty of Advocates, so have had cause in the past to be deeply grateful to solicitors in Scotland.
Amendment 149 amends Clause 38, which relates to information-gathering powers, setting out the powers the CMA will have to gather information in support of its functions in this part; under subsections (2) and (3), it will be able to provide an information notice or require the production of a document by an individual business or public authority. The notice must describe the type of information required and when and how it is expected to be relayed. Under subsection (6), the notice must make clear which precise function of the CMA is relevant, as well as the legal and financial consequences of non-compliance. Subsection (8) sets out that no information can be requested if it could not be compelled to be given in the course of civil judicial proceedings before the court, and that a notice may not require a person to go more than 10 miles from their residence without having their travelling expenses paid or offered to them.
This begs a question, which has been identified. Through this amendment, I would make explicit reference to “legal professional privilege” in Clause 38(8), for the very simple reason that a person should not be compelled, as I just stated, under subsection (8),
“to produce or provide any document or information which the person could not be compelled to produce, or give in evidence, in civil proceedings before the court”.
This provision may apply to legal representatives, but that should be made clear by a reference to “legal professional privilege” in the clause. My direct question to the Minister is this: why is it specifically not referred to? I am sure he will say that it is implicitly relied on, but I pray in aid that legal professional privilege is the client’s privilege, not the lawyer’s privilege. It is an essential aspect of the rule of law which enables clients to consult freely with their lawyers and is widely recognised in statute. I would like it in this Bill, unless I hear extremely good reasons from my noble friend why it is not already there. I beg to move.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
My Lords, I have two amendments in this group. I also support the amendment just explained by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh.
This group concerns the information-gathering powers in Clause 38; it applies to Clause 31, under which requests for a report from the CMA may be made by anyone, and to Clauses 32, 33 and 34, under which administrations may request, respectively, advice on proposed regulatory provisions, reporting on the impact of a regulatory provision and reporting on a regulatory provision that is or may be detrimental to the market.
To prepare reports, information needs to be gathered. The powers enable the CMA to ask any person for any document in their possession or to require any person who carries on a business to provide estimates, forecasts, returns or other information as may be specified. As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, has already highlighted, it can further specify the time and place at which, and the form and manner in which, the information is to be provided. It may also require conversion of a non-legible record into a legible and intelligible copy of information. There is no acknowledgment of how onerous this may be other than in subsection (8)(b), which says that travel expenses must be offered if a person has to go more than 10 miles from their place of residence. This could impose significant burdens on individuals or small businesses, to whom time is money.
It does not indicate that the information sought is only that which is readily available; it seems there is nothing to stop it requiring the preparation of estimates rather than, say, just the forwarding of those that might have been given to customers in the course of business. Many businesses may well be happy to assist in what is tantamount to a survey about the effects of regulation, just as many respond to consultations, but for small businesses it could be a burden. For sole traders it may mean a significant loss if income is dependent on work, whether that is as a plumber, lawyer, childminder, shopkeeper or anything else.
I am aware that the template of CMA market study investigations and Section 174 of the Enterprise Act have been followed, but are we truly looking at comparable circumstances? Market studies have more statutory requirements and guidance around them, such as the requirement of a market study notice and all the defined stages and practices. That does not seem to have been transposed into this. Nor are the circumstances those of known market deterioration caused by market participants—for example, it may just be about proposed or enacted regulation, with any flaws caused by administrations, which is completely different from when businesses, collectively or individually, have themselves created oligopolies, monopolies or concentrations.
In Amendment 150, I put forward that there should be provision for loss of earnings—why not, if the circumstance is that the expertise of the business is being sought? An alternative way to collect this kind of information is through consultations or by commissioning research. The CMA is empowered already under Section 5 of the Enterprise Act to commission such reports without resorting to enforced business responses. The members of the panel that will prepare the reports are being paid for their expertise, so why not those others who are being harvested for information?
My Amendment 156, would insert a new clause:
“The CMA must take account of the effects of additional duties imposed on small business in its approach to the exercise of its functions under sections 31 to 34, and its powers under sections 38, 39 and 40.”
This is not a strong amendment, but at least it makes the point, as otherwise there is no guidance. I am sure that MPs would interest themselves in the sorry stories they will be sent if there are burdensome requirements but, absent something like this, they have nothing to point to when overstepping has taken place. I will return to this matter in the context of penalties in the next group, but when there has been no wrongdoing that brings about the request for information—possibly burdensome requests, enforceable through fines rather than encouragement—it seems a wholly disproportionate measure. As I have said, I do not believe the cause is comparable with current CMA market studies.
Whither now the comply or explain principle—I have always been more of a “make them comply” person, as my track record will show, but these measures offend me in principle and seem to come from the department against business. I can see the matter is different if the business is under investigation for their own doings, but there is no distinction made in the clause. Clause 39 has a “without reasonable excuse” provision and I intend to probe that in the next group but, for now, can the Minister clarify the limits to the burden that can be put upon small businesses and the circumstances envisaged? Something of record has to be made.
As a final related point, there are also circumstances, of course, where much more has been opened up for challenges by businesses through Clause 31, giving the CMA reach into both administrative decisions and to other companies. My noble friend Lord Fox will say more on that.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]
My Lords, I will be very brief, as the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh and Lady Bowles, have explained this group extremely clearly. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, said, these measures just offend me in principle. The Government seem, time and again, to understand big business, and are happy to give very large amounts of money and all sorts of leeway to such businesses and organisations but, at the same time, quite often miss the point on small businesses, which often struggle to survive—particularly during lockdown.
Small businesses can be the creative heart of our society at times—creating jobs for a lot of local people and, indeed, more widely. Will the Minister listen and understand that such intrusive and burdensome measures really do impact on small businesses that are already struggling to survive? I know it is very difficult for the Minister to commit to anything, but surely he is prepared to discuss this sort of issue with noble Lords and perhaps come to some sort of agreement.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I was glad to see Amendment 149. It is always good to be clear about legal privilege to avoid needless or inappropriate fishing expeditions by regulatory staff, and it matters for in-house counsel as well as for external lawyers. It would be good to be clear on the Government’s intentions.
I also support the sentiment behind Amendments 150 and 156. We need to look after small business, the economic dynamism of which reflects a UK sector that was the envy of everyone when I was the Competitiveness Minister in Brussels. There is much in this Bill that they might fear: rules of which they are unaware; costs, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, suggested, from burdensome requests; big fines; and quasi borders created between the different nations of the UK. I worked with the Federation of Small Businesses on regulation and getting them paid on time, and I try to promote a positive climate for the scale-up of small businesses, rather than a sale to a Silicon Valley, or other, giant after a short run of success. How will the Bill help small businesses, and are there dangers lurking here?
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I am very pleased to support these amendments, the first in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and the other two in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles. In relation to the amendment on legal privilege, I note that the Lords Constitution Committee report on the UK internal market Bill says:
“We welcome the confirmation by the Lord Chancellor that information protected by legal professional privilege will not be required to be disclosed to the Competition and Markets Authority under the information-gathering powers in clause 38.”
Can the Minister provide any further detail from the Lord Chancellor in relation to this particular issue? Can he say how and when the Government will bring amendments on Report dealing with this specific request to allow protection for clients in respect of the information-gathering powers?
In relation to the two amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, I would say that the last thing we need, particularly with Brexit hitting so many businesses and with the impact of Covid and the lockdown, are any more limits to business or on businesses. They have already suffered considerably, particularly the small businesses of sole traders or freelancers.
I think simply of the Northern Ireland situation, where the majority of businesses are small and, combined with the impact of Covid, many could close, resulting in loss of jobs and trading. There are some 148,300 small and medium-sized enterprises in Northern Ireland out of a total population of 1.8 million. This is the fewest of any UK region, as recorded in September of this year.
Another worrying factor is that research by Ulster Bank, a subsidiary of NatWest, shows that any hope of a V-shaped recovery in Northern Ireland has been snuffed out with Covid. I can understand and agree with the sentiments conveyed by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, that we do not want to see any further limits on businesses. In that regard, can the Minister advise noble Lords on what discussions he and his colleagues in BEIS have had with the devolved regions regarding these measures in the UK internal market Bill? Maybe he will surprise us and illustrate that there has been quite a bit of discussion.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendments 150 and 156, and indeed broadly support Amendment 149. My noble friend Lady Bowles, in characterising the information-gathering powers that are attempted to be brought in through this Bill, ably described the wide, broad remit that is being given to the CMA. I fully support and share her case, which was well put, as to why we should be concerned about this.
This is not just a burden on small businesses. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, I have experienced the sharp end of a market study. It is a lot of work. This Bill envisages more than that for all businesses. No such undertaking should be given lightly without understanding what it will do—particularly, as many speakers have said—for smaller and medium-sized businesses. There should be limits.
More broadly, as prefaced by my noble friend Lady Bowles, during the debate on Clause 31, my noble friends and others raised the potential for universities to be dragged into the ambit of the CMA and the OIM—not least because of the different tuition fee regimes that exist within our nations. As we all know, this is a devolved responsibility. Despite their efforts, Ministers did not satisfactorily explain how this would happen, including in the letter.
We now turn to Clause 38, which, once again, broadens the powers of the CMA and enables it to be involved in these matters. The powers which are envisioned, though extensive and with little or no restraint, further stoke the fears harboured by Scottish universities. It could work the other way around. It could be the English university fee policy that is being challenged. This power is wider, with very few limitations.
I wish to probe the potential role of the office for the internal market under Part 4 of the Bill in relation to tuition fees. According to Universities Scotland’s brief, the powers in the Bill could
“give the OIM/Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) the power to investigate and reach a view on whether differential student fees represent a distortion of the new UK internal market. Regardless of the non-binding nature of the reports and advice of the OIM/CMA, it would have to be taken seriously by Parliament (Holyrood or Westminster). This could introduce new and greater basis for individual challenges to the variable fee regime within the UK, brought by individuals who feel they are discriminated against. … If this understanding is correct, this would apply in both directions, with possible challenges brought by Scottish domiciled students/individuals who consider the fee policy as administered by universities in England to discriminate against their options.”
That is one example of the consequences of this Bill. Will the Minister tell your Lordships’ House whether it is intended or unintended? If it is intended, why do Her Majesty’s Government see fit to mess with this devolved responsibility? If it is unintended, can the Minister acknowledge the issues that pervade this Bill?
In the Minister’s letter to my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed, which I hope has been placed in the Library, the Government accept that there are issues about university services. It highlights the power to amend exclusions after the Bill is enacted. This should be clarified by a government amendment before Report, not afterwards.
There are many other examples. In the short time we have had to examine this Bill, we have uncovered anomalies, irregularities and mistakes not just in relation to universities but in the food, alcohol and energy sectors. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, also raised queries about the legal profession. In the spirit of whack-a-mole, I can add more, such as the water industry. Powers under Clauses 31 and 38 could mean that the CMA could be asked by an investor in an English water service company to investigate, let us say, the mutual Welsh Water company. Water is to be considered as a UK market, where it was not before. Once a case is opened, who knows where it will end up? Is this accidental or deliberate?
At the same time as the Government accrue these badly-defined powers to the new OIM and CMA, corporate lawyers on behalf of big businesses headquartered in the UK and beyond are sharpening their pencils. As the Government seek to regulate on a UK-wide basis services that until now have managed very well without Her Majesty’s Government’s help, consumer lawyers are looking into their practice development strategies and preparing to sell litigation ideas to future clients. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, put it, this will be “a lawyer’s paradise”. At its heart is the Government’s decision to sideline the flexibility of the common frameworks and pursue the central ambition of trying to create a rigid one-size-fits-all regulatory structure to deliver a one-size-fits-all United Kingdom. The persistent and obvious flaws in this Bill demonstrate that this one-size-fits-all approach is impossible, even if it were desirable, which it is not.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this debate has raised some interesting and important issues. I have listened with care to all the speakers and particularly to the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, based on information provided by the Scottish Law Commission, whose help I also acknowledge. I look forward to the Minister’s response. The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, raised a number of issues to which I wish to return. Other speakers have made small but important points on SMEs and the role of Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, picked up on the recent letter from Ministers about university fees, particularly in Scotland, and questioned whether this could constitute indirect discrimination. This was also raised in an earlier group. Like the noble Lord, I wonder why this could not be better dealt with by the common frameworks approach. This should be applied to all aspects of managed divergence, in relation not just to goods but also to services and the regulation of professions. We will return to this on Report.
In respect of the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, the powers included in Clauses 38,39 and 40 are quite extensive and detailed. Do they go beyond the existing powers of the CMA? Are they new because of the responsibilities that will accrue to the CMA or the office for the internal market under this Bill? Or do they simply repeat existing powers reframed in some way to suit the new circumstances? I would appreciate the Minister’s response. As other speakers have said, this additional activity is very detailed and gives specific examples of what can and cannot be done and how it is to operate. Does this not play to the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, in an earlier amendment that asking the CMA to extend its focus and the range of its work might blur the good work it does at the moment? Does the Minister accept that there might be a problem here?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, raised issues around university tuition fees and water services. As he said, I have written to him and to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, about the points they raised in earlier debates. I am told that these letters have been submitted to the Library but there may be a slight delay in their publication. I confirm what I said there about the exemption in the legislation for public services. More details are set out in the letters. If for some reason they have not yet been published, the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Purvis, should get in touch with my office, which will be happy to furnish them with a copy.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
I have received a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Fox.
Lord Fox (LD)
I much appreciate the Minister’s answer. The questions I asked about university tuition fees were in the light of having read his letter, which my noble friend Lord Purvis made available to me—there is no need to send it to me. In it the Minister states that,
“we are aware of the questions raised in relation to university services and how they may interact with the Bill”,
which is good. The letter continues:
“We have the power to amend the exclusions Schedule and will keep the area of higher education under close review.”
It therefore seems that the Government are planning to do that after Report. My point is that it would be a boon to our process on the Bill if the Government were to consult before Report and come back with something that I am sure, given what the Minister said, would merely fulfil their ambition for the Bill while settling concerns in the university sector.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thought that I had put the matter to rest by writing the letter to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, on which the noble Lord, Lord Fox, has commented. In our view, there is no doubt that the regulation of tuition fees is outside the scope of the Bill and, therefore, beyond the scope of the office for the internal market’s functions. But as the letter to him confirmed, we will keep the matter under review and not hesitate to take action if there is a problem, which we do not believe exists.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, also wish to speak after the Minister.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
I asked the Minister a specific question on whether the framing of Clauses 38 to 40 was exactly the same, or differed from, the existing powers of the CMA. He did not answer that. I do not want to delay us too much today but perhaps he could write to me about it.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I would be happy to write to the noble Lord but, as I said, the powers to date have functioned effectively and are based on the CMA’s existing powers.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I have another couple of points for clarification by my noble friend. First, does legal privilege apply to in-house counsel, provided that they are properly qualified lawyers? I would be happy for the Minister to write to me about that. Secondly, he referred in the debate about small business to Clause 32(4), and helpfully explained that the CMA will advise on regulatory proposals before laws are made, which provides an opportunity for small business interests to be taken into account. However, my concern was also about enforcement of the law, which would bear particularly harshly on small businesses that do not have the same fancy legal departments as others. I am not sure that the clause deals with that but would be delighted if I was wrong.
Lord Callanan (Con)
On my noble friend’s first question, she will notice that Clause 38(8) states:
“A notice under subsection (2) or (3) may not require a person … to produce or provide any document or information which the person could not be compelled to produce, or give in evidence, in civil proceedings before the court”.
I hope that that resolves the matter. I will write to her on her second point.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I thank everyone who has contributed, including my noble friend the Minister in summing up the debate. We had an excellent discussion on the issues, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, for raising them because they are pertinent. I am slightly confused as to why it is necessary to include in the Bill powers that already exist. We are told that they are not new, yet my noble friend will not agree to include in the Bill a matter that is already causing alarm.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, for alerting me to the Constitution Committee report in that regard. It has highlighted its concern and received a verbal undertaking from the Lord Chancellor. I should repeat that we are referring to the Law Society of Scotland, not the Scottish Law Commission. If both the committee of this House and the Law Society of Scotland are concerned, that verbal reassurance is not enough. I may well reflect on the matter and come back on Report. However, for the moment, I am grateful for having had the opportunity to debate this matter and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with the question that Clause 38 stand part of the Bill. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this question or anything else in the group to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
My Lords, the previous group has already set the scene on Clause 38, where I propose some changes to help small businesses, at least. The point remains that the CMA, or OIM, is an opining body, often for the benefit of Administrations, even if most of those are not happy with how it is set up. I also clarify that I am not against the CMA per se. I have responded to its consultations, been quoted by it and would give it more powers in competition matters. Even if it were the chosen body, I would still consider the same procedures and culture not right for monitoring the internal market, so to copy and paste legislation created for the competition field is not appropriate. I mention again the different approaches of DG COMP and DG Internal Market as an illustration.
In this group, I am further probing the constraints on information-gathering powers. As I have said, they often apply to individuals and businesses that have not done anything wrong, nor have their actions, individually or collectively, distorted the market. If the regulations are amiss, that is created by Administrations. With all due respect to the response the Minister gave on the previous group, that is different from competition matters, which the businesses and their actions have brought forward. I find it alarming that there is no understanding of the fundamental difference between applying competition law and monitoring an internal market, but it is early days and this is all new.
I accept that an investigation into and report on the activities of companies that are causing distortion, as could be the case under Clause 31, is different. Then, it is perhaps reasonable to use the existing CMA powers and scope. But I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, that the format of these enforcement powers is copied and pasted from the CMA in its role dealing with companies that potentially threaten the public interest, where there is at least a suspicion that competition laws or norms, such as market concentration or fair pricing, are being challenged. In the Bill, individuals or companies are being used as sources of information for things that they have not brought on themselves, and that is the difference. It is why having the same laws is not appropriate. For this reason, I object to the compulsory scope of Clause 38 for all circumstances, and the same applies to the enforcement and penalty powers in Clauses 39 and 40.
Clause 38(6) states that the notice will be sent with
“information about the … consequences of not complying”.
That is a frightener. Is that the way to treat business? Was it consulted upon? We challenged the Minister on Monday about the information he had been given to say to us, stating that using the CMA was consulted upon. Even if there were a few throwaway lines like “such as the CMA” in response, was any consultation conducted on whether CMA market study legislation fits the rather different circumstance of investigating Administrations’ actions? If businesses or individuals decide that they do not wish to or cannot provide information, and the CMA decides, under its own rules, that their excuse is not reasonable, they can be dealt with as obstructing and fined.
There was an interesting exchange on fines on Monday, when the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, asked whether a Member of the Senedd could be fined. The Minister said that they could be asked for information, but not fined. Now we see another way to get some of that information: turn any business that had been in discussions with the Senedd into the informer. Who knows? Perhaps one day we might even get some of the unpublished consultation responses that the Government sit on.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
I am assuming that the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, has scratched from this group, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie.
Lord Tyrie (Non-Afl)
Some very interesting points have just been made that bear serious consideration, and the concerns we have just heard are reasoned, particularly on SMEs. At the very least, the Government may wish to offer a review of the CMA’s use of these powers, after an interval, to give us the assurance that they are being proportionately deployed and to see whether they need some amendment. The argument that they were derived from legislation the purpose of which was very different is well taken and might point to further amendment.
Overall, I support the Government in what they are trying to do here, having decided to create the OIM. It is true that the powers are robust, but they will need to be. If the CMA is to be expected to offer timely and high-quality advice, it will need to secure information quickly, without being given the runaround by devolved Administrations or parts of the private sector.
The penalties proposed are a weakness, though. Crown immunity will be in play for the devolved Administrations. I would be interested to know what thought the Government have given to the penalties that can be imposed for non-compliance in those cases. Public censure might help; on the other hand, a devolved Administration standing up to nasty Westminster might win local plaudits, resulting in the opposite effect. A lot of careful thought needs to be put into this issue if these measures are to be made effective. The proposed fines on the private sector are capped at £30,000. I simply do not see that sum troubling a recalcitrant or determined large third party. Has the Minister considered larger fines in certain circumstances?
It might be helpful to make one more general point. The CMA’s existing arrangements for securing compliance and information gathering across all its other functions are manifestly inadequate, as I saw it during my time there. They should not be used as a benchmark. Incidentally, the £30,000 figure comes from the merger regime. Something has to be done. The European Commission recently fined Facebook £1.6 million for not supplying information, while the CMA recently fined Amazon £30,000 over the merger with Deliveroo for not supplying information. That should give some idea of the disparity.
In February 2019, the CMA put proposals to the Government for improvements to information-gathering powers across all its functions. First, it needs to be able to gather information from a much wider range of sources to reflect the increasingly digital nature of the information that it is trying to collect: iCloud, machine-learning algorithms and so on spring to mind. These are not at all easy to capture with existing legislation. Secondly, and even more importantly, subject to safeguards, the CMA needs a general information- gathering power outside the context of a formal investigation. I do not like giving general powers, but I think the CMA now needs this to find out what is really going on in markets and enable it to think through much better than it can at present. It needs to be able to use the full range of tools to best bear down on consumer detriment. It is struggling to do that at present, and increasingly so with the growth of rip-off culture.
When the Minister returns to his department, he will find the proposals, of which I am just touching the surface, have been fully developed by the CMA and are sitting with his officials. Will he agree to take another look at those proposals to see what might usefully be drawn from them? For improving the ones we are discussing today, quite a lot of what is in there is likely to be relevant. Will he agree to report back to the House on what he has found?
I have been following this Bill closely, particularly Part 4, which I have an interest in because of my previous job. Some very important points have been made across the Committee, not least in Monday’s relatively brief debate on Clause 28 about whether the CMA is the appropriate body in the beginning to have responsibly for these functions. Those points are sufficiently important for us to have another look at them on Report. I hope the House will find a way to enable us to do this.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, this Committee is nearing its end, apart from Part 5. I support the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, in her forensic efforts to probe the purpose of Clauses 38 to 40. I welcome my noble friend Lord Tyrie to today’s debate. Although I do not agree with him on fines or general powers, he makes a very good point about digital information. I am sorry he was not here for the debate on where the OIM sits. As he says, that is something we hope to debate again on Report.
On the plus side, these clauses give a great deal of detail. I usually complain to the Minister that EU exit Bills fail to do just that and leave too much to regulations. On the minus side, these are extremely strong powers of enforcement with very high penalties—for example, fixed fines of up to £30,000 would make many a small company bankrupt. There is no due diligence defence that I can see or provision allowing a reasonable excuse. The CMA can use its own discretion to decide whether a request for information has been complied with and can impose a financial penalty if it thinks there has been obstruction or delay. Such powers are fiercer than those of the police. The Minister will be able to tell us whether the CMA has those powers in relation to competition law and perhaps explain in each case why they are justified in the internal market Bill which, as many have said, is a little different from competition law.
Moreover, we do not know to which regulations these various measures and penalties will apply. Can the Minister kindly take us through some examples of their proposed use? He may have done this elsewhere; if so, I am sorry if I missed that. Perhaps more importantly, could he lay some sample regulations for us to review before Report, as his predecessor did so helpfully on the Bill relating to nuclear issues on EU exit?
I worry that both Houses of Parliament have been distracted by unease with Part 5 of the Bill into agreeing wide-ranging, open-ended and burdensome powers in these clauses and, for the first time, on services, the beating heart of the economies in all four nations of the UK. All this has been relatively lightly scrutinised despite our efforts, and experience shows that some nasty surprises might be in store. I am keen to work with others to minimise those while generally supporting the Bill’s direction of travel.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, once again this has been a short but important debate. I congratulate noble Lords on speaking on this. Once again, I find myself in complete agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and my noble friend Lady Bowles. It was good to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie, whose experience is important.
During her speech, my noble friend Lady Bowles sought to characterise the difference between getting information from potential recalcitrants—people who are suspected of or known to have distorted the market—and getting information from people to create a picture of a market. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie, will not mind me saying that the sort of language used about needing more sanctions and similar issues is coming from the mindset of dealing with recalcitrants. That is where the experience of the CMA has lain to date. There is a real concern that in creating this new role the culture of having to fight to get what you need is transferred into this second activity, and that is not appropriate.
I was interested to hear the point of the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie, about Clause 28 and looking again at the positioning of the OIM and CMA. I would be very keen to hear what he has to say.
Lord Fox (LD)
Perhaps the noble Lord can put his point in writing, or speak after the Minister if it is a question to him.
Enormous care is needed, at the very least, but it is not clear in the Bill where that care is and how careful the Bill is; it seems quite careless. We come back to whether the Bill is deliberately underwritten or accidentally underwritten because there was not enough time. There is plenty of scope for the Minister to answer the questions set out by my noble friend Lady Bowles, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie, and to nail how this will work, what it is for and how small and medium-sized businesses in particular will be protected from an overzealous information-gathering process.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, this debate is perhaps even more important than some of the others that we have had. The real advantage of a stand part debate is that one can question the purpose of a clause rather than getting down into the weeds of amendments.
The issue that the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, has raised is fundamental to how we have been looking at this. She asked—these are actually my words, although the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, said much the same—whether the competition regime was appropriate for work on the internal market. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, gave away in an earlier debate that this may have been written hastily over the summer; it certainly sounds like a cut-and-paste job, done without stopping to think. Just because it is the same organisation at the same address in Holborn, or wherever the CMA is these days, you cannot just cut and paste it; as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, was saying, it is about the culture of that organisation as well as whether the structure is available. There is a fundamental question here, which my noble friend Lord Stevenson dealt with under Amendment 115, of whether the OIM should be within this framework, as well as the even broader subject of whether these sorts of penalties are appropriate for such a different role.
There are some specific issues in these clauses, such as whether it is appropriate for the Government to be able to amend the list of exclusions without any involvement of the devolved authorities. We have discussed such matters before, but under this legislation the fixing of penalties could again be altered without any involvement of the devolved authorities. This is serious stuff. They are a part of the overall governance and working of the new internal market, yet the Bill is written as if this is simply a Westminster responsibility.
I come to what the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, was saying: exactly what is covered by these clauses? In an earlier debate I asked the Minister to set out what services were covered, but obviously I was mumbling at the time because he wrote me a very nice letter on 2 November telling me about the services that are excluded, which of course already exist in the Bill. The question that I was trying to ask is: what services will be covered? I still cannot get a handle on that. This is really important given what has been said about whether the demands and penalties applying to services that are covered are appropriate.
Obviously I was not very clear about what I wanted but I had talked about housing and whether someone organising a register of housing would count as a service. I was talking about landlords but the letter refers to social housing. We are talking not about social housing but about landlords of private housing. I am involved with another part of the Government, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, in chairing something to try to set up a code for property agents for when the Government are ready to fulfil what they have already promised—that is, to set up a regulator of property agents. They are already a service but the circumstances are different—buying and selling a house in Scotland is very different from England; if you buy there, you tend to go to a solicitor rather than an estate agent—so there are different ways of a service being developed or in existence. Once they are regulated, perhaps property agents will count as a profession, which is a different issue, but before then, as a service, are they going to be covered by these sorts of requirements?
If that is the case—and this is the main thrust of what I want to say on this group— how will these services know that they are covered by this provision? It is important for anyone risking breaking the law, in the sense of civil law, and being charged a penalty to know that that law applies to them. If they do not define what they are doing as a service and therefore do not know that they are captured by this provision, they may find it difficult to understand that they could be required to provide information. I can imagine that this could really affect property agencies. They need to know that it covers them, which is quite an issue, but it is also unclear to me whether the level of penalties is appropriate for this area. For a small housing management group, for example, this daily rate of £15,000 will basically wipe out its business if it has an £80,000 annual turnover. We are talking about levels of penalty.
It seems to me that those agents are covered by this, but I am unclear about the appeals process. If they are asked a question, how do they know that it has legal force behind it? Even if they are told that—most of these people will of course not have lawyers —and there is a penalty, do they have any appeal? I could not find one in the Bill but I am sure the Minister will be able to tell me; it is quite unusual to have a penalty without any sort of appeal. I could not work this out but I am sure the Minister will.
My main ask is: can we know the sort of services that will be covered? Perhaps we could hear more—not in legal language but in language that I can understand—about how they would know and about their rights to appeal any fixed penalty.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, if she found my letter disappointing; I will try to do better next time. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, looks disapproving; I am not going to write him any more letters if that is the case.
With regard to exclusions on services, all services subject to the authorisation requirements or the regulatory requirements are affected under the Bill unless they are specifically excluded from some or part of the rules under Part 2. I hope that that clarifies the noble Baroness’s question—if not, I will be happy to write her another letter. She is shaking her head in disbelief.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, with regard to her question on consultation, that we consulted on the general office, what enforcement provisions there should be and whether or not it should be included as part of an arm’s-length body. Once we had made the decision that it should be located within the CMA, there was of course extensive discussion between officials and the CMA on the powers and how they will be enforced. I say to my noble friend Lord Tyrie that I am of course aware of the proposals that he refers to on the CMA and I will be happy to take another look at them.
Addressing the specific questions on this clause stand part debate, I will set out the rationale for these clauses. Clause 38, as I believe we already discussed in the previous group, sets out the powers that the Competition and Markets Authority will have to gather information in support of its monitoring, advisory and reporting functions. As I said previously, in order to carry out its functions the OIM must have access to high-quality information to produce accurate, relevant and credible reports. Clause 38 will ensure that the CMA is able to require the assistance of third parties to perform its functions and is able to independently gather evidence in a timely manner.
I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, agrees with me that presenting analysis based on partial or inaccurate information could be detrimental to the regulatory decisions taken as a result of OIM reporting and monitoring and would damage the reputation of the OIM among many key stakeholders in these fields. The powers in this clause are therefore put on a strong statutory footing. They will ensure that the reporting that the OIM undertakes will be as effective and comprehensive as possible for the benefit of policy-makers in the UK Government and the devolved Administrations, significantly strengthening existing stakeholders’ ability to navigate the new UK internal market.
Clause 39 describes what action the CMA is able to take in response to non-compliance with the information requests described in Clause 38. As noble Lords said, the CMA has existing powers under the Enterprise Act 2002 regarding non-compliance with its information requests. This is necessary to enable the CMA to carry out its functions effectively. As with Clause 38, the provision for the OIM in Clause 39 is modelled on those powers. The clause will allow the CMA to determine the most appropriate policy approach and the amount of any financial penalty to be imposed within the limits that have been prescribed. The clause also sets out the conditions where financial penalties may not be imposed because more than four weeks has expired since the CMA exercised its relevant functions.
Clause 40 sets the parameters that the CMA should consider for financial penalties in cases of non-compliance with an information-gathering request notice. Let me first say that I understand the concerns of noble Lords, but the preference and expectation will always be that information gathering is on a voluntary basis. The Government do not anticipate that the CMA will need regularly to fall back on the information-gathering and non-compliance powers. However, it is important to ensure that this facility is available to the CMA to detail how penalties will be set. As with other provisions, the Government have chosen to mirror the relevant provisions of the Enterprise Act 2002.
I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie, and my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe that the Secretary of State will make regulations specifying the maximum amounts in practice within the specified ceilings for these penalties in consultation with the CMA and other interested parties. I can confirm for the benefit of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, that the devolved Administrations will of course be consulted as part of this. In addition, and as noted in our debates on previous groups, I confirm to the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, and the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie, that the CMA will not be able to issue a financial penalty against the UK Government or any devolved Government. Let me be very clear about that. Let me also assure the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, that the Government are committed to not taking any steps to bring in the financial penalties until there is credible evidence that there is a need do so, so we will not commence these provisions without that credible need being demonstrated.
I will deal with a couple of other questions. The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, asked about third-party requests. Such requests would be permissible if they were within the scope of Clause 31 and the CMA thought that they were appropriate. As I confirmed earlier, the White Paper invited consultation responses on how the functions to be delivered should be implemented as well as on whether an existing arm’s-length body should deliver them or bespoke arrangements should be established. As is obvious, we decided after that consultation that the OIM should be situated within the CMA.
With the reasons I have set out, I hope that I have been able to reassure noble Lords on their legitimate concerns and on why this clause should stand part of the Bill. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
I have had a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Fox.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his answer. I have two questions. First, does the Minister understand the difference between a voluntary activity and a voluntary activity where there are potential fines? It is the difference between cleaning the house voluntarily and cleaning the house knowing that I could have my tea withdrawn if I did not. There is a very big difference. That needs to be understood in terms of the culture of the way in which this information is sought. Does the Minister understand that difference?
Secondly, my noble friend Lady Bowles asked a series of questions about what is permissible as a reason for not delivering information. There was a huge multiple choice question and an overarching question. I think that the Minister dodged—sorry, I withdraw that word. The Minister did not answer any of those points. They were an important element of my noble friend’s questions so will he address them, perhaps generally today and more specifically, bearing in mind the very specific questions that she asked, in one of his letters?
Lord Callanan (Con)
With regard to the noble Lord’s first question, I understand why his cleaning abilities might not be up to standard and he might not get his tea. With regard to the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, on reasonableness, we certainly do not intend to create disparity within the CMA over the functions it carries out and the processes it follows.
To be serious, of course I understand the difference between being asked to do something voluntarily and being asked to do something voluntarily with the back-up of potential penalties. The powers and penalties in question are similar to those used by the CMA for its existing functions, such as conducting market studies. This will ensure consistency in the way that the CMA, under its existing and its OIM capacities, interacts with stakeholders across all its functions. We do not intend to commence the powers on fines until it is proved that they are necessary, as I said.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
I have had a request to speak from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his assurance on commencement. He did not answer my specific questions, but I think that the answer in general terms was that the Government have taken the same powers as the CMA has on competition and applied them pro rata. Perhaps I can pick up something that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said earlier. I wonder whether we could look at this line by line to see whether things are or are not all the same; that would be a helpful Committee-type process.
I really got up to ask a question about examples. The Minister helpfully gave an example of a penalty regulation—he said that he might make regulations with penalties under £30,000, perhaps at a lower level for particular things—but I am confused about what kind of regulations are going to be made here. That may be an impossible question to answer but if my noble friend could give us some more examples, perhaps ones that are in draft or have gone out to consultation, it would be incredibly helpful.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I referred in my earlier speech to the need to make regulations setting the maximum penalty, which the Secretary of State will do, but I will write to my noble friend if there are any other examples of regulations that we feel we may need to make.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
Does the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, wish to respond to any of the points made?
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
Yes. My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate; I think that it will be even more interesting when we read it in Hansard.
I think that there is still a sticking point, which was exemplified by one of the Minister’s comments. He said that he did not want there to be disparity between procedures in the CMA. The point that I have been making, which seems to have been supported by all the speakers in this debate, is that they are for different things. The noble Lord, Lord Tyrie, acknowledged that it was for a different purpose. My noble friend Lord Fox referred to people being recalcitrant rather than doing nothing. I was trying to say that, within competition policy, the Government are pursuing miscreants, but they are pursuing innocent people for information. In fact, at the beginning of his response, the Minister said that the purpose is to gain the assistance of third parties. That was the first time I had heard a reasonable word about this. The Government are asking the private sector to give assistance. They can go to the devolved Administrations but there is complete asymmetry: the Government cannot fine them but people who find it too difficult to give assistance are at risk of a fine.
Of course we expect reasonable behaviour, but we do not always get it. I point to that wonderful machinery of HMRC on loan charges and ask whether we have evidence that we always get reasonableness where we want it. I am not yet satisfied. There have been some interesting suggestions about reviewing how it has gone, that we can have sight of the regulations, or that we can examine procedures that are likely to be implemented. Surely we could do some of these things between now and Report.
I still think that where we are essentially sampling and wanting views from people in the market, the burden is on the sampler, not the samplee. This is therefore a matter I wish to return to on Report, but I hope it is something we can solve. On Monday on our first group, people said that patent attorneys were vital for the country, so I had a smile on my face. Maybe now noble Lords actually know where I learned to be a nerdy pedant.
The point is that we have to have protections in the Bill where, if something unjust happens, somebody can say, “Hang on a minute, look, it says here that that excuse was reasonable,” or, “You can’t make me do this because I haven’t done anything wrong.” You cannot go around arresting people without reasonable suspicion. I do not think we should fine people without reasonable suspicion that something wrong was done in the first place. We cannot just invent a wrongness by saying, “I wanted you to give me some information and you said no”, which is basically what the powers in the Bill do.
I thank noble Lords. I look forward to a letter with some more answers to my questions from the Minister. I do not think there is anything to withdraw because this is a stand part debate, but obviously I will not call a vote.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 153. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Amendment 153
“Duty to consider the internal market when considering mergers
In section 58 of the Enterprise Act 2002 (specified considerations) after subsection (2E) insert—“(2F) The need to promote the better operation and improvement of the United Kingdom internal market is specified in this section, having regard to—(a) the need to promote research and development and innovation in new and existing industries and enterprises, and(b) the need to act in the interests of United Kingdom public policy.””
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, before I speak to the amendment, I will slightly cheekily ask something about the previous group. At the very end the Minister said that the Government would not commence the powers unless they felt they needed to, or some words like that. As he indicated, each bit of the Bill can be brought into force on different days, as the Secretary of State may by regulation decide. When the Minister responds could he say whether that would be by the affirmative procedure and whether the House would consider the commencement date at that point? He could have some assistance if he does not know. How such things are done is beyond my understanding. It would be quite interesting to debate at that point whether the powers should be taken. I am sorry to ask the Committee’s indulgence to deal with the previous group, but I am sure that everyone is very forgiving.
Amendment 153 seeks to insert into the CMA’s powers a clear and specific reference to the need, when regulating takeovers in the new and initially demanding internal market, to promote research and development and innovation in new and existing industries and enterprises, as well as the need to act in the interests of UK public policy. The latter point is key to attracting long-term investment, as the CMA needs enhanced tools to intervene against hostile takeovers.
There has been a catalogue of such hostile takeovers, such as of GKN by Melrose in 2018—surely a bleak day for British industry, with perhaps 6,000 jobs with the UK’s third-largest engineering company suddenly in the hands of new owners following a very narrow vote by shareholders in favour of the takeover of a 250-year old company. That vote was swung by hedge funds and arbitrageurs who owned 25% of the shares, which had been very recently acquired. Their short-term interest in making a quick profit came at the expense of the jobs, skills, research and development of this major industrial company, to the detriment of UK plc. Needless to say, the result has not been good. Not all takeovers are bad, but when Melrose’s own website describes its strategy as “Buy Improve Sell”, with its objective to achieve a significant increase in shareholder value often in as little as three to five years, one has to ask whether this is in the interests of UK plc.
Last year, Unilever, our third-biggest company by market value, only just escaped a hostile takeover bid from Kraft, which took over Cadbury in 2010. Unilever’s proposed move of its registered office to Rotterdam, which did not actually take place, would have meant that Dutch law, which provides a public interest defence for the company from predators, would have been available. Sadly, we do not have that in UK law. We must now strengthen our laws against hostile takeovers and takeovers generally that are not in the public interest, not just because it is the right thing to do but to encourage long-term UK and overseas inward investors that their investment is safe from short-termism.
Until recently, the law provided only three grounds on which the Business Secretary could refer a takeover to the CMA, which then decides whether it should be blocked. The first is media plurality, the second UK financial stability, and the third national security. The addition of a fourth—public health—earlier this year was most welcome, as it allows for, in its words:
“The need to maintain … the capability to combat, and to mitigate the effects, of public health emergencies”.
Ideally we should add a fifth—the need to foster and promote research and development and innovation in new and existing industries and enterprises—and a sixth: to act in the interests of UK public policy.
As the Business Secretary I think accepts, there remains a concern about foreign takeovers of British companies on the cheap. We need to ensure that, in considering relevant takeovers, the Business Secretary can refer a takeover bid, and the CMA should be able to consider whether the bid is in the interests of research and development or science and technology, or in the public interest generally. That would cover cases where the national interest should be considered, but where the definition happens not to fit neatly into one of the existing categories.
I acknowledge that any such new grounds for referral by the Business Secretary are outwith the Bill’s scope, but as the CMA now stands more alone in the world of competition regulators outside the EU family, we need to give it the tools, as it oversees the development of the internal market, to put the national interest and support for research and development clearly into its thinking and terms of reference. This will help UK plc to build back better after Covid, in the national interest. This is something the Bill allows us to do, adding a useful tool to what the CMA will do. I beg to move.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, the idea behind this new clause has validity, and particularly will after the pandemic, whenever it is over. There is little doubt that some companies will be strong after the pandemic because they happen to be in a particular market, and others will be extremely weak and looking to be rescued somehow. The only problem I have is that the new clause refers to the
“duty to consider the internal market”
when in fact, that is the only market that will apply from 1 January onwards as far as the UK is concerned. So, it is not as though it is one of several markets; it is the only market in my judgment.
The noble Baroness is quite right that in some of the markets, there are already signs that things are happening. In the fintech market, things are undoubtedly moving quickly—for example, in sections such as payments and operations. You only have to read the Financial Times regularly, as I am sure a lot of noble Lords do, to see that things are moving all the time there. Equally, a fair number of our universities have what you might call cradle operations or primary operations, whereby they are looking to develop research that they believe might be marketable. Many are quoted companies; others are not. There is a lot of activity happening.
Although it is undoubtedly true that we want to see both paragraphs (a) and (b) happen, given the original role of the CMA, which emerged from the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, I think it pretty inconceivable that it would not look at these aspects. My noble friend on the Front Bench will be able to clarify that more than I am able to.
If there is not sufficient cover within the current Bill and other parts of the law, I hope my noble friend will look upon the amendment seriously. If that degree of cover already exists, I can understand why, although the issue is worth looking at and talking about, it may not be appropriate to deal with it in a new clause.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I rise to speak to Amendment 153 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. This is a new clause relating to mergers that might affect the internal market. She may have a reasonable point that this is a matter of public policy about which we should be concerned. It is odd the way mergers involving an overseas player without a UK business cannot be stopped under merger law—think Cadbury, think ARM, as well as GKN Melrose, which the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, explained was a particularly heinous example—because there is not the necessary lessening of competition. Although she did not say so, perhaps there is a parallel concern about takeovers important to one of the devolved nations or to a particular R&D base.
However, I do not think this is a big risk, as representations would be made to the CMA and taken into account in consultation and decision-making by the CMA, which is domestically focused and operates across the UK. My concern is that the new clause would be a major change to the way merger law works; I do not think it right to try to change one aspect in this Bill. Therefore, I cannot support this amendment.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I support the new clause in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town. As she said, it would insert into the CMA’s powers a clear and specific reference to the need, in the new internal market and the regulation of takeovers, to promote research, development and innovation in new and existing industries and enterprises, and to act in the interests of UK public policy.
We already know that the CMA has a number of responsibilities, including protecting consumers from unfair trading practices, investigating mergers between organisations to prevent a reduction in competition and taking enforcement action in relation to anti-competitive practices by businesses and individuals. It will have more burdens as a result of the Internal Market Bill. Put simply, it will be responsible for strengthening business competition and preventing and reducing anti-competitive practices.
The new clause seeks to nail down the role by referring to promoting research, development and innovation in new and existing enterprises. It would also assist with business development and innovation and in so doing, help to encourage overseas investment with job creation and sustainability—central facets of UK economic policy. It could also help to steady the market.
The Institute for Government has already stated that there is a clear gap in the Government’s plans for how governance of the internal market will function at a political level, and it is not clear how disputes concerning the functioning of the internal market will be managed. It is therefore important that this power be inserted to ensure greater protections where there may be hostile takeovers.
In devolved Northern Ireland, companies are generally small. However, the agri-food sector would sit under the new dispensation via the Northern Ireland protocol. There have been takeovers by companies based in the Republic of Ireland, so how would that fare if there were problems with the competition elements in the internal market Bill? The new clause in the name of the noble Baroness might assist in this regard.
The Institute for Government also notes that the office for the internal market within the CMA has very limited powers and, in many cases, can choose not to exercise them. It is worth noting that it can also request specific documents from any individual, business or public body to support its functions. Although it will be able to impose certain financial penalties, it will not be able to request any information that a business, individual or public authority would not be compelled to reveal in court, hence this new clause, on the need to promote the better operation and improvement of the UK internal market.
I therefore have no hesitation in supporting the new clause. It would promote much-needed research, development and innovation in new and existing industries and enterprises, and pump-prime UK public policy on the economy and finance in particular.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, at the outset I should say that, because of my past but discontinued interests, I will not be speaking to the specifics of the example that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, brought up; rather, I will speak generally on this issue.
I speak to support the spirit of this amendment. It is a shame that the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie, is not still here because I would have welcomed his view on this issue. As the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, said, there are examples of Secretaries of State who wanted to do more but were constrained, and Cadbury is a good example of that.
However, after two dozen or more hours in Committee, I find myself at last coming to agree with something that the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, said, and that is that this issue goes wider than simply the nature of the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, said the same thing. It is an important issue, so we should be thankful that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, has brought it up. It is clearly inadequate; the Secretary of State needs a better armoury to assess the public interest and deal with what will undoubtedly be, as the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, said, a flood of potential acquisitions and hostile takeovers.
This may not be the right Bill to be doing it in, but it is a big issue. That said, it also opens up the question of how the new office for the internal market relates to the Secretary of State and the CMA when it is dealing with a hostile takeover that the Secretary of State has called in. As the Bill stands now, allowing for the fact that the Minister may not accept the amendment, how do the Government envision the interactivity between the office for the internal market, the CMA and a hostile takeover bid that the Secretary of State has called in? Who does what, and where?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for her amendment. I understand her concerns but, as I am sure she is aware, the internal market Bill is concerned with protecting the flow of goods and services across the UK after the end of the transition period. It is not concerned with the general merger regime, nor with Ministers’ powers to intervene in mergers. Noble Lords should be aware that they will have the opportunity to debate these matters further in the Government’s forthcoming national security and investment Bill.
Lord Callanan (Con)
It is forthcoming. Noble Lords will know that I cannot go further in terms of dates. It was flagged up in the Queen’s Speech and is forthcoming.
The grounds for ministerial intervention in mergers are deliberately precise and limited, in order to maximise transparency and predictability for businesses. The effect of the amendment would be to broaden the grounds upon which Ministers may make a public interest intervention in mergers. This would constitute a significant change to the UK’s approach to merger control which, as noble Lords observed, currently puts the emphasis on competition-based assessments by the Competition and Markets Authority, with narrow and specific grounds for ministerial intervention.
It is not clear how such a change would materially assist with the effective operation of the UK internal market which is, of course, the focus of this part of the Bill. The CMA already has significant powers and expertise to investigate the benefits and risks of mergers in relation to competition. An excessively broad power to intervene in the affairs of investors, shareholders and company boards risks stifling competition, innovation and creativity. This could lead to worse outcomes for both businesses and consumers, as well as stifling inward investment. For these reasons, I cannot accept the amendment and hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw it.
Before I sit down, I will answer the other question which the noble Baroness asked about the previous group. The power for the Secretary of State to specify the maximum penalties for breach of information-gathering notices will be brought in by negative SI. This mirrors Section 111(4) of the Enterprise Act 2002.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
The Minister is very polite. What he really wanted to say to me was: “Nice try”. There is a serious point here. As I said in my introduction, I know that the basic power is outwith the scope of this Bill, but there is some urgency to this question. The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, used the words “greater protections are needed against hostile takeovers”. They may not be exclusively from outwith the UK, but those are some of the ones where there have been particular problems. I think it is agreed that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, said, there is a weakness in our armour because you cannot argue against them on the grounds of competition. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Naseby. The problem is that it is not within the tools of the CMA. It cannot use as a ground the need to either respond to public policy or promote particular industries. If it does not affect competition, it is not within its powers.
This does need to be added. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, is right that this is perhaps not quite the right mechanism, but we are delighted to know that there is a Bill coming and I look forward to the Minister accepting an equivalent to Amendment 153 at that point. I will, needless to say, use today’s Hansard to support that amendment to get this in then. I look forward to the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, and other noble Lords supporting me at that time.
I wanted to table the amendment to this Bill because of the changes there will be when we have got the internal market growing and we are looking for new investments. Even those who think everything is going to be wonderful after Brexit know that we are going to need a lot of support to get the economy going again after Covid. There is a slight weakness, so it would have been nice to have been able to put this clause in at this point. It was a nice try, but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Restrictions) (England) (No. 4) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
20:14 - Division conducted remotely on Lord Robathan’s amendment to the Motion - Ayes: 30 / Noes: 376 - Lord Robathan’s amendment to the Motion disagreed.
Lord Bethell
That the Regulations laid before the House on 3 November be approved.
Relevant document: Instrument not yet reported by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, we have come to a critical juncture. Incidence rates are growing, and the NHS is under increasing pressure. The ONS now estimates that approximately 568,100—one in 100 people—in England have Covid-19. That has risen from one in 2,000 in July, and one in 240 at the beginning of October.
The Prime Minister explained things very clearly in the other place. The R number is above one in every part of England, the virus is spreading even faster than the reasonable worst-case scenario, there are already more Covid patients in some hospitals than there were in the first wave, and, even in the south-west, current projections mean that we will start to run out of hospital capacity in a matter of weeks. The chief executive of NHS Providers, the membership organisation for NHS trusts, said:
“Looking forward, there is a clear and present danger that the NHS will not be able to treat all the patients it needs to in the best and most timely way.”
The modelling presented by our scientists suggests that, without action, we could see up to twice as many deaths over the winter as we saw in the first wave.
I recognise that some noble Lords are sceptical about whether the full range of measures in these SIs is needed right now, or whether they are needed at all. I acknowledge the concern that perhaps the cure does more damage than the disease itself, but that is not the belief of the Government. Without action, the NHS will be overwhelmed, which could put life-saving procedures, cancer therapies, emergency services and diagnostic investigations at risk.
It is true that we are much better prepared than before, with large stockpiles of PPE and ventilators, the Nightingales on standby and 13,000 more nurses than last time. However, the virus is growing exponentially, far faster and heading far further than we could ever conceivably add capacity for. Even if, by some incredible national effort, we doubled capacity, that gain would be consumed in one gulp of the virus doubling once.
Meanwhile, the scientific evidence shows us that the measures have worked and lives have been saved. The analysis of my department, the Office for National Statistics and the Government Actuary’s Department has shown that the mitigations we have put in place have prevented more than 500,000 deaths, and our previous sacrifices and efforts have therefore saved us all from untold personal heartache, civic pressure and economic disruption.
However, we recognise that these interventions are difficult for many people, and that is why we have evolved our approach from the first wave and the previous lockdown. I will say a few words about this. For the first lockdown we paused non-urgent care to stop the NHS being overwhelmed. This time, we are maintaining as many NHS services as possible. In response to arguments made forcefully by noble Lords in this Chamber, we are prioritising education—doing everything we can to keep open schools, colleges, universities, childcare and early years settings.
We have taken steps to mitigate the impact on the vulnerable: the new lockdown measures include allowing support and childcare bubbles, support groups and unlimited outdoor exercise, for instance, to continue. We have amended guidelines to suggest that the clinically vulnerable and the over-60s should minimise their contact with others, and the clinically extremely vulnerable should work only from home, rather than asking them and their households to shield themselves, as we did for the first lockdown. On funerals, we have changed the Covid-secure guidelines to allow up to 30 people to attend.
Lastly, we have improved how we work with local authorities to support them in responding to this crisis. My department has regional teams made up of PHE regional directors, Contain regional convenors and Joint Biosecurity Centre regional leads, who work continuously with local authority chief executives, the directors of public health and local resilience forums. I pay testimony to all those noble Lords who have brought this challenge to our attention. These groups attend local incident management meetings and outbreak boards as well as meeting more informally. They also organise meetings at a regional level to share good practice and help areas support each other through mutual aid.
In relation to those who are less privileged and in the area of financial support—another subject raised by noble Lords—we completely recognise that these measures are difficult for the general public and business, which is why we will provide support to protect jobs and get people through the crisis. This includes extending the furlough scheme until the end of November, helping with mortgages, helping the self-employed—as the Prime Minister outlined earlier this month, we are doubling our support from 40% to 80% of trading profits—extending the deadline for applications to the Covid loans schemes, cash grants of up to £3,000 per month for business premises closed as a result of the national lockdown, additional funding worth £20 per head to enable local authorities to support other business affected by the lockdown, and other measures.
My final points are on the steps out of this lockdown. I stress that these restrictions are time limited: after four weeks, on Wednesday 2 December, they will expire, and we will return to a tiered system on a local and regional basis according to the latest data and trends. As the Prime Minister set out in the other place, the best way to get R down now is to beat this autumn surge and use the breathing space to exploit the medical and technical advantages we are making to keep it low.
Our doctors and scientists have led the way in improving how we treat people with Covid, work continues to progress on developing a vaccine and we are working to continue to increase our testing capacity, most notably with cheap, reliable and rapid-turnaround tests with results in minutes. As the Prime Minister outlined, plans are already in place for the deployment of these quick-turnaround tests, which we will manufacture in this country and apply in an ever-growing number of situations to allow us to beat the disease.
By way of conclusion, I acknowledge that these measures are difficult for us all. There is not one of us who does not regard them with a heavy heart, but I know that the general public will continue to come together, as they always have done. Together, we can protect the NHS and the vulnerable, and save lives. We must place difficult but time-limited curbs on our freedom in the short term so that we ensure greater freedom and prosperity in the long term. If we act now to suppress the virus and support the economy, education and the NHS, we can restore those cherished freedoms more quickly and get closer to the lives that we all want to be living. We cannot do this with the virus growing exponentially so we must all make sacrifices now for the safety of all. It will not be easy, I know, but in a pandemic the effective steps are not always easy. We are called on to make fundamental changes to how we work, live and interact with each other, in pursuit of a common cause. I beg to move.
Amendment to the Motion
Lord Robathan
Leave out from “That” to the end and insert “this House declines to approve the draft Regulations because no impact analysis of the social, economic and health costs of a national lockdown, compared to the benefits of addressing the transmission of COVID-19 of such a lockdown, has been laid before Parliament, and because Her Majesty’s Government have not published a comprehensive long-term strategy for the lifting of all the restrictions put in place to address the pandemic.”
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest in that I am 69 and am definitely entering the danger zone for coronavirus. Actually, I believe I had it in late March after lockdown. It was largely asymptomatic and possibly acquired here in this House. I appreciate that my noble friend the Minister and the Government are in an impossibly difficult position. Nobody doubts that this is an unpleasant, virulent and highly contagious virus that is killing people, especially the old and vulnerable. Beyond that, there is huge disagreement among the public, politicians and scientists.
This morning, I attended a meeting with Sir Jeremy Farrar of SAGE. He was very reasonable, plausible and balanced but not ultimately convincing because of differing and competing views. For instance, Professor Heneghan, of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine—I emphasise “evidence-based”—said that the R rate in Liverpool is falling among the over-60s. Apparently, Covid cases in Liverpool hospitals are falling. King’s College London believes that the R rate in England and Wales now is approximately one and Tim Spector, a professor of epidemiology at King’s, thinks that the peak of the second wave has passed. Professor Gupta at Oxford and many other eminent scientists disagree with the SAGE analysis. We were told on Saturday by Sir Patrick Vallance of a trajectory of 4,000 deaths each day without a lockdown and yesterday, the Chief Medical Officer, under questioning, reduced that number to 1,000.
What I am saying is that nobody really knows, and scientists and doctors disagree. For instance, just over 1 million people have officially had Covid but I think that there are very many more. I suspect that all of us know people who believe that they have had it. We do not know how many cases are hospital-acquired infections; yesterday, Jeremy Hunt said that it is 18%. We do not know when and if a viable and effective vaccine will be produced. We still do not know why people have such totally different responses and symptoms. My son had the virus before the lockdown in mid-March. He recovered but said that he could not taste or smell anything. That was not declared a symptom until late May. This morning, Professor Farrar said that we still do not know much about the long-term effects—so-called long Covid. Of course, respiratory diseases such as pneumonia have a lingering effect that sometimes takes six months or more to recover from. The truth is that nobody knows much about this virus or the epidemic.
However, we now know that one has only a 50% chance of survival if put on a ventilator. We were not told that in April during the panic to get more ventilators, so advice changes. We know that only something like 320 deaths from coronavirus, every one of which is a tragedy, have occurred among those aged under 60 without comorbidities. Among the under-40s, there has been a total of about 250 deaths from the virus during the epidemic, overwhelmingly of people who were already vulnerable with comorbidities.
We know that our young people—our children and our grandchildren—will be saddled with debt for decades, as my parent’s generation spent decades paying off debt from the Second World War. Will our children ever forgive us? We know that unemployment will rocket next year. We know that businesses, large and small, will be closed in their droves. In hospitality, pubs and restaurants will close their doors tonight and many will never reopen. We know that cancer treatment has ground to a halt for hundreds and thousands of patients. We know that domestic abuse and mental health issues have increased dramatically—as, it appears, have suicides. We know that students are locked into halls of residence, ruining their time at university; they are turned into criminals if they leave. They will then face a desolate employment landscape in which to find a job. Therefore, is it not reasonable to ask for a cost-benefit or risk analysis? Yesterday, Robert Jenrick, a Cabinet Minister for whom I have a high regard, said that there had been no impact assessment. Surely we should expect such an assessment before embarking on a serious act of national self-harm, yet the Government do not appear to have done one.
The second part of my amendment calls for an explanation of the Government’s comprehensive long-term strategy. In the last century, when I was in the Army, it was a given that one explained to all one’s soldiers the rationale behind orders if one expected them to follow them. It is called leadership. I ask the Minister to tell the House what the strategy is behind government policy. The country is locked down so infections should fall, but when restrictions are lifted, it seems to me that infections may rise again, meaning a third wave. Then what? An effective and reliable vaccine may appear, or it may not. It may be only 50% reliable anyway, as I read from another expert. As I understand it, a vaccine makes the patient’s body produce antibodies, but now we are told that many recovered patients lose their antibodies within six months. Is that the case?
As a loyal Conservative, I want to believe that the Government have a strategy but my credulity has been strained somewhat. We were originally told, until late August, that face masks were essentially of no use. We have been told to go back to work. It is only two or three weeks since we were told that there would definitely not be a second national lockdown. I regret to say that an enormous amount of good will and trust has evaporated. We are told that the public support a second lockdown. I am not so sure, but the role of leadership is to lead. We need courageous leadership to explain the costs, benefits and risks surrounding this crisis and this measure. We need to a clear strategy to take us through this crisis.
I do not underestimate the extraordinarily difficult choices before the Government; nor do I envy Ministers having to make these decisions. I will listen to the 50 or more contributions and look forward to the Minister’s response, but I currently intend to divide the House on this amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab) [V]
I should inform the House that if the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, is agreed to, I cannot call any of the other amendments by reason of pre-emption.
Baroness Andrews (Lab) [V]
My Lords, on 13 October, I asked the Minister why the Government were so resistant to following the SAGE advice of 21 September. I said that I could see us back here in this Chamber debating a national lockdown within weeks, during which time more lives would have been lost. I have never been less gratified at having been right, like so many other people. If this Government reject hindsight, they have certainly failed at foresight.
Yesterday, in response to questions from my noble friends asking why the Government have chosen now to commit to a national lockdown, the Leader of the House said:
“We were presented with national data that we could not ignore.”—[Official Report, 3/11/20; col. 682.]
Can the Minister tell me why, having been presented with evidence that they could not ignore in September about exponential rates of infection, the Government chose to do just that? What evidence were they acting on? SAGE was clear that national measures were needed and was clear about the urgent need for more rapid, more stringent interventions that would more quickly reduce incidents, prevalence and Covid-19-related deaths.
Since the start of this epidemic, we have known that a second wave of infections this winter was probable. We in this House have asked constantly what evidence was being used to assess risk and what had been learned from the first wave about preventing the spread of infection. We asked what was being done to prevent spillover from areas of high to low infection. We asked time and again what was being done to support local authorities and correct for the diverse failures of the test and trace system. Over the months, we have had no answers; there were none because it was just drift and dither and now a bit of panic. It is no wonder that, even now, with a reluctant lockdown that is subtly different from the first, there is still a sea of confusion and deep anger across the country. No one underestimates the seriousness of what the Government are asking people to do or the impact that the next month will have on mental health, jobs, family and social life. I welcome the fact that schools are being kept open but it needs extra vigilance.
In a spirit of hope over experience, therefore, I shall ask the Minister some more questions. What is the current state of intensive-care hospital capacity in the south-east, where, like the south-west, the virus is rising faster? When will those beds be full? What range of criteria will be used to determine when the lockdown can be lifted on 2 December? People want certainty that it will end but if they are expected to comply, they want to know the plan and what it is based on. People also want to believe in the prospect of a vaccine, so can the Minister tell me what steps the Government are taking on all current vaccine candidates to license production in the UK to ensure that a supply is assured, regardless of which is approved? Who will get priority?
Finally, people want to be able to trust the scientific consensus and to know that the Government do too. But the Government have undermined that trust through their inconsistency, which has fuelled the scepticism that we see in this evening’s amendments expressing regret. Therefore, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, in this respect: the management of the epidemic is an object lesson in the failure of leadership, governance, management and communication. However, I am sure that the House will support the regulations.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, in September 500 people were in hospital with Covid-related symptoms. Today, as we speak, the figure is nearly 11,000. If the Government had taken the advice of SAGE at the beginning of September, the number would clearly have been lower.
The effect on the NHS of having 11,000 Covid patients is not just a crisis in critical care for Covid patients; it is a crisis for anybody who has a life-threatening condition. Beds are filling up and, if this rate continues, people with life-threatening conditions will not be able to get the life-saving treatment they need in the NHS. That is why we need to act. I have some sympathy with some of the amendments that have been tabled but, because of that one fact, I cannot support them today. It is beholden on us to act, not just because of those with Covid but because of those who will have strokes, heart attacks and other life-threatening conditions now that we have got to this stage. I blame the Government for getting to this stage by not acting faster, but that one statistic alone makes me feel that we have to act.
We then have four weeks in which the Government have to put in place a national system for sorting out test, trace and isolate. On testing, it is not just a case of putting another two or three noughts on the number of tests carried out; it is about getting to the right people at the right time and getting the test back speedily. That is absolutely vital. The Government need to make sure that they stop talking just about quantity and start talking about quality as well.
Tracing is a national disgrace and is causing the virus to spread faster. We need to localise the tracing system, with local knowledge and shoe-leather epidemiology. We need people who know the streets, back doors and ginnels, and who know where to get to and how to speak to people. The Government need to localise by working with industry, academia and local government. It has to be about not just money but expertise, getting the data in a way that local areas require. That is absolutely vital.
Isolating is about giving people financial security so that they do not have to worry about feeding their children or paying their mortgage or rent. It should be seen as a national and civic duty which the Government support, without more sticks or penalties. Taiwan has shown how this can be done: with Covid teams which go in and support people, not just financially but with psychological help. There is help with childcare and food, and by checking on people’s health.
So, through gritted teeth, I will support these regulations. We, the public, will do our bit. We will stay at home, protect the NHS and save lives, but over the next four weeks the Government have to do their bit—sorting out the test, trace and isolate system.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to Her Majesty’s Government for seeking to ensure that the appropriate measures are in place to protect the most vulnerable and restrict the spread of this virus. It is important that we do not prolong such stringent lockdown measures because of the way that they impact on the mental, physical and, indeed, spiritual well-being of the population. However, I will not be supporting the fatal Motion. I recognise the exceptional nature of these times, and welcome that the regulations will enable places of worship to remain open for private prayer and broadcasting acts of worship. Creating such broadcast acts of worship often requires a team of people, both amateurs and professionals. I would welcome more clarity from the Minister on the number of people allowed to do this.
Clergy across the country have worked hard to ensure that our church buildings are Covid-secure for public worship, education settings, food banks and other essential services. In most places, by distancing and limiting congregation sizes, communal worship can safely take place without the need for an outright ban. Religious worship is not a leisure activity: the freedom to worship and to assemble for this purpose is a right that we enjoy in this country and strongly advocate for in other countries. The law will be adhered to, but I hope that the Prime Minister and the Government have understood from the united response of faith leaders yesterday that legal and safe acts of public worship are not things to be switched on and off by government regulation. Many have already asked this, but I will reiterate: can the Minister commit to providing the scientific evidence to justify such a suspension? The impact of this suspension will be felt publicly.
On Remembrance Sunday, a day in the year that is hugely significant for so many veterans and their families and for the whole country, our commemoration services will now be severely limited. Furthermore, over the next few weeks, important religious festivals for Hindus, Sikhs, Jains and the Jewish community will be disrupted by the lack of access to communal worship. I regret this. Faith groups serve the needs of their local communities, and clergy and healthcare chaplains provide significant support for the mental, social and spiritual well-being of the nation. Public worship is essential for spiritual and mental well-being, and a source of strength to many. It is not an optional extra for the Christian faith: our weekly worship services are part of a whole way of life. The importance of this must not go unrecognised. It is in drawing on their Christian faith and in the hope that Christmas brings that the Archbishops say in their letter to the nation today that it would help the whole nation if we adopted a “calm, courageous and compassionate” response to this trial.
Lord Birt (CB) [V]
My Lords, all the trade-offs that the Government have to make during this pandemic are unwelcome: trade-offs between our health, our prosperity, our freedom, our future and our happiness. We would all like to maintain them all, but the rise in numbers makes a lockdown unavoidable. Noble Lords should watch Fergus Walsh’s measured and harrowing report on Monday’s “BBC News at Ten”, from the Royal Liverpool Hospital in my home city, if they need human citation to bring the stats to life.
On the eve of our second lockdown in England, however, I ask the Minister what will come after. We all pray that new vaccines and improving treatments will gradually restore normality, but what if they do not? Is there active contingency planning in government on pessimistic, as well as optimistic, assumptions for the moment when this second lockdown is lifted? How can we avoid turning a new period of relative freedom into a third wave where—in the nightmare scenario—we tumble on in this way for years, always fearing the grim reaper at the door or in the supermarket queue, while becoming significantly poorer and ever more disunited in the process?
I hope that the Government are investigating in careful detail exactly what went wrong when the first lockdown was lifted. What were the primary drivers of rising infection? Who obeyed and who ignored the guidance, whether in workplaces, social or family settings? Did those reached by test and trace quarantine when asked to? Which sanctions worked and which failed to bite? Next time, how can we better persuade every section of society that the Government do not give you the virus but other people do; and that, absent a vaccine, we have no hope of achieving a modicum of normality until we stop transmitting this dread virus to one another? In conclusion, are the Government preparing now to ensure that this will be not just our second but our last lockdown?
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con) [V]
My Lords, these regulations will bring misery to the lives of millions of our fellow citizens. We know now what lockdowns do from our experience in the spring and from that of other countries which took the same course.
Jobs are destroyed and perfectly good businesses are forced to close their doors for the last time. Anxiety, depression, mental illness, suicides and domestic abuse increase, as the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, pointed out. Lives are lost as screening programmes are disrupted and people are fearful of going to hospital. Young people’s education is disrupted, their employment prospects blighted and their career paths distorted. The elderly are separated from their families and grandchildren as they ponder their own mortality. There is a cruelty here too, in cutting off folk in nursing homes from family visits, banning weddings and denying people the comfort of religious observance and the chance to join immediate families to mourn the passing of friends and relatives.
Tax revenues evaporate, and we add to the burden of our children a legacy of eye-watering debt. The deficit is now heading to £400 billion and probably on to half a trillion. Parliamentary democracy is a casualty too, as most of us in this debate get three minutes to speak, late at night, on the merits of nothing less than the shutting down of the entire economy and these extraordinary assaults on our liberty and prosperity. Who would have thought Ministers and officials would start telling people whom they can sleep with? The decisions are taken by folk in secure public sector employment, with inflation-proof pensions and good salaries. The highest price is paid by the poorest and those whose livelihoods depend on enterprise and the ability to make a profit. Lockdowns are the midwives of inequality.
Occasionally you see signs in shops saying, “If you break it, you pay for it”. I believe this applies to the Government today. It is irresponsible to present these regulations to Parliament without having done any analysis of the costs and means for mitigating all the consequences of their actions. I am grateful to Julia Hartley-Brewer of talkRADIO for succeeding where I failed through parliamentary questions in getting an answer from my right honourable friend Robert Jenrick MP, who told her it was unfair to ask whether the Government had done a cost-benefit analysis of the consequences of lockdown. After very robust interrogation, he admitted that he had not seen one, because it did not exist.
Again and again, Ministers rightly say they have to balance lives against livelihoods, but to achieve balance you need to weigh both sides of the scale. We are told that the models say we have no alternative, as the NHS will be overwhelmed. We of course have a duty to take this very seriously, but the Explanatory Memorandum for these regulations says the Government are assuming an R rate of 1.1 to 1.3. Professor Tim Spector from King’s College has suggested that R is now one in England and the UK as a whole, and Professor Heneghan from Oxford University says the infection rate in Liverpool is falling from a run rate of 490 a day over seven days to 269 and the R value is well below one, a point that the noble Lord, Lord Birt, may not have noticed. It seems the Government’s tiered approach is not only hurting but working.
The last financial crisis was caused by groupthink and people believing models which told them they could convert lead into gold at the expense of common sense. Then, the poorest paid the price, and those responsible became very rich. The fact that we were all scared by headlines over the weekend telling us that 4,000 people a day would die, and learned within hours that this came from a discredited model which predicted four times as many deaths as occurred in real life on 1 November, is worrying to say the least. With all models, the rule is very simple: garbage in, garbage out.
We also know that, once implemented, lockdowns are hard to exit. On Saturday the Prime Minister told us it would be for a strictly limited period, until 2 December. In less than 24 hours, Michael Gove was telling Andrew Marr it could be extended. When asked about this yesterday, Professor Whitty said:
“I think that the aim of this is to get the rates down far enough that it’s a realistic possibility to move into a different state of play at that point in time.”
What are people running businesses meant to do? Do they listen to the PM and take on more debt to survive another month if they can, or do they conclude, after listening to Mr Gove and Professor Whitty, that they should throw in the towel?
The Chancellor has done brilliantly, but he knows we are heading for Carey Street. What will this lockdown cost—perhaps £12.5 billion for furlough and the self-employed alone? He will need to extend the £20 a week standard allowance for universal credit from April. When folk who thought they were in secure jobs—say, on £25,000 a year—discover that they are not eligible for universal credit because they have savings or a working partner, his colleagues in the Commons with be inundated with constituents worried about how to pay their bills and feed their families. Where will he find the money for health, welfare and social care, and for the job creation initiatives that will be needed? To paraphrase Tacitus, we will have created a desert and called it protecting the health service.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, at Prime Minister’s Questions today, the Prime Minister refused on more than one occasion to say what the Government are going to do with the time the next four weeks gives them. Can the Minister, in winding up, tell us, please?
Will a system for visitors to care homes be implemented? It should be really simple to designate one family member as a key visitor who can be tested like care workers. Will the Serco test and trace be fixed and then handed on to local authorities? The clinical director of the NHS, in his Q&A this afternoon, made it crystal clear that it is not an NHS test and trace.
We have lost a lot of time since the SAGE advice on 21 September. The tier system was not working as planned, so we now have lockdown longer and harder as a result. How can this be avoided again in the future? This is the second lockdown, later than it should have been to be effective and save lives. Surely, we cannot contemplate a third time—so what is the strategy to avoid this?
There are some 11,000 people today in hospital with Covid. We need these regulations to keep within capacity and so keep elective services going, unlike in the spring. I understand that the capacity for Covid is about 20,000, and it reached 17,000 in the spring. That still allows us to do other work, which is absolutely crucial. But compared to many OECD countries, our health capacity is not that good, measured by population against doctors, nurses, beds and intensive care units—and that is before we get to equipment such as scanners. Is anybody in government thinking about increasing our overall capacity?
My final point is that almost exactly a year ago, without warning or planning, I occupied an intensive care unit bed for two weeks while the NHS worked to stop me going over to the dark side. This was followed by another three weeks in the hands of the NHS. I want anybody in the same position as I found myself in to have the same chances of the NHS helping and saving them. This will not happen if Covid gets completely out of control and all the beds are taken. For that reason—to keep within our capacity—I have no hesitation in supporting these regulations.
Lord Bradshaw (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is pleasing to note that today’s regulations make no reference to avoiding the use of public transport, I hope at least in part as an acknowledgement of the huge effort made by operators and staff to keep people safe.
However, it is another public health issue of serious proportions that I wish to draw to the attention of the House this evening: the rapidly rising congestion of and pollution from our road system, which, of course, is again making operating a reliable bus service very difficult. A sensible Government would be alive to the issue. Yet we see oil prices falling, when a more prudent Chancellor might have raised fuel taxes to help repair the huge budget deficit, and the pouring on to our roads of many more large sports utility vehicles, which emit more pollution and take up more road space.
Time is not on our side if we are to make meaningful efforts to tackle this country’s pollution problems. While coronavirus is the immediate priority, I hope that someone in government—the Minister is a health spokesman—has plans to deal with the problems of congestion and pollution.
Climate change will not go away. Next year the eyes of the world will be fixed on us again when we host the climate change talks in Glasgow.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, my amendment is about the evidence for the lockdown in the order before us. The Government have no easy task in finding the optimal policy responses to the virus. They deserve the best advice they can get, but I am not sure they are getting it.
I hope that at least some noble Lords have read the book published earlier this year by the noble Lord, Lord King of Lothbury, and John Kay, entitled Radical Uncertainty. It warns of excessive reliance on probabilistic reasoning and modelling. Its core insight is that we need to face not knowing the answers when confronted with massive uncertainty. Instead people should stand back and ask themselves, “What is going on here?”. If that had been the focus of policy discussions, I do not believe this destructive lockdown would have been the solution.
On Monday, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said in the other place that the data now suggest that our health system will be overwhelmed. The so-called data on which he was relying were not facts but modelled numbers. Modelled outcomes are only as good as their base data and assumptions.
As we have heard, last weekend the Chief Scientific Adviser showed a slide that suggested a scenario of 4,000 deaths per day in December. According to that chart, there should have been 1,000 daily deaths last weekend. There were fewer than 300. Four thousand deaths per day is virtually impossible, even using SAGE’s inflated infection fatality rate of 0.7%, and implies that around 600,000 people will be infected every day next week. None of the data points that we have on infection levels come anywhere close to that.
The adviser then showed something called the SPIM—medium-term projections of hospital admissions, deaths and NHS bed usage. These indicated bed demand later this month apparently shooting way ahead of the March-April peak and ahead of the assumption that only about 20% of NHS beds can be used for coronavirus patients. However, the detailed modelling assumptions have not been made public. Instead, the small print says that this is a consensus forecast, based on several models, none of which assumptions has been made public. Does that sound like a good basis for a momentous decision to close the country down?
We learned yesterday from evidence given to the Science and Technology Committee in the other place that these models were based on earlier, not up-to-date, data. The assumptions took no account of the recently introduced tier system, despite those areas already showing reduced infection rates and hospital admissions. Leaked NHS data show that, despite a few local hotspots, intensive care bed capacity is around normal for this time of year.
Some have suggested that those scenarios and forecasts were deliberately calibrated to produce the maximum fear in the general public and thereby generate support for another national lockdown. The Daily Mail has also called out the way in which last Saturday’s presentation cherry-picked data and presented it in a way that would make even Liberal Democrats blush. Is this all a deliberate plot to provide cover for the curtailment of our liberties? I could not possibly comment. However, I know that the Government should be alert to dangers of groupthink and the self-reinforcing nature of scientific cliques. The history of science is littered with views, such as whether the earth is flat, that remained widely held beliefs long after clear evidence to the contrary emerged.
There is no independent challenge to the SAGE analysis. There ought to be a place for techniques such as red teaming that robustly challenge house views. There certainly are scientists out there, for example in the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, who could provide that challenge. Was anyone asking, “What is going on here?” I do not think so. Otherwise, they would have compared infection rates and R numbers in the models with the latest data points and would have noticed that the models use R numbers that are ahead of current numbers, even though the R numbers from the ONS data have been falling. As we heard, the Liverpool R number is already below 1. The Prime Minister said several times in the other place on Monday that an R number of 1 or less was the aim of the lockdown. As we have heard, the latest ZOE survey data show that infections are past their peak and the R rate is already at the magic number, 1.
If the Government had sought independent challenge, they might well have concluded that this heartless order was unnecessary and, as a minimum, dialled back their scary charts. The Prime Minister cares sincerely about civil liberties but I suspect that he has more of a way with words than numbers and is in thrall to a tightly knit group of scientists with a single world view. It is time for him to ask, “What is going on here?”, and take back control of the coronavirus agenda.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab) [V]
My Lords, let me say clearly at the outset that I am reluctantly in favour of the national lockdown. The pandemic is serious and we need to protect the lives of vulnerable people by following the advice to stay at home when we can, and otherwise to follow the advice on safe distancing, clean hands and face masks. However, that is at a huge cost. It will take years to recover economically, and many will bear the social and emotional scars for a similar period.
I cannot let this moment pass without joining those who are saying that government inaction has made those impacts a whole lot worse. For example, SAGE member and UCL professor of epidemiology Andrew Hayward said about SAGE’s recommendation of 40 days ago:
“We can’t turn back the clock, but I think if we had chosen a two-week circuit break at that time we would definitely have saved thousands of lives.”
He went on to say that an earlier short circuit break,
“would clearly have inflicted substantially less damage on our economy than the proposed four-week lockdown will do.”
The Government should be ashamed and apologise to Sir Keir Starmer MP, the leader of the Opposition, for the attacks that they made on him when he made the right call on a national lockdown after the SAGE advice, which would have saved lives and jobs.
I turn to my main point about children. I am pleased that schools remain open. Children need not only to learn but to socialise and play. We should collectively thank the nation’s teachers for putting themselves at risk by continuing to work in difficult circumstances and with limited testing and support services to assist them. Without teachers’ professionalism, the economic and social scarring of this pandemic would be much worse. However, I ask the Minister, please come back with a slight change to these regulations to allow children to continue to play together safely. Play is an essential part of childhood. Pupils can play together in their bubbles when at school but not with those same children after school, at weekends and in holidays. To parents, that makes no sense. Why cannot children play with others from their same school bubble out of school? That would help hugely their mental health and that of their parents, at negligible additional infection risk.
These regulations are too late but necessary. The Government need to do more, where they can, to allow us the freedom to safeguard our mental health in lockdown. Letting children play is one way in which they could help.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB) [V]
My Lords, coronavirus is proving to continue to disrupt and cause great anxiety throughout society. Regulation 4 is not very clear to follow—it must be me.
I declare an interest as I have a small rural riding centre, which will have to close tonight. People who come to have lessons or go for rides do so for much-needed exercise, confidence-building, education and freedom to enjoy the countryside. It is difficult to explain to children why they can go to school but cannot come riding, which is all outside. I have a work experience pupil from college, which is part of her education. I have yet to sort that out. I have some clients who have autism. They look forward to when they come. Good, healthy exercise is important for public health. I am concerned that closing outdoor sports and locking people in their home will damage a healthy lifestyle.
This coronavirus nightmare is proving to be particularly difficult for severely disabled people, who might have several severe, complex conditions and depend on specialist care, which is now mainly available only through a telephone call, which is not easy for early diagnosis. This must be difficult for GPs, who might not have experience of some of the complications. A growing difficulty for disabled people who live in their own home is getting carers, with the approach of winter, coronavirus and lockdown.
Many disabled people are confused and feel, in this difficult time, that they might be forgotten this time round. If communication is improved and people work together it will help to beat this treacherous virus.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to the amendment to the Motion in my name. As far as I know, I have not had coronavirus. What I do know is that whether I live or die is neither here nor there. In the grand scheme of things, though, whether parliamentary democracy survives and thrives is an entirely different question. That does matter, not just to all of us privileged to serve in the mother of Parliaments. It also matters to a totalitarian regime whose evident aspirations for domination depend on democracy’s demise. The totalitarian regime to which I refer is, of course, that of the Chinese Communist Party, or CCP. For that regime’s value system to succeed, ours must fail.
As Lord Sumption and others have made clear, coronavirus has caused democracy to be placed under threat. The threat stems not just from the CCP’s military expansion and its aggression in, for example, Nepal and the South China Sea, nor in the corrosive cynicism of the retrospective application of new laws of repression in Hong Kong, but also from the growing popular disenchantment with the ability of democratic Governments to strike the right balance, to which my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean referred in his excellent speech, between saving lives and saving livelihoods during a pandemic which originated in Wuhan.
I do not intend to rehearse the points made so eloquently by my noble friends Lord Robathan, Lady Noakes and Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, with which I agree. Naturally, most people are focused on the impact on their families and friends, but we can be sure that Big Brother is watching us. I do not mean our own state, although it is increasingly intruding on and controlling every aspect of our lives. I refer of course to Xi Jinping, the head of the CCP and of the world’s most repressive, surveillance-obsessed and threatening totalitarian regime. He may not be watching today’s debate in your Lordships’ House, but we can be sure that he will be watching and analysing the signals that we and the other place send. It is therefore worth reflecting on whether the messages that we are conveying highlight the strength of parliamentary democracy in the face of crisis or show panic, disarray and weakness.
I wish this were simply about tackling a dreadful, devastating and deadly virus. Unfortunately, what is at stake is so much more significant than any of our lives: it is the future of western democracy itself. That is why we cannot afford to signal that we are panicking or weak. Consider this: if one wanted cynically to expose the fault lines of western democracy, there could scarcely be a better way to do so than to allow a vicious virus to engulf the globe and plunge it into poverty. That is what we are facing.
We cannot afford to be in this situation again. We cannot afford, as Theresa May said in the other place only a few hours ago, for it to look as if the figures are chosen to support the policy rather than the policy being based on figures. That is the path to mistrust and cynicism. If we really want to save Christmas, we need to save people’s livelihoods. If we want to save the NHS, we need to ensure that we safeguard the tax revenues that are so crucial to funding it.
I am not saying this is necessarily the case, but I am saying it is essential that we entertain the awful possibility that a totalitarian regime capable of incarcerating in concentration camps millions of its Muslim Uighur population and harvesting their organs, capable of turning disputed rocky outcrops in the South China Sea into fortified islands and capable of turning the bastion of freedom that was Hong Kong into a police state is surely capable of allowing perhaps the most potent threat that western democracies have faced in the last 30 years to spread until it was too late.
The Government do not know best and noble Lords should resist any suggestion that they do, especially at a time of crisis.
Baroness Walmsley (LD) [V]
My Lords, I support the need for the lockdown and will not be supporting any of the amendments to the Motion that express regret. However, I regret the fact that the Government did not accept the advice of their scientific advisers and take the decision to do this sooner; if they had, the NHS might not have needed to move to the highest level of risk in its emergency preparedness framework this morning.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Scriven that the Government must use the lockdown to get test, trace and isolate right. There is no point in boasting about the capacity of 500,000 tests per day; people do not trust that figure because we know that it does not mean 500,000 people tested, so it undermines trust and affects compliance. Although the processing time of the tests has improved, it is still not good enough. Tests have been returned several days late or are sent back to the wrong care home, so they are of no use.
Isolating rates may be as low as 10% and the ability of police and local officials to enforce quarantine is low. We need to use the carrot rather than the stick and make more support available for those isolating. I heard an MP the other day say, “Just pay their wages”. After all, it is for only two weeks, but it would have a massive effect on people’s willingness to isolate, and that matters for getting the R rate right down. If we do not reduce the R rate well below one, it will cost the economy a lot more because the lockdown will have to be extended. Will the Government consider this?
The Government are now trialling the new mass testing system in Liverpool, and I wish it well. However, from residents’ comments I have heard, they do not seem to have the messaging right. People are questioning why they need to take a test if they feel well. That, of course, is the point—testing potentially asymptomatic people—but, clearly, the message has not got through. What does the Minister propose is done about that?
Now that the rapid test is available, could it please be given to relatives of care home residents so they can safely visit their loved ones whom they have not seen for many months? Finally, there are children with very rare diseases who need special treatments which schools cannot cope with and who therefore cannot go to school, and their parents are getting to the end of their tether. The prospect of another four weeks of lockdown fills them with dread. They also need more clarity about who should shield. Will the Minister look into this because these families have been left behind?
Baroness Meyer (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to my amendment to the Motion on the increase in mental illnesses and other long-term psychological harms. Earlier this week, I was talking on the telephone to my younger son who is a physician at the clinic for psychiatry and psychotherapy at the Charité in Berlin, one of Germany’s very best hospitals. He was angry; he described the disastrous impact on people of the German Government’s lockdown. By isolating them from their friends, their families and their fellow human beings in conditions akin to house arrest, their essential humanity was being denied. Many could not take it. Depression and suicide were often the inevitable consequence. Still others will be mentally scarred for life. Many turned up in his clinic, seeking help.
So from Germany, a country rightly admired for its handling of the coronavirus, comes the warning that it is not just the damage to the economy that must be calculated, but the impact on the nation’s mental health. Who in our Government is taking responsibility for making these calculations? Where is the risk analysis? Who in government can give us evidence that the cure will not be worse than the disease—because that is the heart of the matter, is it not?
It is no longer enough for the Government to say that they are following the science. That begs the question: which science, which scientist? There is the science of the Chief Medical Officer, of the Chief Scientific Officer and of Sage, which the Government are following. Then there is the science of innumerable expert voices, each with impressive titles after their names, who advance dissenting views. Contrast and compare, for example, the most recent pronouncements from Imperial College and King’s College London. The latter has asserted that there is no Covid surge. Why do we follow Imperial and not King’s? Or, as the latest edition of the Spectator magazine has put it:
“Why have No. 10’s Covid forecasts changed so much?”
Back in March, we were all innocents wandering through Covid’s dark forest. Nearly eight months later we have all become amateur epidemiologists and virologists. I know that a little learning is a dangerous thing. However, with it has come the need for, and the right to, far greater transparency in explaining the Government’s modelling inputs and policy decisions. Instead, we are blinded by science and its myriad predictions, forecasts, scenarios, and indecipherable graphs.
I stand second to none in my admiration of the Prime Minister’s fortitude, confronted as he is by intolerable policy choices on an almost daily basis. Those who are too willing to criticise him and his team over Covid handling—the Labour Party keep saying that we should have done lockdown before—should show some humility. However, the harsh fact will not go away. The one thing we know beyond all doubt is that the collateral damage inflicted by lockdown is immense: to our economy, to our freedoms, and to our mental and physical health. The latest lockdown will tear still further the fabric of the nation.
It should be about risk management, rather than predictions, which may prove to be wrong. Will Her Majesty’s Government publish a full impact assessment, setting out the cost of the lockdown in terms of jobs, the businesses that will fail, the toll on people’s mental and physical health, and the lives that will be lost—and saved—as a result of lockdown? On the evidence so far, I have to say I find it difficult to accept that the benefits of lockdown outweigh its long-term risks.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I have no doubt the latest lockdown will damage the economy, but you can have as many impact assessments as you like; the fact is that, unless we take action, the NHS will simply fall over.
In his opening remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, referred to capacity of the NHS to deal with non-Covid treatments. I would like to link that to criticism made by a number of Conservative MPs, who have argued that because hospital intensive care is currently no busier than normal for the majority of trusts, the national lockdown is not justified. I refer them to the statement made today by NHS providers, collating the views of NHS trust chief executives. They put forward three points. First, you cannot just measure the degree of pressure in a hospital just by looking at ICU capacity; you must look at pressures on acute and general beds, which is often greater, partly because many Covid patients are being treated with oxygen therapy on general wards.
Secondly, if NHS hospitals have too many Covid patients over the next two to three months, they will not be able to deal with winter pressures and carry on recovering elective surgery backlogs. Those cases are usually all treated in general and acute wards. Many hospitals are having to turn those wards into Covid beds. This in turn, is threatening elective surgery recovery rates and impacting on ability to cope with winter.
Thirdly, many hospitals are already seeing a frighteningly high level of general bed occupancy. If this pattern, now mainly in the north, is repeated elsewhere, it will coincide with winter, when the NHS is at its most stretched. None of this is reflected or effected by current national intensive care unit bed occupancy rates; in fact, they are irrelevant as far as risk is concerned. The argument for national lockdown therefore fully stands. That is the view of people at the front line of the health service; they need to be listened to.
The only question I have, which is one asked by my noble friends Lady Andrews and Lord Knight, is why the Government did not act in late September following the SAGE advice on 21 September? The more you read the two pages of advice, the more you see it was abundantly clear the circuit breaker was required. I did not hear the Minister refer to that in his introductory remarks. I hope he will respond to that. The point is this; government is not easy at the moment, but they could have taken action six weeks ago. They should have done it.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I reluctantly support the thrust of these regulations but have a few strong concerns about the illogicality and unnecessary destructiveness of just some of them. I hope the Government may reconsider their position and find a way to introduce small but incredibly important changes, though I understand that once these regulations are passed, that may not be straightforward.
My first concern is that under Regulation 11, schools are exempt from restrictions on gathering. I agree with keeping schools open. However, the lockdown will be undermined by this, unless regular testing of secondary school children and compulsory wearing of masks in class are introduced. If we can test the whole of Liverpool, we can surely test children with these new rapid-result tests. Secondary school children are spreaders of Covid as much as adults are. Keeping schools open makes no sense at all in terms of the lockdown without the protections that I propose.
My second concern is about exercise. Regulation 6 rightly introduces exemptions from the restrictions on leaving home to enable people to take exercise—fabulous. Illogically, however, the Government have decided that this exercise cannot be done with a tennis racquet or golf club in your hand, even though these particular exercises are inherently socially distanced. In particular, children’s outdoor sports have all been prohibited. Yet children can sit in a classroom for hours without a mask, which is surely a far higher risk activity. When children’s social activities are restricted, outdoor sports should be a top priority for them for their mental and physical health. I earnestly ask the Government to reconsider this slightly crazy state of affairs.
On a totally different note, I have a third concern: these regulations should not exacerbate serious addictions. Why exclude vape shops—not normally places I visit, but still—from the list of businesses that can remain open for health purposes as listed in paragraph 47 of Schedule 1? Tobacco-related illnesses kill 70,000 people every year. The anti-smoking campaign has been hugely successful, and the 3.2 million vapers are ex-smokers or current smokers attempting to stop. Closing the vape shops could set back the anti-smoking campaign terribly badly. Will the Minister take away my request for vape shops to be slipped into that list of businesses that can remain open for health reasons?
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, these measures involve grave restrictions on the economy and our liberties. They may be necessary, but we should take them only on the basis of sound law and solid data. Unfortunately, they are based on dubious law and dodgy data. So, I have tabled a Motion that
“this House regrets that the Regulations have been laid under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, which does not give specific powers to Her Majesty’s Government to impose restrictions on uninfected persons, and not the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, which does.”
I am not a lawyer, but I know a man who is: Lord Sumption. He has spelled out that the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 empowers Governments only to confine infected persons, not to confine the population as a whole, the vast majority of whom are not infected, and still less to close down large swathes of the economy. None the less, the Government could lawfully do all they seek to do in these and other regulations if they invoke the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. In that case, however, they would be subject to much closer parliamentary scrutiny than has been the case. In my own ministerial experience, parliamentary scrutiny invariably led to better decision-making, if only because officials had to work to satisfy all conceivable criticisms, not just those that their Minister could envisage.
The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, contacted me to say that he, too, considers it regrettable from the point of view of parliamentary scrutiny and arguably unlawful that the Public Health Act 1984 was selected in preference to the Civil Contingencies Act, though he took the view that the courts might find a plausible legal argument for upholding regulations made on this basis. Will the Minister either provide a convincing rebuttal of Lord Sumption’s critique, or use the Civil Contingencies Act in future?
I may not be a lawyer, but I did take the Institute of Statisticians’ exams half a century ago and I have been allergic ever since to statistical jiggery-pokery. Noble Lords may recall the gang in Oxford Street which I used to watch fleecing gullible passers by using the three-card trick. They were eventually exposed when a covertly taken film, played back in slow motion, revealed how the trick was done. Ed Conway of Sky News has performed a similar public service by showing, slowly and methodically, how official sleight of hand has misused the figures to justify this lockdown by creating a scarier illusion than they warrant. I urge every noble Lord to google: “Ed Conway: Why doesn’t the Government give us all the information” to see how this trick has been performed.
In brief, we were told at the weekend that the Government’s case for the lockdown rests on the fact that the virus is now spreading even faster than the Government’s reasonable worst-case scenario. Most of us assumed that that referred to the scary projection by Sir Patrick Vallance in mid-September showing reported cases doubling every seven days, to reach 49,000 a day by the end of last month. Far from spreading faster, reported cases are growing less than half as fast—just 20,000 per day. Sir Jeremy Farrar, of SAGE, rushed to Patrick Vallance’s rescue, claiming that his projection has been met, citing the Office for National Statistics’ figures that new infections are running at about 50,000 a day. However, to compare new infections with reported cases is comparing oranges with pumpkins. New infections include non-symptomatic cases and are typically two and a half times as numerous as reported cases, which Patrick Vallance was using.
The Government then claimed that Vallance’s projection was not the realistic worst case. It was certainly never realistic, and it has proved far worse than reality, but the Government refused their actual realistic worst case. Fortunately, the Spectator got hold of an official realistic worst-case scenario for projected deaths. It assumed that the second wave would not begin until mid-November, apparently unaware that students return, the weather gets colder and evenings darker, well before then. Stark data apart, the curve of deaths that have actually happened during the real second wave has followed closely the curve of the projected one. It does not overshoot the scenario for which the NHS has been planning. In short, instead of evidence-based policy, we have seen policy-based evidence.
I am not claiming that a second wave is not serious; it is. I am not suggesting that no action is required; it may be. But using a weak legal base and playing fast and loose with the statistics can only undermine trust in what is proposed in these regulations.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD) [V]
My Lords, what a terrible toll this pandemic has taken on the creative industries, and the arts and cultural programmes that underpin them. Financial help has been forthcoming from the Government via the recovery fund and the extension of the furlough scheme, which the Minister mentioned earlier. However, there remains the serious problem of the plight of freelancers. Some 72% of those who work in the creative industries fall into this category; most of them have not been able to access the Government’s support schemes. They are the excluded, mentioned earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth.
We welcome the exemptions included in this SI that will allow film and TV production to continue, along with training for elite athletes and dancers, as well as the ability to rehearse. But that training and rehearsals are often for live performances which have no opening date and, at the moment, no hope of the opportunity of actually being able to perform. Live events are major contributors to the economy, providing thousands of jobs and playing a crucial role—I am sure the Minister will agree—in levelling up through supporting local communities and small businesses. They seemed to have been emerging from the woods. Many theatre and music businesses have been spending scarce resources on making their venues Covid-safe—and then along came the need for this second lockdown. That makes the Question I asked only last week all the more pertinent, which is that a major stumbling block for those who want to put on live events is the availability of affordable contingency insurance. In her response, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, said
“We continue to work with UK Theatre and colleagues in the Treasury and others so that we leave no stone unturned.”—[Official Report, 26/10/20; col. 7.]
Can the Government unturn the stone that is the precedent—the cover needed for acts of terrorism committed in the 1990s, when the Government did indeed intervene? More recently, it was key to keeping filming going. Please can the Government find a solution to this issue for live events so that venues can start planning properly to come back? Culture will be central, following this pandemic, to the recovery and renewal of our nation.
Lord Trevethin and Oaksey (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness. These regulations place everyone in the country under a form of qualified house arrest. The freedom to travel, to go into a friend’s house, to play sport, to go to the pub—all taken away. Lord Sumption was obviously right when he described this in his recent lecture as
“the most significant interference with personal freedom in the history of our country.”
Those who are the most affected are the young and active. The bill—billions and billions of pounds—is not an illusion. Who is going to pay that bill? Generally speaking, it will not be those who directly benefit from the lockdown. It will be paid by the economically active and the young, who for the most part are at no real risk, along with their children and perhaps their children’s children.
Is the Government’s decision a good one? I have no idea and I certainly do not envy the decision-takers. There are many unknowns. However, it seems that the country—in particular the young, who are being ordered to give up anything resembling a normal life when they themselves are not at risk—is entitled to expect certain things. The first is that decision is taken in a properly objective and rational way. There is an obvious danger in the so-called “sunk costs” fallacy which occurs when a decision to take a future course of action is justified by reference to costs already incurred rather than the merits and demerits of the possible alternatives. There is a particular danger of a sunk cost reasoning where the decision-taker is responsible for an earlier decision whose correctness may be called into question by a change of course. Is this fallacy operating here? It is troubling to hear one of the decision-takers say recently, “We have travelled too far to turn back now”. That is classic sunk costs reasoning.
Secondly, we are all entitled to expect that the adverse effects of the proposed course of action are evaluated as thoroughly as its beneficial effects. Where is that evaluation? We have heard a great deal about the deaths that will be avoided by the lockdown, but almost nothing from the Government about its effect on mental health, a subject on which the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, spoke so powerfully, on the diagnosis of other serious diseases and on our future ability to be able to afford to care for those who fall ill.
Thirdly, we are entitled to expect that the evidence presented to us as justification for these very extreme measures has been assembled and considered in a properly objective way. Graphs, forecasts, projections and so on are guesses. The guesswork may be informed, but the utility of this spuriously precise-looking material depends entirely on the underlying assumptions. You tweak the assumptions and the figures on the bottom line jerk around wildly. Anyone who has dealt with forecasting in the commercial world knows that.
The already rather notorious 4,000-deaths-a-day graph deployed in terrorem at the weekend reminded me of a different claim about a different supposed weapon of mass destruction: chemical and biological weapons ready for use within 45 minutes of an order from Saddam Hussein—we all remember that one. That war against supposed WMD did not go well. This is a very nasty and dangerous virus but, if it proves that the cure is more damaging than the disease, we will have betrayed generations.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
The noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Boateng.
Lord Boateng (Lab) [V]
My Lords we have been told with some force in the course of this debate that, without these regulations, the NHS will fall over. I am not in a position to challenge that and will support these regulations, albeit with a heavy heart. However, I cannot help but ask myself, as so many others have, why it took so many black, Asian and minority-ethnic lives to prop the NHS up during the last lockdown? What lessons have been learned from the disproportionate number of black and minority-ethnic NHS and care workers who died as a result of this virus during the last lockdown? If you look at the NHS website, you are told that
“A bespoke health and wellbeing offer … for BAME colleagues is being created”.
The question I have for the Government—and I hope the Minister will answer it directly—is: is that offer now in place and going to be given to black and minority-ethnic staff?
You are four times more likely to die of Covid-19 if you are black than if you are white. This virus does discriminate: it discriminates against ethnic minorities, the poor, the homeless or those who are disadvantaged in any way. It takes advantage of the systemic inequalities within our society. We must have data to back up strategy and its implementation to address those inequalities. As such, I also have the following question for the Minister: will he confirm that the data collection that contributes to the NHS workforce race equality standard, which was suspended during the last lockdown, has now been resumed? Will he continue to make sure that we have the data available to make judgments on?
The virus takes advantage of homelessness, particularly street homelessness, infecting those who are homeless and posing a risk generally to us all in relation to the nation’s public health. Therefore, will the Minister please confirm that the Home Office will not require failed asylum seekers to be evicted from accommodation supported by the Home Office during this lockdown? If not, why not? Will he also, on the question of inequality generally, publish an equality impact assessment on government support schemes? We know that these are not able to be accessed as easily, well or effectively as they should be by those from black and minority-ethnic backgrounds. I do not doubt the Minister’s sincerity or his good intentions, or those of the Government, but we need some practical measures taken and genuine and effective responses to the threat and peril that Covid-19 presents to us all.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
My Lords, at the beginning of October, Mark Drakeford, the Welsh First Minister, and Vaughan Gething, the Health Minister, expressed their concerns to Boris Johnson over his failure to introduce travel restrictions from high-transmission areas in England to low-risk areas in Wales. Those of us living in Wales had, for many weeks, not been permitted to leave our immediate home area without a reasonable excuse, such as travel for work, health or childcare.
On 12 October, one of the new and inexperienced Tory Members of Parliament for this area described these restrictions as “draconian travel bans”, which made things massively difficult for businesses. The Prime Minister agreed and refused to do anything. We have heard echoes of this sentiment in some of today’s speeches. The Prime Minister had previously ignored the written requests of Mr Drakeford, who raised the issue of supporting the Welsh effort to contain the virus in a COBRA meeting and a subsequent letter of 13 October. He received no response.
Since then, a firebreak lockdown has been imposed in Wales. It is due to end next Monday, when the rules will be relaxed. Pubs, restaurants and cafés will be opened, subject to strict protections, including a rule of four. Outdoor activities will be allowed for groups of up to 30—which, coincidentally, is two competing rugby teams.
The regulations before us allow English people to leave their homes for essential purposes, including exercise. I can find no travel limit, so north Wales recreational spaces will be open to an influx from some of the most heavily infected areas: Liverpool, Lancashire, Manchester and Birmingham. This also gives an excuse for people to pour across the border to drink in pubs and restaurants. In normal times they would be more than welcome, but at this time it will negate any improvement we may have made through enduring the sacrifices of our current lockdown. I declare an interest, living only five miles from the border. A lot of questions have been put to the Minister, but I would like him to give a specific answer to the concerns of all Welsh people, and to address this issue, which was first raised by the First Minister with Mr Boris Johnson.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I formally offer the Green group’s support for these provisions, and strongly oppose the fatal Motion.
I speak on the day when a good friend lost her father to Covid. The horrific figures, to which that is one sad addition, are a measure of the failure of our provisions and our governance. My sympathy goes to everyone affected and everyone living in fear. In March we were facing a suddenly arising, little-understood threat. We should have been better prepared for a pandemic, but some of the mistakes made then were made because the detail of the threat was, unavoidably, not clearly understood. We do not have the same excuse now. We allowed the virus to run wild again through bad decisions, and through our failure to support the vulnerable and deal with the vulnerabilities in our society.
However, I want to look forward and ask the Government about their plans for the next month—or however long this lockdown needs to last—for to justify the economic, social and medical costs, we must use this time to genuinely control the virus. The disastrous failures of test and trace have been covered by other Peers, although on “trace” we seem finally to be heading somewhat in the right direction in local public provision. I want to focus on the final two elements of what is needed to bring down infection rates: isolate and support. Without the latter, the “isolate” part is not working and cannot work, not because of individual choice but because of system failure.
There must be real, effective, genuine support for everyone asked to self-isolate who needs it. If you are a young adult in a shared household, a parent in a multigenerational one with child and elderly care responsibilities, or a teenager who shares a bedroom with a sibling as a result of the disastrous bedroom tax, isolation is incredibly difficult. There are a lot of empty hotels in this country. Why are people not being offered a free, supported option to isolate when it would be very difficult, or impossible, at home?
The £500 payment must be extended to everyone who needs it. Currently, only one in eight workers is eligible. Everybody needs enough money each day, including the self-employed, the casually employed and those who have fallen through the gaping holes in the Government’s financial safety nets. If you have been penniless for months, have secured a job starting today and then start to show symptoms, what are you going to do?
Poverty, inequality and insecurity are gaping wounds through which the virus can readily enter. There must be support for people effectively returning to shielding—£14 per person for councils is clearly not enough—people in their 60s with chronic health conditions and workers left with desperately difficult decisions to make. We also must address transmission in workplaces and schools. “Covid-safe” is a nice phrase, but it is clearly not the reality for lots of workers. Universities and schools, particularly secondary schools, attended by pupils vulnerable to catching and spreading the virus are another systemic vulnerability. They cannot continue as now.
Lord St John of Bletso (CB)
My Lords, I am in favour of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Robathan. I seriously question why it is necessary to have a nationwide lockdown when the three-tier system was working well in many regions. Clearly, the Government were put into an impossible predicament by the dire warnings from SAGE and several scientific institutions that base their conclusions on worst-case scenarios. As the noble Lord rightly mentioned, there have been many disagreements among the scientific community. The fear and hysteria were hyped up by many in the media. Why, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has asked, was there not a cost-benefit and risk analysis?
As several noble Lords have mentioned, the King’s College Covid symptoms app, based on 4.3 million contributions, shows clearly that while cases are still rising across the UK, they have not spiralled out of control and the R value is just above one. There is clear evidence that the tier 3 restrictions in Liverpool and in the north-east have had a positive impact. Why did we not have tier 4 restrictions and regional lockdowns, which have been highly effective in other parts of the world such as Australia?
Businesses both large and small have acted responsibly in respecting social distancing, the wearing of face masks and strict hand-washing measures. This second lockdown will devastate many businesses and, inevitably, take us into a double-dip recession, destroying jobs and adding to the problems of anxiety, depression and domestic abuse.
I dread the long-term repercussions of the huge debt that will have to be repaid, predominantly by the younger generation. What will this lockdown cost? We seem to be reacting purely to bad news. In most cases, except long Covid, the recovery period is a matter of a week. I say this having had Covid. Apart from a dry cough for a few days, I recovered in no time at all. My 93-year-old mother-in-law has just recovered from Covid within two weeks. The treatment of Covid patients has hugely improved. We have over 250 vaccines under development globally.
While death rates are running at 10% above the seasonal average, death rates from Covid compared with earlier in the year have come down considerably. We all knew there would be a second wave. The NHS had seven months to prepare for it. What evidence does the Government have that the NHS cannot cope? The Government are using a sledgehammer to crack a nut and allowing the tail to wag the dog.
Lord Barwell (Con)
My Lords, I support the regulations, although it gives me no pleasure to do so. I concede that the lockdown will damage our economy and people’s mental health and will restrict our freedoms —all the arguments that my noble friend Lord Forsyth so eloquently spelled out. I do so because the lesson from the first wave is very clear: that the consequences of not acting are worse. The countries that took quick and decisive action did not see more damage to their economies and more people out of work; they saw less damage. Countries that, like us, were late to act did not better protect their economies; they saw a sharper fall in GDP and more job losses.
My noble friend Lord Robathan said that there was uncertainty about the sums. He is quite right, but at every stage during this process, we have suffered from optimism bias. Back in February and March, we believed that we were several weeks ahead of Italy, before it became apparent that that was not the case. We came out of lockdown in May and June too quickly, failing to achieve suppression of the virus—particularly in the north of the country, which is why the pandemic has recurred there first.
We did not listen to SAGE back in September, when its advice was for a short circuit-breaker lockdown. The Prime Minister clearly did not want to adopt the policy that he is now pursuing. We were told that this was all going to be over by Christmas. Even now, some noble Lords seem to believe that what is happening in Belgium, the Czech Republic and France will somehow not happen here.
I fear that we live in an age of increasing unreason, where experts are maligned. I have a lot of sympathy with those noble Lords who have asked to see the assumptions that underpin the modelling, but others go further. My noble friend Lady Noakes said that, although she could not comment on this herself, some have said that there is a deliberate plot to curtail our civil liberties. Who would benefit from such a plot? How can what the Government are recommending to the House possibly be in their interest? It will make their job over the next few years immeasurably more difficult.
I believe that a vaccine and improvements in treatment and testing are on the way. However, lest noble Lords fear that I am suffering from the optimism bias that I have criticised in others, let me say that, if we look around the world, there are countries that, even before those developments, have achieved suppression and returned life to normal.
As I come to the end of my time, I say to the Minister that the Government need to use this period to achieve proper suppression of the virus—to get the tracing system working properly and ensure better compliance—so that, if I am wrong in my optimism about vaccine treatment and testing, we do not find ourselves in January or February back debating a potential third lockdown. This measure is the right thing to do now to protect our NHS. It is better than any alternative course of action.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lords, Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale and Lord Greaves, have withdrawn so I call the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, my first question is: what is the Government’s understanding of where in the community the virus is being transmitted most? Surely this is the evidence that should be shaping the measures being taken, including this lockdown.
I welcome the Prime Minister’s intention to mass test. However, if, as the ONS has said, Covid is rising rapidly among older schoolchildren, should not a priority during this period be to test all schoolchildren and staff, and indeed university students and staff too? Will there be an advertising campaign to accompany the Liverpool testing pilot, perhaps along the lines of getting tested being a social duty, particularly as so many people might be infectious but display no symptoms? Mandatory testing, as in Slovakia, would create an undesirable precedent in the UK but Slovakia’s project to test the whole population over two weekends is nevertheless admirable.
On Friday, I was privileged to attend one of the few live performances of Sarah Kane’s play “Crave” at the Chichester Festival Theatre before it was live-streamed. Everyone was masked and socially distanced in an airy auditorium. Lockdown is another blow to the arts when they are just starting to get back on their feet, particularly because of their considerable dependence for survival on a paying public.
However, those who continue to be most affected are the self-employed. The increase in support, at least for the lockdown period, is welcome, but a majority of the self-employed in the arts and entertainment are ineligible for support. They include the newly self-employed and those paid through dividends. Freelancers who work in the arts will not be covered by the Culture Recovery Fund. In its report Jobs, Jobs, Jobs, the Resolution Foundation identified a real issue with targeting the self-employed most in need. Have the Government looked at that report? Will they address these continuing concerns?
Lastly, I ask the Minister for clarification on what the lockdown means for private music teaching. The Minister says that the Government are prioritising education. It is vital that this teaching continues through the lockdown to nurture the next generation of musicians. I sent the Minister a note on this question this morning, so he might not have had time to see it, but there is a discrepancy between the guidance and the legislation, which clearly lists education as an exception without specifying what form that may take. Can music teachers continue to teach privately from home and visit other houses to teach? Can private music schools still operate face-to-face teaching? Can peripatetic music lessons in schools take place?
Concerns about the status of extracurricular activity within Covid-safe environments extend to art, drama and sport, as we have heard, with huge implications for mental and physical well-being, which we should not neglect, even for a month.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
The noble Lord, Lord Lamont of Lerwick, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Clark of Kilwinning and Lady Newlove, have withdrawn so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I, like many noble Lords who have spoken this evening, find that it is with a very heavy heart that I support the regulations for a further period of lockdown. I very much regret that. I have a series of questions for the Minister because I have concerns about the Government’s approach to scrutiny, parliamentary democracy and the use of evidence. I am not a scientist and will not try to second-guess any of the scientific evidence, unlike some noble Lords who have put down amendments or moved a fatal Motion, as the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, has.
Back in September, the Government appeared to have evidence that a second lockdown or circuit-breaker would be necessary. Why did it become so urgent that it had to be announced only last Saturday, and the Prime Minister had to announce what he planned, not in front of the House of Commons but at an emergency press conference, allegedly because of a leak? Are this Government fit for purpose? Are they able to produce the necessary legislation in a timely manner? If the information that the Government had last week was dramatically different from that in September, it would be useful to know, but it is not clear that it was. There were calls from the Official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats for a circuit-breaker much earlier. Why do the Government use the evidence only when they choose to then claim that it is urgent, making sure that there is little time for parliamentary scrutiny?
Like several of the noble Lords who have tabled amendments, I have concerns about the economy and mental health. I declare an interest as a resident fellow of a Cambridge college; I will be locked down, as will the students. I live in a flat; they will live in small rooms for a month. Have the Government done an assessment of the impact on mental health? On 16 March, I asked the Minister what assessments had been done, before the lockdown proposed then. On that occasion, he told me that I was
“entirely right to be concerned about the holistic challenge we face”
and that the announcement on 16 March
“focused on the clinical response”,
but that the Minister would
“be glad to answer any questions on specific subjects as they arise.”—[Official Report, 16/3/20; col. 1362.]
Eight and a half months later, can he give us some answers?
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, with whom I normally agree; I do on this occasion, in many ways. I do not underestimate the challenges faced by the Government and have enormous sympathy for my noble friend the Minister, but I believe that the measures in these regulations, which we are being asked to approve as a whole—with the dramatic consequences they will have on millions of people’s lives, physical and mental health, personal safety and livelihoods—are flawed. We still have not been presented with an impact assessment, a cost-benefit analysis or alternative scientific views—of which there are many suggesting that these measures are based on questionable data and invalid assumptions.
I find myself agreeing wholeheartedly—unfamiliarly, perhaps—with my noble friends Lord Robathan, Lord Forsyth, Lord Lilley and Lady Noakes. We need to prepare proper analysis and present it to Parliament, with full transparency on all the assumptions, and have an opportunity to amend these measures in the light of evidence.
I do not believe that these regulations had been sufficiently broadly considered. They are not based on rigorous analysis. For example, there is no evidence to suggest that banning communal worship will impact the spread of the virus, especially after churches, synagogues and other religious venues have spent so much to ensure that they are Covid safe, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester rightly said. Where is the evidence that outdoor sports such as golf and tennis, or swimming in a chlorinated pool, are dangerous?
These measures need to be amended, but we are not able to do that. Yet surely we have a duty to satisfy ourselves that they are based on robust data. As an economist, I have plenty of experience of flawed models that assume away the real world or depend on incorrect assumptions. Selected statistics, presentation out of context and failing to consider issues broadly are classic errors. I feel that we are in danger of being misled. Of course I am concerned about the economic impacts of the measures we are being asked to approve, but I am even more concerned about the effect on broader national health, particularly mental health, to which my noble friend Lady Meyer refers in her amendment to the Motion, and the impacts on family life, people in care homes and people missing cancer, heart, stroke or other diagnoses and treatments.
These measures have been hastily put together and I believe they are dangerous. Policy devised in panic is not good policy. Can we not take some extra time—even just a few days—to consider them more carefully, gather more evidence, and produce a proper cost-benefit analysis and impact assessments to allow a more cogent set of measures to be laid before us?
Lord Desai (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, who is an economist and a friend from the LSE. In the 30 years I have been in your Lordships’ House, I have never had the luxury of six regret amendments from the Government Benches themselves—so we can have the luxury of supporting the Government for a while. Let them quarrel among themselves.
As an economist, I used to be very humble in the face of natural scientists. I used to think that their models were solidly based on theory, experiment and science, and that we economists were just doing things and quarrelling with each other. I have to admit that I was in the econometric modelling business—my God—60 years ago and did the first computer simulation of an econometric model for my PhD. But let us leave all that behind.
I am embarrassed that what we call science has made a complete fool of itself in front of all of us. Epidemiologists, virologists and people who claim to have done several computer simulation models have not come to a single agreement. They have not got a model of what causes the infection or how it spreads. They have not given us any solid clue as to the rate at which the infection spreads—the R number. Is that number valid for a whole nation or only for a locality? What is the technical basis of the R number? How can we have a national lockdown with the goal of reducing the R number to below 1 across the nation, with no errors? Is this serious science? Do the Government have any critical ability they can borrow from somewhere else to judge what they are hitching us to do for the next month, if nothing better turns up?
I will make two points I have raised before. Is our aim to reduce the rate of infection or the rate of mortality? There is a difference. Look at America, where everybody says that Trump made a mess and there are a lot of infections. The rate of mortality as a proportion of infection is the same in America as here. The economic outcome in America for the third quarter of this year is a plus 33% growth in GDP: a real bounce-back from the recession—a genuinely V-shaped recession—while we are floundering around. As the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, who is very knowledgeable on this matter, pointed out—
Lord Howard of Rising (Con) [V]
My Lords, the Great Barrington declaration, signed by more than 40,000 doctors and scientists, called for care of the elderly rather than lockdown. Such a large number of medical professionals taking this view makes one wonder why this country is being pushed into a devastatingly damaging lockdown. It is questionable whether lockdowns work or whether they merely push the problem forward. The information on which the present lockdown has been decided is out of date—which makes the idea of a lockdown even more suspect.
Charts presented by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister’s advisers last Saturday had labels at the bottom saying, “These are scenarios, not predictions or forecasts”. How have we reached a state of affairs where scientists can push the Government into decisions which have disastrous side-effects by using scenarios that are effectively guesses? Aside from the devastating—and, some would say, improper—attack on personal liberty, people’s lives are being ruined on a large scale. A huge number of businesses have had to close, many of which will never reopen.
The impact on health is nothing short of a disaster, from diseases such as cancer not being treated to others arising from the stress caused by lockdown. We have absolutely no idea what the destruction of the sense of well-being in the bulk of the population will lead to—all on the back of dubious scenarios by scientists with a track record of making lurid forecasts which have not come to pass. The present scenarios have been ridiculed by many well-respected members of both the medical and academic professions; even Sir Patrick Vallance and Professor Whitty are now rowing back from what they have been saying. After 2 December, it will be time to ignore scaremongering scientists and get back to normal, with special care for the vulnerable, and let the remainder of the population return to living their lives.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I have considerable sympathy with those like the noble Lords, Lord Howard of Rising and Lord Forsyth, and my noble friend Lord St John of Bletso, who feel that the cost of lockdown is simply too great or even that the road to herd immunity would be a preferable route. As someone with a financial toe in the hospitality arena—as declared in the register of interests—I also have great sympathy with those who are struggling; indeed, I worry too about the artists and freelance musicians who will once again be hit and may fall between the Government’s safety nets, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Clancarty.
But—and it is a big “but”—despite this, and despite the utter incompetence over testing, with all the Prime Minister’s Trump-like boasting about us being world-beaters, I feel that we simply cannot risk people’s lives. The NHS is adamant—adamant—that without a circuit breaker, this is what we would be doing. In fact, if the figures that we are being asked to swallow are correct, we should have locked down sooner and also used the natural break of the school half-term to widen that circuit breaker still further.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, made some well-argued points about Wales. In my area of mid-Wales, we had virtually no cases at all until the last two weeks, when, suddenly, two groups of people contracted Covid. How? Both groups went to either a bar or a pub. Alcohol leads to loss of inhibition and lack of safe distancing. Since people are not prepared to play by the rules, the Government need to impose them so that we do not see hospitals having to close their doors. I am not prepared to take responsibility for having on our conscience the deaths of patients who cannot be looked after, not to mention the terrible stress on doctors, nurses and NHS staff.
I believe what the Minister said in his opening comments. Therefore, despite my love of tennis, I must support the Government in these regulations, though with some reservations.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, this is not the first time I have said in this Chamber that the Government need to fundamentally rethink their position. We are asked to believe that the rate can be pushed down by closing churches, John Lewis, bookshops, gyms and swimming pools but leaving open Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Marks & Spencer and the Co-op. I have very good news for the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. My wife was in the Cambridge branch of M&S yesterday to buy some tights before lockdown; they assured her that they would be packing as many clothes as possible into the grocery section so that it would still be possible to buy tights and so on. Are this Government sponsored by Amazon or by Deliveroo? Which is it, or is it both?
Some 40,000 people have died, and we are now told that another 80,000 are going to die. What have we been doing for the last six months? The Government need to go back to the drawing board and call in people such as Professor Heneghan and other scientists to look more carefully at the numbers.
I recently spent four days in Stockholm. They have the same problem as we do, but they have dealt with it very differently. Stockholm has not locked down its economy; the death rate is lower than ours and it is managing to carry on. A lot of sensible social distancing precautions are in place; most of the museums are closed, but not the economy. As you walk around, you do not get this feeling of dread, with everybody looking like frightened little mice. I ask the Government to look at resetting their strategy.
My final point is this. If there is a vaccine, the consequences will still have to be dealt with. The virus might well mutate. After all, the flu virus mutates—you need a flu jab every year. We seem to be talking about a vaccine as though it will come down from heaven like manna, we will consume it and we will be protected for ever. It will not work that way. The virus will manage to mutate, and we will have this problem with us for a very long time.
At the beginning of this debate, the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, talked about causing national self-harm. I honestly believe that we are talking ourselves into a corner because we are refusing to consider the basis on which we are working. That basis is wrong and it needs to be looked at again.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I do not envy my right honourable friend the Prime Minister for having to decide where the balance should lie between saving jobs and the economy or saving lives. When I watched his press conference on Saturday, however, I felt immediately sceptical about the data we were shown by his advisers. Part of the reason for the much higher incidence of infections in this second wave is that very many more people are being tested. Therefore, many more people with only mild symptoms, or no symptoms, are appearing in the statistics than was the case in March and April. The proportions of infected people who are dying, and of those who are hospitalised, are also very much lower than was the case in the first phase. In particular, the graph showing scenarios for expected winter deaths—not predictions or forecasts—produced by several modelling groups looked suspicious, as did the graph with an enormous shaded area projecting possible hospital admissions.
I find the arguments put forward by Professor Carl Heneghan and Ross Clark persuasive, and they have not been given enough weight, particularly when there is some evidence that the regional measures were actually working in the areas where they had been introduced and no likelihood whatever that hospital capacity may be threatened in the rest of the country.
It has been argued that immunity provided by antibodies may not last long, and statistics have been presented showing a declining proportion of people possessing antibodies. Having had the virus, without realising it at the time, in late March, I tested positive for antibodies both in early May and at the end of September. I am not aware of anyone who had tested positive for antibodies who has subsequently tested negative. Could the Minister tell the House if he knows what data exists in this area? Without specific data it is clearly misleading to argue definitively that the possession of antibodies offers little mitigation of the risk of being hospitalised or dying as a result of contracting Covid for a second time.
I am no epidemiologist but, based on the evidence I have seen, I do not believe that the state is justified in intervening to deprive citizens of their freedoms in the way that it is doing, particularly if it is using powers granted by an Act of Parliament which was never intended to restrict the activities of healthy people, as was so convincingly argued by Lord Sumption.
I have attended in two cases, and been prevented from attending in one case, the funerals of three close relatives during the period since the pandemic struck. It is welcome that the number who may attend funerals—which had been increased from nine to 30—remains 30 under this current lockdown. However, I think it is most regrettable that the Government have now banned marriages altogether. I have another close relative whose wedding has already been postponed for several months by Covid-induced travel restrictions. He had planned to marry this month, albeit with only 15 people in attendance, but that is not now possible.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Loomba, has withdrawn, so I now call the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford.
Lord Marlesford (Con) [V]
My Lords, I want to focus on one aspect of the economic consequences of this lockdown: youth unemployment, or, to be more precise, the outlook for the young people who will be leaving full-time education next summer. There will be about 200,000 of them; it would be a terrible tragedy if a significant number of them can find no job to go to. I believe that HMG have as great an obligation to mitigate their lot as that of any other group, for many of whom the Chancellor has already made most imaginative and generous provision.
My proposal involves our Armed Forces, who have performed magnificently in organising the construction of the Nightingale hospitals. Next month will see the 60th anniversary of the ending of national service in the UK. Those of us who were privileged to serve for 18 months or two years in uniform know what a huge benefit it was to us as individuals, whether or not we ever heard a shot fired in anger.
My proposal is that the Government should task the Ministry of Defence to prepare a scheme for school leavers next summer to be able, if they wish to, to join one of Her Majesty’s services for either one or two years. Many young people have already been in Cadet forces at school. I want to quote from the head teacher of a middle school in Suffolk who in the 1980s said:
“I used to be opposed to Cadet forces recruiting in school. After two years, I have become a convert. You take young people who frequently are not achieving, have low self-esteem and can be in trouble, and you give them a framework, self-discipline. They learn teamwork and start achieving. They go on to become active members of the school.”
My suggestion could give a magnificent start in life for some who might otherwise suffer long-term disadvantages from this wretched pandemic. It ought also to produce some valuable recruits for the Regular Forces. It would certainly improve job opportunities for others. As the Swiss have believed for many years, to have a trained militia can be very useful in times of peril. As we have seen increasingly in recent weeks, we face times of real peril to come. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will pass on my suggestion to his ministerial colleagues for action this day.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
The noble Baroness, Lady Verma, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu.
Baroness Mallalieu (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I cannot support the regulations, because the damage which they are bound to cause cannot, I fear, be justified by the very limited and temporary benefit which might result from them. Until we have a cure or a vaccine, or the virus burns itself out, we will have to live with Covid. No one here or overseas has the certain answer to what should be done, and I certainly would not want to walk in the Prime Minister’s shoes or of those who advise him, all of whom I accept are honourable, decent and trying to do their best, but nor can I any longer respect their judgment.
The country has stoically supported three months of lockdown, lessons in handwashing, face masks, shutting down at 10 pm, confinement to groups of six, division of the country into tiers of restriction, all of which have had little effect, and then temporary, or we would not be here tonight. I would love to see the basis for the claim made by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, of half a million lives saved. I think I can guess who that figure comes from—perhaps he could tell us in reply.
Those measures have also inflicted enormous damage not just economically but socially and in terms of both the physical and mental health of our people. They have caused great human misery to many. These regulations will simply add to them. We are told they are needed because of a possible lack of hospital capacity or, in some places, an actual lack of capacity, but trying to stop demand cannot provide a lasting solution. Increased capacity is the only answer to lack of capacity, and that means more ICU beds and serious financial incentives to staff them—not shutting down the local hairdresser or pushing the local pub into bankruptcy.
A new and courageous approach is needed; we are not going to get it now but let us hope we do in a month’s time or when sense starts to prevail. How do we get the co-operation of the nation, which is increasingly fed up? How about giving them the facts without frightening them, and the facts rather than guesswork? Covid is a horrible illness and kills some people, but as many as eight out of 10 who catch it are symptomless and the death rate is just 0.2%. Then give us simple, readily available, reliable and speedy tests at home which sick people do not have to drive miles to get. Stop pretending that things which are not working, such as track and trace, are triumphs because if you do, people see that they are being taken for fools. Do not tell us that restrictions are only for a short period of weeks; we know that they are going to go on after the month is up.
Above all, do not deprive us of the right to make our own life choices and decisions for ourselves and our families. A sizeable part of the nation is at tipping point and the protests are daily growing. Preservation of life is of course important, but so is preservation of a life worth living. For an increasing number of people, those in charge appear to have forgotten that.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I am glad to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and agree with a great deal of what she said. The last time we debated a Covid SI, I said that I was unhappy with the direction in which policy was moving, but I agreed with the Government that, at all costs, another national lockdown had to be avoided. We have not avoided such a lockdown, and I am now even less happy.
First, I am not convinced by the explanations given for this change of tack. As we have heard, the charts purporting to show its necessity were, to put it politely, not based on the latest evidence. In particular, the apocalyptic claims about what was likely in December if nothing was done have been undermined. Secondly, and equally bad, Ministers’ presentations continue to ignore the other side of the ledger; for example, the extra cancer deaths and other miseries well described by my noble friend Lady Meyer and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham. The lockdown’s enormous economic costs are of course also ignored. If we look only at the benefits of our policies and ignore the costs, it is easy to persuade ourselves that we are doing wonderfully when the reality is different. The House accepted a lack of cost-benefit analysis and impact assessment for the emergency measures in March. That was a failure of scrutiny by us but, deplorably, the Government have made it a habit.
Finally I turn to test, track and trace. But a short time ago, we were assured that the UK national system would be world beating. Not merely is it not yet world beating but struggles to reach the level of simple competence, especially in relation to trace. I begin to believe that it might be better to scrap the whole thing, save the money and rely on local endeavour. I also worry a lot about cleanliness and reinfection in hospitals.
I recognise all this is very difficult for the Prime Minister and my noble friend the Minister. Any Government would have a hard time, given the unknowns. There are a few positives. The Government have so far recognised the mistake they made last time and kept schools open. They also need to ensure that national exams are held next summer. Elite sport is provided for, unlike last time. However, overall, we are going in the wrong direction. We need to move towards a system where it is recognised that most people are not in real danger from Covid and are hampered as little as possible in everyday life, while those most at risk are helped to shelter if they feel it right. I agree on this matter with the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, and my noble friends Lord Howard of Rising, Lord Forsyth and Lord Robathan, and I will not be voting for this measure.
Baroness Morrissey (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am honoured to follow my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe and agree with so much of what she said, and with other Members of your Lordships’ House. They have put forward such compelling arguments around the shortcomings of the Government’s approach in decreeing another national lockdown.
I do not want to repeat anything that others have said but, as a businesswoman, I would like to draw parallels with how decisions are required to be made in business, at least those that will affect many stakeholders. In business, the higher the stakes, the higher the burden of proof on the decision-makers. A FTSE 100 CEO announcing a major change in strategy needs to bring along those who are affected by setting out the basis for the decision, the pros and cons and the likely impacts—good and bad—across all parts of the business and groups that will be affected. If it is a particularly controversial decision, that CEO may also take the trouble to explain what other options were considered and why they were not chosen. He or she will share the numbers, the assumptions behind them and the projections into the future and take detailed questions. If noble Lords ever attend a company’s results day, they will find it a spreadsheet-heavy affair. Even if it is sobering news, if the case is well made and the analysis sound then shareholders and other stakeholders, such as employees, tend to go along with the decision. The CEO respects the need to bring them with him or her because if he or she does not and the news is unpalatable, they will vote with their feet.
Of course, I completely understand that running the country is not the same as running a business. No, the stakes are much higher and far more people are affected, which is why there needs to be scrutiny and sound evidence to back up such decisions, at least in a democracy.
Let us remember that we have had eight months to develop our understanding, modelling and preparedness for Covid-19. We should not be back to where we started. Yet we hear a reprise of the justification used in March that we willingly accepted at the time because we knew so little about the virus and its impact, and had not built capacity in the NHS or effective treatments for those hospitalised.
At present, although we have even more to lose and the economy is already fragile, the less we are told, the weaker the basis is for the decision. There is vagueness and confusion around the medical evidence used to justify the second lockdown decree. On Monday, when Conservative MP Huw Merriman asked why East Sussex was being locked down when it had,
“one of the lowest Covid rates of any county”,
the Prime Minister replied that
“the medical data is, alas, overwhelming.”—[Official Report, Commons, 2/11/20; col. 49.]
I use my analogy again. Imagine a FTSE CEO, when challenged by an analyst about a decision to close, say, a factory, saying, “Alas, we just have to”. Real data is needed, not just numbers around the virus, although that would be a very useful start, given that the Government’s scientific advisers seem unconvinced by the out-of-date graph shown alongside Saturday’s announcement.
In my draft of this speech, I was going to say that there is no evidence that the Government have undertaken a broader impact assessment before coming to the conclusion that a second lockdown was necessary.
Baroness Morrissey (Con) [V]
There has now been an admission that no such impact analysis has been made. Yet although we do not know whether lockdown will work or even if it is necessary—
Baroness Morrissey (Con) [V]
We know, as others have said, that the collateral damage will be devastating. We and the public need to see how devastating that will be and why the other options, such as continuing with tiers 1 to 3 local restrictions or shielding only those who are vulnerable, would be worse. No one from the Government has shared any such analysis. Presumably, the Treasury has modelled the outcome on the economy, so why can we not see that? What are the expected excess deaths from untreated cancers, heart disease and suicides borne out of loneliness, despair and poverty?
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the time limit for Back-Bench contributions is three minutes. Everyone else has respected that limit and I will have to ask the noble Baroness to draw her remarks to a close.
Baroness Morrissey (Con) [V]
I will do so. I apologise.
It is shocking that when the stakes are so high, when a draconian step is being dictated to us, so little information is shared. Saying “alas” is not good enough. Will the Minister explain why the Government have not carried out an impact assessment and whether they plan to do so now?
Viscount Ridley (Con) [V]
My Lords, I had wanted to spend my three minutes spelling out the potential alternative to lockdown, namely focused protection, because the Government have not taken it seriously enough. A staggering 45% of the UK’s Covid deaths have come among the 0.6% of people who live in care homes. That is where our efforts should be focused.
However, like others, I was so disturbed by what I have learned about the numbers used last Saturday to bounce us into lockdown that I must devote my few minutes to that issue. We were told that the virus is spreading faster than in the reasonable worst-case scenario. Like my noble friend Lord Lilley, I had to find out from Ed Conway of Sky News that the scenario was drawn up a long time ago in July and had absurd assumptions about the timing of the second wave. We were told that we could expect 4,000 deaths a day on a chart that did not even disclose where the projection came from. That is more deaths than have occurred on any day in any country, even those with vastly larger populations than ours.
The fatality rate of the virus is about 0.2%, as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said, and falling. Therefore, as my noble friend Lady Noakes said, 4,000 deaths a day implies 2 million infections per day, with the entire population infected within a month. That does not pass the common-sense test. What we were not told, and had to drag out of the secretive conclave of oracles known as SAGE, was that that was a nearly three-week-old projection that subsequently had been updated twice, producing much lower numbers which were ignored. The death toll was undershooting not just that model but all three projections shown on that graph. I echo the despair of the noble Lord, Lord Desai, at the performance of the models. They mostly still do not take into account matters such as the heterogeneity of infectiousness, whereby in each wave the superspreaders are depleted and the wave therefore crests, which is why Sweden now has almost no daily deaths, as my noble friend Lord Balfe said, after no lockdown.
It is not true, as my noble friend the Minister said twice in his speech, that the numbers are rising exponentially; they have not been for several weeks. Even by last weekend, and certainly today, it is clear that the second wave is peaking. Cases peaked in Liverpool, Nottingham, Newcastle and Manchester well over a week ago. As we have heard this evening, the King’s College data show that cases are now starting to nudge downwards nationally.
I have huge sympathy for the Government but, in the light of the failure to produce proper evidence for this measure, as my noble friend Lady Altmann said, the Government have every justification to pause this lockdown, with its inevitable products of further deaths from suicide, untreated cancer and heart disease and its miserable consequences of mental ill health, unemployment, bankruptcy and poverty, and go back and demand proper evidence-based graphs from SAGE.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, the one thing that Covid-19 has done and continues to do is to puncture egos at the highest levels and in all parts of society throughout the world.
I have considerable sympathy with many of the points made by the amendments. In particular I believe that there is an overwhelming requirement, as many others have argued, for the Government to use the lockdown period to provide a strategy, a way for them to show that they have learned lessons from the first two lockdowns, that they are finding a way to exit it and that we are setting out on a course that will avoid the possibility that we could have a third wave early in 2021 followed by another lockdown.
Yesterday I asked the noble Baroness the Leader of the House:
“If the Government intend, as they state, to adopt a pragmatic and local approach again in the months ahead, is one of the lessons learned that this might be more successful if the Government seek to bring all the political parties, at all levels, into the process? Would the noble Baroness consider a joint plan of action along the lines suggested by”
others and
“her colleague and former Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bridges of Headley?”
Listening to today’s many contributions makes the case even more strongly to me that we need wider involvement by people than we have had hitherto. The noble Baroness the Leader replied:
“The noble Lord is right that we need co-operation locally and nationally”—[Official Report, 3/11/20; col. 688.]
but she referred only to co-operation locally with the Liverpool experiment; she made no mention whatever of anything that might happen at national level.
I believe that the country is sick and tired at the lack of direction. We heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, that people despair of politicians and the bickering among them. I would have thought that the assembly here today could all come together, work together and find a way through. My plea is that, as we look forward, we should try to work together against a common enemy as we always have done in the past when we have been faced with such an approach. That is the way in which we will get the confidence of the Government behind us and we will be more likely to find solutions to these problems. If our good friend, my noble friend Lord Desai, had been brought in, he could have been helping to find a better way forward than we have at the moment.
Lord Mancroft (Con) [V]
My Lords, while in February and March there was a paucity of data on which anyone could base an opinion or construct a strategy, there is now almost a tsunami of facts and figures, along with as much commentary as anyone could want. We therefore all know just about as much as the Prime Minister does. One result of that is that the case for this lockdown, as set out by the Prime Minister and his advisers on Saturday, and my noble friend the Minister today, has since been largely debunked by enough reputable scientists and commentators to the point where the Government’s case for this lockdown is simply no longer credible. In particular, Monday’s report by King’s College, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, set out that the R rate is significantly lower than the Government’s advisers reported on Saturday. As my noble friend Lord Lilley told us, the number of new cases in the north west has plateaued and is now falling.
No one doubts the seriousness of coronavirus, but the reality is that, while this is a very nasty, frightening illness, it is really only fatal to specific vulnerable people. More than 90% of the population get over the virus within a few days or weeks at worse. In these circumstances, it is difficult to understand the case for locking down the whole community. The chaos surrounding the Prime Minister’s announcement on Saturday and the delay in tabling this statutory instrument has simply added to the uncertainty surrounding this measure and the general lack of confidence in the Government’s handling of what is undoubtedly a difficult situation. There is a large and growing body of opinion, based on the enormous amount of data now available to all of us, that believes that the cure—in the form of a lockdown—may well be more damaging than the pandemic itself.
In order to address these concerns, will the Minister share with this House the work that the Government have presumably done which convinced them that there will be fewer job losses, less economic damage, fewer long-term physical and mental health problems in the population as a result of the lockdown than there would be without it? We all recognise the need to protect the NHS, and we have been told how many lives could be saved by lockdown, but this has been based only on projections. We now also need to be told how many lives will be ruined by the economic fallout of lockdown. The heavy price of lockdown will be paid by working people, and we need to know what that price is going to be. I shall, of course, listen carefully to everything that noble Lords say tonight, but as it stands, if my noble friends divide the House, I will support them.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, we have to remember that on Sunday—Remembrance Day—when we commemorate those who gave their lives and their health for our freedom, we will be one or two inches nearer to living in a benevolent police state or a benign autocracy. That is a matter of enormous grief to me and to many others. It has been the subtext of a number of speeches today, particularly the moving speech of my noble friend Lord Shinkwin.
I have two questions for the Minister. On the subject of churches, we had a perfectly benign but totally unsatisfactory Answer yesterday to my noble friend Lord Moylan’s Question from my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh. He was not able to produce a single shred of evidence to suggest that it was unsafe to go to a place of worship. Yesterday, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishop of Westminster, other leading Anglicans, the Chief Rabbi and many other faith leaders wrote to the Prime Minister spelling out how important it was to keep open places of worship for public worship. We have had no answer. I say to my noble friend that the House has every right to demand a proper answer. Where is his evidence to justify this draconian step, for that is what it is? We should resist it if we possibly can.
I go from the sublime to the earthy: why are we preventing people from playing on golf courses? Nothing is safer than regulated exercise in the open air. I am not a golfer; I have never played golf in my life and I do not want to. A petition was launched on Saturday of last week and, by Monday, it had a quarter of a million signatures. If you are expecting people to obey orders, you should make orders that you can justify; you should not alienate normally law-abiding people such as those who play golf or go to churches and synagogues. You should not alienate them, because the price you will pay as a Government will be a very large price indeed. I rest my case.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is hard to follow that. We have heard important and shocking contributions, exposing the flaws in the reliability of the evidence and forecasts used, but I want to make a plea that we do not just get trapped in evidence wars. We have just heard a fine example of why values matter, along with principles such as freedom.
I have been nervous about how enthusiastically and gleefully so many government Ministers have taken to drafting draconian measures, selling them to the public as though their belief in freedom could just be dispensed with. I have been disappointed by the opposition Benches in the other place, whose only regret at the illiberal measures is that they were not brought in sooner, harder, longer and scarier. A tax on freedom appeared to be fine if it is funded. I say this because it is important that we do not let values get forgotten and find ourselves trapped in seeing the world only through Covid eyes and evidence eyes, discussing things only in relation to science.
The Government need to shake off the mindset of the technocrat. They completely overlook the real lives of ordinary people. That was brought home to me by that public health pundit on the TV recently who raged at the stupidity of those members of the public who wanted to breach regulations for the sake of a roast dinner. When we get people in charge who cannot tell the difference between a roast dinner and Christmas Day, we are in trouble. He did not understand that the priorities that scientists might have, in a narrow way, might be different from those of the rest of us. Individuals are not reducible to data points on a graph, whether it is a dodgy graph or an accurate one. Lived lives are more than statistical talking points.
I urge government Ministers to talk to people, and I want them to note that that is not the same as polling them. Noble Lords might notice that polling people does not get accurate evidence or results. Many who are scared that their loved ones might catch the virus want to balance risk themselves. They want to say that there is more to life than physical health and that saving lives is not the only end, but that quality of life matters. Often the elderly are being robbed of their agency and used as a stage army to justify this lockdown, when their quality of life is completely compromised as they are cruelly denied access to their families—they are lonely and neglected.
The Minister mentioned in his introduction that these measures are time-limited, but my problem is that the wrong-headed measures will have long-term impacts on the community. They will rip the heart out of civil society if the Government are not careful, and they will not be able to roll it back. What could the impact be if we coerce people to turn their backs on their neighbours, families and friends and leave people cruelly isolated? Saying to the young and the fit, “Don’t go near the elderly or you’ll be accused of killing Granny” will have a long-term demoralising impact. Talk to the public; do not blame them, but realise that this measure of lockdown is knocking the stuffing out of people.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow so many eloquent and committed speakers. I speak today with the heaviest heart. In spite of the unnecessary delays, I accept that the proposed lockdown may be necessary to prevent pressure on the NHS beyond its capacity. I extend my good wishes to all the families of those affected and pray for their speedy recovery.
I welcome some of the financial measures being extended until December. Many of the questions that I have asked the Minister on countless occasions over the past few months remain unanswered. One such question that other noble Lords and I have repeatedly asked is about a cost-benefit and risk analysis and an equality impact assessment of government policies.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, about the unequal and unimaginable duress on the poor and low-wage families. Inevitably, this intensive period of isolation will again affect women and children, who may face further abuse and violence to comply with government regulations. Many leading civil society organisations have continuously warned that vulnerable women and their families are not accessing financial measures to which they are entitled. Will the Minister assure me that he has listened to their call, and to the many suggestions that other noble Lords and I have made to improve the Government’s communication with vulnerable groups? Will he agree to meet community experts urgently to address and improve this crucial messaging?
The Government have had months; why are there no assessments or data available to the Government on the effect of Covid on victims who have experienced exponential levels of poverty and domestic abuse, or on children and young people experiencing mental health issues? Have Public Health England and Kevin Fenton’s recommendations been understood and, if so, what action has been taken to improve financial packages and services to vulnerable groups? Are the Government mindful of the systemic inequalities which cause disproportionate numbers of deaths among minority communities? Will the Minister assure the House that lessons have been learned and actions are being taken to monitor and avoid unnecessary deaths and infections among the specified vulnerable groups as we progress through lockdown?
Locally led test, trace and isolation is crucial, as has been said by many noble Lords. It has been reported that Hammersmith and Fulham Council successfully helped the NHS reach out to its communities; its efforts and the work of housing officer Hasnat Syed were commended. Can the Government make local government their delivery partners using this model? The Government’s chaotic and inconsistent responses and delay is clearly one reason why we have the current number of in-patients.
While I give the benefit of the doubt to keeping children safe in education, I know that, in my own close and extended family, a number of children have tested positive for Covid, and I witnessed their parents’ dread of hospitalisation. I hope the Government will keep reviewing their decision based on sound evidence, and we must continue to do everything to keep the Government and Ministers answerable.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I shall be voting with the Government tonight, conscious of the many concerns expressed by noble Lords, not least those recently expressed by my noble friends Lord Cormack and Lady Altmann about the complete absence of evidence that the Government can produce for the ban on collective worship. We are at a point where something must be done and this is the only option in front of us, but I will make two points.
First, this has now ceased to be a matter fit for legislation. If you want a law to close pubs or restaurants, that is fine; it is nice and simple. However, when you come to micromanaging the lives of individuals and families, as Part 2 seeks to do, with 10 principal exemptions and numerous sub-paragraphs, it is simply absurd. It will be incomprehensible to families, police and enforcement authorities alike.
Many of these exemptions are common sense, but you cannot legislate for common sense; you can only ask people to exercise it. If any of these measures are to be continued after 2 December, they cannot be in this form; they need to be based on trusting people. That sounds like Sweden—I have never been a vocal advocate, or any advocate at all, for Sweden or its approach, but that is clearly where these regulations are pointing.
My second point is that Covid is a medical problem, requiring medical solutions. However, we have made it the prisoner of statisticians and geeks with models. As the noble Lord, Lord Desai, pointed out, they are geeks who cannot agree on anything significant, except that a line pointing upwards will continue to do so if nothing prevents it. We have no choice, in practice, but to rely on improvements in treatment and care to reduce mortality, as is already happening, as the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, pointed out.
We cannot rely on a silver bullet: a vaccine that may be only partially effective—who knows?—or a test, trace and isolate system, which, even if it tested and traced effectively, cannot persuade people to isolate. Today is the day, and November is a write-off, but we cannot find ourselves in this position again. I urge the Government to use this month to consider a reset in their approach and lead us forward on the basis of trusting people and improving treatment and care.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
The noble Baroness, Lady Browning, has withdrawn, so I now call the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott.
Baroness Boycott (CB) [V]
My Lords, it has been very interesting listening to noble Lords talking about the way we have blundered into this lockdown, thoughtlessly and without a great deal of evidence.
As many noble Lords will know, my concern is how people are going to eat or, rather, not going to eat. During the first lockdown, Feeding Britain—I declare an interest as its chair—worked with Northumbria University and found that one in four adults across the UK were struggling to access food they could afford. Half of all adults tried to cope by purchasing much less expensive—that is, really unhealthy—food which they would not ordinarily choose to buy. Nearly one in four adults looking after children ate less than they would normally do in order to feed their kids. Some people were going without food for up to three days. Since then, the economic consequences of the pandemic have led to many people, whose earnings from regular or self-employment previously afforded them a decent quality of life, using food banks for the first time. This was widely reported earlier this week.
There is a sense of outrage and injustice attached to each of these developments, and I propose the following four measures to the Minister to prevent these alarming trends worsening during this second lockdown, which is happening in the winter with a huge number of lay-offs. First, benefit sanctions must be suspended for at least the duration of this lockdown, given the lack of jobs which people can apply for. Secondly, the gaps in support schemes for low earners and the self-employed must be plugged so that nobody losing work is forced, in these cold months, to choose between eating or keeping warm. Thirdly, we need a Defra-led taskforce to maintain and improve the supply of affordable food to vulnerable people and those on low incomes. I suggest that money could be diverted to local cafés to feed such people. That also secures employment, rather than trying voucher schemes, which did not work last time. Fourthly, the national food strategy’s recommendations need to be implemented immediately, with a national programme of meals and activities for children over the Christmas and February holidays. We all know what that one is about.
Finally, while we all welcome the £20 increase in the universal credit, can that please be extended to those on legacy benefits such as JSA and ESA to ensure that they can meet any additional costs that crop up in this pandemic? My fear is that, in the absence of any of these reforms, the poorest in our society will be clobbered yet again by the latest social and economic consequences of Covid-19 and this pretty unnecessary shutdown.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Fairfax, has withdrawn. I call the noble Lord, Lord Trimble.
Lord Trimble (Con)
My Lords, I should point out at the outset that there is no significance whatsoever in the positioning of my name on the Order Paper. Although it is set up that way, I have nothing to do with the wind-up of this debate.
I have a sad story to tell. Before the debate started, I was looking for somewhere to sit, which is difficult in this building at the moment. At that point, some of the helpers took pity on me and told me that I could sit in this seat. As they had arranged me for me to get that seat, the only decent thing I could do was sit on it during the debate. It has been a very interesting exercise, sitting here over the last couple of hours and seeing the Government’s case disintegrate. We now have to do the more difficult job of finding ways of steering them back to doing something sensible, which is not happening at the moment. There are a couple of things on my mind, but I will try to keep to three minutes. I appreciate the cheerful wave that came from the other side.
Going back to the first situation we had; there was one reference during the debate to the Nightingale hospitals. We were very proud to see them created so quickly. I do not know the full number now—about half a dozen of them—but presumably, the designers had in mind that people would then work in them. I want to ask the Minister: what has happened to the Nightingale hospitals? They are sitting empty, I believe. Are they ever to be used? Are there any staff in line for them? If these hospitals were put into use, there would be a considerable increase in what is available and can be done. Think about that; we could do a lot more for people in care homes, and many other worthwhile things. However, it is really sad to think that those interesting buildings are just sitting there, not doing anything.
I noticed an article in a newspaper the other day by Sir Simon Stevens, the chief executive officer of NHS England, where he did not mention Nightingale hospitals at all. I wonder: is this just another case of the health service imposing its view on the situation, irrespective of what might be valuable or otherwise? The position in Liverpool also caught my eye; it is very encouraging that the situation in Liverpool is okay. We should bear that in mind.
I did say I would keep to three minutes and it has been signalled to me from the Front Bench that I should stop at his point. I was going to make another point but you never know, I may find an opportunity to do that later.
Baroness Jolly (LD) [V]
My Lords, I believe this is the first time we have debated one of these statutory instruments before they come into force—there will be more, and I hope this sets a trend. This is the umpteenth of these regulations since Covid began in the UK, and it is worth remembering this SI applies only to England. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have their own legislation, outlining their restrictions.
The SI is in five parts: Part 1 sets out the definitions for the rest of the regulations; Part 2 is a list of 12 reasons one can leave the home; Part 3 has “Restrictions on gatherings”; Part 4 the restrictions on businesses, and Part 5 gives details about enforcement. It will expire in 28 days and goes into the first week of December but, as Mr Gove pointed out, lockdown can be always be extended further. The fervent hope is that this lockdown will curb the virus, as it did in the spring.
As has been said many times before, public health and environmental health know their areas well and are best placed to support and work closely with their communities. Local authorities are best placed to test, track and isolate. My noble friend Lord Scriven put it well: he referred to “shoe-leather epidemiology”.
We have four weeks. Can the Minister explain how his department will work with local authorities in this time? Can he confirm that we are in a much better place regarding PPE, both in the NHS and in care homes? In the space between lockdowns, have we found a way for those in care homes to see their family? Could the testing system used in Liverpool be adapted for determining the Covid status of staff and visitors to care homes?
We have often debated the problem of mental health in people who will again be confined to home—particularly, but not exclusively, the elderly and those who are ill. Many who have never before had a mental health problem now do. What support is available to them and how might they find that support? Can the Minister signpost the way to talking therapies?
Once we have reached the end of these restrictions, how confident are the Government that the population will not head out to party and shop in the Christmas spirit, undoing much of the good that the lockdown achieved?
Our local church congregation has spent some considerable time ensuring that distanced worship is possible, and I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester about championing public worship and the need to keep open churches, synagogues, temples, mosques and gurdwaras.
Regulation 3 refers to elite sportspeople. I enjoy watching sport, like many of us, and I fit into the category of someone who watches key annual national matches and has a preference for some sports over others. But why are those well-paid members of the sports community not treated like anyone else who has a living to earn? Why does the help and support they get not apply to professional musicians playing for a national orchestra, or actors? Perhaps I am missing something obvious, and I wonder whether the Minister would enlighten me.
The noble Lord, Lord Knight, made a really good point about play. Will the Minister outline why children cannot take part in organised outdoor sport outside school? It would be good for their well-being and fitness. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, underpinned the argument by speaking about the benefit of riding for the disabled.
In the past I have asked the Minister about the number of people who have been fined for breaking the regulations. I am sure we appreciate that the police have plenty to do without having to attend to those contravening these regulations. Is anyone in the Department of Health and Social Care or the Home Office keeping a record of these penalties and how much has been added to the Exchequer in fines? Is there a particular age or gender profile?
Moving to test and trace, the Government should invest heavily in localised test, trace and isolate to bring it up to speed before Christmas. I welcome the move to pay those on low incomes who test positive a £500 support payment. I understand that No. 10 might be concerned about quarantine compliance. Can the Minister confirm a press report that, soon, if tested positive there will be a need to self-isolate for a week only? It is one of the rumours going around, but I cannot find a definitive government source. Experience thus far suggests that between only one-fifth and one-quarter isolate fully, so that might be a pragmatic solution. It is difficult to predict what individuals will do. In my region, the south-west, the situation has been quite clear thus far, but now we note that Covid numbers are rising.
Over the last few days, we have seen the spotlight fall on Liverpool, where there will be the first all-population testing programme, involving half a million people. We await the results and following action with interest. Can the Minister explain the technology being used and the process of selecting that technology? How many candidates were looked at and what sort of prior testing took place, and where? Was single-source procurement used, and if so why?
Many noble Lords have asked about the quality and availability of evidence. We need to know who to believe, but those making decisions about our future surely need to know that as well.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, I will actually be addressing the statutory instrument, the Minister will be pleased to hear. In a way, these Benches are probably the least of his problems tonight. I do not expect that he is thanking his clutch of colleagues who, for one reason or another, are trying to stop these important regulations or have regrets. Of course, most of the regrets are perfectly legitimate questions to be asked and concerns to be raised, which is actually the point of the debate. Putting down an amendment to the Motion to double your speaking time seems a bit iffy to me.
On behalf of these Benches, I will not be commenting further on the amendments to the Motion, which I think are based mostly on internal Conservative Party arguments. We will abstain if any of the five noble Lords move to a Division. As for the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, we know that he has form—possibly a quasi-herd immunity supporter, I wonder, who disregards the science which at present tells us that such abandonment of restrictions might mean many deaths until we have a cure or a vaccine. We know the noble Lord’s intemperate views are not those of his own Government. If he tests the opinion of the House tonight, we will vote against his amendment. Frankly, this is too important for the whole country to play games, like the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, and those who support him.
As my right honourable friend Sir Keir Starmer and my honourable friend Jon Ashworth have made clear in the past few days, these Benches have major concerns over the Government’s decision-making, communications and messaging, and it is of the greatest importance that we have far more clarity about what is to be done during lockdown II and its exit route, as my noble friend Lord Rooker said.
We have been offering to work with the Government for months. Indeed, yesterday in the House of Commons my honourable friend Rosena Allin-Khan MP asked the Minister Nadine Dorries five or six times about working together to deal with the mental health pandemic. She got a very rude brush-off from that Minister—not at all the kind of behaviour we would expect from our Minister.
This afternoon, the House is invited to endorse the Prime Minister’s decision to impose upon the whole country a deep, restrictive lockdown for which the exit strategy is still unclear. As the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster confirmed on Sunday, it could stretch beyond four weeks. On these Benches, we have argued very strongly that the previous lockdown was the time when we could have got the vital systems, particularly test and trace, in place and rebuilt the vital local capacity that has been so foolishly run down by years of cuts and hostility to local government. This time we hope that the Government will not only recognise the crucial role of local knowledge and expertise but will fund local authorities as they have promised. We have at least to flag up that one day there will have to be a reckoning for the absurd way that contracts have been handed out to private organisations in a manner more reminiscent of a banana republic.
As Keir Starmer has made clear, Labour supports the introduction of national measures to slow down the spread of the virus. This is an approach that he made weeks ago on the emergence of evidence on 21 September, as my noble friends Lord Hunt and Lord Knight said, and for which he and the Labour Party received abuse from the Government and some of their supporters in the media. I think we are entitled to point out that the initial reaction of the Government was to do too little, too late; their shambolic press conference on Sunday was a graphic illustration of that. The cost of inaction is an inevitable harder lockdown now, as my noble friend Lady Andrews said.
Labour will support what the evidence required all along. Of course, here and in the other place, the details will be subject to scrutiny, which is our job. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, said, we are at least debating these regulations four or five hours before the lockdown into comes into place, which is definite progress. We will join the Government in delivering the message that everyone has to play their part, abide by the rules and bring the rate of infection down. The Government are rightly saying that lockdown II may not end on 2 December but, like other noble Lords, I ask the Minister: what is the strategy for exiting this lockdown? Are we really going to go back to the three tiers that did not appear to work in the first place?
Above all, we have to have ready a proper world-class find, test, trace, isolate and support system. There have been so many months of unfulfilled promises on this, but it will have disastrous implications if we do not get it right. It is that case that our hospitals are filling up. Almost 11,000 people are now in hospital. Does the Minister feel that that will end if we bring the nationwide R rate to less than one?
I make a final plea for those who have people in care homes. Mistakes were made in the first wave of the pandemic. Families will be anxious to know that their loved ones in care homes will be protected as infections rise, but keeping care home residents safe should not mean locking residents up and keeping them away from the people who care about them, so can the Minister guarantee that families will be able to visit care homes during this lockdown and that they will be treated as key workers with access to regular testing so that they can visit their loved ones safely?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, this has been a hard-hitting debate. I thank noble Lords for their clarity and candour. In honesty, I do not agree with everything that has been said, but I share the frustration expressed by noble Lords in the Chamber and I absolutely recognise the seriousness of the issues that have been raised.
Before going further, I reiterate noble Lords’ thanks to those NHS, social care and ancillary services for their ongoing work to tackle the virus, and to the public for the sacrifices that they have already made. I also thank the usual channels for allowing this debate to be scheduled before the regulations we are debating come into effect. I recognise that the delay in holding debates has been a concern for a number of Members, as has been raised many times in this Chamber, including by the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly. We have listened and will continue to value noble Lords’ scrutiny as we respond to the Covid crisis.
I completely hear the concerns of my noble friends Lord Robathan, Lord Forsyth and Lady Noakes and others that we have not published an impact statement. This is a temporary piece of legislation; there is no requirement to publish an impact statement. However, there has been a very large amount of published data, shared analysis and debate on these subjects. My noble friend Lord Mancroft put it very well with his characteristic colour. With NHS data, test and trace data, PHE data, SPI-M data and SAGE papers, a colossal amount of scientific data has been published into a vigorous debate. It is impossible to generate a scientific consensus; that is not what science is about. It is up to the politicians to make the decision. It has been the Government’s decision to go into these measures, and we stand by them, but in doing so we welcome the scrutiny of this Chamber and Parliament. I welcome the fact that we are debating these regulations today.
Noble Lords have raised a number of issues about the regulations. I would like to reference them, even if I do not have the time or capacity to offer answers to each and every one. A lot of them are about how we mitigate the lockdown measures. As I said in my opening words, we have already done a lot but there is more that we can do.
The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, made a very good point about vape shops; I am happy to take that back to the department.
A number of Peers, including the noble Baroness, mentioned tennis and golf; that has been discussed and is the subject of a high-profile petition. I will take that back to the department as well.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, and others mentioned rehearsals and live events, a subject that I care about enormously.
In terms of the relatives of those in care homes, particularly those visitors who provide an enormous amount of service and support for their loved ones, we are working really hard to get the testing capacity and systems in place to change the situation. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, raised this.
The challenge faced by special needs children whose schools have been shut was well raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. There will be challenges around riding schools for the disabled, but I am happy to take that back to the department. The noble Lord, Lord Knight, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, mentioned children playing together, a situation that I am very aware of and one that I can definitely look into.
Private music teaching, raised by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, swimming in pools, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and affordable food, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, are all subjects that I am happy to take back to the department and write to noble Lords on.
Most powerful and emphatic was the point on freedom to worship, which my noble friends Lord Cormack and Lord Moylan, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, all raised. It is a very touching and important issue. I am happy to take it back to look into it further and, if possible, seek some sort of mitigation.
The noble Lord, Lord Desai, put it well when he described the “luxury” of six Motions on this SI; it is not something that I have come across before. I will try to enjoy the privilege in addressing them.
The concern of my noble friend Lord Lilley that the regulations were laid under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 has been raised a number of times in the Chamber. I have answered it a few times before but will do so again. His point is that this Act does not give specific powers to Her Majesty’s Government to impose restrictions on uninfected persons. However, the Government’s view is that this legislation does provide those powers. I am happy to take up his points on the Civil Contingencies Act with him. It has been looked at by the Government, but our very strong advice is that it could not be used on this occasion.
In relation to the concerns of my noble friends Lord Shinkwin and Lord Cormack, I do not agree that we compare unfavourably with totalitarian regimes. This virus can infect everyone, and the only way to protect our loved ones is by taking the necessary steps to bring down the R number. Our measures have been applied largely through consent and enjoy enormous popular support.
I completely agree with the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, on the impact of the lockdown on mental illness and other long-term psychological harm. The Government share these concerns and we have taken a huge number of steps to reduce the risk, which include providing exemptions to stay-at-home guidance and supporting the charities concerned.
A number of noble Lords including the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, raised NHS Test and Trace and the challenge around tracing. I agree that the regulation provides breathing space for us to upgrade the tracing service and build the capacity of the testing service. Noble Lords mentioned the work we are doing on that in Liverpool; that will be an enormously impactful pilot and experiment which, if it proves successful, could have a transformative effect on the way in which we manage this pandemic.
The noble Lord, Lord Boateng, referred to the challenge faced by those from a BAME background. I reassure him that staff who are potentially at greater risk of serious illness from Covid have been protected. Over 95% of BAME staff in the NHS have received risk assessments and, where necessary, agreed to mitigating measures.
As I said before, no Government would want to take these measures. However, if we do not take them now, we will not make use of the hard work and sacrifices that we have all made. We do not seek to repeat the mistakes of the past, but to demonstrate that we have a plan and are serious about beating this virus. As the Prime Minister said in the other place, although scientists are bleak in their predictions in the short term, we are unanimously optimistic about the medium and long terms. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, asked about the exit strategy. The ongoing work on vaccines and test and trace will, I believe, allow us to beat this virus.
I will quite happily come back to the House when these regulations are near their expiry, if not before, to update your Lordships on our next steps. I believe that the case is proven, and that the necessity and urgency of these measures have been put forward by the Government. For that reason, I respectfully ask that my noble friends Lord Robathan, Lord Forsyth, Lady Noakes, Lord Shinkwin, Lady Meyer and Lord Lilley withdraw their amendments to the Motion. I hope that I have addressed noble Lords’ questions, and beg to move.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend the Minister—and I hope he still is a friend—may have noted that there was not a lot of support for his position in the House. I thought the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, was somewhat rude to me in this allegedly courteous House. I remind her of what Dr David Nabarro of the WHO said. I remember him doing excellent work when I was on the DfID Select Committee. He said that lockdowns make
“poor people an awful lot poorer”.
I have not heard any Member of the Labour side say that.
Wise counsel and friends who I respect told me to pull my punches, not to push this amendment and to wait for something more important. I am not sure that there is anything more important. Now is the time to stand up and be counted. I do not wish to defend my weakness to my locked-down children or to the locked-down young people of this country who are suffering, in my opinion, unnecessarily. Time will tell whether I am right or if the Government are. I may easily be wrong—I have been before—but I would like to divide the House on this amendment to the Motion.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
At end insert “but that this House regrets that no impact assessment has been published which sets out the (1) number of jobs lost, (2) businesses permanently destroyed, (3) costs to taxpayers, and (4) consequences for mental and physical health, of a national lockdown; and regrets that Her Majesty’s Government have not provided a strategy for the lifting of the restrictions put in place to address the COVID-19 pandemic.”
Baroness Noakes
At end insert “but that this House regrets that the modelling used to support the claims that (1) the National Health Service would be overwhelmed, and (2) daily deaths from COVID-19 would be 4,000 or more, has not been subjected to independent review and challenge.”
Lord Shinkwin
At end insert “but that this House regrets that a further national lockdown to address the COVID-19 pandemic signals to totalitarian regimes that Her Majesty’s Government have failed to address the pandemic effectively, and that the United Kingdom’s parliamentary democracy is weak.”
Baroness Meyer
At end insert “but that this House regrets that the Regulations will result in an increase in mental illness and other long-term psychological harm.”
Lord Lilley
At end insert “but that this House regrets that the Regulations have been laid under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, which does not give specific powers to Her Majesty’s Government to impose restrictions on uninfected persons, and not the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, which does.”
Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill
Wednesday 4th November 2020
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords 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 Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 3 November 2020 - (large print) - (3 Nov 2020)
Agriculture Bill
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text