House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(4 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Alok Sharma)
The Government have so far provided £13.2 billion of support to self-employed people through the self-employment income support scheme, and that support continues. The UK’s self-employment scheme is among the most generous internationally.
Margaret Greenwood [V]
According to the Association of Independent Professionals and the Self-Employed, the solo self-employed contributed an estimated £305 billion to the UK economy last year. So why have 1.6 million self-employed people been excluded from government support during the pandemic? What will the Minister do to address this failure of Government to recognise the huge contribution self-employed people make to the economy and to our communities?
Alok Sharma
As the hon. Lady will know, the self-employment scheme has been targeted at those who derive the majority of their income from self-employment. I hope she will welcome an extension of that scheme, which the Chancellor has announced. It will now last for a further six months, from November of this year to April 2021.
Wendy Chamberlain
Following yesterday’s news about a covid vaccine, for the first time in a while it feels as though there may be an end in sight. If it becomes clear that a return to normality will be possible in the next few months, surely the only responsible approach is to expand support and adopt a true “whatever it takes” approach to help all businesses, including those currently excluded. So in the light of yesterday’s news, will the Secretary of State agree to work with the Treasury to review the economic support currently on offer?
Alok Sharma
One feature of the pandemic has been that we have indeed reviewed the support and provided further support where it is needed. As I said, we have extended the self-employment income support scheme, which means an extra £7.3 billion of support for the self-employed through November to January. Of course, we all hope that a vaccine comes forward, but the support is there, as well as support in terms of grants for businesses that are required to be closed.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
The Secretary of State continues to duck the question. He has been told for about seven months of those excluded from support—the battered, bruised and brushed off. We are talking about the 3 million—the newly self-employed, the directors and the freelancers who have been given nothing. He is the Business Secretary, so is it that the Chancellor has ignored his calls for support or is it just that he simply does not care?
Alok Sharma
The hon. Gentleman knows me quite well and I think he will understand, at least in private, that I do very much care, as does every Member of this House. He talks about those who are not able to get access to this scheme, and, obviously, one issue relates to those who are paid in dividends. As he knows, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has made the point that it is difficult to distinguish between income earned through an individual’s own company dividends and dividends that have been paid from holding shares in other companies. If the hon. Gentleman has suggestions as to how we might overcome this, I would be interested to work with him.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Alok Sharma)
I want to thank those in the manufacturing sector for the brilliant work they are doing to support the economy and keep it going. Despite the national restrictions, the manufacturing and construction sectors can continue to operate and are doing so. Thus far, the manufacturing sector has benefited from about £5 billion of furlough grants and £4 billion of government-backed loans.
Ms Ghani
I thank the Secretary of State for his response. I wish to seek further assurances on behalf of my three local chambers of commerce—Hailsham, Crowborough and Uckfield. What further support can be provided for small and medium-sized manufacturing firms in my constituency, not only during covid, but during transition next year?
Alok Sharma
I know that my hon. Friend works closely with her three local chambers of commerce in Hailsham, Crowborough and Uckfield. On planning for transition, whatever our future trading relationship with the European Union things will change for businesses and they do need to prepare. My Department and my fellow Ministers and I have been communicating and engaging directly with businesses, and we will continue to do so.
Mrs Latham [V]
Rolls-Royce is a very important manufacturer throughout the UK, not least in Derby, where it employs more than 12,000 people. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that whenever the Government help Rolls-Royce, all money spent will directly support the recovery of domestic civil aerospace manufacturing?
Alok Sharma
My hon. Friend is a great champion of workers in her constituency, and she and I have met to discuss these issues. She will know that the Government are supporting the aerospace and aviation sectors to the tune of almost £9 billion through loans and grants. Of course, we want that support to create a positive business environment and ensure that Rolls-Royce and, indeed, other companies in the sector base their work in the UK, sustaining well-paid local jobs for decades to come. As my hon. Friend will know, Rolls-Royce proposes to consolidate the assembly and testing of its large aero-engines from Singapore to Derby.
Jack Brereton
Many manufacturers, especially those in Stoke-on-Trent, face high energy costs, and there is little incentive to switch to cleaner electricity because of the higher cost. Will my right hon. Friend look at what additional support can be offered to energy-intensive industries so that our manufacturers remain competitive and can invest in improved efficiency?
Alok Sharma
My hon. Friend is a great champion of manufacturers in his constituency. As he will know, the Government are committed to helping businesses to reduce their costs through resource and energy efficiency. We have established a package of compensation exemptions from electricity costs worth more than £470 million, which will of course benefit businesses in energy-intensive sectors such as ceramics, which is a particularly important industry for Stoke-on-Trent.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
One obvious way to help our manufacturers is with a green stimulus equal to the scale of the economic emergency that we face. President-elect Biden has pledged $2 trillion for such a stimulus; the French and German Governments have pledged tens of billions of euros; and Britain has pledged just £5 billion. Will the Secretary of State tell us when this Government are going to show the same scale of ambition—not in 10 years’ time but now—to create hundreds of thousands of jobs in this country?
Alok Sharma
The right hon. Gentleman may have been reading the Conservative party manifesto, because we have been clear that we have an ambition to create 2 million green jobs by 2030 and have already set out some of the measures, including £2 billion in green homes grants to support 100,000 green jobs. The Prime Minister has also announced that we will be boosting the Government’s target for offshore wind by 2030 from 30 GW to 40 GW, thereby bringing additional jobs to the sector. We will set out more plans over the coming weeks.
Edward Miliband
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, but the rhetoric does not match the reality. Look at what other countries, including France and Germany, are doing, and look at the scale of what we are doing. He mentions offshore wind; let us take that as an example. As he says, the Government want to see 40 GW of offshore wind by 2030, but to ensure that the jobs in manufacturing the turbines are created here, we need the ports and supply-chain investment. The amount that the Government have pledged—£160 million over 10 years—is woefully inadequate. What is the Secretary of State’s estimate of the public investment required to meet his own target that 60% of the content of the offshore wind industry should be British—a target he is missing badly? Will the Government now fund and support the scale of investment required?
Alok Sharma
We are making funding available to upgrade ports, as the right hon. Gentleman said. I hope he would acknowledge that, as a result of the Government’s work on contracts-for-difference auctions, we have the biggest offshore wind industry in the world, which has driven down prices significantly and made offshore wind viable. We will continue to work to support those jobs, and we are talking about tens of thousands of extra jobs in the sector by 2030.
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
Vaccine manufacturing for covid is being led by Ms Kate Bingham from the vaccine taskforce. Not only has she disclosed official sensitive documents to hedge-fund managers in the United States, but she has spent £670,000 of taxpayers’ money on private public relations advisers instead of using civil servants and is set to benefit financially from state investments. Ms Bingham should be sacked. If she is not sacked, who will be held to account for this gross conflict of interest and misuse of public funds? Will it be the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister?
Alok Sharma
I would point out that the vaccines taskforce, which sits in my Department and is led by Kate Bingham, has done an absolutely brilliant job over the past few months. We have managed to secure 350 million doses across six of the most promising vaccine candidates. The hon. Gentleman will have seen the statement that came through from Pfizer/BioNTech yesterday; we were the first country in the world to secure access to that particular vaccine candidate. The hon. Gentleman talks about spending; the senior responsible officer, in line with his delegated authority, approved that resourcing in accordance with public sector practices and frameworks.
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Amanda Solloway)
Young Enterprise does excellent work, engaging young people and providing valuable education in enterprise and financial skills. Ministerial colleagues recently met Young Enterprise to hear about its work and correspondence on this and have shared that information with education Ministers. If I may also add, the lessons that I learned when I did Young Enterprise in the sixth form, which was not so long ago, were invaluable.
Chris Loder
As someone who did not go to university, who benefited greatly from Young Enterprise and who is from a rural area, I know full well how important the scheme is. How is the Minister helping young people in rural areas, such as in my constituency of West Dorset, and will she ensure that the development of non-cognitive skills in schools features in our industrial strategy?
Amanda Solloway
Skills for adults and young people in rural areas, such as West Dorset, are absolutely invaluable. Towns and cities are an important part of supporting the future economy, and we are working with education colleagues to consider how Government support on skills will be an integral part of our strategy for growth.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Amanda Solloway)
This Government are fully committed to unleashing innovation and supporting priority technologies. For example, combined public and private investment in the National Quantum Technologies Programme over its 10-year lifetime is set to pass the £1 billion mark. We are investing £750 million through Innovate UK to support innovative businesses through the pandemic and have also launched the future fund.
Richard Graham
I welcome the Minister’s response. Does she agree more broadly with me that the UK should retain key technology assets where there is a national interest and that Arm Ltd’s capabilities in semiconductor and chip design, including processes for mobile phones, have national security implications? If she agrees, can she, her Department and the Government do more to protect the national interest in the proposed sale of Arm by SoftBank to Nvidia?
Amanda Solloway
Arm is an important part of the UK tech sector and makes a significant contribution to the UK economy. Although acquisitions are primarily a commercial matter for the parties concerned, the Government monitor them closely. When a takeover may have a significant impact on the UK, we will not hesitate to investigate further and take action. We will be scrutinising the deal carefully to understand its impact on the UK.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
The Secretary of State works closely with the Chancellor, and I and my officials have had regular engagement with the Treasury. I recently met the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to discuss ongoing financial support.
We have announced additional cash grants and extensions to the job retention scheme and existing loan schemes.
Yvette Cooper
Pubs and high street shops are particularly hard hit by losing pre-Christmas takings. The Minister will know that it is also the hospitality and retail sectors that are most at risk from accelerating automation, which will affect jobs. What will he do to work with those sectors on sector-specific plans to prevent the double whammy of covid and automation affecting jobs, so that our pubs and high street shops can be open?
Paul Scully
The right hon. Lady raises a really important point. As well as having regular meetings with the hospitality and retail sectors about the immediate future, we also have the Retail Sector Council and the Hospitality Futures Group, an industry-led a group, which we participate in fully to make sure that we can address such long-term concerns.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Nadhim Zahawi)
We know that many areas of the economy face challenges, as we have just heard, especially in sectors that have closed under new national restrictions, such as hospitality. That is why we have extended the coronavirus job retention scheme to March and provided an unprecedented support package to businesses and to workers.
Bill Esterson
Many working people have been excluded since March. They do not qualify for furlough; they do not qualify for the self-employed scheme; and their businesses do not qualify for the grants. It is no good the Government giving the mantra about universal credit. It will not wash, because most people who have been excluded do not qualify for universal credit. The Government were right to U-turn over the injustice facing hungry children, so when will they fix the growing injustice faced by millions of excluded people in this country who just want to put food on the table for their children?
Nadhim Zahawi
The Government have put forward a comprehensive package of support, as we heard from the Secretary of State, for both individuals and businesses. The self-employed income support scheme has also been extended. The support package is not only about the welfare system, which has had an additional £9 billion put into it to help people, but about the bounce back loans, the tax deferrals and the rental support, which are all important parts of it, as well as mortgage holidays and other business support grants through local government.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Today’s unemployment figures are a sobering reminder of the scale and pace of the economic crisis now upon us. It is becoming increasingly clear that, despite the Government’s initial early action, their slowness and constant indecision are making the jobs crisis worse. Will they now get ahead of the curve, as France, Germany and Spain have done, not only to protect our key industries such as aerospace and automotive, but to bring forward an ambitious plan for their green renewal at a scale and pace to match the crisis? As we are seeing at Rolls-Royce and elsewhere, once decent jobs go, they are gone for good; and communities across the north and midlands can ill afford to lose them.
Nadhim Zahawi
The hon. Lady makes an important point about the labour market statistics released this morning. The Government are committed to helping the most vulnerable, as was demonstrated with the £2 billion kickstart scheme for young people, who have in many ways been heavily impacted by the challenge of covid. She will see from this Government a green industrial strategy. As the Secretary of State has already set out—judge us by what we do—36% of the world’s offshore energy is produced by this country, and we will go much further.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
Employers must have the flexibility to offer different terms and conditions. However, using threats about firing and rehiring as a negotiating tactic is unacceptable. The Government are working with ACAS to convene a roundtable of business organisations and employee representatives to discuss these issues.
Anna McMorrin
Earlier this year, I joined workers and trade unions across Cardiff North to stand up to businesses behaving badly. People are struggling to grapple with the uncertainties of life under covid, yet some businesses are still using fire and rehire tactics to undermine pay and working conditions to line their own pockets. Will the Government stop the dithering and delay, outlaw these bad practices and protect workers’ rights?
Paul Scully
I understand the enormous impact of losing a job, or even of a job being threatened. We expect all employers to treat employees fairly and respectfully, but businesses in real financial difficulty do need the flexibility to offer new terms and conditions to save as many jobs as they can.
Kim Johnson
Increasingly, rogue bosses such as British Airways, Centrica and ESS are using the covid crisis to cut pay and terms and conditions and are exploiting the legal loophole to fire and rehire loyal staff. With many workers now facing an impossible choice between losing pay or losing their job, will the Minister explain how these scandalous tactics can possibly be legal in the first place, and will he legislate to outlaw them—yes or no?
Paul Scully
It is a commercial matter, but businesses do need flexibility with regard to terms and conditions—both for them and their employees—to protect jobs. We expect all employers to treat employees fairly and in the spirit of partnership. The very threat of fire and rehire is totally unacceptable, and we hope that all the businesses cited will reach a negotiated outcome with their employees.
Mr Virendra Sharma [V]
I hope that the Minister will give a more open and clear response to my question. Heathrow airport is pushing staff to strike—a measure that garnered support in a ballot ending last week. Its behaviour now amounts to bullying. Staff are being summoned to meetings before the consultation is finished and without support. Will the Secretary of State say that this is wrong, condemn this behaviour and agree that this business has relied on the support of the community, who are owed something back in these troubled times?
Paul Scully
I know how important Heathrow and the airlines sector is to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, which is why we put so much support into that sector. I come back to the fact that we expect all employers to treat employees fairly and respectfully, no matter what job, what position and what community they live in.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman is a Minister in government. He has repeatedly called this unacceptable. A number of his colleagues have called out companies such as British Airways that have shamefully used fire and rehire tactics. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury called it
“a practice that all of us in the House would condemn.”—[Official Report, 13 October 2020; Vol. 682, c. 168.]
The Prime Minister said that he was looking at what we can do. People are fed up with this Government’s warm words and no intention of action, so let us hear it today: does the Minister support the aims of the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), and will he support it?
Paul Scully
We will address and respond to the Bill when it comes before us. We have to reach the balance between protecting jobs and allowing employers who are in difficulty to have the necessary flexibility. We are one of the most flexible employment countries in the developed world, and we want to remain so, but we do want to make sure that businesses have their responsibilities and use those responsibilities wisely.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
Surely the Minister must understand that fire and rehire tactics are not part of a negotiating tactic: they are a gun to the head of every worker in the organisation. It has nothing to do with negotiation: it says, “You will accept lower terms—otherwise we will chuck you out.” British Gas has recently become one of a number of large companies threatening their workforces in this way with this medieval tactic. I think the Minister must agree that it is not only a terrible way to reward the thousands of energy workers who have worked day and night to keep our energy supply constant and reliable during the covid crisis, but must be seen as a completely unacceptable way to conduct industrial negotiations. Will he join me in condemning the use of this practice and, specifically, write to British Gas demanding that it withdraw its threats to its employees?
Paul Scully
In my first answer on this subject, I talked about the fact that we believe that making threats about firing and rehiring as a negotiating tactic is totally unacceptable. I hope that the situation with Centrica will be satisfactorily resolved both for employers and employees. However, it is important to retain the flexible labour markets where we remain 11th out of 140 countries with regard to the ease of hiring and, indeed, firing workers to make sure that we can protect important sectors across this country.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab) [V]
British Gas has put a halt on its fire and rehire plans, but only until the beginning of next year, and workers, many of whom are my constituents, are not optimistic. Centrica plc, British Gas’s parent company, reported profits of £900 million this year. Does the Minister agree that it is morally indefensible for workers to be expected to accept a reduction in their pay and conditions when shareholders still enjoy dividends, and if so, what steps will he take to ensure that workers are protected from these underhand tactics?
Paul Scully
I talked about using threats in terms of negotiation. Employers need to treat employees fairly and in a spirit of partnership. I therefore hope that Centrica will reach a negotiated outcome with employees.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
I have regular discussions on the effect of covid-19 with a range of retail reps. Next month, I will co-chair a meeting of the Retail Sector Council. There has been unprecedented support, including within the £200 billion of Government support for the retail sector, but clearly we must work closely with it at all times.
Liz Twist
Retail sector employment is a huge part of employment in my constituency of Blaydon, from huge centres like the Metrocentre to independent retailers across the whole constituency. With all but essential shops now closed for a second time, what further practical support are the Government giving to those businesses struggling to pay their rent, and their other bills, as a result of the covid crisis?
Paul Scully
We have extended the moratorium until the end of the year and will continue to work with tenants. This week, I had a roundtable with a ministerial colleague in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. We will work with tenants and landlords to come up with a fair solution for retailers across this country to protect our high streets and our retail areas.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Nadhim Zahawi)
My Department continues to deliver a wide range of measures to support UK business. We have extended our loan schemes across the board, which have already delivered over £62 billion of finance, until the end of January, and the new local authority grants will also offer further support to businesses affected by the national restrictions.
Nickie Aiken
I thank the Minister for his reply. During this second lockdown, many of us are likely to find comfort in reading. My constituent David Campbell, who runs Everyman’s Library, has written—with the backing of over 20 leading authors, including Salman Rushdie, Simon Jenkins and Sebastian Faulks—to the Prime Minister asking that books be considered an essential item for sale during the current restrictions. Does my hon. Friend agree that, to support small businesses during the covid-19 crisis, it would be preferable that local independent shops, which are based in the heart of their local communities and often employ local people, remain open and secure sales, rather than a global internet brand?
Nadhim Zahawi
My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is a very difficult decision that we have grappled with. Independent bookshops are of great importance to local communities, with books playing a vital role in people’s mental health and wellbeing. The decision to close non-essential retail is part of a wider package of measures to make it clear that people should stay at home and accept this for a limited period of time. Of course, bookshops can offer delivery and click-and-collect services, which I am sure that her constituent, David Campbell, is probably considering.
Julian Sturdy [V]
The Government’s new support measures for businesses provide a genuine lifeline. However, support to stay closed is not the long-term answer, and many will only remain viable if they can be open as normal for the pre-Christmas season. May I ask what the Minister is doing to urgently lobby Government and the Prime Minister on the necessity of keeping businesses going and getting them reopened from 2 December, including in hospitality, which is so important to a city like York?
Nadhim Zahawi
My hon. Friend makes a very powerful point, and I absolutely agree with him. This is not the long-term answer, and I fully appreciate that retailers across England will be desperate to reopen in time for the important Christmas trading period. The regulations, as the Prime Minister said, will expire on 2 December, and we will return to the local restrictions thereafter—the tiered system. Of course, Ministers and officials are regularly engaging across Government, including my colleagues in BEIS, to ensure the sector can reopen safely on 2 December.
Dr Spencer
I thank the Minister for his answer: financial support for businesses is such a lifeline at this time. Speaking to businesses across the spectrum in Runnymede and Weybridge—from those in the wedding sector to logistics and corporate events—they tell me that one of the biggest challenges they face is uncertainty around planning for the next six months to a year. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that one of the best supports for business we can give is a long-term plan for how we deal with and get out of the covid pandemic?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question. The current restrictions will expire on 2 December. After those restrictions have expired, we intend to return to the tiered system, as I just mentioned on an earlier question. Of course, we have to make sure that businesses have that clarity, hence why the Chancellor extended the furlough scheme all the way to the end of March for businesses. The British Chambers of Commerce made it very clear to me a few days ago in a phone call that that was incredibly important help at the right time.
Tom Hunt
The Arcade Tavern is one of the most popular pubs in Ipswich. It has insurance against income loss because of notifiable diseases, but its insurers, New India, is refusing to pay out, blaming the Government for the loss of income. This has left the business fighting this pandemic and for the money that it is entitled to. Will my hon. Friend assure me that the Government will look unfavourably on insurers that do not honour their contracts and that this is not the case of the little man being stitched up? I have the letter right here, so I am happy to share it with him after this.
Nadhim Zahawi
I will happily look at the letter, and it sounds incredibly concerning that any insurer would act in this way. Pubs, of course, are a valuable part of many local communities across the country. We are in continual dialogue with the insurance sector regarding its response to this unprecedented situation. I will happily look at the letter and the details of my hon. Friend’s case.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Kwasi Kwarteng)
On 6 October, the Prime Minister announced new plans to build back greener, which included boosting the Government’s previous offshore wind target from 30 gigawatts to 40 gigawatts. The hon. Lady will also be interested to hear that the Marine Energy Council is looking at funding models for early tidal projects, and that is something in which the Government are very interested.
Ruth Jones
UK maritime energy is seeing seismic changes, as is so much of the economy in all parts of the nation. Workers skilled in vessels and rigs offshore are being moved to new renewable industries, but—as is always the case with this Government—some are being left behind. This Government cannot be allowed to make the same mistakes that they made in the 1980s, when they left coal workers and entire communities devastated and unsupported. Will the Minister tell the people of Newport West how the Government plan to avoid those mistakes in the new energy transition?
Kwasi Kwarteng
The hon. Lady will be aware that the green jobs element of the transition is at the centre of the Government’s net-zero strategy, and we fully intend to have something like 2 million green jobs by 2030, although now we have only 460,000. Green jobs are at the centre of the recovery that we are trying to drive.
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Nadhim Zahawi)
The Planning Inspectorate’s examining authority will robustly examine the application for the proposed Sizewell C nuclear generating station. The Secretary of State will then give careful consideration to the examining authority’s report and recommendations, before taking a final decision.
Dr Poulter [V]
Undoubtedly, Sizewell C can bring many benefits to Suffolk in terms of increased employment opportunities, and it is an important part of decarbonising and improving our energy security. However, it is not a case of Sizewell C being built at any cost, and many people in Suffolk have concerns about the failure of EDF properly to engage with the consultation process. More than 50 outstanding concerns have been raised by Suffolk County Council. What reassurances can the Minister provide to me and my constituents, particularly those in the Wickham Market and Hacheston areas, that EDF will be held to account, will properly engage with the consultation, and will implement the changes that are needed to improve road and rail infrastructure?
Nadhim Zahawi
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point and his message has been heard clearly. I reassure him that proposals for mitigating the potential impact of Sizewell C will be considered during the examination of the development consent application, and local people and local bodies, such as the county council, will have the opportunity to make representations. The Secretary of State will then thoroughly examine and consider the recommendations from the Planning Inspectorate, which will be submitted to him following that examination. I give my hon. Friend that guarantee.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Kwasi Kwarteng)
The hon. Lady will know that the UK’s net zero target is a world-leading initiative. Indeed, it was striking that this month China, Japan and South Korea committed themselves to net-zero carbon targets.
Felicity Buchan
I am a big proponent of electric vehicles. Will my right hon. Friend consider regulatory reform to encourage investment in the electric vehicle infrastructure, such as vehicle-to-grid charging?
Kwasi Kwarteng
My hon. Friend will know that we are taking considerable action to encourage consumers to buy electric vehicles, and we are also investing in the necessary infrastructure. So far we have invested £30 million to support vehicle-to-grid technology, and we will regulate next year to ensure that consumers benefit from smart-charging their electric vehicles.
Alexander Stafford
Recent commentary has highlighted the role of the North sea as a strategic asset for net zero. It could deliver one third of our energy needs via offshore wind, which could increase the utilisation of carbon capture and storage and green hydrogen. What is the role of a carbon pricing mechanism in delivering this?
Kwasi Kwarteng
My hon. Friend, as he often does, raises a pertinent question relating to our energy strategy. Obviously, carbon pricing is at the centre of any move to try to decarbonise our energy mix. We have a track record on this, and we have also committed to 40 GW of offshore wind by 2030, which, through the auction process, is critical to delivering our net zero ambitions.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
If we are to sustain public support for the goal of net zero, it is essential that we maximise the benefits of the green transition here at home, but there are far too many examples where the promise of that green transition risks not being realised. One such case is the plight of the BiFab engineering yards in Fife and Lewis, which represents a clear failure to utilise industrial strategy to ensure that British firms win work and sustain decent jobs from the billions of pounds being invested in offshore wind installations just a few miles off the Scottish coast. Citing state aid rules, the SNP Scottish Government appear content to sit back and let the steel jackets in question be manufactured overseas. Can the Minister give a commitment today that the UK Government will step in and safeguard the future of mounting fabrication in the UK and these vital 450 Scottish jobs?
Kwasi Kwarteng
The hon. Gentleman will know that we are absolutely committed to maintaining a UK supply chain for the extra deployment of offshore wind that I alluded to earlier. With regard to this specific issue, we are in conversations with counterparts in Scotland and also speaking to people in the company.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Kwasi Kwarteng)
The Department has engaged regularly with the Chancellor and other partners across the devolved Governments, including in Scotland, since the beginning of the covid-19 outbreak to make sure that businesses have the right information, guidance and support that they need.
Dr Whitford [V]
A pub owner in my constituency has seen his business severely impacted by covid-19 restrictions but has been unable to access a bounce back loan, as the bank where he has his business account is not part of the scheme and none of the accredited lenders are accepting new business accounts. Will the Secretary of State widen the number of banks eligible to provide these loans or ensure that the big lenders accept additional business customers, so that small businesses can access the support they need to get through this crisis?
Kwasi Kwarteng
Obviously, I am not familiar with the exact details that the hon. Lady refers to. What I can point out is that in her constituency of Central Ayrshire, banks have provided something like £37 million of business loans, but I would be very interested to hear the specifics of that case and to see what we can do to meet those concerns.
Peter Grant [V]
In response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), the Secretary of State claimed that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs does not have the information necessary to distinguish between an active, working owner-director of a small business, and an absentee shareholder of a big business who contributes no part to the running of the business. HMRC may not have all that information, but Companies House definitely does and most of it is on public record, so can the Minister tell us what discussions his Department has had with Companies House in the last seven months with a view to using that information to identify the million or so small businesses that have been deliberately excluded from Government support up until now?
Kwasi Kwarteng
We are in constant contact with Companies House and other sources of information relating to businesses. With regard to the specifics, I am not as familiar with those charges as the hon. Gentleman, but again I point out that something like £30 million of loan money—of credit—has been supplied to companies in his constituency.
Owen Thompson
While I welcome the extension of the furlough, albeit belatedly, I would suggest the next step to repair mistakes made in handling the pandemic for businesses is to look at the failures within the business interruption loan schemes, which I outlined in a debate in this Chamber last week. Many companies are not taking on CBILs or BBLS loans, because having more debt around their necks is the last thing they need just now. Has the Minister carried out any analysis of the potential effects of offering businesses grants, rather than loans?
Kwasi Kwarteng
The provision of credit, as I have suggested to some of the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues, has been very generous during this covid-19 period. Obviously, we can refine the process and we are very open to listening to ideas from hon. and right hon. Members about how we can do that. I would like to point out that, last year, in his constituency of Midlothian, we issued something like £49 million-worth of credit. Many of the companies in his constituency have been very grateful and very happy to receive that money.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Alok Sharma)
Last week, at the CBI’s annual conference, I reaffirmed our desire to build back better through levelling up across the country. We are developing a new strategy for growth, a refreshed and reinvigorated industrial strategy that puts the UK at the forefront of economic opportunity. We want to broaden the geography of our economy while taking a more strategic approach, supporting research and innovation in areas where the UK has the potential to both lead and change the world. We will work with industry as our plan for growth takes shape in the months ahead and is published in the new year.
Jeff Smith
Any help for business, like the local restrictions support grant, is welcome, however limited, but nightclubs and much of the night-time industries have been required to close since 23 March, with no sign to an end of their problems. So should the grants not be backdated to that date, rather than starting on 1 November?
Alok Sharma
I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the support that is being provided. He also knows that, for areas that were in tier 2 or tier 3 before the new restrictions came into force, there are backdated payments to August equivalent to up to £2,100 a month.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
Employers and trade unions work night and day to keep workplaces covid-secure, so it is absolutely staggering that the health and safety inspection discovered fundamental breaches of the guidelines in the overcrammed private office of the Secretary of State. A member of the Minister’s staff tested positive for covid, yet the Secretary of State did not self-isolate: he met Prince Charles and took a flight to South Korea. The need to suppress workplace transmission is as great as ever, so how can working people and businesses have any trust in the Government when the very people responsible for setting the rules ignore them in their own offices?
Alok Sharma
As the hon. Gentleman will know, I followed all the rules, as we always do in my Department. I want to thank businesses, trade unions and the business representative organisations we worked with earlier this year to put together the guidelines to keep business areas covid secure.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
Alok Sharma
I am absolutely delighted to congratulate my hon. Friend’s constituent, Jess. I thank him for all the work he does in his constituency to support engineering apprenticeships. He is absolutely right. We want the sector to keep supporting well-paid skilled jobs for our young people moving into the workplace as we build back better into the decade ahead.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Alok Sharma
I did address this issue earlier, but as the hon. Gentleman will know Rolls-Royce has indicated that it will retain key work in Barnoldswick, including fan blade capability relating to the Trent 700 engines, the joint strike fighter and a new technical capability for product development. I can also tell him that I will be meeting a cross-party group of Members of Parliament, together with Rolls-Royce, next week.
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con) [V]
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Kwasi Kwarteng)
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue; I know that she is a tireless champion for her local high street. She knows that click and collect and delivery services are still possible, as are takeaway services for the hospitality sector. The Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), is working tirelessly with retail to make sure that once the lockdown is over, we can bounce back more strongly and take on board much of the important advice that she has been giving us.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
Kwasi Kwarteng
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this. The oil and gas sector, as he knows, is currently developing its own proposal for a transformational North sea transition deal, as we call it now. Once we receive its input and ideas, we will be able to negotiate with the sector to make sure that we have the right level of ambition with regard to net zero while preserving the much-valued jobs and expertise that he and others are so keen to promote.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Alok Sharma
As the hon. Gentleman will know, showrooms were one of the first businesses required to be closed that were reopened in the last national restrictions period. What I would like, and what I know he wants, is for us get to the point on 2 December where we move back into local restrictions and we are able to open up businesses across the country.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
Kwasi Kwarteng
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this very important issue. He and I have spoken about this a number of times. I wish only that his council were as focused as he is on championing his residents’ interests. BEIS has recently consulted on regulating heat networks, and our market framework from 2022 will ensure that consumers receive reliable and regulated heat from heat networks.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
Alok Sharma
We have invested in manufacturing across the country. In fact, I visited Valneva, which is one of the companies that is producing one of the vaccine candidates, and we have of course invested there as well. If the hon. Gentleman has particular suggestions to make about areas where we ought to be investing in terms of vaccine manufacturing, he should come forward.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con) [V]
Alok Sharma
Many years ago, I had an opportunity to work for the Mars group, and I know what a brilliant job food processing companies have been doing throughout the pandemic. The food manufacturing sector can continue to operate through the national restrictions as long as they follow the Government’s guidance on keeping factories, plants and warehouses covid-secure.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP) [V]
Kwasi Kwarteng
I thank the hon. Lady for raising this. Obviously, this is a critical issue. We are working through the cases as expeditiously as we can. I am happy to meet the APPG in my capacity as Energy Minister and resolve what has been a difficult issue—I do not deny that.
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con) [V]
Kwasi Kwarteng
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that important question. We fully appreciate that it is a very difficult time, and of course ministerial colleagues are working constantly with Treasury colleagues and officials to ensure that we have the right support, however this pandemic, this dreadful disease, develops. We are working effectively and many of the remedies are being widely appreciated.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
Alok Sharma
I completely understand how incredibly tough it is for many businesses, including in the sector the hon. Member outlined. She has raised a point, and I am sure that this issue will be looked at.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
Alok Sharma
As my hon. Friend will be aware, the Government are committed to the space sector. We have already invested £40 million to achieve satellite launch from the early 2020s, including more than £7 million to establish launch services from Spaceport Cornwall. I am sure that the science Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Amanda Solloway), will be happy to meet him to discuss that further.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Alok Sharma
We have been very clear on this issue and, as the hon. Lady knows, we have introduced the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill. Of course we will continue to work on these issues.
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
Alok Sharma
I recognise the difficulty that the hospitality sector faces. Of course we want to ensure that, as we come out of the national restriction on 2 December, businesses move into the tiered areas, and I hope that some business will be able to reopen. However, it is worth pointing out that pubs and restaurants can continue to operate as takeaways and support is available, including grants of up to £3,000 per month, as well as additional support through the £1.1 billion funded to local authorities.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
The Post Office Horizon scandal may well be the largest miscarriage of justice in our history, with over 900 false prosecutions destroying lives, families and reputations. Does the Minister agree that a judge-led inquiry into the scandal is the only way many sub-postmasters will be satisfied?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
That is exactly why we appointed Sir Wyn Williams, a former judge, to lead the inquiry. I really hope that representatives of the sub-postmasters will take time to meet him, in order to become familiar with his approach. He has outlined his engagement strategy and we really want to see justice and answers as soon as possible.
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
In August, I was lucky enough to meet Dynamic Imaging Analytics in Milton Keynes—a fantastic local company that is doing some really cool stuff with space technology, including working with our local university, the Open University, to mine for water on the moon. Perhaps the Minister will join me in congratulating the Open University on its recent successes on that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Amanda Solloway)
The UK’s world-leading universities have a rich heritage in space science and exploration, and they are key to our ambition of becoming a science superpower. Of course I will join my hon. Friend in sending congratulations to the scientists in his constituency on their groundbreaking research. We are investing £1.5 million this year in Open University space activities, including those of PROSPECT instruments, which will improve our understanding of water on the moon—and who knows, they might put the first concrete cows on the moon.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
We know that our economy is changing, supercharged by the impact of covid and new technologies that are facilitating the change; but does the Minister agree that it is desirable and possible for companies to change in a way that protects skilled jobs, whether that is Spotify’s responsibility to creative workers, or BT’s responsibility to our broadband engineers? Will the Minister do all it takes to ensure that our companies invest in people as well as digital infrastructure?
Alok Sharma
The hon. Lady raises an important point. Of course we want good jobs to be created and preserved, and I agree with her. I believe she is arguing that we need a greater level of productivity in the country, and that is precisely what we are working on as part of our strategies.
Mr Speaker
In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I suspend the House for three minutes.
Petition
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition addressing the need for the resolution of the ongoing conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, which seems to have been flaring all summer and subsequently the world seems not to have noticed much. Dozens of people in Ealing Central and Acton have signed this, reflecting the fact that I have the constituency with the most people of Armenian origin in the country and the chair of the Armenian National Committee UK, Annette Moskofian, who just wants peace.
The petition notes that the UK Government should play a greater diplomatic and humanitarian role in establishing a fair and equitable peace settlement in the Nagorno-Karabakh region. The petitioners note that the UK should formally recognise the republic of Artsakh and further note that the Government must not allow the growing influence of Russia and Turkey in the region to go unchecked. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to play a greater diplomatic and humanitarian role.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Ealing Central and Acton in London,
Declares that the UK Government should play a greater diplomatic and humanitarian role in resolving the conflict in the Nagorno-Karabakh region; further that the UK Government should impose firmer sanctions on parties that break the terms of ceasefires; and further that ceasefires between the two States must be unconditional and strictly observed by both parties.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to play a greater diplomatic and humanitarian role in resolving the conflict in the Nagorno-Karabakh region.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002622]
Armed Forces: Covid-19 Deployment
(4 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Speaker
Before I call the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), I want to put on record our thanks to our armed forces for what they are doing during this pandemic. Personally, I appreciate it.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the deployment of the armed forces to assist civilian authorities in dealing with the continuing covid pandemic.
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Jeremy Quin)
I thank the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) for his urgent question and for the opportunity to highlight the vital role of the armed forces in responding to the pandemic.
The Secretary of State was pleased to commit to updating colleagues about the latest developments on covid support by placing regular updates in the House of Commons Library, the first of which will be delivered today. I am also pleased that the shadow Secretary of State will be visiting Standing Joint Command later this week to meet in person the senior military leadership delivering the support across the country.
The armed forces are renowned for their planning skills, technical capabilities and ability to provide rapid and effective deployed response. They are being put to good use yet again. At all times they are acting in support of, and at the request of, the civil authorities from every part of the United Kingdom. So far this year the Ministry of Defence has received 420 MACA—military aid to the civil authorities—requests, 341 of which have been covid-related. The armed forces have provided enormous support while themselves taking all appropriate covid precautions and while maintaining our critical defence outputs, ensuring that at all times they are protecting our country, our interests and our friends.
Our present support for the Government’s preparation for the winter period, including the covid-19 response, is one of Defence’s highest priorities. Defence has established a winter support force of approximately 7,500 deployable personnel, in addition to the many defence medics already embedded in the NHS and the support, when called upon, of our defence scientists in the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory. Defence is currently supporting 41 MACA tasks, including assistance to the whole-town testing pilot in Liverpool and the Birmingham City Council drop and collect scheme. Personnel have previously supported activities from the Nightingale facility construction, vaccine planning, personal protective equipment distribution and the staffing of testing centres. They remain ready to undertake further tasks.
Defence has made thorough preparations to contribute as requested to civil authorities’ responses through the MACA system and will keep the force elements held in readiness to do so under constant review, adjusting the capabilities provided to meet demand. The nation can be reassured, especially in this week of remembrance, that Defence stands ready, as ever, to support whenever, wherever and however required, and will continue to do so, for as long as is necessary.
John Healey
Last Monday, ahead of the new national lockdown in England, I said to the Defence Secretary:
“If he is willing to make further use of the forces this time, this House and the public will back him.”—[Official Report, 2 November 2020; Vol. 683, c. 7.]
The Minister has said 341 MACA requests for help have been in place since mid-March. People want to know now what the plan is; they have a right to know and they have a right to regular ministerial reporting of such decisions, which would also help to build better public understanding and support for our military.
From Friday, 2,000 troops have been deployed to Liverpool, which is double the number we have posted in Afghanistan. Mayor Joe Anderson told me last night that they are delighted to have them, for their sheer numbers and their logistical expertise. He said they had set up 17 centres and had done 23,170 tests in just 72 hours. Is the MOD willing to agree similar MACA support for other local authority areas?
The city-wide testing, of course, is to find people with covid who are infectious, but asymptomatic, and then to ensure that they isolate and do not infect others. That requires regular, routine and continual testing. How sustainable is that deployment? When will the 2,000 troops start to be withdrawn? How scalable is the deployment? Which other cities and towns will also benefit?
The Minister said that 7,500 troops are already on stand-by as part of what he called the winter support force. Our adversaries will watch the extent to which our forces are focused on covid. Will the Minister therefore confirm that it has had no impact so far on forces’ training, standing commitments or capabilities to respond to conflicts and threats?
Finally, the Government have raised the whole country’s hopes with the news of the Pfizer vaccine, but it is vaccinations, not vaccines, that will protect people from the virus. Getting the vaccine to the point of vaccination requires storing and transporting it at -70°C. How is the military involved in planning for nationwide vaccination? Will the military be involved in its delivery? How soon will it start?
If the Government do now make more use of our armed forces to help fight covid, that will be widely welcomed.
Jeremy Quin
I very much welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s warm words of support for the wider tasks of the armed forces. I absolutely assure him and the House that all essential Defence tasks continue to operate, with the great professionalism and resolve of our armed forces, be that the continuous at-sea deterrence or quick reaction alert or our army deployments around the world. Clearly, we have had to take precautions; we have had to keep our troops safe and have had to ensure that they continue to operate. Those precautions have been put in place, but they have continued to meet the needs. Early on, we had to pause training. That has now gathered momentum again and I am pleased to say that we are seeing an increase in the number of people applying to join our armed forces, which is, I think, inspired by the work that they are doing in all our communities.
The right hon. Gentleman raised other points. What is the plan? We stand ready to support other parts of the Government. We work in partnership with other parts of the Government. As the Department of Health and Social Care and the devolved Governments require our support, we are there to provide and assist.
I am pleased that the right hon. Gentleman spoke to the Mayor of Liverpool yesterday. I hear constantly of the great work between Liverpool City Council, the local NHS and our forces who are assisting them in this process. I think the pilot is now at 18 test centres, with a large number continuing to be supplied as we work with the city council. However, it is a pilot, and we need to see what we can learn from it and test its effectiveness, which has been so far, so good. It is scalable, and as part of this programme we are talking to civilian agencies, the council and the NHS about how others can step in. Often, as in the case of the mobile testing units, the armed forces lead the way, but others may well come through if the Department of Health and Social Care and others believe that this should be deployed more widely across the country.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
It is a long time since I served in the armed forces, but one lesson I took from my service was that headquarters command and control is absolutely vital when going through an operation. I note, when I look at what is happening on test and trace, that there are now four centres—the Joint Biosecurity Centre in the DHSC, the National Covid Response Centre, the covid taskforce in the Cabinet Office and the covid data analysis directorate—each with its own director general and none under a single enforceable chain of command. Given that the chain of command at headquarters level is vital, and that a three or four-star general would be required in a military operation, will the Minister please tell me whether the Government have at any stage asked the MOD to implement a chain of command and headquarters command and control for the whole of test and trace, to make sure that it is now co-ordinated and active? If not, why not?
Jeremy Quin
It may be a while since my right hon. Friend served in the armed forces, but the Scots Guards’ loss is certainly our gain in this place. I thank him for his question. It is not for Defence to tell other Departments how best to deliver their tasking. We are there to support them, and I am proud of the support that we are providing, with liaison officers across Government and other Departments and hundreds of people embedded in local resilience forums, enabling a network of information and intelligence to be gathered and proper support and tasking to be done on the ground.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
I thank the shadow Secretary of State for tabling the urgent question. Like others, I put on the record the thanks of the Scottish National party to the armed forces for what they have done in this crisis, not least in my home city of Glasgow with the Louisa Jordan hospital.
May I ask the Minister two specific things? Will he outline how many of the 341 requests he mentioned came from Scotland and, perhaps at a later stage, from where? On the vaccination programme that the shadow Secretary of State mentioned, the Minister will recall that, at the start of this crisis, the armed forces being deployed across the country became an ideal opportunity for our adversaries to spread disinformation, which led to much panic buying in supermarkets and subsequent shortages of food and other items. Will he lay before the House—perhaps not today, but at some point—what the country can expect to see from the armed forces in a future vaccination roll-out, so that it does not catch us by surprise and, crucially, so that it cannot be weaponised against our fellow citizens?
Jeremy Quin
First, I do not know the exact number of requests. I have actually asked, and I will write to the hon. Gentleman with the exact numbers, split between Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and England. I know that we have been very active. In fact I recall, right at the very start of this crisis—when I was sadly unwell with the wretched thing and battling a high temperature and other symptoms—getting a call at four o’clock in the morning on a MACA request for a gentleman to be moved from Orkney down to what is probably the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. That made quite an impression on me. It showed me, first, how lucky I was, all things considered—that gentleman was seriously ill; and secondly, how wonderful it is that we have professional armed forces, able at the drop of a hat to go and deliver and collect and look after people, wherever they are in our United Kingdom. I will come back to the hon. Gentleman on the specific point regarding the number of MACA requests coming from Scotland. We are delighted to work with the Scottish Government.
On the roll-out of the vaccines, I will not speculate on what role there might be for the Ministry of Defence. We clearly work with other Government Departments, giving logistical and planning support. We are there to help and to provide assistance, but we are still at the very early stages on the vaccine, as the Prime Minister was clear yesterday, so it would be inappropriate to speculate at this stage.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
Given that planning for sudden, fast-moving events and surges is part of our military’s stock in trade, why have they not been more involved in planning since the outset, especially given the comparison with all those costly and failing private contractors?
Jeremy Quin
I think the hon. Gentleman is aware that Defence has been involved from the outset on planning and logistics. At an early stage, Defence was called on, as it is regularly; we have had, on average, about 130 MACA requests a year for the past few years, and we are well used to working at a local level and a national level with partners across Government. There is a role for the military and a role they can pass on. For example, the military did a fantastic job on working with our partners in Health to provide the mobile testing units, but it is appropriate at some stage, when others get up to speed, that we hand over that task in order to be ready to undertake the next role, which in this case includes the whole-city pilot in Liverpool.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
NHS Test and Trace has grown from literally zero to being the size of Asda in little more than six months, and it would be difficult to imagine an organisation that has grown so quickly that would not be organisationally challenged. May I suggest that if the MOD has not been asked for headquarters capability, it should offer headquarters capability to NHS Test and Trace, as I am sure it would be welcomed with open arms?
Jeremy Quin
I believe I am right in saying that we are indeed assisting NHS Test and Trace, and others; as required, we help with logistics, planning and support, and we are keen to do that. I will not stray into other Departments’ business, but the sheer scale of the build-out that my hon. Friend refers to is obviously the case. It is also the case that we have moved our capability from 2,000 tests a day to more than half a million tests a day. These are huge challenges that have been undertaken by other Departments.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) [V]
The Vice Chief of the Defence Staff has said that Defence should no longer be considered a “last resort option”, something that was formalised in the 2015 strategic defence and security review, which announced that
“we will place military planners in key government departments to give the military a wider and more formal role in supporting national resilience contingency planning.”
If that is the case, why have the armed forces been deployed in such a limited way throughout this pandemic?
Jeremy Quin
At the high point, I believe we had 7,500 military personnel deployed in support of the civil power, so it has been a large-scale commitment by Defence, alongside our other tasks. We stand ready to respond with those numbers or more if required. The hon. Lady is right to say that we are always there to plan, assist and support, but we do so in response to requests, and I know she would respect that principle. Defence is always here to help and to be engaged, and there is a great trust from the British nation, particularly this week, when we think of what has gone before. We always respond at the request of the civil power and to support it.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
May I ask the Minister to pay particular tribute to the science and to the scientists working at the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, and to the important role they are playing? As we see this increased visibility domestically from our armed forces, is it helping with the important task of recruitment into our armed forces?
Jeremy Quin
There speaks a distinguished former Defence Minister; it is a pleasure to see my hon. Friend in her place. I am glad that she has mentioned DSTL. On a whole series of tasks, from helping the Welsh ambulance service through to planning for a range of options that have come through to the military—including how we roll out modelling for a whole range of projects during the course of this pandemic—DSTL has done a first-class job. I am therefore delighted that she has mentioned it in the Chamber. On recruitment, what she expects has come to pass. We have seen a 13% increase in applications to join the armed forces in the year to July 2020, and retention has increased. That reflects the pride that people have in our armed forces. They see members of the armed forces doing such a valuable task around our country day in, day out, and they are responding in kind.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) [V]
Greetings from the far north of Scotland. May I remind the House that a member of my close family is serving with the armed forces?
Many of our overseas armed forces personnel are working in an extremely challenging environment, owing to the present pandemic. May I ask what Her Majesty’s Government are doing on PPE and testing for these extremely hard-working people?
Jeremy Quin
We thank the relative of the hon. Gentleman for his or her service in the armed forces. On PPE, all precautions are being taken. We have good advice from the Department of Health as to what PPE should be deployed, and we use that advice to ensure that we are consistently covid compliant. Members of the armed forces currently helping with the pilot scheme in Liverpool are being regularly tested, alongside the residents they are helping and testing. On overseas deployments, we always have a view to our own covid regulations and those of the host nations where we are serving. As a matter of routine, military personnel have a quarantine period before they go out to ensure that they are safe on arrival at their deployed station.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
There can be no better week than this for all of us to take the time to recognise and thank the armed forces for their contribution. Does my hon. Friend agree that the reservists have also been playing an incredibly important role, and will he join me in thanking them for their contribution in the battle against coronavirus?
Jeremy Quin
Absolutely. We are blessed in the armed forces to have reservists with tremendous capabilities, who have been able to provide their expertise and professionalism yet again. I absolutely pay tribute to those reservists who answered the call and came to support us.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
I learned earlier in the pandemic that four MACA requests had been made from Northern Ireland; three were satisfied and a commercial alternative was found to the other. I am pleased that those applications were progressed positively without immature political interference from some members of the Northern Ireland Executive. Will the Minister confirm whether there has been a recent request regarding testing on a larger scale in Northern Ireland, and that, should there be, the MOD would respond positively?
Jeremy Quin
I am very aware of the support that we have provided to Northern Ireland. We are always ready to support any area of the United Kingdom that requires our support and assistance, and are delighted to work together to get on top of this dreadful pandemic. Any requests made of the Ministry of Defence will be looked at in the usual manner; we would look to help, as always.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
So much of the military’s work is done behind the scenes. It has been really helpful to hear today in how many areas they are already deployed in the fight against the pandemic, but will my hon. Friend assure me that the critical tasks for the defence of this nation are not being compromised by all the work that is being done for covid?
Jeremy Quin
I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that assurance. The military have a vast range of tasks, not only here at home but overseas. We have continued to operate throughout this period. Precautions have been put in place, but on key issues such as the continuous at-sea deterrent, the quick reaction alert and our forces overseas, the military have continued to maintain their outputs. Importantly, they have been able to continue to train, so we have the confidence that they will be able to provide those key defence tasks into the future.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
I echo the shadow Secretary of State’s thanks for the professionalism of the armed services personnel and the help that my constituents have received. We in Liverpool really do appreciate it.
The mass testing pilot in Liverpool is due to be reviewed after 10 days to two weeks. Does the Minister accept that more time will be needed to meet the objectives of testing everyone? If so, will he ensure that the pilot remains in place in Liverpool until the end of the national lockdown on 2 December, and that some armed forces personnel remain with us after that time to ensure that a smaller number of mass testing centres can remain open to enable us to keep on top of the virus?
Jeremy Quin
I welcome the points made by the hon. Lady. If I may say so, we are really enjoying working with Liverpool—it is a tremendous team effort and I know that the armed forces are really proud to be part of it. Of course, many of them have been recruited from that area and are really enjoying being able to help their own friends and families and the communities that they know so well.
On the hon. Lady’s specific asks, it is not really for the Ministry of Defence to decide when is the right time for the pilot to come to a conclusion. We are there to provide support and assistance, and if that needs to go on longer, that will definitely be looked at, and I would think it will be looked at very sympathetically, because we want to make certain that there is a successful pilot from which we can take decisions and see whether it can be rolled out more widely. But that is a decision to be taken on the basis of the facts.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) in thanking our reserve forces and paying tribute to them for everything they are doing to assist the Government in this very difficult time. Reservists are ready to go anywhere at a moment’s notice, but will the Minister ensure that when they are mobilised for this deployment, consideration is given to the fact that they need to tidy up their affairs in respect of their jobs and family commitments?
Jeremy Quin
My hon. Friend speaks from experience: he is a reservist who served in Operation Herrick, from memory. We try to do intelligent mobilisation—we try to engage with our reservists to see who is available and who might like to be involved, and those with specialist skills in particular invariably say, “Yes, call us.” We are working with our reservists and will always try to give a suitable period of time to enable them to balance family and work commitments. We are enormously indebted to those who step forward.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
Today is Councils Can Day, so I am sure the Minister would like to join me in thanking local councils for everything they are doing to tackle the coronavirus pandemic. On that note, will the Minister tell me what conversations he has had with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about the support that the armed forces will be giving in our council areas, particularly to ensure that that support is co-ordinated and targeted where it is needed?
Jeremy Quin
We are all grateful for the work that councils have done—be it Liverpool City Council or councils elsewhere in the country, they have had a huge task to meet. Hundreds of military advisers have been deployed through the local resilience forums, working with councils and other local authorities, and I assure the hon. Lady that we will continue to provide that support.
Mr Speaker
Let us head up to Lichfield—my word, we have the cathedral in the background—to Michael Fabricant, who is looking rather orange today.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con) [V]
Oh dear: I am worried that you say I am looking orange, Mr Speaker —it makes me think of Donald Trump.
I understand that my hon. Friend the Minister wants to be cautious about the vaccine, but the Department of Health and Social Care has acquired the rights to 350 million doses of six different vaccines. As we heard yesterday, one of those vaccines, from Pfizer, needs to be transported at temperatures under -70° C, although others do not. Whatever happens, it is a huge logistics problem. Now is not the time to be shy: the armed forces are very good at logistics and I strongly suggest that now is the time that my hon. Friend should be suggesting to the Government—and not waiting for the Government or other Departments to say to him—that the armed forces are ready to help in the logistics of the distribution of these vaccines and maybe even in inoculations.
Jeremy Quin
My hon. Friend is never shy, and neither is the Ministry of Defence shy in being very proud of the capabilities that we have and can deploy. He is absolutely right that those capabilities include logistics and support of that nature, and we are absolutely ready to provide that support as required.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The excellence of our armed forces in civil contingency operations, whether in support, service or strategic planning, is noted by us all.
In York, we have the medical services training centre. How is that being deployed at this time to make sure that our NHS is not overwhelmed this winter? How are we planning to ensure that the support is there when it is needed?
Jeremy Quin
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I believe that there are 1,600 medics currently deployed and embedded in the NHS, and we will do all we can to support them throughout the winter period. I do appreciate her interest. We will continue to provide that support to the NHS in the months ahead.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) [V]
This week in particular, we all remember with gratitude the price that so many service personnel have paid in time of war. I also associate myself with the thanks expressed by other Members for the work that the armed forces have been doing just now to protect us in the face of such a huge peacetime threat. The armed forces draw their personnel from every community of the United Kingdom, and every citizen in every part of the United Kingdom contributes to the cost through their taxes. Will the Minister tell us what measures are in place to make sure that the deployment of the armed forces just now is based on an assessment of where they can be most effective and where their efforts are most needed?
Jeremy Quin
To reassure the hon. Gentleman, I do not think that we have ever needed to have that kind of discussion, because when we receive MACA requests, be they from Scotland or from elsewhere, we judge them on their merits, on where we can help and on where there is support that can be provided, and that is routinely honoured. It is not a case of having to ration support at the moment. I think that I said earlier that 7,500 were deployed actively, but I think that was the number available. There are only about 4,000 who are actively deployed on the ground, which means that we always have that extra resilience built in. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, if a request comes in from Scotland or elsewhere, it will always be very sympathetically looked at by the Ministry of Defence.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
May I put on record my thanks to the City Mayor’s Office, to our director of public health, Matt Ashton, and his staff and to the skilled and expert men and women of the armed forces? This is the first mass testing pilot of its kind—a massive logistical effort in which the military are supporting the people of Liverpool. We warmly welcome our service personnel and, rather than have the likes of Serco plundering public money while failing the public, may I encourage the Minister and say that we want a response to covid-19 that is publicly led by the NHS, by public health professionals and by local authorities, and backed up by the logistical expertise of our armed forces where necessary?
Jeremy Quin
May I re-echo what the hon. Gentleman said so accurately about the response that has been met on the ground to armed forces personnel? They have been really chuffed to see the way that people in Liverpool have responded—they have been coming in their thousands to be tested—and they are very grateful for the warmth of their support, and I thank him for reminding the House of that. They will be there to support this programme, but there is a well-founded MACA tradition that the military often lead and find ways of doing things, but then try to pass over to civilian authorities—to Liverpool City Council in the lead working, I suspect, with the Department of Health and Social Care—in the future.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
Anyone who watched the briefing last night with Brigadier Joe Fossey could not help but be impressed by the professionalism of the brigadier and his team in Liverpool. What extra capacity remains within the armed forces to help other council areas, particularly in the north of England with my Kirklees Council area—450 cases plus per 100,0000 at the moment—not only to help with the mass testing, but to support localised track and trace effectiveness?
Jeremy Quin
I recognise the particular issues in Kirklees. I am glad that my hon. Friend has brought them to the House’s attention. What we are doing in Liverpool is obviously a pilot, a major undertaking, and we will see the success of that pilot and whether it has scalability to be passed out elsewhere. That is a matter for the Department of Health and others to opine on. On helping elsewhere in the country, the military led with mobile testing units. They were there in the first rank to ensure that testing got up and going. That has now been passed over, and now, I think, there are 620 testing centres around the country, so the Army has stepped back from that, but we stand ready to help in other ways if called upon by other Government Departments.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
Hull now has the third highest seven-day rate of new cases per 100,000 residents across English upper-tier local authorities. Test and trace remains a key part of fighting this virus. I am incredibly impressed to hear of the pilot that has happened in Liverpool, so does the Minister have plans to deploy armed forces in Hull and East Riding to help them scale-up test and trace?
Jeremy Quin
I am sorry to hear the statistics from Hull, which are indeed sobering, but I repeat what I said to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden). There is a particular project at the moment in Liverpool—a whole-city testing pilot. We are there to help and to respond to MACA requests. As a basic principle, we will often lead and show the way, and help pass on our expertise and knowledge to civilian contractors, but fundamentally there comes a point where local authorities and the Department of Health and Social Care will wish to take on the responsibilities for the covid challenge from the military once it has set up processes and worked to establish first principles.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
When the major generals removed liberties, Oliver Cromwell wondered publicly if even arming one in 10 would be sufficient to enforce it. Will the Minister assure me that the armed forces will not be used to enforce any coronavirus regulations?
Jeremy Quin
I can reassure my right hon. Friend that I know many fine major generals but I do not know any that would wish to return to the 1650s. I can also reassure him that there is no way that the armed forces will be used to enforce coronavirus regulations.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
May I also express the thanks of my constituents for the work that the armed forces have been doing in response to the coronavirus pandemic? The Minister has already revealed to the House that military assistance to civil authorities’ requests has quadrupled this year, for understandable reasons. As we approach the end of the year, with the potential for a vaccine to be deployed and, it has to be said, some of the pressures that will be placed on the country as a result of Brexit, is he confident that all future MACA requests will be able to be met because he has the appropriate capacity?
Jeremy Quin
First, I wish the hon. Lady’s constituents well at a difficult time, and I am glad that the military has been well received in her constituency. We are looking at how we scale up. We are always in the process of planning to see how we can get the extra resources if required and if called upon, so I have a great deal of confidence that we will be able to continue to meet MACA requests.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Following on from that question, there is no point in repeating what has been said many times this afternoon that the armed forces act with superb professionalism, but the moment this crisis is over, we can be assured, judging by history, that the bean counters in the Treasury will be putting pressure on the MOD for further cuts. We saw it after the end of the cold war and the Afghanistan war, and it will carry on. Will the Minister give me an assurance today that both he and the Secretary of State will vigorously resist, with the help of No. 10, any further cuts in our armed forces?
Jeremy Quin
I feel that I ought to declare an interest because I once served in the Treasury—I put that on the record—but I can absolutely reassure my right hon. Friend that decisions made on resources for the armed forces through the integrated review are made on the basis of threat. That is core to the work that we are undertaking, and I hope that he will take that reassurance.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his responses and put on the record my thanks to the Army and its personnel for what they do across my constituency and elsewhere. The British Army and Territorial Army detachments in Northern Ireland are drawn from both sides of the community—both Roman Catholic and Protestant, and nationalist and Unionist; they both serve in the same uniform. Will there be an opportunity for the British Army to assist, if it is called upon by the Northern Ireland Assembly? Can the Minister also assure the House that no soldier will be asked to go anywhere without the appropriate PPE and training to deal with people in these very difficult and different days?
Jeremy Quin
We will ensure that all deployed personnel get the right PPE and take the right covid precautions. I warmly welcome what the hon. Gentleman says about how the armed forces represent the whole of our great nation right across the board. We are proud that that is the case and we are always working to ensure that it is the case. We will always stand ready to listen to any MACA requests that come in, and we will always look at those sympathetically if we can.
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
I should declare an interest as a proud patron of the Military Preparation College, which has an Eastbourne campus. I am delighted to tell my hon. Friend that there has been a significant increase in applications to the college, so inspired are young people by what they have seen of military service in our town—not least in May, when military personnel set up a temporary mobile site that enabled rapid testing of essential workers so that our hospice, our hospital and our care homes were all able to continue. Will he join me in thanking military personnel who have served in Sussex?
Jeremy Quin
I should also declare an interest because I am a Sussex Member of Parliament. Those military personnel have done a terrific job, including, I recall, in May with the mobile testing unit. I am delighted to confirm what my hon. Friend says relating to increased interest in the armed forces. As I say, recruitment is well up this year, as is retention, and I am delighted to see both.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) [V]
May I put on the record my gratitude for the work that the armed forces are doing in combating this global pandemic? It does seem that there are other countries that may be better organised in emergency management, so what lessons have been learned by the UK Government from how other countries have been handling the crisis?
Jeremy Quin
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the question. We always look at what other people do and how other people respond, but there has been a great well of support—as, indeed, came from him—for the work done by the armed forces, how they have responded to requests that have come in and how they have continued to assist other Departments in ensuring that we get the very best response in this country.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
May I put on record the fact that this response to the pandemic has demonstrated the United Kingdom at its best? My local regiment, 1st Battalion the Rifles, helped the Welsh ambulance service with testing and the Royal Welsh helped in Gloucester with the testing facility there, which I had the opportunity to visit. May I just probe the Minister a little further on the question the shadow Secretary of State and other Members asked about the vaccine situation? I think the Minister said that the MOD stood ready to help. May I ask if he has had any requests from civilian authorities to assist with vaccine roll-out and, if so, what those plans are?
Jeremy Quin
My understanding is that work is being done on planning, logistics and how we would support the important role with a vaccine, but I really would counsel that this is still very early days on the vaccine, as the Prime Minister made clear yesterday. We are ready to assist on logistics and planning—thoughts, preparations and logistics—but this is early days still.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am grateful to catch your eye.
I hope the message is loud and clear that the Minister hears today: we are absolutely proud of what our armed forces do, but, given their vast experience in emergency planning, crisis management and, indeed, strategic thinking, they are a vastly underused asset in the biggest crisis we have seen since the second world war. With what we face today, we have logistical challenges, command-and-control challenges, communications challenges and operational challenges. These are all things the armed forces can do, yet there is not a place for them at the quad, the top decision-making body dealing with this pandemic. Does my hon. Friend not think that is incorrect?
Jeremy Quin
I welcome what my right hon. Friend says about the support that is provided by the armed forces. He is absolutely right that we have a vast array of areas where we can support and provide assistance to other Departments. However, as he is very well aware, the process is that the civil authority comes to us to request assistance, and we always stand ready to receive such reports.
Mr Speaker
In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for three minutes.
Covid-19 Update
(4 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on coronavirus.
The virus remains a powerful adversary, but we are marshalling the forces of science and human ingenuity. These forces are growing stronger, and I have no doubt that in time, we will prevail. The latest figures show that the number of cases continues to rise, so we must all play our part to get it under control. As I have said many times at this Dispatch Box, our strategy is to suppress the virus, supporting education, the economy and the NHS, until a vaccine can be deployed. That is our plan, and with the resolve that we must all show, we can see that that plan is working.
Before turning to progress on testing and on vaccines, I first want to update the House on our response to the new variant strain of coronavirus that has been identified in Denmark. This shows how vigilant we must be. We have been monitoring the spread of coronavirus in European mink farms for some time, especially in the major countries for mink farming such as Denmark, Spain, Poland and the Netherlands. Spain had already announced the destruction of its farmed mink population in April. On Thursday evening last, I was alerted to a significant development in Denmark of new evidence that the virus had spread back from mink to humans in a variant form that did not fully respond to covid-19 antibodies.
Although the chance of this variant becoming widespread is low, the consequences, should that happen, would be grave. So working with my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Transport Secretary and all the devolved Administrations, we removed the travel corridor for travel from Denmark in the early hours of Friday morning. On Saturday and over the weekend, following further clinical analysis, we introduced a full ban on all international travel from Denmark. British nationals or residents who are returning from Denmark, whether directly or indirectly, can still travel here, but they must fully self-isolate, along with all other members of their household, until two weeks after they were in Denmark. These are serious steps, and I understand the consequences for people, but I think that the whole House will understand why we had to act so quickly and decisively. Be in no doubt, we will do what needs to be done to protect this country.
We do not resile from our duty to protect, and to suppress the virus, we must harness new technology to keep people safe and, in time, to liberate. Our ability to suppress the virus begins with testing for it, and the House will know that we have been driving forward testing capacity based on new technologies and old. Yesterday, our polymerase chain reaction—PCR—testing capacity stood at 517,957, which is the largest testing capacity in Europe. Over 10 million people in the UK have now been tested at least once through NHS Test and Trace, and our NHS covid-19 contact tracing app is now approaching 20 million downloads, yet this historic expansion is just one part of our critical national infrastructure for testing. Just as we drive testing capacity on the existing technology, so, too, have we invested in the development of the new. I have been criticised for this obsession with new testing capacity, but we have not wavered from the task, and we are now seeing the fruits of this effort.
Last week, we expanded the pilot in Stoke-on-Trent to Liverpool, where we have deployed enough of the cutting-edge lateral flow tests to offer tests to the whole city. These tests can deliver a result on someone’s infectiousness in under 15 minutes, so that they can get almost immediate reassurance about their condition and so that we can find and isolate the positives and reassure the negatives. To make this happen, NHS Test and Trace has been working side by side with the logistical heft of our armed services and Liverpool City Council, and I want to thank Mayor Joe Anderson and his whole team for their work.
Next, these tests allow us from today to begin rolling out twice-weekly testing for all NHS staff, which will help to keep people safe when they go into hospital and help to keep my wonderful colleagues in the NHS safe, too. The next step is to roll out this mass testing capability more widely, and I can tell the House that last night I wrote to 67 directors of public health who have expressed an interest in making 10,000 tests available immediately and making available lateral flow tests for use by local officials according to local needs at a rate of 10% of their population per week. That same capacity—10% of the population per week—will also be made available to the devolved Administrations. By combining the local knowledge of public health leaders with our extensive national infrastructure, we can tackle this virus in our communities and help our efforts to bring the R down. Testing provides confidence, and it is that confidence that will help to get Britain back on her feet once more.
While we expand testing to find the virus, the best way to liberate and to get life closer to normal is a vaccine, and I can report to the House the news of the first phase 3 trial results of any vaccine anywhere in the world. After tests on 43,000 volunteers, of whom half got the vaccine and half got a placebo, interim results suggest that it is proving 90% effective at protecting people against the virus. This is promising news. We in the UK are among the first to identify the promise shown by the vaccine, and we have secured an order of 40 million doses. That puts us towards the front of the international pack, and we have placed orders for 300 million further doses from five other vaccine candidates that have yet to report their phase 3 results, including the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine.
I want to make it clear to the House that we do not have a vaccine yet, but we are one step closer. There are many steps still to take. The full safety data are not yet available, and our strong and independent regulator the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency will not approve a vaccine until it is clinically safe. Until it is rolled out, we will not know how long its effect lasts, or its impact not just on keeping people safe but on reducing transmission. The deputy chief medical officer, Jonathan Van-Tam, said yesterday that this was like the first goal scored in a penalty shoot-out:
“You have not won the cup yet, but it tells you that the goalkeeper can be beaten.”
And beat this virus we must, we can and we will. Yesterday’s announcement marks an important step in the battle against covid-19, but, as the Prime Minister said, we must not slacken our resolve. There are no guarantees, so it is critical that people continue to abide by the rules and that we all work together to get the R number below 1.
If this or any other vaccine is approved, we will be ready to begin a large-scale vaccination programme, first to priority groups, as recommended by the independent Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, then rolling it out more widely. Our plans for deployment of a covid vaccine are built on tried and tested plans for a flu vaccine, which we of course deploy every autumn. We do not yet know whether or when a vaccine is approved, but I have tasked the NHS with being ready from any date from 1 December. The logistics are complex, the uncertainties are real and the scale of the job is vast, but I know that the NHS, brilliantly assisted by the armed services, will be up to the task.
I can tell the House that last night we wrote to GPs, setting out £150 million of immediate support and setting out what we need of them, working alongside hospitals and pharmacies, in preparing for deployment. The deployment of the vaccine will involve working long days and weekends, and that comes on top of all the NHS has already done for us this year. I want to thank in advance my NHS colleagues for the work that this will entail. I know that they will rise to the challenge of being ready, when the science comes good, to inject hope into millions of arms this winter.
The course of human history is marked by advances where our collective ingenuity helps us to vanquish the most deadly threats. Coronavirus is a disease that strikes at what it is to be human, at the social bonds that unite us. We must come together as one to defeat this latest threat to humanity. There are many hard days ahead, many hurdles to overcome, but our plan is working. I am more sure than ever that we will prevail together.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
As always, I thank the Secretary of State for advanced sight of his statement. May I just take this opportunity to congratulate President-elect Biden and Vice-President-elect Harris? I am sure the whole House looks forward to close international co-operation to defeat this virus.
I welcome the announcement, in the past 24 hours, of routine testing for frontline NHS staff. The Secretary of State will know that that is something I and the Chair of the Health Committee have been pushing for, for some months. It is welcome that we are now in a position to extend that testing. It is important not just to protect our NHS staff—I join him in thanking them—but for infection control in healthcare settings, too.
On the roll-out of the lateral flow test that the right hon. Gentleman announced today, I understand he is giving discretion to directors of public health. Does he agree that relatives of care home residents should be given priority access to those tests, so they can go into the care home, see their loved ones and even, maybe, hold their hand or hug them?
Testing is only one part of the jigsaw, of course. To avoid this lockdown becoming a let-down, we need to put contact tracing in the hands of public health teams from day one, so will the Health Secretary update the House on how he is fixing contact tracing? He may have seen Dido Harding at the relevant Select Committee just now. She confirmed that when it comes to isolation, people find it “very difficult” and that the “need to keep earning and feed your family is fundamental”. Will he therefore now accept that a better package of financial support is needed to ensure that isolation is adhered to?
On the vaccine, this is a moment of great hope in a bleak dismal year that has shattered so many families. We are optimistic, though cautious—quite rightly. We need to see the full results, the demographic details of the trials and understand the implications for severe cases. There will be clinical judgments by the relevant committee on the priority lists, which we all understand, but can the right hon. Gentleman outline the latest clinical thinking on the vaccination of children? Will the disproportionate impact of the virus on minority ethnic communities be taken into account by the relevant clinicians when drawing up the final priority list? What is the Government’s current working assumption of the proportion of the population that needs to be vaccinated to establish herd immunity and bring R below one? Over what timeframe does he envisage that happening and how many doses does he think we will need? As we vaccinate the most vulnerable, there will be fewer people at risk, and deaths and infections will come down. However, the virus is now endemic, so is it the Government’s current working assumption that social distancing and mask wearing will need to continue until that herd immunity is reached?
Fundamentally, for this to work ,we need a plan for the manufacture and distribution of the vaccine. May I gently suggest to the Secretary of State that the roll-out of test and trace and the early procurement of personal protective equipment was not as smooth as it might otherwise have been? None of us constituency MPs wants to see booking systems overloaded and our constituents told to travel hundreds of miles for a jab, like we saw earlier this year with testing, so what is the plan? Will he publish a strategy? Can he tell us how much will be invested in the covid vaccination programme?
We need secure supply chains. Are the Government working internationally to ensure there are enough raw materials, enzymes and bioreactors to guarantee the mass manufacturing that is needed?
On distribution, the Pfizer vaccine needs to be kept at -70°C. Cold chain transport and storage is needed. A year ago, the Secretary of State used to boast that he was the country’s biggest purchaser of fridges. Is he procuring the appropriate storage equipment now? Will liquid nitrogen and freezers be provided to health centres, doctors’ practices and care homes? Will cold chain distribution be in place in all parts of the country?
Last year, the World Health Organisation described vaccine hesitancy as one of the top 10 threats to global health. May I again reiterate my offer to work with him on a cross-party basis to build public confidence in the vaccine, promote take-up and dispel anti-vax myths? I rather suspect all Members working across the House to promote take-up would prove more cost-effective than paying £670,000 of taxpayers’ money to fancy PR consultants.
This is an important moment. We see a glimmer of light in the distance at the end of this long, dark tunnel. Our constituents are hopeful. We look forward to rapid progress in the distribution of the vaccine, so we can all get back to normal.
Matt Hancock
I am very grateful to the hon. Member for his questions and for the approach that he is rightly taking. Like him, I am delighted that we are able to roll-out routine testing to NHS staff. That starts today. I am grateful to him for his support and I am grateful for the support and the urging of the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt).
On contact tracing, we continue to work on the constant improvement needed, but, as the hon. Member said, the expansion of testing in a radical way because of the new technology that we have invested in and spent months working on, means that we will now be able to find more of the primary cases and more of the people who have the disease and then will be able to get them and their contacts to isolate. The single most important challenge is finding the people who have the virus in the first place.
The hon. Member mentioned children. The vaccine will not be used for children. It has not been tested on children. The reason is that the likelihood of children having significant detriment if they catch covid-19 is very, very low. This is an adult vaccine for the adult population.
He asked about the JCVI prioritisation. It is really important that we prioritise according to clinical risk. The JCVI has looked into all the risk factors, including ethnicity. It has concluded that age and whether a person works in health and social care are the two prime risk factors, which far outweigh any other, and so they are the primary risk factors that cascade into the draft interim prioritisation that it published on 25 September, which of course will be updated as it gets the final data that comes through from the clinical trials.
He asked about the proportion of the population that needs to be vaccinated. The honest truth to that question is that we do not know what proportion of the population the vaccination needs to reach in order for it to stop the epidemic. The reason we do not know that is that a clinical trial can check for the impact of the vaccine on protecting the individual—43,000 individuals, half of whom have had the vaccine. What cannot be checked is the impact on the transmission of the disease by those people, because a significant proportion of the population have to have had the vaccination to understand that. That is the difference between a so-called disease-modifying vaccine, which tests how much it affects the disease that an individual suffers if they get covid-19, versus an epidemic-modifying vaccine, which is about the impact on the spread and transmission of the disease. We cannot know that until after the vaccine has been rolled out, so we will monitor that very closely.
The hon. Gentleman asked about manufacture, which is important, and for this vaccine that is a matter for Pfizer. It is a difficult process. Distribution is also a huge challenge, and that is being led by the NHS. Because the vaccine must be stored at minus 70° until the final hours, the cold-chain requirements are significant and add to the logistical complications. However, we have known about that cold-chain requirement for many months, and it has been part of our planning for some time. We have a good degree of confidence that that will be in place.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked about international collaboration. I am delighted that the UK has been a leader in efforts for international collaboration to find a vaccine. It has put in more money than any other nation, co-ordinating and bringing together scientists and vaccine specialists, and using our aid budget to ensure that people around the world get the vaccine in countries that, in some cases, could not afford to vaccinate their own population. We are a big part of the international work, and I very much look forward to working with colleagues in the United States, and everywhere else around the world, to ensure that we have a global vaccination programme as soon as a safe and effective set of vaccines can be made available.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
I warmly congratulate the Health Secretary on securing access to the new vaccine. Choosing which vaccine to back must be a bit like playing roulette, and to secure 40 million doses of the first vaccine to prove efficacious is an enormous achievement for the country. He deserves great credit for that. I also thank him for bringing forward the introduction of weekly testing of NHS staff to the end of next week. That will reassure our very hardworking front-line staff that they are not infecting their patients, which is one of their primary worries.
The biggest issue we now face is the fact that only around one-fifth of those who we ask to isolate comply with that, and we do not even know all the people who we would like to isolate. What does the Secretary of State think of Sir John Bell’s suggestion to the Health and Social Care Committee this morning that, instead of asking people to isolate, we should give them 48-hour lateral flow tests, and ask them to isolate only if they are positive?
Matt Hancock
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. He is generous with his words. I also direct his warm words of gratitude to the vaccine’s taskforce, which has done so much work to ensure that we procure and secure the supplies of these vaccines, should they prove safe as well as efficacious. On Sir John Bell’s comments, that option of testing people regularly—not if they are a primary case and have the virus, but if they are a contact—would not be open to us had we not secured the huge capacity for lateral-flow testing that we now have in this country. I very much look to clinicians for advice. Sir John Bell is a highly respected clinician and expert in this area, and I am sure that everybody will want to look closely at that issue.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
With three and a half weeks left of the current lockdown in England, what does the Secretary of State plan to change so that covid-19 does not get out of control again when restrictions are eased? He mentions the pilot project of population testing in Liverpool, using newly developed lateral-flow tests, but there are not yet published sensitivity or specificity data for those tests. What is the risk of false negative or false positive results? Has the UK National Screening Committee been involved to help assess the risks, benefits, and costs of such mass population testing?
I welcome the progress made on the Pfizer vaccine, but it will take time before it is widely available, and, as the Secretary of State said earlier, we do not yet know if it will reduce transmission, so it does not remove the need to control viral spread using current measures. While I also welcome the expansion of PCR testing, I am sure he recognises that what matters is not just the number of tests available but that testing is part of a test, trace, isolate and support system for it to be effective. Five months on, Serco is still struggling to reach even 60% of contacts, so will he copy the more successful approach of the devolved nations and fund local public health teams to lead contact tracing in their areas?
An effective test and trace system can identify those carrying the virus rather than isolating everyone in a lockdown, but it is isolation that actually breaks the chains of infection. Is the Secretary of State therefore concerned that so few people are isolating when they should? How can that be improved? People will not stay off work if that means they cannot feed their family, so how will he make access to the Government’s isolation payment easier?
Matt Hancock
Of course, we are working to ensure that, by us all working together and making sacrifices, we can come out of this lockdown and into the tiered approach we had in place beforehand. That is the goal, and the more that people follow the rules during the lockdown, the more effective it will be. We obviously monitor the data closely on that.
The hon. Lady asked about lateral flow tests and their sensitivity and specificity, which is an incredibly important question. The assessment of the tests we are using in Liverpool and now rolling out elsewhere was made at Porton Down. We then tested 5,000 lateral flow tests alongside 5,000 polymerase chain reaction tests of the same people in the field, and we have a high degree of confidence that they can find people who are infectious. In fact, the lateral flow tests have a lower false positivity issue than the PCR tests, so they are very effective for the right uses, including mass population testing.
The hon. Lady asked about isolation. Of course, isolation is important. I would mention that we have test and trace systems in place across the UK and it turns out that there are differences in how a successful contact is measured. In England, we are much stricter in requiring contact to be a confirmed contact with somebody rather than just sending them a message, which does count as contact in some of the devolved and local systems. It is really important that we measure the same thing, rather than trying to make divisions where divisions do not exist.
Finally, it is vital that people isolate when they test positive or when they are asked to by NHS Test and Trace. I gently say again that the 20% figure is not particularly robust, because it implies that 80% of people are not doing anything to isolate. That is not what the survey found. Nevertheless, we should all urge and require people to follow the rules. When someone tests positive, they must isolate, and contacts must isolate. That is part of our social duty.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
It is indeed a relief to have some hope introduced into our discussions about covid. I am glad that the Secretary of State has announced that use of the rapid result lateral flow tests will be expanded to new geographical areas. As the roll-out continues, will he consider offering tests to specific groups and perhaps in particular close relatives of care home residents who are desperate to make regular visits?
Matt Hancock
Yes, of course. I have seen some heart-rending stories and I have met people who are affected by their inability to see their relatives in care homes. The lateral flow tests that we are sending to directors of public health can be used for cases that they think are important locally, so they can use them for this purpose if they so choose. But we are also looking at a broader solution to this problem, which is a conundrum we have discussed many times in this House: we need to keep people in care homes safe but at the same time, of course, we want to allow as much visiting as can be safe, which directly impacts on the health of many residents.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
It would be very helpful to know how long the roll-out of the vaccinations will take once the Secretary of State gets the go-ahead. He has outlined a major Government project that does not stop with the first vaccinations, and with the mutations rife in Denmark and elsewhere, it could affect children in future, so as part of his major project planning, how is he going to make sure that we can logistically get this out through the entire population if that does, sadly, become necessary?
Matt Hancock
That is a very good question from the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee—I would expect nothing less. The critical answer to how long this takes is that it depends on the speed of manufacture in the first instance. My goal, and the goal I have set the NHS, is to be able to roll this out as quickly as it can be manufactured. That manufacturing schedule is uncertain because this is really hard stuff to make. We have got the Major Projects Authority in the Government involved in many of the projects that we have built up in the Department over the past nine months, because I respect its views and its ability to kick the tyres. The roll-out of the vaccine is a huge endeavour, but it builds on the annual roll-out of the flu vaccine—it is just bigger and needs to be done faster.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
The past few months have been a rollercoaster ride for families, businesses and public services as they have tried to make plans for the future. The Secretary of State has rightly spoken of the need for caution about the role of the vaccine, but I think what my constituents would like to hear from him, if he is able to say, is when they can safely start to consider family events and holidays and when businesses will be able to get back to something like business as usual.
Matt Hancock
I understand the yearning for certainty. All I can say to my hon. Friend, in honesty, is that I want us to get back to normal as quickly as possible, and yesterday’s news is a big step forward, but it is not the only step. There are more steps that are needed. The scientists are now offering views on that sort of timetable, but the Government’s view is that we must make this happen as quickly as possible and be ready to roll out as fast as any safe vaccine can be manufactured, but we will not put safety at risk. That is a lodestar of the programme and therefore we have to await the clinical safety sign-off before we can take this to the next stage.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
We know that those in the most deprived areas are around twice as likely to die from covid-19 as those in the least deprived areas. We also know that the most deprived people in society are less likely to take up the vaccine and health services, so will the Secretary of State tell me what plans he has made to ensure a high take-up of any covid-19 vaccine among the most deprived and if he will consider setting an inequalities target for this?
Matt Hancock
We are of course concerned about that and will put in enormous efforts to try to ensure that the take-up of the vaccine is as equal as possible. The starting principle is that we will roll out the vaccine according to clinical need across the whole UK, across all four nations, working of course through the devolved NHSs, which are going to be critical to actually delivering the vaccine in the devolved nations. But the procurement of this vaccine is a UK programme—we have been working very closely together—and in terms of the roll-out among deprived communities and harder-to-reach communities, we have a particular emphasis on trying to make sure that we get as equal a roll-out as possible. The starting point must be clinical need.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
Not a day goes by when I do not hear from or try to help constituents to see a loved one in a care home, and in so many cases we know that people have not been able to see their loved ones for months and months. Given that I am the MP for one of the oldest constituencies in the country, North Norfolk, will my right hon. Friend give me his absolute reassurance that we will have enough vaccinations to support not only the vulnerable in my care homes, but those amazing workers who have done so much over the pandemic?
Matt Hancock
Precisely for the reasons my hon. Friend sets out, the top priority for this vaccine, according to the clinical analysis, is the residents of care homes, along with the staff who work to look after them so well. They are in the very first categorisation because they are the most vulnerable to this disease and because a care home’s nature as a generally communal environment means that they are particularly susceptible. As he represents the oldest constituency in the country, I am sure that that sort of prioritisation will mean that should this come off and if the other hurdles are passed, a lot of vaccine will be heading to North Norfolk.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Of course the news about the Pfizer vaccine is extremely encouraging, and we are all hoping that it is proved safe and effective, and that it is approved by regulators. Let us suppose that that is the case. Given that it is being manufactured in Belgium and that, as the Secretary of State has noted, it has to be kept at minus 70° at all times until shortly before administration, what arrangements is he putting in place to ensure that there is absolutely no delay of the supplies at the borders following the end of the Brexit transition period? Any significant delay could at worst result in precious supplies being damaged and rendered useless, which could delay roll-out.
Matt Hancock
Of course we have looked at this risk, and I have confidence in our plans to be able to deliver the vaccine whatever the outcomes of the negotiations over our future relationship with Europe.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
My right hon. Friend’s strategy is, as he keeps reporting to the House, to “suppress the virus” until a vaccine can be deployed, but this is still beset by so many uncertainties. Who would have thought that mink in Denmark could throw a spanner into this situation? Is the tracing capability and the ability to get people to isolate not absolutely crucial? Who should we hold accountable for whether that is operationally effective as we come out of lockdown? I say that because this is the only time we have got to make this work, otherwise we will be in another lockdown.
Matt Hancock
Of course it is important that we continue to build and strengthen the contact tracing system, as we are doing. My hon. Friend mentions the uncertainties, and the issue of the virus that has spread back from mink to humans is one example of that. Of course managing a pandemic is beset by uncertainty. We still have uncertainty, for instance, over whether even the Pfizer vaccine will pass the safety hurdles that we very much hope it will in the coming weeks, but managing through that uncertainty is a critical part of getting this right.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. Is it not good to see the nation regain at least a smile in relation to the potential for a vaccine? That has to be good news for us all. Will he outline how he intends to ensure that, unlike with the flu vaccine, where there is a shortage in the nation and in my constituency, each region will receive the necessary amount of this vaccine and that rather than using estimations, the health service will allocate on the basis of priority need and not postcode?
Matt Hancock
Yes, absolutely; this is a UK programme and I have been working closely with my Northern Ireland counterpart, Robin Swann, who is doing a brilliant job in Northern Ireland, to make sure that we get this roll-out as effective as possible right across the whole United Kingdom.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Mr Deputy Speaker, happy birthday.
I know that my right hon. Friend is as concerned as I am about the impact of lockdown, particularly the first lockdown, on new families with new babies—particularly as seen in the excellent Parent-Infant Foundation report “Babies in Lockdown” and the awful news from Ofsted that some babies have been harmed more than you would expect during that period of time, potentially as a result of poor mental health and so on. So can my right hon. Friend tell us what exactly he is doing to ensure that, during the current lockdown, new families are being provided with the level of support, from partners and statutory services, that they need to help them through?
Matt Hancock
My right hon. Friend is right to raise that issue, and we all know how close it is to her heart. In the first lockdown, many NHS services were suspended, partly because of the uncertainty that we have just been talking about. We know far more about the virus and how to manage it the second time round, and our goal is that all NHS services stay open. That has not proved possible in the areas of the country where there is the highest prevalence, but all maternity services and services around perinatal health ought to stay open everywhere. We have had to delay some non-cancer, non-urgent treatment, but crucially, the best thing to do for this agenda that she champions is to try to keep the virus under control and try to suppress the virus as much as possible.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
A happy birthday from me too, Mr Deputy Speaker.
As well as age and underlying conditions, the JCVI notes that early signals have been identified of other potential risk factors, including deprivation and ethnicity, but there have been enormous amounts of research and evidence showing that black, Asian and minority groups are at risk of this virus. Given their occupations, and given the overcrowded households that they disproportionately represent, why have they not been included in the composition and order of priority of groups for vaccination?
Matt Hancock
Before I forget, Mr Deputy Speaker, I should say happy birthday to you as well.
The hon. Lady asks a very important question. The JCVI has looked at that issue and in its earlier iteration of its draft advice it considered the disproportionate impact that the virus has had on BAME communities. Its conclusion, having looked at it in some detail, is that the overwhelming indicator of mortality from coronavirus is age; and therefore it has based its recommendations around age and, of course, the occupational groups that directly support the most vulnerable—hence it has come up with the classification that it has. I respect the JCVI’s independence and its analysis.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Happy birthday to you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
In the past fortnight, 75 people in my constituency, workers at a food processing factory, have tested positive, and that follows a similar outbreak at Cranswick Country Foods, where 144 out of 333 tested positive just 10 days ago. Lawrence Young at the University of Warwick has shown through research that the virus remains very viable on cold surfaces. My question to the Secretary of State is simply: how often should the Health and Safety Executive be undertaking physical checks in such premises, and when should Members of Parliament be notified by local authorities that such an outbreak has happened?
Matt Hancock
It is down to the local authority, in the first instance, to notify a Member of Parliament, although often, if an issue is very significant, we in the Department will also work with the local Member of Parliament. The Health and Safety Executive takes a risk-based approach, so it is not possible to give a definitive answer about how often it should visit; it depends on the level of the risk.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before I call Jacob Young, I would just like to say thanks for all the birthday wishes. I absolve anybody else from saying happy birthday to me. I am coming to terms with the fact that The Times added a year to my age. It is bad enough being the age I am, I do assure you, but none the less.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
Last week, I spoke to care providers in Redcar and Cleveland who outlined that, when it comes to testing in care homes, two groups of people are still missed out: first, agency workers, who go to and from care home to care home, currently fall outside the weekly testing programme; and secondly, family members of those who live in care homes. If we can roll out testing for those people, they could be treated as care workers and enabled to visit their loved ones again. Will the Secretary of State urgently address these two gaps in our testing programme, to help lift some hardship from the most vulnerable in our society?
Matt Hancock
The answer is yes, and I will add a third: visitors to care homes. I would like the testing regime to work for those people, to make visiting easier. When it comes to agency workers, we want to stop altogether people working in more than one care home, because that risks transmission. When it comes to carers who are unpaid but who go in regularly, we want to find a way for them to be added to the regular testing regime.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
There was nothing in the Secretary of State’s statement about VAT on personal protective equipment, so will he update the House on what discussions he has had with the Treasury about scrapping the mask tax?
Matt Hancock
That is a matter for the Treasury, as the hon. Lady indicates. The truth is that we have made PPE freely available to health and social care and other public services until the end of this financial year.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
The weekend press carried briefing of a Government intention to distribute vitamin D to care homes and other vulnerable groups. If that is true, I congratulate the Secretary of State on this decisive, low-cost, zero-risk, potentially highly effective action. If it is true, will he tell us the dosages proposed, how quickly it will happen and whether the target groups include ethnic minorities? Is his Department reviewing and considering the Spanish trials, with a view to the use of calcifediol in a clinical context?
Matt Hancock
This is something that we are working hard on in the Department. I am not yet in a position to answer all those questions, except to say that I have looked at the results of the Spanish trial that my right hon. Friend mentions, not least because he sent me those results with some enthusiasm. We are looking at this very closely.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
Before I ask my question, I pay tribute to the brave staff of the Royal Free Hospital in my constituency, who featured in “Hospital” last night on BBC 2, for all their hard work during the pandemic. I understand that, when the vaccine is approved, the Government will distribute it according to who needs it most. However, before that point, will there be Government restrictions on meetings between those who have been vaccinated and those who have not? When does the Secretary of State think the vaccination will be available for the whole of the UK?
Matt Hancock
The hon. Lady tempts me, but I will resist the temptation. We do not know when this vaccine will be ready, because I will not allow it to be rolled out before it is clinically safe—and anyway, the independent regulator would not license it before it is clinically safe. She asked how we will treat people who have been vaccinated and those who have not been. The problem is that only when we can assess and monitor the epidemic-modifying effects of any vaccine—not only how much it protects an individual but how much it stops transmission—can we make further judgments about the non-pharmaceutical interventions, such as social distancing rules, that we have in place. We will keep that under review and monitor it extremely carefully.
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on what he has done to secure access to supplies of what we hope will be approved vaccines very soon. He has done a fantastic job on that, as he has on the expansion of testing and the 15-minute tests. However, may I take him back to the issue of testing in the aviation sector? Prior to the pandemic, we had the biggest and most important aviation sector in Europe. Since the pandemic, that sector has collapsed, yet last week Lord Bethell told the House of Lords that the chief medical officer believes that the aviation sector is a low priority for testing. It may be a low priority in his eyes, but it is economically vital to us. I urge my right hon. Friend to make sure that those 15-minute tests are made available to the aviation sector at the earliest opportunity.
Matt Hancock
The expansion of testing capacity obviously opens up the number of different uses to which it can be put. We are working closely with the aviation industry—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is leading those discussions, but I am heavily involved in them—and I hope we can make some progress soon.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) [V]
A constituent’s father is in a care home. He is non-verbal and relies on touch to communicate. She says:
“I have not been able to hug my dad for over eight months. I have not been able to hold his hand. I have not been able to…take his youngest grandchild to meet him.”
Eight months into this crisis, will the Secretary of State urgently set out the scope of his pilot keyworker-status scheme, accelerate its implementation and tell us when a combination of regular rapid testing and personal protective equipment will allow my constituent to safely hold her dad’s hand again and put an end to this slow torture?
Matt Hancock
The hon. Lady puts the point very movingly. The Minister for Care is leading on this issue with great compassion and I hope that we can make some progress soon.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
The news of a vaccine is very welcome, but it comes just as Wales is leaving its firebreak and England has entered its own lockdown. This kind of diversion has caused confusion and some anxiety, so will my right hon. Friend confirm that the vaccine will be available in all parts of the Union? Does he agree that it is the action that the UK Government have taken on things such as the pre-purchase of doses that has given us this access?
Matt Hancock
There is absolutely no doubt that we have worked together as a United Kingdom to put ourselves in a strong position when it comes to access to the Pfizer vaccine, and we have worked together to ensure that, should it come off, the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine will be available across all parts of this United Kingdom. I pay tribute to the work that I anticipate the NHS in Wales will be doing to deliver the shots into arms across Wales, but it is a UK-wide programme and is yet another example of why the UK is so strong when it works together.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State is aware that priests have been unable to administer the sacrament to those dying in care homes and rabbis have been unable to secure a minyan in order to say the Kaddish. How will his Government now try to ensure they recognise that a person’s spiritual needs are critical for their mental health and that this is just as important for people’s physical health?
Matt Hancock
Of course we recognise exactly that, and the hon. Gentleman puts it well. Ministers are working with faith leaders on how we can come to an arrangement, as soon as possible, to allow both communal prayer, which was discussed in the House as we brought in the regulations relating to the lockdown, and all other aspects of nurturing worship.
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
Diana, Princess of Wales Hospital in Grimsby currently has twice as many covid patients in intensive care units as we had at the height of the previous lockdown. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, despite the very good news regarding vaccines, it is essential that people in England adhere to the lockdown rules so that we can get the reproduction rate down and reopen our businesses as quickly as possible?
Matt Hancock
Yes, my hon. Friend puts it absolutely right, and that is the reason for the caution we in Government are showing. There is understandable excitement at the news of the vaccine, but we are cautious, because the single most important thing is that, until we have a vaccine—and we do not have a vaccine yet—people have to follow the rules in order to keep people safe. That is true across Grimsby and the whole country. I know that the team at the hospital in Grimsby are working incredibly hard in difficult circumstances, and it is tougher in Grimsby this second time than it was the first time around. I pay tribute to and thank them. The best thing we can all do to support them is to follow the rules, do our best and play our part to reduce the transmission of this disease.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP) [V]
For the vaccine to be effective, widespread take-up is required. Yesterday, the Prime Minister said a strategy to counter the utterly ridiculous and extremely dangerous anti-vaxxer misinformation was to hope people will not listen to those types of arguments. Can the Health Secretary assure the House that his Department is working on a more detailed strategy than the Prime Minister to counter this misinformation?
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab) [V]
The Secretary of State’s update is very welcome news for the shielding community, and I hope they will be among the first to receive the vaccine. At my meeting with the deputy chief medical officer last week, she informed me that 15,000 children are still being asked to shield this time around. What does the Secretary of State say to the parents and carers of those children, given that he has just confirmed that they will not receive the vaccine?
Matt Hancock
Of course, we will continue to work on a clinically-led basis with everybody across the country who needs support. The vaccines were not trialled on children, and it would absolutely be a clinical decision as to how to take this matter forward. I am very glad that the hon. Lady has had the opportunity to talk to the deputy chief medical officer, Jenny Harries, who leads on shielding policy. It is a very important and very sensitive subject.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The amended graphs used to justify the lockdown now show a 40% reduction in the death rate in the upper quartile as against their first presentation, so the NHS would have coped, wouldn’t it?
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust now has over 280 covid patients. That is more than 70% higher than in April, and it has fewer staff in place to cope. It cannot use the Harrogate Nightingale, because there are no spare staff to send there. The staff are doing an amazing job, but I am really worried about the pressure they are under. Will the Secretary of State work urgently with Yorkshire hospitals to get them more support and more staff in place over the next couple of weeks, when the pressure is likely to be greatest?
Matt Hancock
Yes, of course. We are working with hospitals across Yorkshire and across the whole country to try to make sure that we have the most capacity available. It is true that the numbers going into hospitals across Yorkshire continue to be far too high, and there is an awful lot of work we need to do, but the most important thing is that we get this virus under control in order to bring that number of admissions down.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I join others in congratulating my right hon. Friend, my constituency neighbour, on ensuring that our country has its share of this very promising RNA vaccine. However, on the subject of the previous question and capacity, is not one of the key reasons for prioritising health and social care staff not just that we prioritise those who are protecting us, but that by ensuring they are first in line for the vaccine, should it come forward and be proved safe, we will help to boost hospital capacity at a crucial time of the year?
Matt Hancock
Yes, that is a really important point. Part of the challenge of, and the reason for, a second lockdown was NHS capacity. The more we protect those who work in the NHS, the fewer are unavailable to work, precisely as the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) said, and the more capacity we have in our NHS.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
As families begin to dare to hope in the possibility of a vaccine, it is vital that we prioritise mental health resilience and confidence in learning among our young people. Outdoor education centres in Cumbria and across the country are uniquely equipped and able to help with just that, yet most of those centres face closure, essentially because the Government advice remains against residential school visits, even though outdoor education centres are just as covid-safe as schools. Would the Secretary of State agree to work with the Department for Education to try to change that advice and to make sure outdoor education centres remain open?
Matt Hancock
I am very happy to look at that matter with my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary. It is, of course, a Department for Education lead, but I am happy to do my bit.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on the work that he has done on securing the vaccine. May I just bring the discussion back to the here and now, since, as he quite rightly says, there is a long way to go on that? Something that has been slightly overlooked in his statement is his announcement of the provision of 10% of lateral flow tests to local areas, which is very important. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for doing an incredible job in keeping me and other Leeds MPs informed as the crisis has moved forwards, but will he tell me whether the lateral flow tests will have an impact on the tiering system? The numbers in Leeds are still exceptionally high, although hopefully they will change during the lockdown. Is there going to be some change in how the tiering system works? If my right hon. Friend does not have the answers now, perhaps he could write to me at a later stage, once he has given the matter some consideration.
Matt Hancock
I will write to my right hon. Friend on exactly this matter. Of course, the more that we can do to get the infection rates down during lockdown, the easier it will be to get out of lockdown, and places can get out in lower tiers.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
Have the bumps from me too, Mr Deputy Speaker.
It is good to hear some good news about the vaccine on the way, and hopefully about vitamin D. Earlier in the pandemic, people with non-covid health issues were told not to suffer in silence. Now we hear that non-elective surgeries are being cancelled; I think all are off at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Birmingham. What is the advice now? If it is the wrong advice, could this mean the loss of lives?
Matt Hancock
We want as little impact on the rest of NHS activity as possible. Of course, we are having to take that action in some high-prevalence areas. That decision takes into account local circumstances; it is not a blanket, national decision as it was in March. The most important thing that we can all do to keep our NHS open for non-covid treatment is to abide by the rules and have that lockdown in place.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for securing the vaccine. That is a ray of hope for us all. I look forward to hearing more about the developments in the coming weeks and months. Will he join me in paying tribute to the military, who have worked tirelessly to deploy the mass testing of the vaccine, and update the House on his plans for the military to be used with regard to the vaccine in the coming months?
Matt Hancock
Absolutely. The armed services of this country have played an amazing role during the pandemic. I have talked about a war against a virus, in which we are all on the same side. The military have done and are doing their bit, and there is a lot more that we will need from them in the future. They are involved in the mass testing and the vaccine roll-out, and I am very grateful for their support.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
We have learned today that mass testing of students is to take place in order to enable them to return home for Christmas, which will be widely welcomed. We have a very large number of students in Leeds. Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether that testing is going to be handled by the universities themselves or by the excellent public health team in Leeds that is led by Victoria Eaton? How will it dovetail with any roll-out of mass testing to Leeds in due course, so that all the bits of the system fit together?
Matt Hancock
The right hon. Gentleman asks a characteristically critical question and puts his finger on a vital logistical point. We are planning to help students to get home safely with the assistance of mass testing. In places such as Leeds, mass testing is being made available to the directors of public health. Of course, these things must be dovetailed. The universities will be in the lead on the mass testing of students, but this process, by its nature, will absolutely draw on the public health knowledge and expertise of the local council. Although each of us has become something of a public health expert over the past 11 months, the professional support from the public health team in the council will be critical to this task.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)
I welcome my right hon Friend's announcement on the roll-out of mass testing for NHS staff and congratulate him on securing so many doses of the vaccine. It is wonderful news that the efficacy of the first of these vaccines seems to be so very high. I have read in newspapers over the past month countless pundits telling me that there would be no vaccine and that the right thing to do would be to let the virus rip and try to protect a few vulnerable people. Does this not show that it is right to listen to the scientists and the real experts rather than pundits who would have put millions of people’s lives at risk?
Matt Hancock
My hon. Friend feels strongly about this point. That is understandable, because the strategy that we have pursued has been to suppress the virus while we work on the vaccine. We are not there yet, but this progress towards a vaccine demonstrates why we followed the strategy of protecting life even though we know that there are challenging consequences for businesses and other parts of society. We have done so because we have a good degree of confidence that a vaccine will come and will make a significant contribution to solving this problem without the huge risk of its impact on taking people’s lives, especially the most vulnerable, that would be incurred if we did not suppress the virus.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con) [V]
It is fantastic news that 10,000 rapid lateral flow tests will be going to Dudley this week and that about 30,000 more will be in use locally subsequently. What guidance will be issued to directors of public health on how those rapid tests should be targeted?
Matt Hancock
Guidance will be given and we are engaging directly with directors of public health. I will ensure that the teams from Stoke and Liverpool, who have been piloting this, will talk to other directors of public health, including in Dudley. We are not putting stringent rules around the use of these tests, because we want directors of public health to use them in ways in which they think will work and are important locally and then to feed back on the effectiveness of their use so that we can keep learning about the roll-out. We are sending the tests out with guidelines and instructions on how to use them, as well as logistics, but also saying to directors of public health, “Use your professional expertise and tell us how you did it, what worked and what did not and we can all learn from each other.”
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) [V]
My constituent Kellie Shiers is an emergency ambulance care assistant with North West Ambulance Service. In 2015 she was diagnosed with breast cancer. After treatment she went into remission and went back to work. During the pandemic she chose to continue to work on the frontline despite her medical history. Her yearly check-up and mammogram did not happen in April and in early October she was told that not only had her cancer returned but it has now spread into her bones. Kellie has asked to meet the Secretary of State to discuss the situation affecting her and thousands of others, but we have not had a reply to my letter sent three weeks ago. Will the Secretary of State agree to that request?
Matt Hancock
Yes, of course I will. It is an incredibly important subject. It underlines the fact that by controlling the virus and taking action to suppress it, we allow the other activity that the NHS needs to do, which is very important for the precise reasons that the hon. Lady sets out. I would be very happy to meet her and her constituent, listen directly to her experience and see what we can do to help.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
Lockdown 2 has been very divisive across the UK, not least in Bracknell. Are there any circumstances in which my right hon. Friend might consider early easing of restrictions, perhaps in low-infection areas?
Matt Hancock
We always keep the data under review and we are always looking at what we can do. Our goal is to get out of this lockdown into the tiered system and we are focused on that and on getting the numbers down. Even in Bracknell, where for so long the rate of infection was incredibly low, we have seen an increase in that rate of infection and it is important to get it under control in Bracknell, as it is elsewhere in the country.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab) [V]
Because of the growing number of covid patients being treated in hospital, my local NHS would like to use the Exeter Nightingale hospital for in-patient care, but it does not currently have the staff for it to do so. What exactly is the purpose of the Nightingale hospitals when there are not the doctors and nurses to staff them?
Matt Hancock
There are of course record numbers of staff in the NHS. There has been an increase of over 13,000 nurses, for instance, in the past year, and we have the returners who have come back into the NHS. The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) asked this question and I did not answer it, so I will now answer them both together. The Nightingale hospitals are incredibly important as additional surge capacity, but part of that surge involves the staff in the NHS having themselves each to look after a higher proportion of patients. That surge is not something we want to put in place unless we have to, so having the Nightingales there is important. They can be used—in fact, the Manchester Nightingale currently has patients in it—but it is better both for patients and staff if people can be treated in the existing hospitals, even as we expand the number of staff that are available.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) [V]
Following the rise in the real living wage, will the Government now do the right thing for care workers, as well as for UK Government workers on outsourced facilities management contracts, all of whom have worked throughout the pandemic to make workplaces safe, and ensure that they are paid the real living wage?
Matt Hancock
I am absolutely delighted that the national living wage, which we introduced, now means that there has been a sharp rise in the pay of our lowest-paid staff right across the UK. I think that is something this whole House can get behind. It is true in social care, as the hon. Gentleman mentions, and in other professions, and I am really proud to have played a part in bringing it about.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
My right hon. Friend well understands the importance of families being able to see each other this Christmas at the end of a very difficult year, and he understands the lengths that people will inevitably go to in order to be able to see families and loved ones this Christmas. Without making any predictions about what the situation will be at the end of the year, can he at least confirm today that the intention on the part of this Government is to work with the devolved Administrations so that we have one set of rules covering the whole United Kingdom, and, for the first time during this pandemic, a set of rules that are clear, consistent and fair right across the UK?
Matt Hancock
I really hope that the talks that are under way can come to a set of principles and a set of rules across the UK for Christmas. So many people travel across the UK, including to and from Wales, over the Christmas period, even more so than in the rest of the year, and I hope that we can bring this to fruition.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
Last week the Prime Minister said that not enough people are self-isolating when asked to. Does the Secretary of State accept that this might be because those traced by the covid app are not entitled to the same financial support as if they receive a phone call?
Matt Hancock
We are working on ways to ensure that those who are traced through the app also get support. The challenge is that the app is, by its nature, and by the design principles that our friends and colleagues in the tech industry insisted on, anonymous. Therefore, translating an anonymous system on the app into an identified payment is a challenging process that we are working through.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his efforts with regard to a vaccine and for his commitment on equal distribution throughout the Union. Nurses and care workers in my constituency are daily on the frontline in the fight against covid, putting themselves and their families at increased risk while trying to save and protect us and the NHS. They too will play a key role in the administering of a vaccine in the very near future. Does the Secretary of State agree that the pay nurses receive falls short of what it ought to be, given the skilled and responsible nature of the role, and that a pay rise is due for UK nurses?
Matt Hancock
I understand the question that the hon. Lady asks on behalf of her constituents. I pay tribute to my opposite number in Northern Ireland, Robin Swann, and because this is a devolved matter, I hope that she will understand if I allow him the discretion to provide an answer to that question, rather than to answer on his behalf.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Students and their families across the country will be very pleased with the news that students are to be offered covid tests as early as 30 November to ensure that they can go back for Christmas. Subsequent to the Secretary of State’s answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), may I ask whether similar arrangements will be put in place in January, so that students can then return to study in the new year?
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con) [V]
I welcome the roll-out of mass testing and the vaccine update. It is very positive news and offers the hope that the country needs to get back to normality as quickly as possible. Given the unique challenges of infection control in university cities, which my right hon. Friend has touched on already, will the wider roll-out of mass testing be available across university cities such as York for the whole population?
Matt Hancock
Yes, the roll-out and the 10% of population per week availability of lateral flow tests is available to directors of public health right across the country. If that has not already been organised with York, I urge the director of public health in York to come forward and work with the team to make that happen.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
The Secretary of State recognised in his statement that the task of delivering 40 million doses will be vast, and he has also said that he has orders for 300 million further doses. How far away are we from those further doses coming on board, and does not that make that a huge task to undertake at a local level? How is local government involved in co-ordinating this roll-out?
Matt Hancock
Yes, it will be a huge task. The NHS is leading on it, and of course the NHS reaches all parts of this country. As for the flow of the future doses that we have secured, the only one that is in immediate prospect is AstraZeneca. It would be wonderful to hear the same sort of results soon for AstraZeneca that we heard from Pfizer yesterday. After that, it is next summer before the next vaccine candidate comes on stream, so the focus of the roll-out plan at the moment is on delivering the Pfizer and AstraZeneca projects if they pass the safety test.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to prioritise those working in the health sector for the roll-out of the vaccine, but will he also consider the important role that those working in the teaching profession and in childcare play? Their being in work enables children to be in school or in care and therefore allows their parents to be economically active.
Matt Hancock
Of course I understand the importance of that, hence we protected education and kept schools open as much as possible through this second peak. I pay tribute to schools, which have, in, very large part, stayed open. Some children have had to go home, and we are looking to see how we can use testing to reduce the need for children in bubbles to have to isolate if an index case has tested positive in a school.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con) [V]
My right hon. Friend probably saw the BBC news last night featuring the Royal Derby Hospital where staff were saying that the numbers that were in hospital now were higher than in the peak earlier this year and that they were exhausted but would keep going. Is there any opportunity for the Nightingale staff, who are perhaps on standby, to come in and assist so that some of these hard-pressed doctors and nurses could have slightly more time off so that they would not be quite so exhausted?
Matt Hancock
I thank staff at the Royal Derby for the work that they are doing. These are difficult circumstances. One of the reasons why we brought in measures that I know are difficult was to protect the NHS from the increase in the number of cases, which in Derby, as my hon. Friend says, is now higher than in the first peak. Unfortunately, the solution that she proposes is in fact the other way around: the NHS Nightingales provide extra space and extra capacity, but we need to stretch the existing workforce to use them—to staff them—if they are needed. That is another reason to take the measures that we have taken in order to protect the NHS.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
Penblwydd hapus, Mr Deputy Speaker.
A number of concerns have been raised today about staffing in the NHS, so may I press the Secretary of State to commit to ensuring that cancer professionals are not redeployed away from cancer treatment and care, so that they can beat the backlog rather than building it even further?
Matt Hancock
Yes, that is absolutely our goal—to keep all cancer treatment going during this second phase. So far, that has been successful everywhere; even where hospitals have had to postpone non-urgent activity, they have not postponed cancer treatment. This is incredibly important to me personally, and I strongly support the recommendation that the hon. Lady sets out.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
I join my right hon. Friend in praising the work of the vaccine taskforce in securing so much of this first encouraging vaccine and the work it has done to have a good portfolio.
Let me turn to the joint inquiry of the Science and Technology Committee and the Health and Social Care Committee, which met this morning. We considered test and trace, but it seems to me that the third part—the isolation part—is key. This 20% figure has been bandied about, but Baroness Harding was able to give us a preliminary figure of 54% for the people who manage to observe staying at home. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need more data about this? We need to understand how many people are staying at home—I realise it is not completely binary—but also how that varies between people who have positive tests and people who have been asked to isolate. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, may I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to look at Sir John Bell’s suggestion that people who are merely contacts could be released from quarantine earlier through rapid testing?
Matt Hancock
I am happy to look at all those constructive suggestions. Maybe I can also take this opportunity to put on the record my thanks to the vaccine taskforce and to Kate Bingham personally for the leadership that they have shown in being able to procure the 340 million doses that they have achieved—I know that the whole country is grateful for the 40 million doses of the Pfizer vaccine in particular—and the work that they have done.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) [V]
What update can the Secretary of State give the House on the new strain of coronavirus identified in mink in Denmark? Aside from the travel restrictions now in place from Denmark, what steps are being taken to stop any new outbreak?
Matt Hancock
The hon. Lady raises an incredibly important point. We acted very fast, including working with the Scottish Government and the other devolved Governments, to take the action that we did at the end of last week. We are concerned about this outbreak. I am concerned about the fact that this virus has become virulent across the mink population, and I think that there is an international case, on public health grounds, for addressing the question of mink farming, which we banned in the UK two decades ago. It was due to come to an end in Europe in 2023 anyway. People will have their own views on animal welfare grounds—I certainly have mine—but clearly, on global public health grounds, there is a case for doing everything we can to stop the retransmission of this virus into an animal population and then back again, which can lead to the sorts of mutations that we have seen. We will do everything we can to keep people safe.
If you will indulge me, Mr Deputy Speaker, I should also put on the record my thanks to and admiration of the Government of Denmark, who have also responded to this very quickly. Our actions should in no way be interpreted as a criticism of the Danish Government, who have acted very fast; it is a painful economic decision that they have taken very swiftly to cull their mink population. We are merely acting to keep this country safe.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
I really welcome today’s news that we are now much closer to the roll-out of vaccines, but, as of today, the Royal Stoke University Hospital in my constituency has more than double the number of covid patients than during the first peak, and that is combined with record-high levels of covid-related staff absence. That is of concern to me, fellow MPs in Stoke-on-Trent and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell). Will the Secretary of State join me in praising the heroic efforts of our NHS staff in Stoke-on-Trent and help us to deal with the situation until such time as it is improved by the roll-out of vaccines?
Matt Hancock
Yes. I know Stoke-on-Trent’s hospital and I think that the people who work there do a brilliant job. They are a great team that works so closely and well for the people of Stoke-on-Trent and, indeed, Newcastle-under-Lyme. Stoke has got an outbreak under control a couple of times in this virus. In fact, it had a second peak in the summer, which it got under control, so this is really the third peak in Stoke. Stoke-on-Trent City Council worked closely with us on the early roll-out of mass testing in a pilot even before Liverpool. I thank everybody at the Royal Stoke for all their hard work and I urge everyone in Stoke and across the country to respect social distancing and follow the rules, because that is the best way to support our NHS.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) [V]
Clearly, I represent a vast and extremely remote constituency in which there are groups of elderly people who are potentially vulnerable to covid-19. When the Secretary of State talks to the Scottish Government, will he make sure that such people are reached out to with the vaccine? It would be too bad if one part of Scotland were to lose out against another as it was rolled out.
Matt Hancock
Yes. Our principle is to roll out the vaccine across the whole of the UK according to clinical need, and that is what we should do.
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
Teesside Dementia Link Services is an amazing charity run by some of the most inspiring people I have ever met. It delivers support to families and individuals dealing with dementia. It has told me of some of the pain suffered by many in our care homes who are unable to see loved ones. I welcome the recent guidance and I ask my right hon. Friend to continue to do everything he can to ensure that we safely and meaningfully reunite families.
Matt Hancock
I am a fan of new technology—I am not going to deny that—because it can help to improve people’s lives, and this is one example. New technology, such as testing technology and quite intricate biochemistry, will help to enable people to see their loved ones in care homes. I cannot think of a better example of how new technology can really help to improve people’s lives. I cannot wait to see that happen.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement today and for answering the questions of 55 Members of Parliament. We will move on to the ten-minute rule motion, and then we will suspend for three minutes.
Virtual participation in proceedings concluded (Order, 4 June).
Jet Skis (Licensing)
Tuesday 10th November 2020
(4 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Jet Skis (Licensing) Bill 2019-21 View all Jet Skis (Licensing) 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
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a system of licensing for drivers of jet skis; to create the offence of driving a jet ski without a licence; and for connected purposes.
Jet skis, or otherwise motorised personal watercraft, are powerful machines of up to 300 hp, which can lead to speeds of up to 40 mph on water. They are easy to tow and to launch from any beach. Compared with other watercraft, they are not expensive and their use has been growing for many years. I have been told that, this year, sales of jet skis in my constituency and in Gwynedd are up by 30%.
Hon. Members may be surprised that in the UK, anyone can use a jet ski. No licence is required. There is no compulsory training or test of competence. The recommended lower age limit is 12 years. Local authorities and other bodies have limited regulatory powers, such as setting speed limits in some areas and specifying launching areas, but enforcement is difficult and can be expensive in a time of cuts.
In my opinion and that of many boat owners, local residents and people who just want to use our wonderful beaches in peace, local byelaws and speed limits within yellow buoys are not sufficient. In the words of a local beach warden who spoke to me this summer:
“I can tell them till I’m blue in the face not to come close to the bathers, but there’s nothing I can do to stop them”.
My own local authority, which has led the way on this matter, passed a motion last month calling for proper regulation of the use of jet skis. The police and crime commissioner for North Wales, Mr Arfon Jones, has voiced his support. Chief Inspector Mark Armstrong of North Wales police told me:
“Bob blwyddyn yn ardal Gwynedd a Môn rydan ni yn gweld achosion o bobl yn cael eu lladd neu eu brifo yn arw ar ôl digwyddiadau tebyg. Every year, in Gwynedd and Anglesey, we see cases where people have been killed or seriously injured as a consequence of incidents like this.”
Current regulatory measures are useful but cannot be a substitute for what is really needed, and that is a proper licensing system, with training and a test of competence, and proportionate enforcement, properly funded. Antisocial and, less commonly, the dangerous use of jet skis, sometimes associated with prior alcohol consumption, has long been a problem. This year though, anecdotally at least, the problems seem to have got much worse than usual. Perhaps because of covid more people have taken their holidays in the UK, and their jet skis are easy to tow and easy to launch, but this is not a short-term problem. My predecessor, now Lord Dafydd Wigley, campaigned for legislation after a tragic jet ski accident in our Caernarfon constituency more than a generation ago. It is significant that the current House of Commons Library paper on jet skis dates from 2010.
I am sure that the majority of jet ski users are both responsible and law abiding. There are also responsible commercial users, who quite reasonably do not want to be burdened with regulation. Proper quality training is available, for example from the Royal Yachting Association. I am grateful to Mr Howard Pidding from the RYA for his briefing on this matter. He details the work that a number of organisations are already doing to enhance the safety and encourage the responsible use of jet skis, including the RYA personal watercraft proficiency course, a guide on effective management schemes, advice on signage and safety videos in collaboration with the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. He says that improved communication and education will reduce incidents and I am sure he is correct.
There are also considerations about the liberty of all to use our waters—our freedom of the seas, which is very dear to many people. However, this Bill does not aim for a general system of regulation of all marine leisure use. It is to address the special case of jet skis.
Tragically, this summer, we again had fatalities associated with jet skis on the shores of Gwynedd. There were deaths elsewhere, in constituencies represented by the supporters of the Bill, and there were incidents of injury. Many hon. Members will have heard reports and seen pictures of jet skis being driven at speed close to bathing beaches, sometimes even where children were swimming, or craft being driven at high speed even where there are speed limits, accidental collisions with boats and near misses, the disturbing of people fishing from the shore, such as at Doc Fictoria in my home town of Caernarfon, and incidents of jet ski drivers intruding into nature reserves. There have been incidents of aggressive and threatening use. Only this morning, I was sent a picture of a jet ski on the Menai Straits performing a tight circle around a lone kayaker.
Just one other example will suffice. Yesterday I received a video of an incident on 21 September, from someone I will not name, for reasons that will become obvious. The video is just 10 seconds long and it is a shame, with all these screens around us, that I cannot play it here in the Chamber for those 10 seconds. The person who took it was on what looks to me like a paddleboard a little outside the yellow buoy area. He describes the circumstances like this:
“The jet skier was in a party of people, including a couple of youths, who were all taking turns on the jet ski. They were pulling high speed stunts within the yellow buoy restriction zone. There was nearly an accident with some young swimmers.”
The video, taken from the paddleboard, then shows the jet ski driver, a burly man in his forties, driving towards it at increasing speed and, crucially, outside the yellow buoy area. As he gets near, he swerves towards it, looking directly at the camera and shouting something inaudible, which is probably unrepeatable in this Chamber. He then turns away, causing a heavy wake, and makes off at speed, back towards the shore and back towards the yellow buoy area.
The action is clearly very dangerous and could have resulted, had he misjudged his speed or direction, in a direct injury, possibly the need for rescue or even a drowning. The paddleboarder, in his email to me, adds:
“When the video was shared on a local Facebook page, others commented that they had left the beach early due to the noise and irritation.”
That last point is particularly significant in Wales and other tourist areas which attract people specifically because we offer peace and quiet to enjoy our extraordinary natural environment. Tourism accounts for up to a third of our economy in some areas.
The UK is the only state in Europe without a licensing system. There is a long list of other countries around the world that control their use. The Department for Transport proposes to bring forward a consultation on draft legislation that will consider bringing personal watercraft within the definition of a ship for the purposes of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. I am not against that and it would possibly catch the burly gentleman I described earlier. It might deter some irresponsible users, but I believe it is not a substitute for proper regulation.
Lawmaking is a long slow grind, even without Brexit and covid clogging up the works, but the overwhelming support I have had on jet skis, with not a single person against, will, I hope, persuade the Government to act with a proper licensing system. It cannot come too soon.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Hywel Williams, Liz Saville Roberts, Ben Lake, Sir Roger Gale, Geraint Davies, Paul Maynard, Jim Shannon, Tim Farron, Pete Wishart, Sir David Amess and Claire Hanna present the Bill.
Hywel Williams accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 5 February, and to be printed (Bill 209).
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We will now suspend for three minutes. If we can please have sanitisers on the Dispatch Boxes during that period of time. Thank you. Please leave with caution.
Parliamentary Constituencies Bill
Tuesday 10th November 2020
(4 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Parliamentary Constituencies Act 2020 View all Parliamentary Constituencies Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 10 November 2020 - (10 Nov 2020)
17:31 - The House divided: - Ayes: 348 / Noes: 268 - Question accordingly agreed to.
17:44 - The House divided: - Ayes: 352 / Noes: 263 - Question accordingly agreed to.
17:58 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 345 / Noes: 266 - Question accordingly agreed to.
18:12 - The House divided: - Ayes: 346 / Noes: 266 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.
Mr Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss:
Lords amendment 2, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendments 3 to 5.
Lords amendment 6, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 7, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 8, and Government motion to disagree.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The Government’s commitment to ensure that the House has updated and equal parliamentary constituencies has been reflected in the tenacity of my hon. Friend the Minister for the Constitution and Devolution. I apologise to the House that I am a mere stand-in for her today, because her efforts to legislate to that effect have been unstinting throughout this Parliament.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend think it appropriate just to take this moment to send our best wishes to the Minister, our hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), who is suffering very bad ill health at this moment?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Yes; my hon. Friend has momentarily pre-empted me, because that is exactly what I was about to do. The whole House has noted our hon. Friend’s positive approach to the challenge that prevents her from being here today. She is a wonderfully popular and singularly effective Minister, and I know that Members across the House wish her the speediest of recoveries. None the less, she is continuing to work very hard, and I have therefore had the opportunity to discuss the Bill with her. I am pleased to report to the House that she is delighted, as am I, that the principle of updated and equal constituencies is shared by both Houses and across parties. That is in no small part down to the efforts of my noble Friends Lord True and Baroness Scott of Bybrook, and I extend our thanks for their sterling efforts in taking the Bill through the other place.
It is of course right that this short but important Bill has enjoyed extensive debate and scrutiny in both Houses, and we will always welcome the thoughts of their lordships, but it is important to remember that this is a Commons Bill about the composition of the House of Commons based on the mandate of the elected Government. This is an area in which I have taken a great interest during my years as a Member of Parliament, so it is with a spirit of gusto that I now roll up my sleeves and prepare to delve into the detail of their lordships’ amendments. I will speak to each amendment in turn.
Lords amendments 1 and 2 provide that a boundary review would be carried out every 10 years. This is a significant change from the current legal requirement for a review every five years. The Government’s approach, as in the Bill before it was amended, is to mandate a boundary review every eight years. The Government’s aim, as set out in our manifesto, is to ensure that parliamentary constituencies are updated regularly, but without the disruption to local communities and their representatives that might occur with the current five-year reviews.
While developing this Bill, my hon. Friend the Minister for the Constitution and Devolution discussed the Government’s proposal for an eight-year cycle with parliamentary parties and electoral administrators and shared with them our broad plans for the Bill. Concerns were expressed about the importance of up-to-date data—particularly local government boundary data, hence clause 8—but the Labour, Liberal Democrat, Plaid Cymru and Scottish National party representatives from the parliamentary parties panel were among those content with our approach.
If reviews were to happen only every 10 years, as these amendments propose, the data used in boundary reviews would be older and less reflective of current local government boundaries and demographic change. That would also create an unfair situation for electors, because where boundaries were not regularly updated to ensure that they more accurately represented changing demographics, there is a risk that some would feel that their vote was not of equal value to the votes cast in a neighbouring constituency. We believe that the middle ground of eight-year cycles, as proposed in the unamended Bill, is the right way forward. It removes the disruption of a review happening roughly each time an election occurs, but as not too much time will pass between reviews, it also delivers boundaries that are up to date and fair. I therefore trust that the House will disagree with these Lords amendments.
Under Lords amendment 6, members of the Boundary Commission would be chosen using a bespoke appointments procedure that would sit entirely outside the existing public appointments process. The Bill as originally drafted did not make changes to the current processes, and there has been no dispute or controversy to date with the manner in which the commissioners have been appointed. The automatic implementation of the boundary commissioners’ final recommendations is crucial to achieving regular and effective boundary reviews.
Automatic implementation also shines a light on the boundary commissioners themselves. As parliamentary scrutiny is not involved in the process, we must be able to trust that the commissions are effective and independent. We need to be able to satisfy ourselves that the process of appointing all Boundary Commission members is thorough, independent and fair and that there is no room for any undue influence of any kind. I can reassure the House that our current processes fulfil all those criteria. Let me first outline how the deputy chairman and the ordinary members of the commission are appointed at present and then look at how the amendment would change the status quo.
The deputy chairman position in each Boundary Commission must be filled by a High Court judge. The amendment is unnecessary for two reasons. First, the judges appointed to the Boundary Commission have already undergone a rigorous recruitment procedure that gives reassurance that they are able to act independently and impartially. Secondly, the Lord Chancellor consults the Lord Chief Justice over these appointments in any case. This provides the views of the head of the English and Welsh judiciary. The appointment of ordinary members of the Boundary Commissions are public appointments. The four commissions are listed alongside many other public bodies and independent offices in the Public Appointments Order in Council 2019. The order is the legal basis for the governance code on public appointments and the independent Commissioner for Public Appointments, who regulates appointments processes.
The governance code and oversight of the commissioner ensure that appointments are made openly, fairly and on merit to the Boundary Commission and many hundreds of other public bodies. The governance code includes robust safeguards to ensure the political impartiality of the two ordinary members of the Boundary Commissions. These members are appointed by Ministers, having been assessed by an advisory assessment panel that includes a representative of the organisation in question. For Boundary Commissions, the representative is the deputy chairman or an ordinary member if the deputy chairman cannot attend. It is the job of the panel to assess which candidates are appointable, so that Ministers may make an informed and appropriate decision. At the application stage, all candidates are asked to declare political activity over the previous five years. Future advisory assessment panel decisions should not be prejudged, but it would seem likely that recent significant political activity would present a degree of conflict that would be incompatible with the panel finding a candidate appointable as a boundary commissioner.
The Bill, as amended, creates a bespoke system for Boundary Commission appointments in primary legislation. There are three main reasons to oppose that amendment. First, the existing public appointments system has secured dedicated and expert members for the Boundary Commission for decades; in simple terms, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Secondly, a separate appointments regime could cast doubt on those appointed to public office under the current system. That doubt would be unjustified, as the current system is independently regulated and ensures that talented individuals with the right skills and experience are appointed to many hundreds of bodies across government to carry out vital public work. We should use it wherever possible and resist the urge to create new, niche systems.
Thirdly, I have already mentioned that the deputy chairman’s previous appointment as a High Court judge will have been sufficiently robust to ensure their ability to act impartially. The Government are also unconvinced by the argument that the Lord Chancellor cannot be trusted to act impartially when making such appointments. The role of the Lord Chancellor—the Lord High Chancellor—occupies a unique and significant position in our constitutional firmament, defending the judiciary and its independence through a duty to rise above party politics where required.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am spoilt for choice. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman because I heard him marginally earlier, probably because of the distance factor.
David Linden
The right hon. Gentleman speaks about how independent the Lord Chancellor has been of late. Given the attacks on the judiciary by this Government and the attempts to break international law, does he really think that stands up to scrutiny?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I think it is of fundamental importance; the Lord Chancellor is there to say to Ministers that they should not criticise judges. That is one of his roles, to ensure that proper application of the separation of powers. The current Lord Chancellor, my right hon. and learned Friend, carries out his job with absolute aplomb, but he is not alone in this; Labour Lord Chancellors have done exactly the same.
John Spellar
Unfortunately, now that the Lord Chancellor is, rightly or wrongly, in the House of Commons, can they not be subjected to political pressures? Indeed, has a previous Lord Chancellor not been expelled from his party and therefore, in effect, expelled from Parliament?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The Lord Chancellor being in the House of Commons is something that happened earlier in our history, too. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that Thomas More was Lord Chancellor in the House of Commons, so it is hardly unprecedented for this to happen, although there may be quibbles about the constitutional reforms that took place under the Government headed by Tony Blair. I think that the ability of the Lord Chancellor to be the voice of judicial independence and of the rule of law in the highest councils of government is one of fundamental constitutional importance.
Where I draw different conclusions from those of the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Gentleman is that I think the role should be enhanced, protected and recognised as being one of exceptionality and above the cut and thrust of day-to-day party politics. I would mention distinguished Lord Chancellors from other parties here. Jack Straw and Lord Irvine of Lairg were two particularly distinguished Lord Chancellors, as were Lord Mackay of Clashfern and Lord Hailsham. They were great figures who all recognised that they had a political affiliation but that their solemn responsibility required them to rise above the fray. We should defend this as something precious about our constitution.
The gravity of the responsibility placed upon their shoulders means I have no doubt that future Lord Chancellors, one of whom could one day come from the Liberal Democrats or the Scottish nationalists—[Interruption.] The Scottish National party may be pushing it a bit, and one from the Lib Dems is not much more likely, but the principle is that the gravity of the responsibilities placed upon their shoulders means that Lord Chancellors will continue to uphold the highest traditions and respect for the judiciary. The notion that they would seek to undermine or compromise this through appointments to the commission is anathema to us all and would certainly be unconscionable to all past and present keepers of the Queen’s conscience—one of the roles of the Lord High Chancellor.
The amendment also proposes that there should be a single, non-renewable term for boundary commissioners as a way to avoid any potential for an appointee’s actions to be influenced by their desire for re-appointment. If an individual were to serve only one term, it would need to be for 10 years to align with the current cycle of 10-year reviews—or eight years if the House agrees to overturn their lordships’ change to 10 years—which is a long term of office. We are not aware of any similar examples for non-executive style roles such as this. It could be off-putting to some worthy candidates from an inevitably not limitless pool of applicants for such positions. It may also be beneficial to retain the experience of a commissioner after their initial term, which is a principle that applies across public appointments. Not prescribing a non-renewable term in law would retain flexibility in the event that a commissioner did or did not wish to serve longer than the current norm of a four or five-year term.
Alec Shelbrooke
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it should be the aim of the boundary commissions to try to hit the electoral quota number as closely as they can and that the tolerance is, as he outlined, merely for circumstances that may be out of their control? The message from the House to the boundary commissions should be true equality and please try to hit the number as well as they can.
Mr Rees-Mogg
My right hon. Friend makes a fair point. We all recognise that the numbers will diverge from the moment the commission finishes its work as people move around the country. Therefore, the tolerance of 5% either way—10% in total—gets the balance about right in the knowledge that, by the time of an election, it will inevitably have changed regardless A 15% tolerance range has been thoroughly debated in both Houses and twice rejected by this one—in Committee and on Report—so the settled view of the elected Chamber, to which, after all, the Bill relates most directly, should prevail. I therefore urge the House to disagree with the amendment.
As I turn to amendment 8, I will first pay tribute to Lord Shutt of Greetland, who tabled the amendment in the other place and sadly died recently. Lord Shutt was a stalwart campaigner and advocate on electoral issues, as reflected in his recent excellent chairmanship of the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 Committee. I am sure I speak for the whole House when I say he will be much missed and offer my condolences to his family on behalf of the House. The amendment would require the Government to make proposals for improving the completeness of electoral registers for the purposes of boundary reviews. It suggests two possible ways in which the issuing of national insurance numbers could trigger 16 and 17-year-olds being included on the registers. I will look first at the completeness of the registers and then discuss how the amendment proposes to register 16 and 17-year-olds. It is important to note that recent elections have been run on the largest ever electoral registers, despite the removal of 1 million ghost entries from the register when the transition from household registration to individual registration was completed in December 2015. People who want and are eligible to register to vote find it easy to do so.
The Government believe that every eligible elector who wants to be included should be on the electoral register, but that it should be up to each individual to decide whether to engage with the democratic process. The Government seek to make registration as easy as possible and to work with many others to reduce any barriers to registration. For example, we introduced online registration. As a result, it became simpler and faster to register to vote; it now takes as little as five minutes to register. Similarly, we are focused on ensuring that electoral registration officers—with whom the statutory responsibility for maintaining complete and accurate registers lies—have the tools they need to do their jobs efficiently and effectively. For example, the Government have made many resources to promote democratic engagement and voter registration freely available on gov.uk. Furthermore, our changes to the annual canvass of all residential properties in Great Britain will improve its overall efficiency considerably. The data-matching element of the initiative allows electoral registration officers to focus their efforts on hard-to-reach groups. This is the first year of the reformed canvass, and anecdotal reports so far suggest that administrators have found the new processes much less bureaucratic.
The amendment makes two suggestions on what the Government may include in the proposals they would be required to lay before Parliament to improve the completeness of the registers. The first would see a form of automatic registration introduced for attainers—16 and 17-year-olds who can register to vote in preparation for attaining voting age—and their inclusion in the electorate data used in boundary reviews. We are opposed to automatic registration for attainers or any other group, in both principle and practice, as we believe that registering to vote and voting are civic duties. People should not have these duties done for them or be compelled to do them. That was one reason why we introduced individual electoral registration in 2014. The evidence shows that an individual system drives up registration figures. After individual registration was launched, the registers for the 2017 and 2019 general elections were the largest ever. Electoral registration has worked.
There are a number of practical concerns about automatic registration. Among others, it is almost certain that an automatic registration system would lead to a single, centralised database of electors. We are opposed to this on the grounds of the significant security and privacy implications of holding that much personal data in one place, as well as the significant cost that such a system would impose.
John Spellar
But surely the electoral registers are held by the local electoral registration officers and the local councils, and if they are provided with that information, they can automatically register people. That is what is in the amendment. A virtual national database would be a good idea, but it is not inherent in the proposition. It would mean that we did not have to spend a lot of money chasing those people up. Will the Minister explain why he thinks it desirable that we have such low registration rates of youngsters when we should surely want to engage them in the democratic process at an early stage?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I point out that we have record levels of registration. The right hon. Gentleman undermines his own argument, because as soon as the Government have all that information, they have it. If they send it out to electoral registration officers, that does not mean that they have lost, forgotten or abandoned it; it might do under a Labour Government, but it would not under a Conservative Government. I seem to remember some Inland Revenue figures were lost under the last Labour Government, but that is all ancient history and a long time ago. If the Government have that information, they have it; if has not been forgotten or wiped from the central mind just because they have sent it out to local officers. The risk of having a large, centralised system is that it would be expensive, and there would be risks in terms of security and privacy implications.
John Spellar
National insurance already has a national database—that is inherent to that system. That information would not be distributed to every local authority; information would be distributed on those who are resident within the postcodes in the local authority. What the Leader of the House is saying makes no sense at all. There is already a national database of national insurance numbers; logically, that has nothing whatsoever to do with telling local councils who is in their particular area so that they can chase them up.
Mr Rees-Mogg
That is not actually accurate. The national insurance database does not consist purely of voters; it consists of people who have national insurance numbers because they are eligible for tax in this country, and they may be foreign nationals. That is another problem: we would be trying to match together a database that is held for an entirely different purpose. It would have to be scrubbed to turn it into an electoral database, at which point we would have an electoral database held centrally, which is exactly the problem we are trying to avoid. I think we are on strong ground on this one.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that although we want to encourage mass participation in the democratic process among the young, old and everybody in between, it is an inherent right in our democracy that people get to choose whether they partake in that democracy? If someone chooses not to register to vote, that is up to that individual, and that is something that we respect.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Freedom of the individual in participation is of fundamental importance. People have to decide whether they wish to vote—whether they wish to be actively involved. It is worth saying, again, that individual electoral registration has increased the number of people who are registered and increased the accuracy of the database. As I said, a million ghosts—phantom voters—were removed, and that is important. The integrity of the electoral register is of fundamental importance to the confidence that people have in the honesty of our system, and we have a very robust system.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I note that the Leader of the House has not yet made any reference to Wales, where we are extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds. We value the voice of young people—16 year-olds—in Wales, and I have long supported that idea for the whole of the UK. Will the Leader of the House set out what steps the UK Government are taking to support the Welsh Government in the democratic process of ensuring that 16 and 17-year-olds have the right to vote in the Senedd elections in May?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. Devolved matters are for the devolved authorities to take care of, not for Her Majesty’s national Government to take care of. The Welsh Government have made that decision and will be able to implement it. If they cannot implement the decision, one has to ask why they made it.
Stephen Doughty
The Leader of the House is trying to have it both ways as well. The reality is that the UK Government hold sources of information—whether it is the national insurance database or one of many others—that can assist in ensuring accurate electoral registration in all parts of the UK. Would it not be better for the UK Government to co-operate with the Welsh Government? They might take a different view for England, but they should co-operate with the Welsh Government to ensure that that democratic mandate is fulfilled.
Mr Rees-Mogg
It is a matter for the Welsh Government to decide how they draw up their register. If they want help from HM Government, I am sure they will have ways and means of getting in touch to ask for it, but it would be disrespectful of HMG to involve themselves, without being invited, in decisions that have been made by the Welsh Government. If we were doing something like that in Scotland, the fury of the Scottish National party would know no bounds—but then it has to be said that the fury of the SNP usually knows no bounds.
Let us take note of the experience of other jurisdictions that have introduced automatic registration: the point that I was trying to make in response to interventions is that registrations may have increased, but so have concerns about errors and inaccuracies. Automatic voter registration would lead to less accurate electoral registers, especially if people had recently moved homes. Computers and—dare I say it—algorithms might add to electoral rolls people who did not live in the area, because of out-of-date entries held on other databases. They might also add people who had a residence but were not eligible to vote.
The Government are not prepared to undo all the benefits of our individual registration system by introducing the errors and inaccuracies that automatic registration would make more likely. After all, inaccurate registers facilitate voter fraud and undermine faith in the integrity of our democratic processes. [Interruption.] The one point at which those on the somnolent Opposition Benches wake up is when I say that inaccurate registers facilitate voter fraud.
They clearly want inaccurate and phantom voters. The only thing that seems to excite them is phantom voters. That is why I urge the House to disagree with the Lords amendment.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
I welcome the Leader of the House to his place this afternoon. He is, of course, standing in for the Minister for the Constitution and Devolution, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), who, given her recent health diagnosis, is taking some time away from this House, but not from her work. I want to put on the record how much the Labour party wishes her a speedy recovery, because I agree with the Leader of the House that he is a poor substitute for the formidable Minister!
The Labour party supports a boundary review in time for the next general election. Throughout all stages of the Bill, Opposition Members and their noble lordships have worked constructively to use this opportunity as a chance to improve and enhance the UK’s democracy. I thank the noble Lords for the constructive amendments that we are considering, and urge all Members to support them. The amendments all have the same central aim, which is to ensure that our parliamentary constituencies are drawn using data that is as complete and accurate as possible.
As I watched the US election unfold last week, I was reminded that our democracy and strong constituency links should not be taken for granted, and that we should be working constantly to improve and defend our system of parliamentary governance in this country. At every stage of the Bill, the Government have had ample opportunity to improve democratic representation— from filling the gaps in our electoral register to ensuring that our constituency boundaries properly reflect the communities within them. Sadly, though, the missing 9 million people from our electoral roll will now not be included in next constituency map of the UK.
Turning to the Lords amendments before us, I want to begin by addressing Lords amendment 6, which ensures that the appointment of members of the Boundary Commissions is made and seen to be made independently of Executive influence. This amendment is important because of the significant change of removing parliamentary oversight. In the past, Parliament has always played a democratic role in the boundary review process. This Bill will remove the very backstop that secured the existence of the 650 constituencies we all represent in this House today.
The passage of this amendment would ensure that, much like the appointment of judges, the appointment of boundary commissioners was wholly independent. Deputy chairs of the boundary commissions for England and Wales would be appointed by the Lord Chief Justice, not the Lord Chancellor. Commissioners would be appointed by a selection panel comprising the deputy chair of the relevant commission and two others appointed by the Speaker of the House of Commons. A report would be submitted to the Secretary of State saying whom the panel had recommended. As it stands, this Bill allows Government Ministers to have undue influence over their appointments, and the Government’s track record on appointing their close friends to positions of public authority speaks for itself. I simply do not trust a Government who have shamelessly appointed their mates to run the BBC, Ofcom, NHS Test and Trace and other major bodies.
I would also like to address Lords amendment 7, which seeks to alleviate the inevitable break-up of communities resulting from a too narrow 5% quota. While this might seem dry, at its heart the change has a real consequence for communities in the UK. Constituencies must be of broadly equal size in a fair and representative democracy—and on that point, I hope we all agree—but international best practice recommends that flexibility should be baked into the system to allow for consideration of geography and community ties. The Council of Europe’s Venice Commission code of good practice in electoral matters recommends allowing a standard permissible tolerance from the electoral quota of plus or minus 10%.
UK experts who gave evidence to the Bill Committee recognised that the tight 5% quota will force constituency boundaries to cut across communities, ward boundaries, rivers, lakes, mountains and of course motorways to engineer the right mathematical numbers. Indeed, the secretary to the Boundary Commission for England admitted that a smaller tolerance makes it
“much harder to have regard to…factors…such as the importance of not breaking local ties, and having regard to local authority boundaries and features of natural geography.”––[Official Report, Parliamentary Constituencies Public Bill Committee, 18 June 2020; c. 7, Q3.]
When the 5% variance was first introduced in 2011, the Government at that time were committed to having a 600-seat Chamber. The average number of electors per constituency therefore would have been much higher, meaning that the 5% that the boundary commissioners would be working with would actually include more electors to work with in the margins of these seats. This is an important point, because by failing to widen the tolerance while increasing the size of the Chamber back up to 650, the commissions actually have far fewer electors to work with—roughly in the region of just 3,000 electors. If we consider that the average urban ward in England is about 8,000 electors, we can appreciate the significance of needing at least 4,000 electors either side of the quota to prevent the breaking up of wards and communities.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Does the hon. Member agree with me that, arguably, having such a narrow tolerance could create a butterfly effect, whereby a housing development in one constituency might then tip it over the edge? In fact, we are looking at two thirds of the current constituencies being changed as a result of this strict limit.
Cat Smith
Indeed. The hon. Member is right about the butterfly effect, because of course we cannot change one parliamentary constituency without having a knock-on effect on all the neighbouring constituencies too.
The truth is that constituencies should look like communities. I thought that point was made very effectively on Second Reading by the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller). I hope she does not mind if I quote what she said then:
“Constituencies should not just be numerical constructs; they should be constructed for communities first and foremost”.—[Official Report, 2 June 2020; Vol. 676, c. 804.]
I completely agree.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
Forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I was quoted. Does the hon. Lady agree, though, that a variance of up to 10,000 voters will actually give the Boundary Commission more than ample flexibility to be able to accommodate communities? The figures she was citing earlier were not, I think, entirely accurate.
Cat Smith
I hope that the right hon. Lady will be able to expand on that in her contribution; she is next on the call list to speak. However, I do not quite understand the point that she is trying to make, because there is always going to be a balance between—[Interruption.] If she would like to listen, there will always have to be a balance between hitting the quota and getting as close as we can to 0% from the quota—it would be desirable if every constituency had the exactly the same number of electors—while keeping communities together. I do not think that the idea of dividing a street or a housing estate arbitrarily to create exactly the same size constituency boundaries would cut the mustard with the public. The 5% rule runs a coach and horses through those community ties. It creates a kind of painting-by-numbers approach to the boundary review, and it will lead to long-established communities being split from one another and will erode local identities and divide neighbourhoods. Quite simply, we cannot have it both ways; we cannot protect local ties and enforce a strict quota.
Throughout the Bill, the Government have argued that a 5% tolerance will make every vote count equally, but I would argue that even a 0% quota would not make every vote carry the same weight. Leaving aside the fact that millions of voters are effectively disenfranchised every election owing to the existence of so-called safe seats, it is simply not true that every vote would count equally as a result of this Bill, because at any election we now know that in the region of 9 million eligible electors are incorrectly registered and are losing out on their chance to vote. Millions more will potentially join them if the Government’s plans to roll out voter ID come into force, as we have seen, similarly, in US elections.
I turn to Lords amendment 8, which was tabled by Lord Shutt, who, very sadly, died two weeks ago. He was passionately committed to improving our democracy and it is quite fitting that his last contribution was in support of this amendment. I was speaking to the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) earlier today and he told me that he was a down-to-earth, humble, funny and genuinely nice bloke. I would like to put on record the Opposition’s condolences to his family at this sad time.
Lord Shutt’s amendment would represent a significant step forward in voter registration and, hopefully, participation among young voters. As we all know, electoral registers are the fundamental building blocks for constituency boundaries. Sixteen and 17-year-olds can register as attainers head of their 18th birthday. Since the introduction of individual electoral registration, the number of 16 and 17-year-olds who have been registered has fallen from around 45% in 2015 to just 25% last year. This amendment would enable the Government to ask local authorities’ registration officers to add 16-year-olds to the electoral register when they get their national insurance number or, alternatively, ensure that 16-year-olds would be provided with information on how to apply to join the electoral register on receiving their national insurance number.
This sensible arrangement could radically improve the number of young people registering to vote, hopefully helping them to develop a habit of a lifetime of voting, and—more relevant to this legislation—mean that our constituency boundaries are representative of younger voters. The 16 and 17-year-olds that are considered when it comes to drawing constituency boundaries are likely to be the electors at a subsequent general election. For that reason alone, the Minister should give the amendment great consideration.
In conclusion, the Labour party fundamentally rejects the Government’s attempt to end the parliamentary approval of the new constituency boundaries, and we ask that Members think hard about the impact of the restrictive 5% quota. Ministers know very well exactly what needs to be done to enable greater democratic engagement, and the fact that they have consistently failed to take any action tells us all we need to know.
Mrs Miller
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith). We also seem to have a number of Members of the Public Bill Committee in the Chamber today. It was a vigorous and very compelling Committee and I am sure that the debate today will follow that.
David Linden
The right hon. Lady talks about manifesto commitments. It was not that long ago that there was a manifesto commitment to have 600 seats in the House of Commons. What changed for the Government? [Interruption]
Mrs Miller
As one of my hon. Friends says from a sedentary position, it was a different manifesto. Even more importantly, one fundamental change that the hon. Gentleman will know more about is that we are choosing to leave the EU and, as a result, Members will have more work to do.
Mrs Miller
If the hon. Gentleman will allow me not to give way, this is not a debate between the two of us. The Leader of the House has set out important responses to these amendments which deserve a great deal of consideration. He has given a comprehensive analysis of these Lords amendments. Taking into account the fact that the Government have accepted amendments 3, 4 and 5 already, I would like to confine my comments to amendment 7 but also join him in agreeing that all the other amendments are manifestly unnecessary. Indeed, the Committee considered those issues in detail and found that the Bill should remain as it is.
Amendment 7 would undermine the essence of the Bill because it increases, not reduces, the opportunity for differences between constituencies. I referred to Basingstoke during my intervention on the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood. Currently we have almost 83,000 voters in Basingstoke, whereas a constituency such as Rhondda has just over 50,000. That shows starkly the necessity for change and for us to take this opportunity to make that change work as well as it can. It is as much to do with the way the current system works, in terms of Parliament being able to intervene in these measures. The difference between those constituencies is stark. But it is incumbent on us to ensure that any changes we put in place do not build another raft of problems for the future.
John Spellar
The right hon. Lady’s example of the Rhondda does not hold, I am afraid, because the allocation of seats to Wales will be based on the number of registered electors. Therefore, there may be some variations within Wales, but her seat in Basingstoke and constituencies in Wales are covered by another part of the Bill. Yet again, why have this dislocation when it does not actually impact in the way that she is describing?
Mrs Miller
I think my voters, and I am sure others, would want to be aware of the difference between constituencies, and whether they are in Wales or Hampshire, each voter should have the same ability to be represented in this place. That is manifestly not the case at the moment.
We had no end of evidence from experts on that point, and I think we should all thank those who took the time, not only to give written evidence to the Committee, but to appear before the Committee in person too. It was clear from that evidence to the Committee that there was no compelling reason to deviate from the Government’s proposals; it is important to put that on the record today.
Dr Alan Renwick from University College London said in oral evidence that no academic expert would be able to decide that what was on the face of the Bill should be changed. It is clear also from the evidence that there is room for accommodating those rules that we discussed at length, that there is sufficient flexibility in practice, and that the Boundary Commission will still be able to adhere to community ties.
I now come to the main point that I want to make to the Leader of the House, because it really perturbed the Committee. I absolutely agree that the amendment should not be made, but I want to be opportunistic and take the opportunity to land this point once more with the Government. We were concerned about the evidence that we saw from the Boundary Commission for England, and its ability to work within the way that the Bill sets out.
The oral evidence from Mr Tony Bellringer from the Boundary Commission for England very much underlined the commission’s current approach of working with wards as “building blocks”, and emphasised that currently that organisation does not hold a system or a dataset that could allow it to work in any other way. Yet, on the other hand, we heard—I think on the same day—that the Boundary Commission for Scotland does just that: it holds datasets that allow it to work at a sub-ward level. It is important that my right hon. Friend addresses that point, so that we may send a very loud message to the Boundary Commission for England that our democracy is important to us, that the Bill is all about equally sized constituencies, and that the commission needs to work with that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson) reminded us in Committee that it was the chartists who, in the people’s charter of 1838, called for the principle of electoral equality, and said that that should remain the cornerstone of our democracy now and in future. I hope that the Leader of the House will reassure the House that no historical approach by the Boundary Commission for England will stand in the way of that organisation’s creating equal constituencies following the coming into force of this legislation, so that a vote in whichever part of the United Kingdom we live, from here to Ynys Môn and beyond, can count equally.
John Spellar
The right hon. Lady wants equality. Did she not move the amendment that said that Ynys Môn should stand alone, even though it would be much smaller than the quota?
Mrs Miller
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not want to be the person from the Labour Benches to tell the people of Ynys Môn that Labour does not believe that theirs should be a unique constituency.
Thank you so much for the opportunity to contribute to the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker and I hope the Leader of the House can answer my questions.
David Linden
It is a pleasure, as always, to follow the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller).
I start by sending my best wishes to the Minister for the Constitution and Devolution, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), who has been a formidable but good-natured opponent on the Bill. Naturally, there is much for me to disagree about when it comes to my dealings with Britain’s Constitution Minister, but personal health always transcends politics, and I know I speak for us all when I wish her all the very best for her treatment in the coming weeks and months. I look forward to seeing her back at the Dispatch Box.
I also welcome the Leader of the House to our proceedings on the Bill. He is always incredibly entertaining and I have certainly enjoyed watching his transition from a robust and consistent Back Bencher to a member of the Cabinet having to participate in the parliamentary gymnastics of Government U-turns that have become a hallmark of this Government.
The particular U-turn that this Bill legislates for is in reference to clause 5. That undoes the 2011 legislation, which I think the right hon. Gentleman voted for and which would have reduced the number of constituencies in the House from 650 to 600. With new legislative powers coming back from Brussels post Brexit, it would surely have been bonkers to reduce the number of MPs while increasing the legislative power of the Executive. Let me respond to the point of the right hon. Member for Basingstoke. I know that she did not want to have a debate about it, but her point was that the Government changed their position as a result of Britain’s exit from the European Union. In actual fact, as someone who served on the Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill Committee, a Bill brought forward by the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan), I know that, until December last year, the Government opposed that Bill every single way by withholding the money resolution. By that point, Britain was already leaving the European Union, so I am afraid that the right hon. Lady’s argument does not stand up to scrutiny on that part.
The fact that, under new calculations, Scotland will lose out on two to three constituency seats is making a mockery of the promises made after the 2014 independence referendum. In fact, it seems that all the devolved nations will now stand to lose out on constituency seats under the new calculations. The nation, of course, that is due to lose the most seats under these proposals is Wales, with all witnesses in Committee, including the CCHQ representative, Mr Pratt, saying that Wales would, in his own words, “take a hit”. I am sure that Welsh Conservative MPs were delighted about that being placed in Hansard. Again, it has been widely acknowledged that, under the current formula, Wales would lose seats to the benefit of the south-east of England. But this is not the only UK nation that stands to have diminished representation in the House of Commons.
Scotland is currently represented by 59 MPs and although I continue to work every single day of the week to ensure that Scotland is no longer governed by Westminster, until that day comes, I will fight to ensure that Scotland’s voice is fairly heard in this Chamber. Based on the proposed electoral quotas, we would see Scotland losing two or three seats to the advantage of England, which strikes me as being wholly unfair and flies in the face of the rallying calls that Scotland should lead the United Kingdom, rather than leave it. After the 2014 referendum, Scotland was promised that it would be considered an equal partner in this Union. However, the fact that Scotland is now set to lose three constituency seats should continue to highlight the promises made post 2014 that have been proven to be empty again.
I welcome all the amendments made in the House of Lords and commit my party to voting for them when the Division bells ring tonight, but there were some real missed opportunities for their lordships to dramatically improve the Bill. First, I am bitterly disappointed that their lordships did not remove the provisions of clause 2, which deals with the issue of automaticity or parliamentary approval of commission recommendations. Too often in earlier debates, the Government got away with suggesting that MPs should not be marking their own homework when it came to the approval of new boundaries, but I am genuinely surprised that the other House, which has a role in approving recommendations as well, has also relinquished that right. When it comes to Scottish peers—most if not all of them have never been elected—there was a hugely missed opportunity to try to protect the voices of devolved nations in future Parliaments. It should have been a priority for Members of the House of Lords to protect Scotland’s 59 seats in this Parliament and to protect our ability to represent our constituents and not to diminish Scotland’s voice. I see that some Conservative Members look quite perplexed at this idea of protecting seats, but of course it was 1980s legislation under Margaret Thatcher that protected Scotland initially at 73 seats and then they were reduced to 59 under devolution. Therefore, for those who look a bit perplexed about this, it was actually something that was advocated by a Conservative Government.
Having set out our position in the Bill, I will confine my remarks to the amendments for consideration from the other place. I turn to amendments 1 and 2. My party supports the amendments to review the boundaries every 10 years, as opposed to the shorter timeframe of eight years, mainly due to the increased certainty that it gives to constituents and representatives alike. Moving from eight to 10 years does not strike me as being an unreasonable compromise and I am therefore content to offer my party’s support for the amendment being made permanent to the Bill.
On amendment 6, I also support the change to have an independent appointment process. Earlier in my remarks, I made reference to authenticity and the Government’s argument that MPs should not have a role in approving the commissioner’s recommendations. If we follow the logic of the argument about removing perceived self-interest, then the same is surely true for Ministers—in this case, the Lord Chancellor appointing boundary commissioners. Amendment 6 would see the power to appoint commissioners transferred from a politician to the Lord Chief Justice. That would, in effect, stop future Tory Ministers from appointing their chums to the Boundary Commission. By keeping clause 2(2) in the Bill but voting against Lords amendment 6, the Government would, in effect, be having their cake and eating it, and be charged with rank hypocrisy. I know the Leader of the House is a good man, and I am sure he would not want to be portrayed as a hypocrite by voting for such a fundamentally contradictory proposition.
Andrew Bowie
I thank my hon. Friend—and he is a friend. Does he not agree that what we are trying to achieve is ensuring that each vote in this country is, as far as possible, equal to the next one? The more that we increase the tolerance, the less equal everybody’s vote becomes, and so we move further and further away from what we are trying to achieve by going through this process in the first place.
David Linden
What I am trying to make sure is that I and my hon. Friend are made unemployed fairly soon—but that is a separate matter. The point is that it was previously enshrined in legislation that Scotland would have 73 seats and then it would rightly be reduced to 59 in the light of devolution. Government Members cannot have their cake and eat it; in one respect they are enshrining in legislation a certain number of seats, but locking that down in legislation means that there will be a degree of difference. However, I have a huge amount of respect for my hon. Friend, and he has put his point on the record.
I return to the point made by Mr Bellringer in the evidence session that there is a need to move towards a tolerance rate of, say, 7.5%. That is why I urge the Government to increase it to give commissioners the wider discretion that they asked for when they gave us that evidence. I know that the Government are not particularly fond of listening to experts these days, but I am very hopeful that this afternoon they could just make a wee exception for the Boundary Commission for England.
Finally, I want to make reference to Lords amendment 8. Before doing so, I offer my sincere condolences, on behalf of my party, to the family of Lord Shutt, who, as we have heard, passed away only in the past couple of weeks, but was responsible for securing this amendment in the other place. By using the electoral registers as the data source to draw parliamentary constituencies, the Bill also seeks to disadvantage young people, as the data is less likely to include the names of young people than it is older people, since young people are often not registered to vote. Registration rates for eligible 16 and 17-year-olds were estimated to be 25% in 2018—a drop from 45% in 2015. In contrast, 94% of those aged 65-plus were estimated to be registered. The SNP therefore supports this amendment, which requires the Government to bring forward proposals to improve the completeness of the electoral register in relation to attainers. Only then can we ensure that we are not disadvantaging young people in the electoral process.
The Leader of the House has spent the majority of his time in this House on the Back Benches advocating Brexit and talking about Parliament taking back control from an all-powerful Executive—something this Bill makes worse. I therefore want to finish by paraphrasing something a wise man once said in this House many years ago about standing up for democracy:
“’Stiffen your sinews, summon up the blood and imitate the action of a tiger, for that is how you should behave towards our European partners, not like Bagpuss.’” —[Official Report, 24 October 2011; Vol. 534, c. 109.]
Alec Shelbrooke
I would like to start by commenting on Lords amendment 7 and the flexibility. We keep hearing this mathematical argument, but we seem to be getting away from the overarching principle. Already this afternoon, we have heard that it is difficult to keep local communities together unless we move to a tolerance of 7.5%, which strikes me as odd when it would mean going from a difference of roughly 7,500 voters to one of 11,000. Many electoral wards in this country have fewer than 7,500 voters, so are we now making the argument that wards themselves split communities and that they are wrong as well? There is a fundamental principle: if we went to 7.5%, one vote could be worth one 67,000th and another could be worth one 77,000th. That is quite a significant difference.
I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden). I very much enjoyed working with him in Committee and having the debates that we had, and I have a huge amount of respect for him. He made a very important point about equal representation. He said that by losing seats, Scotland will not have equal representation. I would argue that the exact opposite is true: it is equal representation—and of course there are two protected seats in Scotland; recognition has been made of the geographical reasons why the Outer Hebrides and Orkney and Shetland are separate. It is not fair to say that Scotland is getting less representation and that it needs to be equally represented, because there will be equal United Kingdom representation. That is what this is about: the United Kingdom’s Government.
The hon. Gentleman and I are never going to agree on his nationalistic views and my Union views—that is why I sit on the Conservative Benches and he sits on the SNP Benches—but we just seem to be plucking figures out of the air for the 7.5% and the 5%. Again, I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) and I have a huge deal of respect for her. She made an argument about the 600 seats and how that changed the number of voters when dealing with the 5%. However, away from the numbers, the fundamental principle must be to get as close as possible.
I made the point in intervening on my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House about trying to get as close to the quota as possible. It should be possible to do that if the Boundary Commission for England, especially, takes the approach that the Boundary Commission for Scotland takes and decides that it does not have to draw some very strange shapes and lines using ward boundaries, but that it can work with smaller electoral segments.
We heard the argument in Committee that polling districts can be changed by local authorities and can lose that representation—that they could be gerrymandered —but of course there will come a point when the Electoral Commission looks at where they are today. It has already said that it will go on where they are today; it is using the March 2020 register and those units as they exist today. If, in eight years’ time, there have been changes to those polling districts, for whatever reason, that can be taken into account at that time, and the Electoral Commission is an independent body.
I will happily support the Government in disagreeing with Lords amendment 7. Fundamentally, we cannot lose sight of the fact that we are trying to give equality of vote. In my mind, the tolerance is there not to try to draw the most convenient shape using wards, but purely to allow the flexibility for which a need will inevitably build up over the eight years, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said, with new housing developments and so on. My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) has made the point many times that development, especially in certain parts of the country, is huge, and it leads to such housing developments. That is what the tolerance should be about; it should not be about trying to draw the shapes to have one just creeping in at the bottom end and one just meeting the higher end. The flexibility should allow a 5% tolerance of the share of that vote over the eight years; it should not get there straight away. If a constituency is made at the higher end, within eight years, it will almost certainly be above that number and we will be back in the same situation.
My constituency of Elmet and Rothwell has 79,316 electors. The neighbouring constituency of Leeds East has 65,693. The neighbouring constituency to that of Leeds Central has 82,211. It simply cannot be right to have such variation within less than 10 miles as the crow flies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) is in his place and cannot speak in the debate. [Interruption.] I can still smell and taste; it’s all right. He and I have represented Leeds electors since the early 2000s. We have seen great differences in the city and how it is set up. His constituency is on the higher side of the number of electors in Leeds. My voters are getting almost one 80,000th of a vote, whereas in the neighbouring seat they are getting one 65,000th of a vote. It is right to reject Lords amendment 7 simply because we should see it not as a way to fill the gap and make constituencies work, but purely as a way to give people a vote that will change plus or minus 5% over the eight-year period to try to keep things roughly similar.
Lords amendment 1 is about moving from eight to 10 years. The reality is that that means we would probably go through three general elections on those boundaries. We have heard a lot in these debates about how big the boundary changes are probably going to be when they come through, but that is because nothing has happened for a quarter of a century. The changes will be of that size; they will be disruptive.
It is better to go in a cycle of two general elections so that, hopefully, from this point on, with the Government amendments to try to make the whole system more robust and far less open to political shenanigans in the House, we will not see such major changes in future. It is better that the system can be, for want of a better word, tinkered with to make sure that we get back to roughly within those tolerances. We all accept that there will be demographic change and housing change. Big things are happening, including the ambition to build so many houses, which will cause change.
What seems like a small amendment would have a huge impact. Very large changes would have to be made simply by adding those two years and getting into a three-general-election cycle.
Lords amendment 8 is about registrations. It is a fundamental right of people in this country to choose whether they want to register for a vote or not.
John Spellar
It is absolutely, certainly not. It is actually a criminal offence not to return a registration form.
Alec Shelbrooke
The reality is that people who do not want to register to vote can do that. They have to register for council tax and those processes.
John Spellar
That is absolutely wrong. It is an offence not to return the electoral registration form. The fact that councils do not enforce that and do not think it is worth it may be another matter, but it is a prosecutable offence not to return a registration form.
Alec Shelbrooke
Well, the right hon. Gentleman has made a point there that I stand to be corrected on.
I also stand to be corrected on this point. I do not want to mislead the House; these figures can be checked. For the European referendum, in my constituency, 1,500 extra people went on the register and have now come off. They chose to register to take part in that ballot, which meant a lot to them, but they do not want to take part in other ballots. They worked out how to register; they registered; they legally took part in the ballot; they have not registered going forward. It has to be right that people have that choice. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said, the amendments would lead to a far greater complication of the system, and centralised data, which has not exactly worked well in other areas—including, quite frankly, some of the things that people are trying to achieve at the moment in this crisis. We have seen some of the problems and weaknesses that can occur.
John Spellar
I join others in paying tribute to and sending condolences to the Minister for the Constitution and Devolution, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith). There is, however, one upside to her absence, which is that, with the Leader of the House, we have the Conservative Trumpist philosophy, red in tooth and claw, absolutely out there in the open. We had it again just now on ghost voters on the register. At the same time, the Government reject any attempt to make a more rational, accurate and comprehensive registration process. We have seen that all the way through, with attempts on voter suppression and attempts to make things more difficult at the polling station, in spite of the complete lack of evidence—in the same way that Donald Trump has been trying to discredit the American election, claiming that there are fraudulent voters, particularly in postal voting. It is the same old song. For those on the Government Benches, here is a breaking news story: Donald Trump has lost the election.
Alec Shelbrooke
I do not think anybody on these Benches will disagree that Donald Trump has lost the election.
The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, which many of us have taken part in, produced its report. It is not fair of the right hon. Gentleman to cast aspersions on the Government about suppressing voter registration. The changes that were made to the postal voting system in this country were made as a direct result of OSCE reports on previous elections. I have a huge amount of respect for the right hon. Gentleman —I consider him a friend—and I know he would not wish to cast such an aspersion. I hope he will reflect on that.
John Spellar
It may not be fair, but it is perfectly accurate. The reality is that in neither country has there been a shred of evidence of fraud in postal voting or personation at the ballot box.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
It was not so long ago that Richard Mawrey, QC, the electoral commissioner, in a case in Birmingham—Birmingham in the west midlands, not Alabama—said that he had heard evidence of electoral fraud
“that would disgrace a banana republic”.
Furthermore, I suggest that Donald Trump was not on the ballot paper in Slough, where convictions for electoral fraud were made, and Donald Trump was not on the ballot paper in the London borough of Tower Hamlets, where a further conviction on electoral fraud was made.
John Spellar
I think the hon. Gentleman will find that in Slough it was Conservative party members who were convicted, but we can always check that. There has been very, very little evidence of fraud from either postal votes or votes in person. We repeatedly challenged Ministers to come up with the data. When the Electoral Commission reports on election after election, when tens of millions of people are voting, we end up with one or two cases each year.
Stephen Doughty
I think my right hon. Friend will find that the evidence shows there have been only nine cases of postal vote fraud since 1998—one every two years.
John Spellar
Exactly right.
Moving on to constituency size, the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) rightly points out the disparities between seats in the Leeds area. Basically, the fundamental reason for that was David Cameron’s proposals to try to get electoral advantage out of reducing the number of seats and making a very tight margin of difference. To be quite clear, the reason they were not carried was that they impacted on many Conservative Members of Parliament as well. Many of the newer Members here probably think, “It don’t apply to me, it’ll be all right” but it is the butterfly effect mentioned by the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain). When we have such tight margins, and if we are not going to be disrupting wards as the building blocks, then we will find that there will be gratuitous disruption.
Everyone understands that movement of population results in some disruption to constituencies and Members of Parliament. That happened in 1997 when I had my seat carved three ways, with part of it going to the then Speaker, Madam Boothroyd—it was not a good option to try to run there—so I fully understand how disruptive that can be. The reason why the proposals did not go through, and why we have had such a long delay, is precisely because, stubbornly, two Prime Ministers insisted on trying to go ahead. It was not just Members on the Opposition Benches who were opposed to it, but many Government Members who can understand when population change sometimes leads to disruption, but really do not understand it when it gratuitously causes great disruption to communities, Members of Parliament and their electorates.
The other thing about the proposals and very tight margins is that we very often lose a sense of identity and place. Even within urban areas, there is very often a great sense of identity in parts of a city. They are not all homogeneous. Herbert Morrison described London as a collection of villages. There is a great sense of identity. Again, everyone understands that there will be some difficulties at the margins, but to impose arbitrary lines on far more constituencies than necessary to achieve equalisation is resented, and rightly so.
I come to the argument made by the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) comparing Basingstoke and Wales. The Boundary Commission, when it gets the national registration figures, divides them up to create a quota. It then allocates the number of seats to a region based on that quota. The changes to the situation in Wales have nothing whatever to do with Basingstoke or what happens in the Rhondda, whether it is 5% or 10%, because the number of seats in Wales—that region’s share—will be fixed by the national quota. Incidentally, I would gently point out that in the previous Parliament the Conservatives opposed our attempts to have Ynys Môn as a separate constituency when our good friend Albert Owen was the Member of Parliament. Albert retired and the Conservatives unfortunately won the seat. Lo and behold! Suddenly, their interest in the concerns of Ynys Môn rocketed up. I am sure Conservative Members can explain why that change took place.
Finally, I find strange, and to a degree reprehensible, this opposition to trying to get the most complete register. We know that, not just in the UK but around the world, those who are under-represented on the register are those such as teenagers and people in their early 20s. We know that those who live in private rented accommodation are under-registered, and that many of those in our BME communities and in our inner cities are under-represented on the register. We urge councils to spend large sums of money to try to track those people down and get them to register. Why not take a course of action that is straightforward, cost-effective and cheap to ensure that they are registered? Please do not wrap this up in some great constitutional issue about the divine right to register. Whether people choose to vote is another matter, but on registration this is about naked party political advantage. It is the same in the US, and it is the same here. It is time for this Trumpery to end.
Tom Randall
May I add my good wishes to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith)?
In life, theory and practice can often be two separate things, and in my relatively short time in Parliament I have found that to be the case. In theory, all Members of Parliament are equal and have the same basic duties, and while I accept that some Members of the House are perhaps more equal than others, it is a reasonable assumption that we ought to have some of the same basic responsibilities, including the number of constituents we represent. I appreciate that there will be certain geographical challenges to that, such as with island constituencies, but I believe that general principle should hold firm. I suggest that the existing system does not do that. To give an extreme example, Milton Keynes South has 97,000 electors, compared with Newcastle upon Tyne Central’s 54,000.
As originally drafted, the Bill would ensure a broad equality, subject to some tolerance, in the number of electors in each constituency, so that they are more or less of equal weight. Equality and fairness ought to be an overriding principle on a matter such as this.
David Linden
I agree that we need equality. On that basis, and given that all Members should be equal in this House, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the system of English votes for English laws is currently suspended. Will he call on the Government to ensure that that system does not come back, so that his hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) can cast his vote in exact same way as him in a Division?
Tom Randall
I had not realised that EVEL had been cancelled for the moment, but I look forward to its reinstatement shortly.
Lords amendment 7 would increase the tolerance from the proposed plus or minus 5%. I appreciate that that may have been guided by a desire to help maintain a sense of place and distinct locality when drawing constituency boundaries, but I submit that the Government’s proposals are enough to draw fair and equal constituency boundaries. Secondly, equality and fairness ought to be an overriding principle, but as with any review, there will be scope for communities to have their say, and for local ties and considerations to be taken into account as part of that process. I note that the tolerance proposed by the Government is in line with international guidance from the Venice Commission and the OSCE.
Lords amendment 8 proposes two ways in which the completeness of the electoral register might be improved, and it is important that as many people who are entitled to vote register to do so.
John Spellar
The hon. Gentleman referred to the Venice Commission and the OSCE, and that came up during our deliberations. They said:
“The maximum admissible departure from the distribution criterion…should seldom exceed 10% and never 15%”.
That is the departure, which implies 10% either way. We are not even asking for that.
Tom Randall
I believe that the guidance sets a maximum, and I think we are within that guidance. I am not sure that the conclusions the hon. Gentleman has drawn on that are entirely correct.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Just to confirm that the Venice Commission’s “Code of good practice in electoral matters” states that the permissible departure from the norm should not be more than 10%, and I think that is a very good point.
Tom Randall
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for confirming my recollection. Lords amendment 8 proposes ways in which the completeness of the electoral register might be improved. It is important that one registers to vote and does so. That should be encouraged; it is one’s civic duty. However, underpinning any civic duty is the notion that one takes some steps to actually engage with the process. Registering to vote is now very straightforward: one can, as we have heard, log on to one’s council’s website and do it in a matter of minutes. While it is good that registration should be easy, it should require some degree of citizen participation, which amendment 8 would remove. The amendment also fails to recognise the introduction of individual voter registration.
Stephen Doughty
I stand to speak to the amendments and to a number of the points raised in relation to them. It is vital that we have this debate, not least in the light of the events of the past few days in the United States and elsewhere but also because the security and sanctity of our democracy and ensuring that it thrives is important not only for our own country, but is vital for the example that we set a globally. When democracy, human rights and the rule of law are under threat around the world, as we have tragically seen in a number of instances in Africa and elsewhere in recent weeks, it is all the more important that we are seen to be leading the way with a strong democracy and strong representation for people.
Indeed, that view is shared by President-elect Biden, who has been clear about the need for a coming together of global democracies to defend democracy and democratic systems and the rule of law around the world. He called for a global summit for democracy, and he rightly said in his speech in Copenhagen in 2018 that “Democracy demands diligence”. That is why it is all the more important that we are scrutinising the Government on these measures.
The comments from the Foreign Secretary the other day were deeply disappointing when he refused to agree with the importance of counting all the votes. It was extraordinary that he had to be asked that question multiple times by Sophy Ridge at the weekend. That was an extraordinary example to set. It was particularly disappointing to hear the comments today from the Leader of the House and the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) about fraud and so-called ghost votes. As hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar), have said, that is Trumpian language and it has no place in our democracy. It is also not borne out by the clear facts and the evidence in the Electoral Commission’s report of 30 September this year, which stated:
“The UK has low levels of proven electoral fraud.”
It reported that in all the elections that took place in 2019, including many local elections and, of course, the general election, there were just three instances of proven electoral fraud and just one caution out of all of those. The report went on to state:
“There remains no evidence of large-scale electoral fraud in 2019.”
I would therefore caution the Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell and others who seek to use those words to stir up the idea that there is fraud or ghost voting, that this is deeply concerning and does not reflect the facts on the ground. It is very much the type of language and the sort of nonsense we hear from Nigel Farage, Donald Trump and others, and I am afraid that their time is coming to an end.
I want to turn to some of the specific points in the Lords amendments. First, on the question about the commissioners, it is crucial that the independence and integrity of the process is respected by individual citizens across the country, and that we do not have the Lord Chancellor appointing the commissioners. We have already seen that the Lord Chancellor was willing to put his principles to one side when it came to the rule of law over the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, and I therefore do not have much confidence in him or other members of the Executive having oversight of that process, particularly when the other parliamentary safeguards are being removed from the process. It is crucial that we have boundary commissioners who are independent and who maintain the confidence not only of the public but of all those who stand for elected office, whatever their political party and whatever legislature, including this House, they are standing for.
Secondly, I want to refer to the questions about electoral registration. I have to say that we again heard some erroneous information from the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell on this. I heard what my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) said earlier. I like the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell, but he was simply wrong. He asked to be corrected, and I will correct him: there have been fines for the non-return of electoral canvass forms since the Representation of the People Act 1918. Whether or not those fines are enforced is another matter, but the law is very clear. I have just had my electoral registration canvass form come through. The Welsh Government and our councils are doing their job before the crucial Senedd elections in May, and a big caution is set out clearly on the front saying that we must return the form and not ignore it. It is also made clear that we must not provide false information, and that there will be penalties for those who do so. We ought to be taking steps to strengthen and enhance our electoral registration systems in whatever way is possible.
Andrew Bowie
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that not returning a form that has been sent to someone is an offence that they can be fined for. However, it is not an offence not to voluntarily register to be on the electoral register, which is exactly the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell was making earlier.
Stephen Doughty
But surely the whole point is that we should be encouraging people to take part in the democratic system, particularly our younger people. I have mentioned 16 and 17-year-olds in Wales, and I welcome the fact that the Senedd has passed our Senedd and Elections (Wales) Act 2020, which makes amendments to the Representation of the People (England and Wales) Regulations 2001 to bring in that right. It is right that young people should have a voice in our democracy. I have supported amendments on that in relation to this place on many occasions.
John Spellar
I would just point out to my hon. Friend that when a council is not sure who is living at a particular address, or if it knows that someone has moved, it will send the form to “the occupier”, which will still have the same legal effect. Assuming that councils are doing their job and sending forms to all residences, that covers the point.
Stephen Doughty
Absolutely. My right hon. Friend has made strong points on that issue. I suggest that people look at the excellent House of Commons Library briefing on this issue that sets out all the information clearly.
David Linden
Just to clarify, the Conservatives are saying that it is okay to break that law in a very “specific and limited” way.
Stephen Doughty
I am not going to put assertions in the mouth of the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell—that would not be right for me to do—but the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) has made his point.
Let me turn briefly to Wales, which will lose out in terms of the number of constituencies. We all support the principle of bringing greater equality among constituencies, but the point about Wales is really important. I think the Leader of the House misinterprets the guidance from the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe. I have read it and it is clear that departure from the specified point should seldom be 10% and definitely should not be over 15%. We are talking about 7.5%.
Evidence has been heard not only in respect of this Bill—I looked at that—but in previous Committee hearings in the House. For example, in 2014-15 the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee was clear on this issue, as was the evidence from the Boundary Commission for England itself about the difficulties for the boundary commissioners. I put on the record my thanks to all the staff who are involved in what is a very difficult process. They do an excellent job that is not easy—it is extremely complex and complicated—and I praise them for the work that they do.
There are specific issues in relation to Wales and geography, as indeed there are in certain other parts of the UK. It is absolutely right that distinct geographical exemptions are made for Ynys Môn, the Isle of Wight and Na h-Eileanan an Iar—I do not know whether I have pronounced that correctly; my Welsh pronunciation is a lot better than my Gaelic—because of water boundaries and islands, but distinctions also need to be made in relation to, for example, valley boundaries and mountains, which really do split constituencies.
We can end up with some very odd circumstances. We are not saying that the tolerances should be used as a matter course, just that the allowance should be there when it is a common-sense decision for the benefit and integrity of communities. I think of the circumstance in my own constituency in respect of the boundary review that was not put into place: the Cardiff bay barrage was split between three constituencies, thereby splitting apart the docks communities of Cardiff bay that sit together. A person would literally have passed through three communities as they walked along the barrage, which is only about 1 km long. It was absurd. We have to allow the boundary commissioners to take such things into account.
I have made the points that I wanted to make on the Lords amendments, so let me return to what President-elect Biden said:
“Democracy is the root of our society, the wellspring of our power, and the source of our renewal. It strengthens and amplifies our leadership to keep us safe in the world. It is the engine of our ingenuity that drives our economic prosperity.”
Those are words that I completely endorse and that we should have in our minds as we consider these important matters relating to our democracy. I support the position that we are taking on the Lords amendments.
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
I add my well-wishes to the Minister for the Constitution and Devolution, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith). She was an integral part of the process in the Bill Committee and will be sadly missed during this process, but we look forward to seeing her again soon.
At the beginning of October, the NHS Track and Trace app told me that I had to self-isolate for 12 days. It was inconvenient, yes, but it did mean that on 8 October I was at home, glued to BBC Parliament as their lordships considered the Bill on Report in the other place, my psephological exuberance undiminished—possibly even enhanced—by my isolation.
I shall speak to their lordships’ amendments in turn. Some are predictably partisan and an attempt to achieve what their colleagues were unable to do in this place; others are genuine attempts to improve the workings of the Bill, although I do not believe that they would all actually manage that goal.
As we have heard, Lords amendments 1 and 2 seek to change the proposed cycle of reviews to once every 10 years rather than once every eight. The rationale offered by Lord Foulkes of Cumnock was that this is to enable MPs to
“get to know their constituency”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 October 2020; Vol. 806, c. 714.]
Quite what Lord Foulkes thinks we have been doing in the interim is a mystery to me. I humbly suggest that if a Member has not managed to establish themselves in a constituency after eight years, an extra 24 months will not make much difference. I chuckled when Lord Rennard began his oration in support of that amendment by saying:
“I would like you to imagine the position of a newly elected MP in a general election in 2025.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 October 2020; Vol. 806, c. 714.]
Of course, the noble gentleman would have to imagine, wouldn’t he? He set out a scenario whereby a newly elected MP would have won their seat on one set of boundaries, and just four years later, they would be engaged in a two-year process to reset those boundaries, which would define the seat they contested next time. Lord Rennard made an impassioned entreaty on behalf of these poor, doe-eyed freshman MPs: how would they cope? Well, I am just 11 months into the job and engaging in that very process right now. I can assure our noble friends that my colleagues and I are quite capable of keeping pace without their assistance.
David Linden
Does the hon. Gentleman therefore regret that the amendment that I tabled in Committee to that very effect was not supported by his own Government?
Chris Clarkson
I will stand to be corrected by the hon. Gentleman, but was that not a probing amendment, which he withdrew?
David Linden
The hon. Gentleman is right, but the Minister said that it was not something that the Government were willing to entertain. The fundamental point is that the Conservative Government do not support that principle.
Chris Clarkson
The hon. Gentleman can find out my views over a glass of wine once the Smoking Room reopens.
I am afraid that the argument that a wider variance will minimise disruption is entirely specious. We know that regions will differ in the number of seats necessitating significant change across the piece, and I demonstrated in Committee that even if there had been a 15% variance—the maximum allowed under the Venice Commission—my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) and I would still have been representing seats outwith the permitted tolerance. Such is the outdated nature of the current constituencies that I was not eligible to vote when the boundaries of my seat were last approved.
That brings me neatly to Lords amendment 8. There is a marvellous American expression: “Decisions are made by the people who show up.” However well-intentioned this amendment might be, I fear that it misses the point. We would all like to see greater participation in our democracy, but the right way to do that is not simply to add everyone’s name to the register. Individual electoral registration was brought in to combat electoral fraud, and I fully support that. I appreciate Opposition Members say that there have only been nine instances of fraud, but that is nine too many.
Chris Clarkson
Quite right. Someone’s choice to exercise their franchise should be a positive affirmation and a conscious choice. If we want more people to vote, we should be increasing awareness and improving education. Simply adding names to a register will not increase participation and could lead to a form of stealth malapportionment, whereby certain constituencies would appear on paper to have an on-quota electorate, only for the number of people actively voting to be akin to a rotten borough.
Extrapolating, estimating or automatically registering people is not an answer. We know from countries such as Canada—which, by any measure, we must consider a mature democracy and one with which we would like to be compared—that automatic registration has not been effective and there are high levels of dissatisfaction with the accuracy of preliminary lists.
I have no doubt that their lordships have sent us back a Bill that they consider to be improved. Some of them will be drawing on their own experiences as Members of this place, and I must thank them for their time and consideration, while politely disagreeing with all but new clause 2. The Bill will enable a much-needed review of constituencies, some of which are 20 years out of date, and it will do so in a fair and robust way. The next general election should take place on the basis of boundaries that lend equal weight to every voter, and we have the means before us to enable that now.
Andrew Bowie
It is a privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson) and his passionate defence of the Government position and opposition to the majority of the Lords amendments. It is also a pleasure to join so many of my colleagues in sending best wishes to one of the most liked Members of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith). We send her our best wishes for a speedy recovery and we cannot wait to see her back at the Dispatch Box. I will not start to compare the performances of Ministers in Her Majesty’s Government, but I am sure that the Leader of the House would agree that she would have given a stellar performance at the Dispatch Box today to which he could only aspire.
What we are trying to do today is based on two fundamental principles, those of fairness and equality. This Government and the Conservative party believe that every vote in this one nation, this United Kingdom, should, as far as is possible, count as much as the next. It is essential if we are to stand here with any semblance of respectability in the eyes of the public that they know that we are here with as much right as the next Member of Parliament, representing, as closely as is possible, the same number of electors as the next person in here. That is the aim of the Bill and it is why we are driving towards a new boundary review.
In Scotland’s case, such a review is nearly 20 years overdue. My beautiful West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine constituency came about as a result of the 2004 boundary review Scotland process. My constituency’s population has increased from 81,000 in 2004 to 97,000 today, with the electorate increasing from about 61,500 to 72,000. Although that places it slap bang in the middle of the range the Bill proposes, it shows the difference between where we are now and where we were 20 years ago and how out of date the current boundary proposals are. The situation in my constituency is nowhere near that of Linlithgow and East Falkirk, which now has 86,000 electors, whereas Glasgow East has about 54,000. [Interruption.] Sorry, I meant Glasgow North, and I apologise deeply to the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden). We can therefore see that this Bill is much-needed.
As I say, the Bill is about equality and fairness. On Lords amendment 7, although the difference between 95% and 97% might not seem much on the face of it, it poses a huge difference in the size of constituencies. We are talking about a 15% tolerance; it would not be just 7.5%, but 7.5% either way, and so the difference would be 15%. That could allow some constituencies to have up to 78,000 electors, which is slightly above where mine is, and others to have as few as 67,000. Surely, any Member of this House would see that as unpalatable and unfair, and something we should combat.
I am going to move on quickly to Lords amendment 8, as I know we have a lot of speakers and we need to get through this. Everybody in this House who is involved in the democratic process, at whatever level, wants to see higher turnouts in elections and more engagement in the political process, but it is also a right of any citizen in this country to choose not to take part in the political process. Although the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) might have been right to say that it is an offence for someone not to return an electoral registration form if they have been sent one, it is not an offence not to volunteer to go on to the electoral register. It is up to us all to encourage people across this country to get involved, to register, to vote or to join a political party, but it is surely not incumbent on this Government or any Government—in fact, I think that it would be a rather dangerous path to go down—to insist that every single citizen in this country is automatically put on the electoral roll. I think that would be dangerous and damaging, and as I have said, it is a fundamental principle that people get to choose whether or not they engage.
I will finish where I began. This is about fairness and about equality. This Government are determined to make sure that every voter in this country counts for the same as the next one, and that is why I oppose the Lords amendments, with the exception of Lords amendment 2. I support the Government’s position in trying to get this Bill through as quickly as possible. It is a simple and necessary Bill, and one that is very much overdue.
Wendy Chamberlain
May I start by re-echoing the comments of Members from across the House in wishing the Minister for the Constitution and Devolution well at this difficult time? I hope her treatment progresses well.
I would like to speak in favour of all eight Lords amendments. The Bill has been much improved since it left the House back in July, and I am pleased the Government have supported Lords amendments 3 to 5, but I am particularly keen, in the time I have, to touch on Lords amendments 7 and 8.
On the flexibility quota, all the evidence suggests that a 5% quota will lead to huge upheaval. Just one in five constituencies will remain the same and about two thirds risk being changed completely. That presents a huge change to our parliamentary map, as we head into 2024, which we all know is just over three years away. An end to the pandemic might be in sight, given yesterday’s good news, but the economic damage will still be being felt in two years’ time, so I ask whether it is responsible to unleash a wave of reselection battles between Members of Parliament—although likely to be on the Government side of the House—once the new boundaries have been unveiled and many MPs find that their constituency has been significantly changed. The 2013 boundary review caused such disquiet that it was rejected by this House for exactly that reason, and the report from 2018 was not even laid before the House because there was no chance it would have been passed.
On the automaticity conditions in the Bill, Members must realise that this is really the last chance to scrutinise the Bill as it stands. Once the touch paper is lit, that is the end of our role in this process.
Today, on Report and on Second Reading, I think proponents of both the 7.5% and 5% flexibility conditions have been mischaracterised. Some Members are talking as though 5% is the ideal of electoral equality, while 7.5% is at exactly the other end of the scale, but the truth is that they are variations on a theme: 5% will not mean complete equality between voters, and 7.5% will not mean that voters in one constituency have far more of a say than those in another.
On Second Reading, the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), who is no longer in her place, pointed out that her constituency has 83,000 electors, while mine has 61,000. There is significant variability in my own constituency related to the University of Saint Andrews and the registration of students at their term-time addresses, but it is right that inequity should be addressed, and there are many more examples across the country of similar cases.
It is important to remember that whether we adopt 5% or 7.5%, the constituencies I have mentioned, including my own, become more equal, but there will still be variation under either quota, and we account for that variation because we accept that strict numerical equality is not the only basis on which to draw up constituencies. We recognise that other factors are important and should be taken into consideration, such as language, geography, cultural ties, and these are all on the statute book. For a small handful of constituencies, we judge these factors to be so important that we have decided that numerical equality should not apply to them at all.
One of the arguments regularly put forward in relation to first past the post is the politics of place. Strict numerical equality arguably makes that much harder to achieve. I would argue—I know you are conscious of time, Madam Deputy Speaker—that if we want to achieve politics of place and equality of voters, we should look for a more representative voting system in the first place. I find it strange that the Government are insisting that, for the rest of the country, we should impose numerical equality so strict that it will be difficult for the Boundary Commission properly to take these factors of geography and cultural ties into account. That is not just the view of Opposition Members. I note that the 7.5% condition is included in the Private Member’s Bill of the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Sir Peter Bone), no doubt because he recognises the disruption that 5% will cause to such a high proportion of existing boundaries.
We must ask how important those ties are compared with the goal of numerical equality. Not only will 7.5% prevent excessive disruption, but it will allow the boundary commissioners better to account for those other factors. Given the arguably small difference, which is within the norms mentioned by the Leader of the House, that seems like a reasonable compromise.
Secondly, I wish to discuss Lords amendment 8, a cross-party amendment tabled by Lord Shutt of Greetland, which received significant support in the other place. As hon. Members have mentioned and are aware, the Liberal Democrat peer Lord Shutt sadly passed away at the end of October, just a few weeks after steering this amendment through the House of Lords. David was a no-nonsense politician and a proud Yorkshireman and was passionate about democracy and electoral reform—displayed through his excellent chairmanship of the committee that considered the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013. Its report originally recommended this amendment. It is fitting that, as a Liberal Democrat, his last political act was championing the representation of young people. His friends and family, including many people across the Houses and parties, will miss him dearly.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
Like many hon. Members I send my best wishes to my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith). She has been a friend for many years and I know that the thoughts of the whole House are with her and wishing for her swift recovery.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) and my hon Friends the Members for Gedling (Tom Randall), Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke), Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson), and West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) have all made excellent points, echoing many of the points that I wish to make. On Lords amendment 1, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton. I cannot understand, when we are seeing huge population growth and massive development in some constituencies, why one would want to have 10 years rather than eight. When I stood for the council in Tower Hamlets in 2008, I remember looking at the huge differences in population growth in east London that had occurred as a result of massive regeneration. That threw out not only council wards but some parliamentary constituencies by tens of thousands.
Most of my comments today relate to Lords amendment 7—or, for reasons that will become self-evident, what I call the Borat amendment. As the Venice Commission outlines in its core principle, the equality of voting power is a crucial standard of the concept of electoral integrity. That is important. There has been much talk about tolerance today, but it is a tolerance around a mean. Seven and a half per cent on either side makes a difference of 15% and that is a significant change from 10%. Page 21 of the Venice Commission’s 2017 report highlights two nations. One is Malta, whose constitution allows no more than 5% departure on either side of the average in order to take account of geographical vicinity. However, Kazakhstan allows 15% tolerance. Britain is in exactly the right place when it is more aligned to Maltese rules on different constituency sizes than it is to Kazakhstan’s rules.
What we all want is simple: equal representation as far as possible, but taking into account reasonable geographical changes.
Mr Holden
I am speaking only briefly, so I am afraid not. Finally, I am glad that the Government have accepted Lords amendment 3, because we all know what happened in the late 1960s when Harold Wilson delayed and delayed in an attempt to deny democracy and hold Britain back in the 1950s—it did not serve him well. I am glad the Government are moving forwards and I urge all hon. Members to support the Government tonight.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s decision to agree to Labour’s call to scrap plans to reduce the number of MPs to 600. The pandemic has shown us that strong and constructive scrutiny of the Government has never been more important, and the plans to remove 50 seats would have weakened our democracy to the advantage of the Executive. I stood in this place four or five months ago to stress my concerns about how the original proposals would have impacted heavily on the Jarrow constituency, which would have gained more wards from neighbouring Gateshead and lost the Cleadon and East Boldon ward to the neighbouring constituency of South Shields.
I fully support Lords amendment 7, with my reasoning very different from that of the hon. Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden), who I see is no longer in his place. It would widen the deviation from the quota for constituency electorates from 5% to 7.5%—not 10%. During the Bill’s evidence session, the secretariat of the Boundary Commission for England stated that it makes it
“much harder to have regard to the other factors…such as the importance of not breaking local ties, and having regard to local authority boundaries and features of natural geography. Basically, the smaller you make the tolerance, the fewer options we have…The larger you make it, the more options we have and the more flexibility we have to have regard to the other factors”.––[Official Report, Parliamentary Constituencies Public Bill Committee, 18 June 2020; c. 7, Q3.]
I am a firm believer that constituency boundaries should mirror the communities they represent. We know that boundaries that cut across several councils and geographical borders, including valleys, mountains and rivers, do not fit local people’s community ties and make it difficult for us to represent our areas effectively.
An increase in the tolerance size is supported by international best practice, which recommends that flexibility should be worked into the system to allow for consideration of geography and community ties. Based on an algorithm prediction by Electoral Calculus—I know it is a prediction—my seat would be redrawn to have a ridiculous divide between parts of Jarrow south of the River Tyne and parts of North Tyneside north of the River Tyne. That would affect not just my constituency but neighbouring constituencies as well. Those predictions aim to satisfy the main legislative constraints of 250 parliamentary seats, with each of those seats having an electorate within 5% of the national average. That is a prime example of what the secretariat of the Boundary Commission for England meant when it stated
“the smaller…the tolerance, the fewer options we have”.
I will also support Lords amendment 8, which, while not giving 16 and 17-year-olds a vote, would take a big step towards improving registration rates among young people, increasing electoral engagement and hopefully ensuring that more young voices are heard. It would also increase the likelihood that young people participate in political life from an early age because they would be registered to vote, regardless of whether they choose to exercise their right to vote, as many Opposition Members have said.
I will also support Lords amendments 1 and 2, which require a boundary commission report every 10 years rather than the eight envisaged in the unamended Bill. Boundary reviews cause uncertainty for councils, councillors, local organisations, MPs and—of course—their constituents and could mean that most MPs would face a review in every second Parliament. Finally, I will also support Lords amendment 6 as it would put measures in place to mitigate the dangerous consequences of ending parliamentary scrutiny and oversight.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne), and I join Members from all around the House in sending my best wishes to the Minister for the Constitution and Devolution, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith). She is not only a fantastic Minister, but an exceptionally kind Member of the House, and she has been very kind to lots of new Members in particular.
Tragically, I was not on the Bill Committee, but the Whips have seen me right on the Order Paper tonight, as I will be on the Joint Committee on the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act, in which I look forward to engaging with the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar), who is not in his place, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller). However, like the Bill Committee, I have spent the last few weeks studying maps with arbitrary boundaries, straight lines cutting through the middle of cities, districts drawn in extraordinary shapes and parts of marginal areas split up by huge lakes. At the end of all that, we do seem to have a clear result, so I warmly congratulate President-elect Joe Biden and Vice-President-elect Kamala Harris on their triumph and achievement, and particularly Kamala Harris’s achievement as the first woman and first woman of colour to succeed to the vice-presidency.
I do not make this point just as a joke, but because the present US experience demonstrates some of the real concerns about legislating in this area and the politicisation of boundaries and electoral arrangements. Politicising these things undermines the independence of the process. It undermines its integrity, transparency and fairness and, as we have regrettably seen in the States, it also tends to undermine the acceptance of the result, which is absolutely fundamental to any democracy.
Here in the UK we have much to be proud of, but we should not be self-satisfied, because the boundaries on which I, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden) and many others were elected were set in 2006 for England, and that was based on data that was even older than that. When I was elected last December, the boundaries were already 13 years out of date. Two subsequent reviews have had to be abandoned. The first was abandoned, very clearly, on political grounds, I regret to say—not that it did the Liberal Democrats much good, but there we go.
I strongly welcome the Bill. I particularly welcome its automaticity and Lords amendments 3, 4 and 5, which strengthen that automaticity. I hope that this will be the last time that I need to debate these matters in the Chamber. Parliament is ultimately sovereign and it needs to lay out a framework for elections for parliamentary constituencies, but once we have a framework, I think that process should proceed by clockwork. There should be no parliamentary vote to stop the process that has been put in place.
I shall briefly speak to a couple of amendments with which I and the Government disagree. Amendments 1 and 2 are about the number of years. I think that eight years is a reasonable cycle length, for the reasons that many of my hon. Friends have given today, and it also means that there should be no need for interim reviews. They are a complication of the process that I do not think we need, but given the population growth that we are seeing, eight years allows us to get reviews on a reasonable cycle length.
So many Members have spoken to amendment 7, on tolerance. I am a tolerant man, but I think that 7,000 votes is more than enough tolerance between the smallest and largest constituencies in the country. An 11,000 difference when we have the opportunity to make it less than that seems over the top to me. I fundamentally believe in equal voting power for all Members in this place, as far as possible.
I will try to be brief—I also disagree with the other Lords amendments but I will not elaborate on the reasons why; they are basically the reasons that the Leader of the House set out in his excellent opening speech. Finally, just to reiterate my points on automaticity, let this Bill be the last time for a very long time that this House needs to legislate on these matters. The hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) said that this is our last chance and that once we pass the Bill, it is done. Well, I say: good, that is how it should be. Let the convention be re-established that boundary changes are a process that should not be interfered with by MPs.
David Linden
The hon. Gentleman talks about the House not interfering with the Boundary Commission’s process going forward. Why, then, did the Government not table the Orders in Council that allowed the last Parliament to have a vote on those boundary proposals?
Aaron Bell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. There are two points. The one from my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke about the EU referendum was well made, and I regret to say that the Government—I was not a Member at the time—probably felt that there were not the votes in the House to get the proposals through. That is principally the same reason that the previous review was abandoned. I am trying to make the point that we should not rely on votes in the House to get a boundary review through. A boundary review will undoubtedly be bad news for certain Members and good news for others. The hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) might get a lovely SNP ward added to his seat, whereas I might lose a lovely rural ward, but it should not be for me to vote on that with my self-interest at heart. We need to create a fair, independent process, which is what the Bill does. I therefore commend it to the House and urge us to reject the Lords amendments, with the exception of the ones on automaticity.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell). I send my good wishes to the Minister for the Constitution and Devolution, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith).
I listened with great interest and, dare I say it, increasing incredulity to the speech by the Leader of the House, particularly his comments on the appointment of the Boundary Commission, given the context of the vote that we are to have tonight on the Committee on Standards, but also events surrounding the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, the appointment of the Chair of the Liaison Committee, the appointment of the chief executive of Track and Trace and the role of Kate Bingham; the list is endless. I appreciate, however, that there is a long-overdue need for us to review the boundaries. The 2011 proposals were made by a coalition Government under the leadership of David Cameron, but I never understood the desire to reduce the number of Members of Parliament from 650 to 600 while increasing the number of unelected Members in the other place to around 800 to 850—I do not quite get that, in terms of the argument around democracy.
Given the time, I want to focus on Lords amendments 7 and 8. Amendment 7 is about the deviation from quota from 5% to 7%. I would stress—as has been done widely around the House, certainly by Members on the Opposition side of the Chamber—the importance of community and identity, and relations between those communities.
Warwick and Leamington is a very good example. When the previous review was undertaken, there were moves to divide the constituency, so that Warwick would become part of a constituency with Stratford, and Leamington would become part of a constituency with Kenilworth. If you knew the geography, you would say that Warwick and Leamington were twinned; they are close relations. There is a symbiosis between those two towns that makes them mutually dependent. That desire to change the boundaries would have driven those closely linked towns apart.
The Council of Europe, through the Venice Commission, said that the standard permissible tolerance should be plus or minus 10%. I believe that is crucial in understanding the communities that we represent, because that is what it is about—the people, and how they have formed communities. The 5% rule creates too small a tolerance to take account of that. Written evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee’s inquiry noted that the 5% rule caused huge disruption. It noted that the reduction in the number of MPs from 650 to 600 was not a cause of substantial disruption, but it was mostly
“caused by the introduction of the uniform national quota and the 5% tolerance.”
In the study of the 2013 review, the Committee found that the easing of the tolerance to 7% to 9% gave the commissioners much more flexibility.
Looking at Wales, which has perhaps the most constituencies to lose, the topography and the geography are critical. They shape our communities. They shape our economies. It is impossible to understand that when you are looking, perhaps, at the levels of Somerset or at cities such as London—the way in which those community ties are formed. The right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) cited Rhondda at 50,000, but we really do have to revisit how the communities, say in the valleys, are formed. They face one way. They are discrete, distinct communities. We must not mess with the arbitrary and artificial association. You only have to look at the US congressional districts to see exactly what that means.
Finally, I commend Lords amendment 8, which perhaps we might refer to as the Lord Shutt amendment, and the work that went into it. We must connect with young people. They are so disillusioned by democracy. We must use this opportunity to drive young people’s engagement with the political process, That is why that amendment is fundamentally important, and why I shall vote for it.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
I will make a few final comments, because many have been made in the Chamber today. The effectiveness and legitimacy of the democratic process is contingent on the public’s confidence in the processes and the commitment of elected representatives to upholding its principles. So I agree that a boundary review must go ahead, as the current constituency boundaries are two decades old, but it is crucial that the review strengthens the functioning of democracy. Lords amendments 7 and 8 are important steps forward in defending and advancing the key principles of representation and voting rights in our democratic process.
I reiterate the important point that I and many others made on Second and Third Reading of the Bill, and here today, that the Government could still change course on amendment 7, which would widen the variance from quota from 5% to 7.5%. As a boundary geek, having worked for the Local Government Commission on ward boundaries, I have done the work of trying to make good boundaries. A strict 5% inhibits the ability of the Boundary Commission to invoke common sense when devising constituencies that protect local ties, reflect local authority boundaries and recognise natural topography, as has been said. Whether it is hills, valleys and rivers, or motorways, main roads and green space, it is really important that we take all of this into account when creating good constituencies to represent our communities.
From my work experience, I understand how the public respond to well-made and to poor boundaries, but it is not just the boundaries: as I understand it, it is also sensible and coherent constituencies that recognise local ties, as against those that look strange, that are strange and that do not reflect community ties. Giving that little extra leeway will give the Boundary Commission greater scope accurately to group community identities, connections and geographical areas. It is not just to do with the fairness of the vote. We also need to talk about the fairness of the representation when we are elected, recognising, for example, how much more difficult it is for Members in the valleys of Wales to get around their constituencies compared with those in a condensed urban constituency such as my own.
The Government have recognised the principle of flexibility in the arrangements that have been made for Isle of Wight and Ynys Môn. I hope that that could be recognised further in creating good constituencies, so we could adopt that slightly higher flexibility to avoid the ratcheting effect, as I call it—or, as it was nicely put earlier today, “the butterfly effect”—where just one constituency could have that extra tolerance. It is important to avoid a number of constituencies not accurately reflecting their constituents.
I also wish to speak in favour of Lords amendment 8. Much has been said about the fact that turnout is healthy for our democracy, which I agree with, and that the ability to vote is a right, not a privilege. Improving the completeness of electoral registers by enabling the Government to ask local authority registration officers to add 16-year-olds to the electoral register when they get their NI number, or ensuring that they are provided with information on how to apply to join the electoral register would be a significant step forward in expanding voter registration and would enable greater participation among young voters. Although the Government are not willing to do the right thing and introduce votes at 16, which I am in favour of, improving voter registration for young voters is a basic, non-controversial change, which could see a vital increase in the number of young people voting. I hasten to add that, when others tell me not to do something, I often think there must be something in it. So, young people, think about why they do not want to encourage you to be on the electoral register.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins). It is an absolute pleasure to follow her. I used to find that I was very often in agreement with her distinguished father on matters relating to the European Union, though it has to be said not on anything else. I thank all Members who have contributed to this debate on their lordships’ amendments. It has been a pleasure to be part of this important Bill, and I am very grateful for all the kind words that have been said about my hon. Friend the Minister for the Constitution. I will ensure that a copy of Hansard is sent to her so that she knows how highly respected and valued she is both as a Member of this House and as a Minister.
I also spoke on Second Reading, and both then and now, it has been a genuine pleasure to hear about the constituencies of hon. Members. In particular, I noted the plea from the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), who basically said that he loved his constituency and likes it as it is. I think that many Members across the House have huge sympathy with that view. It makes these types of debate extremely difficult for us, because all of us have an enormous affection for the places that we represent and we have incredible ties to them. I did not agree with all of his speech, but I must confess that I sympathised very much with the bit when he was praising his own area. However, this Bill will meet the Government’s manifesto commitment to have updated and equal parliamentary boundaries, and I am glad to see that it has broad support across the House, even though there are differences over some of the details.
If I may come to those, I will not try to repeat the points that I covered in my opening remarks, in the interests of time, but the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith)¸ made a point about young registration. I would point out that we have seen a significant number of 18 to 24-year-olds register since online registration came in, with 8 million of them taking the opportunity of that.
The hon. Lady referred to the appointment of the deputy chairmen. It is worth reiterating that they are High Court judges anyway, so their independence has already been proved at the earlier appointment. I do not think we need have any worry about their continued independence. The hon. Lady also accused the Government of appointing a crony as the BBC chairman. As the appointment has not yet been made, I am not sure how we can have appointed the crony, unless the hon. Lady is accusing the Government of being Billy No Mates, which may possibly be the case, because no appointment has been made.
The hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), as always, made an extremely charming and well-informed speech, with his one aim clearly in sight. His one aim is, of course, the independence of Scotland. That is his view; that is what he campaigns for. I fundamentally disagree with him, but he always puts his case elegantly and in the best traditions of this House. I just remind him that there are particular protections for Scotland, with the regulations relating to constituencies over 5,000 square miles and, of course, the protection of the constituency of Na h-Eileanan an Iar. I think that should be in entrenched legislation to keep the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) safely in this House, as he is a great figure and contributor to our debates. I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I did not notify the hon. Gentleman that I was going to mention him, but I hope he will not mind.
I am also relieved that the hon. Member for Glasgow East, when he read out at the end of his speech my words on an earlier occasion, had not looked through my speeches on the parliamentary constituencies Bill when it was passing through the House in 2010 and 2011 and did not quote those back at me. That might have been rather more embarrassing.
I come to the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) and the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty). I am afraid I think they should stand for election to the House of Representatives, because they seem more interested in American politics than in British politics. Fascinating though that is, this House is concerned with the politics of the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) is not in her place, but she made the point that there will be an extensive change with the 5% level. That is inevitable because this change has been so long delayed. English constituencies are based on the register for 2000 and therefore are 20 years out of date. She made the very fair point that the difference between 5% and 7.5% is a variation on a theme, which is why I think we can reasonably, as a House, agree on 5%. It is a matter of getting the balance right. I think 5% is reasonable.
If I may come to my hon. and right hon. Friends, a number of them—my right hon. Friends the Members for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) and for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) and my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson)—raised the issue of ward divisions. It is important to note that the Boundary Commission—the independent Boundary Commission—has the ability to use smaller areas, and therefore if it wants to use smaller areas to meet the 5% requirement, it will be able to do so.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke asked the specific question whether, basically, the Boundary Commission will have to follow the law, to which the answer is of course yes, it will have to follow the law, although in doing so it is independent. She also pointed out that Lords amendment 7 basically seeks to undermine the principle of the Bill by widening it, and if we end up widening it too much, we get away from what we are trying to achieve.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Tom Randall) made a telling point about the different purpose of data that has been collected. Suddenly using it for one thing rather than another raises all sorts of problems. He also kindly pointed out that the deputy chairmen are already impartial judges, which I reiterate because it is fundamental to the fairness of this process.
My hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton made, I must confess, both a wise and entertaining speech and noted the partisanship of some of the amendments. I must confess that we have seen through the Opposition’s tricks and noted that the amendments are partisan, and that is why we will have pleasure in voting against them. Let us be honest about it: the Opposition know they are partisan too, but they felt they had to make some complaints on a principle—that we should have equal seats—that most people across the House agree with.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) pointed out the size of his own constituency and the right of people to choose whether they participate in the electoral process or not. Of course that is a freedom that we have.
I loved the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden) that we should follow Malta, and we must—what a great thing to do. Malta is a wonderful place, and one thinks of its fantastic history in surviving not one but two sieges, one in the 16th century and one in the 20th century. I will not say the joke about making a Maltese cross, Madam Deputy Speaker, as you might think it out of order, and it is very old and hackneyed.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
In order to observe social distancing, the Reasons Committee will meet not in the Reasons Room but in Committee Room 12.
Forensic Science Regulator and Biometrics Strategy Bill (Money)
Queen’s recommendation signified.
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Forensic Science Regulator and Biometrics Strategy Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred under the Act by the Secretary of State. —(Stuart Andrew.)
Exiting the European Union (Merchant Shipping)
(4 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Rachel Maclean)
I beg to move,
That the draft Ship Recycling (Facilities and Requirements for Hazardous Materials on Ships) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 15 October, be approved.
The United Kingdom has already introduced European Union exit legislation on ship recycling. Last year, we laid the Ship Recycling (Facilities and Requirements for Hazardous Materials on Ships) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 to ensure that legislation in this area would remain legally operable once the UK had withdrawn from the EU. The agreement on the UK’s withdrawal from the EU includes a protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland to address the unique circumstances on the island of Ireland. A provision in article 5(4) of the protocol and annex 2 specify that certain provisions of EU law will apply in respect of Northern Ireland. The EU ship recycling regulation is one such provision listed in the protocol and, as a consequence, will have some effect on ship recycling facilities in Northern Ireland.
The EU ship recycling regulation transposed key parts of the Hong Kong convention on the recycling of ships into EU law. The provisions apply to ship recycling facilities in the EU and to EU flagged ships above 500 gross tonnes. The main provisions of the EU regulation have applied since 31 December 2018 and include rules about authorising and permitting ship recycling facilities, requirements needed for the EU to record a facility on its list of approved facilities—the European list—and a requirement that all EU flagged ships must be recycled at an approved ship recycling facility, according to a certified ship recycling plan.
The EU regulation also requires that all new EU flagged ships must carry a valid inventory of hazardous materials and that existing EU flagged ships and ships registered to non-EU countries calling at European ports must carry an inventory of hazardous materials by the end of 2020. Under the 2019 regulations, EU flagged ships would need to use an approved ship recycling facility on a United Kingdom list of approved facilities instead of the EU’s list. The 2019 regulations also ensure that necessary functions of the EU Commission are transferred to the Secretary of State.
The draft regulations will amend the 2019 regulations made under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which in turn amended the retained EU ship recycling regulation and the Ship Recycling Facilities Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2015, to make two substantive changes. First, the regulations amend provisions that affect ship recycling facilities in Northern Ireland to reflect our obligations under the Northern Ireland protocol. In particular, the regulations will
“require the joint competent authority for ship recycling facilities in Northern Ireland to notify the Secretary of State of any change of circumstances”
concerning their facilities. The Secretary of State must
“notify the European Commission of any change of status regarding ship recycling facilities in Northern Ireland”,
and the regulations prevent ship recycling facilities in Northern Ireland that are not on the European Union list of approved facilities from recycling EU-flagged vessels. The impact of the protocol means that existing arrangements for those facilities will remain the same after the implementation phase.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I would like a point clarified. The Minister referred to Northern Ireland and the protocol, and to the change and differences that there will be between there and the mainland. What discussions have taken place with the Northern Ireland Executive and Ministers there, so that we have clarity for them and for us all?
Rachel Maclean
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. We have been in dialogue with the Northern Ireland Executive and they are content with the regulations.
The draft regulations will incorporate requirements on existing UK ships and non-UK ships calling at UK ports to carry an inventory of hazardous materials. Ships typically contain quantities of hazardous materials ,and by the end of 2018, EU ship recycling regulations already required new ships to carry a list of those hazardous materials. Existing ships must also carry such a list from 31 December 2020.
Ensuring the safe and environmentally sound dismantling and recycling of ships at the end of their operational life has been a concern for a number of years. Many ships are currently dismantled on beaches in Asia, with little regard for human safety or protection of the environment. It is important that we continue to have an effective ship recycling regime that protects public health and the environment. The changes in this instrument will ensure that environmental law continues to function at the end of the implementation phase. The draft regulations are a vital part of demonstrating that the UK is implementing its commitments under the Northern Ireland protocol. They are fully supported by Government, and I commend them to the House.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
Labour does not oppose the regulations, for the sake of a smooth transition for the maritime sector, but we have continued and serious concerns about Northern Ireland, the maritime industry, and UK-EU co-operation after Brexit. Under the amended regulations, the Government will set out a list of ship recycling facilities for UK use in Northern Ireland. The EU will also have an approved list of facilities in Northern Ireland. Those lists might end up overlapping, depending on the separate decisions of the EU Commission and the UK Government. It beggars belief that we might end up with a dizzying mess of two confusing and conflicting lists of facilities that are able to carry out the same work in Northern Ireland. Would it not be easier to negotiate with the EU privately about the list and any potential changes, rather than publishing our own list?
The amendment to the regulations highlights wider issues about Brexit and Northern Ireland. The continued Government mishandling of negotiations has led us to a place where last night, the Lords had to step in and remove illegal clauses from the UK internal market Bill. The Government have wasted vital time needed to prepare, instead having a needless row with the European Union over a deal that has already been done. Rather than tying up these remaining loose ends and accepting the Lords amendments, today we hear that the Prime Minister is continuing to threaten to break the law, setting back trust and the chances of a deal.
Across the wider maritime sector, the coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact. We have already lost at least one international ferry route from Hull to Zeebrugge, and more international routes are under pressure. An estimated 1,200 maritime jobs have already gone since the start of the pandemic. Labour has asked the Government to step in and protect those vital parts of our international freight and travel infrastructure. This sector needs certainty. We need the Government to publish a clear road map for the implementation of the remaining elements of the protocol, which comes into force in less than two months.
I stress that Labour does not believe this country should be in a situation where Northern Ireland is treated differently from the three other nations. The amendment is proof that the Government have failed in their basic responsibility to achieve equivalence across the whole of our United Kingdom.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
As we have already heard, while Northern Ireland will continue to operate ship recycling facilities that can accommodate EU vessels, the other nations of the UK get no such assurances. Scotland will be doubly disadvantaged now due to that and Westminster’s historic failure on ship dismantling. I will come on to more of that in a moment.
Regulatory de-alignment of the rest of the UK is clearly possible and therefore could cut off our ship recycling yards, while Northern Ireland will continue to operate under the EU’s strict standards. There is no guarantee of the same elsewhere across the nations of the UK. Even for normal vessels, ship breaking and ship recycling is a dangerous and potentially environmentally hazardous activity. We are already seeing, through the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, the Government’s willingness to launch a race to sink standards. What does that mean in this context?
In Scotland, we already have dock space blocked up with the rusting, decaying radioactive hulks of nuclear submarines in Rosyth naval dockyard. The UK Government and the Ministry of Defence in particular have a very poor record on the environment, despite what the Minister tries to say, both generally and in regard to nuclear waste management. The SNP stands firm in demanding that Scotland becomes neither a dumping ground nor an under-regulated chop shop for UK and US nuclear programmes. For nearly four decades, seven out-of-date nuclear submarines have been sitting in Rosyth. They have yet to be dismantled, let alone appropriately disposed of.
It is unacceptable that Scotland, a nation that rejects nuclear weapons of mass destruction, is used as both a storage facility and a dumping ground for active and decaying nuclear submarines. The people of Scotland now need the powers of independence to make our own environmental and regulatory choices.
Rachel Maclean
I thank the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) and the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry). I can assure them that the regulations will ensure that we meet our obligations under the Northern Ireland protocol, and continue to combat environmental pollution and enforce safety standards in the maritime sector. We have provided significant support to the maritime sector throughout the pandemic. We heartily recognise it is important and we thank the maritime sector for its contribution to our economy.
The regulations we are discussing tonight only make changes to ensure the functionality of EU retained law in the UK statute book after completion of the implementation phase with the EU. Consequently, our safety and environmental standards, which are among the highest in the world, will continue to be comparable to those applying in the rest of Europe. Protecting the environment from all kinds of shipping pollution and ensuring that ship recycling is undertaken in a responsible manner is vital to broader Government commitments to environmental standards and shipping safety. I hope the House agrees that the new regulations will be essential in ensuring that UK legislation on ship recycling continues to work effectively once the implementation phase is over.
Question put and agreed to.
Exiting the European Union (Agriculture)
(4 years 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 Food and Feed Hygiene and Safety (Miscellaneous Amendments etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 14 October, be approved.
This instrument concerns food and feed laws and is made under the powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to make necessary amendments to UK regulations. It follows from the 17 EU exit instruments in the field of food and food safety made in 2019, which, for brevity, I will refer to collectively as the 2019 regulations. The Government’s priority and commitment is to ensure that the high standard of food and feed safety and consumer protection we enjoy in this country continues to be maintained now that the UK has left the European Union and going forward beyond the end of the transition period.
I must briefly draw the House’s attention to two technical corrections to the original statutory instrument, which were noticed after the SI was laid and have been rectified by means of a correction slip. The corrections, for the benefit of the House, are as follows. First, in page 1, regulation 1(2) previously read:
“Part 2 and Part 4 come into force on”.
It is corrected to clarify that:
“This Part, Part 2 and Part 4 come into force on”.
Secondly, in page 12, regulation 10(13), in the inserted regulation 20A(b)(i), “may made regulations” has, for the benefit of good grammar, been corrected to read, “may make regulations”. I confirm that officials in the devolved Administrations have been kept informed of these minor typographical changes.
As the instrument is technical in nature, I am sure that hon. Members will welcome a very brief summary of the regulations and the changes that we are making. The 2019 regulations were made in preparation for our exit from the European Union and will come into force at the end of the transition period. They will ensure that the regulatory framework for food and feed remains functional throughout England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland following the end of the transition period. They achieve that by making technical amendments to EU food and feed legislation, such as changing EU-specific references that will be redundant on exit day, and transferring functions and powers currently held by the European Commission to the appropriate authorities in each of the UK’s constituent nations, reflecting the context in which they were made—preparing for all possible scenarios in leaving the EU. However, the withdrawal agreement was of course secured and, with it, the Northern Ireland protocol.
On 20 May 2020, we set out our approach to implementing the Northern Ireland protocol as part of meeting our obligations under the withdrawal agreement with the EU. The primary purpose of this instrument is to provide necessary amendments to implement the Northern Ireland protocol in the field of food and food safety, by amending or revoking the 2019 regulations to apply to Great Britain only. The instrument gives effect to the protocol by ensuring retained EU law on food and feed applies only to Great Britain. It does so by removing references to Northern Ireland authorities and revoking corrections previously made to Northern Ireland domestic legislation in the 2019 regulations. EU food and feed legislation will continue to apply in Northern Ireland under the Northern Ireland protocol.
For example, the functions currently undertaken by the European Commission to review and make changes to legislation were assigned by the 2019 regulations to the appropriate authority, those being the relevant Secretary of State in England or the relevant Ministers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. To implement the Northern Ireland protocol, it is now necessary to amend the definition of appropriate authority in retained EU law to remove references to Northern Ireland.
The secondary purpose of the instrument is to remedy deficiencies and inoperabilities in retained EU food and feed legislation, in particular arising from that which has come into force since the 2019 regulations were made, but which we are obliged to treat as retained law. The amendments are technical in nature—for example, removing references to the EU and its institutions, which will no longer be appropriate following the end of the transition period.
The amendments include, for example, specific food hygiene regulations consolidating provisions allowing for the words “United Kingdom” or the abbreviations UK or GB to be used in identification marks. Similar amendments to general food law will allow a period of 21 months after the end of the transition period for products of animal origin carrying a UK/EC identification mark to be placed on the English market. That measure should reduce the impact of the change in requirements for identification marks. Similar provision is expected to be introduced in Wales and Scotland.
Let me be clear that the instrument does not introduce any changes that will impact on the day-to-day operation of food businesses, nor does it introduce any new regulatory burden. The essence of the legislation is unchanged. The instrument will ensure continuity for businesses and protection of consumers’ interests by ensuring that the statute remains operable and enforceable. It provides confidence in the ability to trade both domestically and internationally.
The amendments take account of the Government’s commitments under the Northern Ireland protocol and make changes that allow Northern Ireland goods to be manufactured to the EU standard while retaining protections for all UK consumers.
A public consultation on the statutory instrument was held in August. We remain grateful to the stakeholders who responded, with the majority supportive of the approach to give effect to the protocol in the legislation and of the amendments to retained EU legislation. It is important to note that the devolved Administrations have provided their consent for the instrument and we have engaged with them positively throughout. I put on record my gratitude.
I take this opportunity to reassure the House that the overarching aim of the statutory instrument is to provide continuity for business to ensure that, following the end of the transition period, high standards of safety and quality for food and feed regulation will continue across the UK, and to reflect our obligations under the Northern Ireland protocol. Having effective and functional law in this area is key to ensuring that the standards of food safety and consumer protection that we enjoy in this country are maintained in the immediate and long term. I ask hon. Members to support the amendments proposed in the instrument to ensure the continuation of effective food and feed safety and public health controls. I commend the regulations to the House.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his brief but informative introduction —I would like to say it was entertaining, but that might be pushing the boat out a bit, because it is a very technical piece of legislation, as he outlined. The instrument is primarily being made to reflect the Northern Ireland protocol in the field of food safety and hygiene.
As we know, the instrument amends or revokes 16 of the 17 EU exit statutory instruments that were hurried through in the weeks ahead of the original 29 March 2019 Brexit deadline. As the Minister said, the intention is to avoid disruption to food controls, which is critical for the approximately 220,000 businesses active in the agrifood sector. As such, we will not be opposing the regulations today. We have a number of questions, however, because we have been clear that any future changes to regulatory controls after the UK leaves the EU should provide at least the same, or even an improved, level of consumer protection. That applies to food hygiene and safety standards as much as anything else.
As the Minister briefly outlined, there was a public consultation. The explanatory memorandum sets out that that was completed by the Food Standards Agency in respect of the amendments made to this instrument, which is welcome. I note, however, that the initial consultation, which was carried out in September and October 2018, received 50 responses from interested parties across a wide range of sectors. The consultation that we are talking about today, which was carried out in August and September of this year, received only seven responses. That is a concerning drop-off, even though many other issues have clearly been occupying people’s attention this year. Will he confirm that the recent consultation was as widely publicised and drawn to the attention of stakeholders as the previous one? Does he have a view on why there was such a drop-off in responses?
Although we can view the consultation document itself, a summary of the responses has not yet been published, so is not available for proper scrutiny. That is especially concerning as the explanatory memorandum states that 29% of replies had “mixed comments” and that further analysis of them will be undertaken. The phrase “mixed comments” could, of course, be classic civil service speak for major concerns being flagged, or equally, those concerns could have been addressed in the regulations. We do not know because we have not seen them. Although 29% amounts to only two responses in this consultation, that does not make them any less valid, given the small number of responses that we had.
The Minister knows that I am keen on transparency and full disclosure, so I hope that he will be able to shed some light on the nature of those mixed comments, the concerns that were raised, and what further analysis of the instrument was undertaken following that response. Given the low level of response, I wonder whether he can be confident that the consultation process was sufficiently robust.
Will the Minister update us on the progress of the provisional framework on food and feed safety and hygiene that will create a joint risk analysis process across the UK from the end of the transition period? I note that the chief executive of the Food Standards Agency gave a written response to some questions raised by the Common Frameworks Scrutiny Committee last week, which indicated that the provisional framework will continue to be reviewed into early December.
As that is a matter of public safety, it is imperative that any changes are communicated clearly and in a timely manner to ensure that the industry can remain in line with current legislation. Can the Minister assure us that it will be possible to do that within those timescales? What assessment has been undertaken of the readiness and capability of the FSA and Food Standards Scotland to take on those responsibilities from day one?
Finally, the explanatory memorandum states that guidance is not required for this instrument as it generally maintains existing regulations and does not introduce new requirements. Given that this regulation was spread across 17 instruments previously, it presumably covered 17 different sets of guidelines. This concern was raised by the Local Government Association in the initial consultation, which suggested that the FSA or other organisations, such as relevant professional bodies, may wish to consider how clear guidance and assurance for councils on the new regulations could be provided.
The Proprietary Association of Great Britain has also expressed concerns about the FSA’s assertion that there would only be minimal, one-off familiarisation costs to local authorities and port health authorities, stating that cuts to local authority funding are such that some authorities do not have any full-time food and feed officers and that the time required for officers to read and understand the proposed regulations will impact on the already limited time that trading standards, environmental health and port health authority officers have to undertake enforcement activity. We know local authorities are already under intense pressure due to the covid-19 response, so will the Minister confirm whether he has spoken with colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about whether councils do have sufficient capacity to carry out their duties in this important area? On that note, I will end my speech.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his explanation of where we are. Food and feed safety is vital to Northern Ireland’s important agri-sector, and for my constituency in particular the transition in leaving the EU has to enable Northern Ireland to continue to trade without obstruction. He has confirmed that the full consultation has taken place with the Northern Ireland Executive, and I thank him for that confirmation that ministerial contact in Northern Ireland and here at Westminster has been constructive.
I have one question that I wish to ask the Minister. It relates to a technical point, but I just want this on the record, if he does not mind. I understand the technical aspect of this measure and the need to react and secure, but I must express concern that it highlights Northern Ireland as being outside the UK by using the prefix “United Kingdom (Northern Ireland)”. I need to stress that Northern Ireland lies firmly within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and that cannot be forgotten. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to hon. Members for a typically informed and focused debate. It is a pleasure, as always, appearing opposite the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), a different shadow Minister from my normal double act in recent weeks. He raised a number of technical points about the consultation and other aspects. I will endeavour to answer them briefly, but where I do not do so I will, of course, write to him.
I am confident that the consultation undertaken in August and September was sufficient. The hon. Gentleman highlights the smaller number of responses it received. I suggest that is due to the significant consultation undertaken two years before and the fact that in this context little in our approach has changed. Many will therefore have felt that they had had their say back then and that was reflected in the approach taken. He mentioned local councils’ capacity to deal with these regulations. Like many Members of this House, I was a councillor in a past life and I pay tribute to the work that our councils and local authorities do up and down this country. I am confident that they will be able to implement these regulations effectively. On the FSA and FSS, I am also confident that they are ready and prepared for what is coming in these regulations, which are relatively minor and technical in what they are seeking to update. I will of course go through the transcript in Hansard and write to him on anything I have missed out.
On the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), I can reassure him that, while the wording of this statutory instrument reflects the technical legal wording to reflect the Northern Ireland protocol and the withdrawal agreement and the measures in that to help protect and secure the safety of the peace process, I am happy to be very clear with him on the record in this Chamber that, of course, Northern Ireland remains a hugely important and integral part of our United Kingdom and one that I hope to be able to visit when travel is a bit more normal. I may even visit his constituency of Strangford.
Jim Shannon
I would welcome the Minister to my constituency. One of his former members of staff came from my constituency as well. It will be a double opportunity for him to visit the town of Comber and also my constituency. I would welcome seeing him there.
Edward Argar
I will take that as a clear invitation. Sam Beggs who was a fantastic member of staff to both the hon. Gentleman and I always sang the praises of Strangford. I need no more than the hon. Gentleman’s kind invitation to take him up on it when travel is more normal.
Question put and agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I will suspend the House for three minutes.
Committee on Standards
(4 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:58 - The House divided: - Ayes: 261 / Noes: 334 - Question accordingly negatived.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of Valerie Vaz. I should also inform the House that the Order Paper today should refer to the report of the House of Commons Commission, “Lay Members of the Committee on Standards: Nomination of Candidates”, HC 437.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
I beg to move,
That, in accordance with Standing Order No. 149A, Professor Michael Maguire CBE be appointed as lay member of the Committee on Standards for a period of six years, with immediate effect.
The motion today gives the House the opportunity to approve the appointment of Professor Michael Maguire CBE as a lay member of the Committee on Standards for a period of six years. Between 2012 and 2019, Professor Maguire was the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland. His previous role, from 2008 until 2012, was chief inspector of criminal justice for Northern Ireland. He will bring a wealth of experience to the Standards Committee.
The lay members of the Standards Committee play a vital role in providing an independent voice to the Committee’s decisions. When lay members were first proposed over a decade ago, the rationale given by the Committee on Standards in Public Life was that they would be
“a step towards enhancing public acceptance of the robustness and independence of the disciplinary process for Members of Parliament.”
The independent and impartial status of lay members is therefore critical to maintaining confidence in our process. If today’s motion is agreed, it will ensure that one of two lay member vacancies is filled with immediate effect. I ask the House to support Professor Maguire’s appointment.
Standing Order No. 149A requires that the House of Commons should decide on the appointment of lay members. It also stipulates that the decision should follow a debate of up to one hour. As I said in business questions on 22 October, it is only right that time is properly provided and that the House has the right to take a decision and debate a matter so that we should not assume that such a debate is simply a rubber-stamping exercise.
The House will have realised that only one of the two candidates put forward by the House of Commons Commission is named in the motion today. As I have previously said, this has no bearing on the character of the other candidate. Instead, it reflects the fact that there is disquiet in certain quarters, as well as wider concerns over the recruitment process, and in particular the criteria relating to impartiality that were applied.
That brings me to amendment (a) in the name of the shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz). My intention had been to keep the timing of the motion to appoint Ms Carter under review pending continuing conversations. That motion has been tabled under remaining orders. However, the amendment seeks to bring forward the appointment now. It is a matter of regret that the right hon. Lady has expedited the decision on this matter. We have been striving to achieve a resolution through correspondence and conversations, which I had hoped would lead us to a more desirable outcome. It is regrettable that we now find ourselves debating this matter on the Floor of the House at an early stage.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
In the discussions I had yesterday, I was led to believe that the Government Chief Whip had indicated that the Government would be voting against that motion next week. That is the reason the amendment has been tabled tonight—for no other reason than because the Government were letting it be known that they were going to vote against.
Mr Rees-Mogg
It was a leader of the hon. Gentleman’s own party who once said that a week is a long time in politics and an opportunity for considerable discussion to take place.
Let me be clear: across public appointments as a whole, political activity is not and should not be a bar to appointment. Membership of a political party is an important right under freedom of association. However, some public appointments will necessarily be independent, where individuals must ensure they are separate from party politics precisely because of their public functions. This is especially the case for quasi-judicial or disciplinary roles, as in this case. The Standards Committee is an especially sensitive parliamentary Committee, with significant powers to adjudicate on the conduct of Members of Parliament. Its lay members must be able to command absolute trust and confidence across the whole House.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is vital for lay members of the Standards Committee not only to be impartial but to be seen to be impartial?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend makes an absolutely right and important point. The perception of impartiality is as important with lay members of the Standards Committee as the reality, and just because somebody says “I am impartial” does not mean that they are necessarily impartial or that others will accept that assurance.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I very much regret it, but I do not think I can support my right hon. Friend on this particular matter, because I do not believe that being a member of a political party makes someone incapable of being impartial. Indeed, all the members of the Standards Committee who are Members of this House are members of political parties and we strive to be impartial, but my right hon. Friend has just indicated that we are not capable of doing that. Will he explain what he thinks was wrong with the appointment process that arrived at these two names? If there was no unauthorised departure from the appointment process—this is a question not of rubber-stamping but of making sure that a proper appointment process has been followed, and that seems to be the case—for us just to say, “We don’t like the look of this particular person so we are not going to approve them” does not seem to me to be a respectable way to conduct the business of this House.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Had my hon. Friend been a little more patient, he would have heard more details and may have come to an understanding as to why the motion has been introduced. I disagree with him: this House, when a motion comes before it, has a right to make the decision. Motions of this House are important and our Standing Orders provide for an hour’s debate; they do that not for entertainment value but to ensure that the House is satisfied with the appointments process. It is important that if the House is not satisfied with the process, it has the right to debate it. Let me continue, because if I do, I think my hon. Friend will see why the opposition to this particular individual has arisen and why the question over impartiality is quite fundamental.
I became immediately concerned on learning from House of Commons Commission papers that this candidate was a member of an unspecified political party. It was not material to me—I said this both in the Commission and to my private office—which political party she belonged to—[Interruption.] I said that in the Commission. The point of principle that mattered was that the politicians on the Standards Committee should be the Members of Parliament, not the lay members.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House confirm that both he and my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) first raised objections before knowing which political party the person was a member of?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct—that is absolutely true. The initial Commission papers did not say which party, and both my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) and I raised exactly the same concern before we knew that it was a member of the Labour party under question.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
The Leader of the House is a member of the House of Commons Commission, which is of course responsible for the oversight of the whole process, including the issuing of the recruitment pack, which specifically indicated what party political activity would and would not be acceptable in a candidate for appointment. Why did he not raise his objection about the nature of the political activity that would be acceptable at the time that the Commission commenced the recruitment?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The Commission looked at a broad paper setting out the way the recruitment would take place; it did not look at the details and the questions that the Committee would ask in terms of political affiliation. The issue—[Interruption.] That is just such a fatuous point. It is not about packing it; it is about having people who do not have a political affiliation of a recent kind.
As I said, objections were raised before we knew what party this lady belonged to, because the politicians on the Standards Committee are the Members of Parliament, not the lay members, who need to be impartial. Lay members should be genuinely independent and that did not seem to be the case, so questions were raised. It was at that point that it emerged that Ms Carter had joined the Labour party this year to vote in the Labour party leadership election. It seemed to me that anyone who had recently joined any political party in order to cast a vote in favour of an individual to lead that party, believing that doing so would ensure a viable Opposition, would find it hard to persuade people that they were genuinely impartial. Under those circumstances, it is perhaps not surprising that the House of Commons Commission did not achieve consensus in approving the appointment.
In the light of this candidate’s noted support for one particular Labour leadership contender over another, I find myself in the perhaps unexpected position of juggling the interests of the rival factions of the Labour party. A lay member of the Standards Committee should be impartial towards politics that I do not like as well as politics that I do like.
As Leader of the House, I have a responsibility to all Members to protect their interest, which extends to all Members who competed in the Labour leadership election, some more successfully than others. Let me ask the House what view it would have taken of somebody who applied to join the Standards Committee who had joined the Conservative party just to vote for my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) in the Conservative leadership contest because they believed in the need to get Brexit done. Under those circumstances, we would not be having this conversation. The same principle applies to somebody who joined the Labour party to support one particular candidate.
I do not make these points in an academic, theoretical or philosophical way. It is likely that, in the near future, the Standards Committee will be asked to consider a case relating to the activity or conduct of an MP. In this instance, there is a real risk of the appearance of bias, because this proposed member has made clear her support for one candidate over another and joined a party specifically to vote for that one candidate over the other. We cannot have a situation where a lay member of the Standards Committee is perceived as being linked to a faction within a political party—as it happens, within the Labour party, but it would be just as unsuitable if someone were to be linked to a faction within the Tory party, although of course the Tory party does not have factions. What happens when that lay member is asked to make a judgment about the activity or conduct of an MP from within that faction?
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
The Leader of the House just said that this individual is a member of a faction. Is it not the case that that individual might have just wanted to vote for one candidate? Does he have any evidence that she is organised as part of a faction within the Labour party, because that is what he just implied?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The point is self-evident: if somebody joins a party specifically to vote X, they also specifically vote against Y. Y is a Member of this House. The person in question who joined the Labour party clearly has a view that is unfavourable to Y and favourable to X. Y may appear in front of the Standards Committee. At what point could Y possibly have confidence that this lady, who claims not to be anything other than impartial in normal circumstances, should be impartial against them after she voted against them and specifically joined the Labour party to vote in that direction?
Mr Jones
I have to say the Leader of the House is tying himself up in knots, because that is not the question that I asked. He said that she is a member of a faction. Does he have any evidence that, apart from casting a vote for a candidate in an internal Labour party election, she has been organising with others to support a certain candidate? If he does not, he should correct the record.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I said quite clearly that she supported a faction. If someone supports one candidate in a leadership election, they are self-evidently supporting a faction. That is just normal use of English, which I am surprised the right hon. Gentleman questions, because he is quite hot on that normally. Any perception of partiality undermines the important role of lay members, who are there to provide a vital balance to the political membership of the Standards Committee. That is why we ask for lay members in the first place.
Chris Bryant
I can honestly say that I do not think a single member of the Standards Committee, whether they are a lay member or an MP, thinks of themselves as a politician when they are engaged in the work of the Committee. It is a really important part of the way we try to do our business. There is no partisanship—party membership is completely irrelevant. The only reason why anybody knows about this particular person’s party membership is because the Leader of the House asked about it. I have no idea whether all the other lay members on the Committee have been members of a political party, or were recently. The specific point is that the criterion for appointment was explicitly that party membership was not a bar, provided a candidate had not held office or campaigned on behalf of the party. She has done neither. I am afraid that this is turning the Committee into a party political football.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I think that is completely wrong, and I also think that the hon. Gentleman is trying to put the cart before the horse. The House is not bound by the rules set for it by the selection process. It is entitled to challenge and question that process. That is the job of the House. We are not a rubber stamp, here merely to approve it.
I come to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green). She is a lady of considerable integrity, and I do not and would not question—and would not even think of questioning—that, but the process undertaken by the selection panel has inadvertently created the appearance of a political pas de deux, because the person who was selected by a Committee that had only one Labour politician on it was somebody who had joined the Labour party to vote for a candidate for the Labour party leadership. It is the recruitment process that is at fault here, so I make the observation that we must do better than we have done in this sorry affair and that any future recruitment process for lay members should not make the same mistakes. I reiterate that had somebody been a recent member of the Tory party joining to vote in the leadership election, my view in the Chamber would be exactly the same.
Kate Green
I am grateful to the Leader of the House for giving way again. I note what he said about learning lessons for the process in future and I think that is very good advice, but is it not unfair to the candidates who applied for appointment this time to move the goalposts at this point in the process? Does that reflect well on this House, and does it speak to a process that is conducted with complete integrity?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The process is quite clear and it ends with an hour’s debate in this Chamber. The hon. Lady did not tell the candidates that that was the process—that is a matter for her, not for me. That is a right of this House and we must use our rights in this House; that is what we are here for. There has been no change to the process.
Chris Bryant
The process in Standing Order No. 149A says very clearly that the person who tables the motion does so
“on behalf of the…Commission”—
not on behalf of themselves or the Government, but on behalf of the Commission. I think that this is only just in order because, frankly, the Commission made a decision—it voted on it; it decided—and this should be a single motion coming from the Commission that should be here tonight. All the rest, I am afraid, is party political shenanigans.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman is wrong and, as so often, overstates himself. The Commission makes a recommendation to the House and the Commission motion has been brought forward—there is one on Standing Orders and there is one we are debating now. If the motion were not in order, it would not be on the Order Paper, and I assume the hon. Gentleman is not questioning the decision of Mr Speaker.
In conclusion, I would like to take this opportunity to express my thanks to the outgoing members of the Standards Committee, the lay members Ms Charmaine Burton and Sir Peter Rubin, for their contribution to the Committee on Standards and to the standards system in the House more widely. I urge Members to consider the points I have made carefully. The decision of this House is an important one and an essential part of the recruitment process.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
I speak as a member of the Standards Committee. I have listened to the debate this evening and, I have to say, I would vote against a member of the Conservative party, were they to be put forward to represent lay members on the Standards Committee. It is deeply regrettable that we are having this debate this evening and that the name of an individual has been released to the public. I am very sorry that the Opposition tabled this motion. It has been discussed at great length in the Standards Committee. I recognise fully that the lay members are an important part of the Standards Committee, but this is a very sensitive position. This involves making judgments on Members of this House. Everybody should have certainty that there is impartiality and integrity.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am very grateful. The issue of impartiality is a fundamental one and Caesar’s wife should be above suspicion. Unfortunately, that has not been achieved in this case. My hon. Friend is right: it would have been better if this name had not come to this stage, because it is not a great thing for the person who put her name forward. I recognise that. This has been a very unsatisfactory procedure. It has led to somebody who joined the Labour party recently and for the specific purpose of supporting one candidate in the leadership election having her name brought forward. It seems to me to be a self-evident mistake, so should the House agree to the appointment of Professor Maguire today, I wish him well as he takes up his new role, and I commend the motion to the House.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment (a), in line 1, leave out
“be appointed as lay member”
and insert
“and Ms Melanie Carter be appointed as lay members”.
I thank the Leader of the House for finally tabling this motion, but I am extremely worried and concerned about what he has done today. I was in politics in 1987, and the reason that I am taking this personally and have tabled this amendment is that this sort of thing has happened to me. It used to be known as blacklisting. I was prevented from having certain posts because people thought I had a particular political viewpoint. I thought that we had moved away from that and that this country had changed—that it did not really matter what someone’s politics were, but was about the kind of job that they did.
I am deeply concerned that some of the conversations that we have had in the Commission are public. The Leader of the House has said in some accounts that he apparently knows why Melanie Carter joined the Labour party and why she resigned from it; he appears to know exactly what those reasons are. The difficulty that we face is that Melanie Carter is not here to defend herself. She cannot question the Leader of the House or state what he has said in public; she does not have a chance to do that. That is not right in any forum, not least the House of Commons.
As I understand it, Melanie cannot have resigned from the Labour party. I do not know who she voted for in the leadership election. I do not even know that she joined the Labour party to vote for a particular candidate. I have no idea and I do not know where that has come from. I understood that she had resigned because she had applied for a post. I do not know where all this information is coming from. Is it tittle-tattle, gossip or just politicking? It really is unbecoming of the Leader of the House.
The Leader of the House failed to answer the question from the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin); he failed to say how the process was at fault or how it was flawed. Let me take hon. and right hon. Members through the process, because it is important for the House to know that there were 331 applicants. There was a sift and 10 applicants were interviewed. Those 10 applicants were actually whittled down through questions and an interview. That was all done by other impartial people, away from politics.
The applicants then went before an experienced panel that included Jane McCall, who is an external member of the House of Commons Commission. There was also my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), who chaired the Committee on Standards at the time. She had resigned because she had been given a new post, but we agreed that she would stay on even though my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) was the new Chair of the Committee. The other members of the panel were Mark Hutton, the former Clerk of the Journals, and Dr Arun Midha, who is a lay member of the Committee on Standards. The top two applicants were chosen: Melanie Carter and Professor Michael Maguire—in that order. I thank the panel all for their hard work, because sifting through all those experienced applicants is not an easy task. We should be pleased that all those people applied for the post.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
I am interested in the impartiality. Was there guidance to the candidates and to the selection committee about whether being a member of political party would disqualify a candidate?
Valerie Vaz
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston said earlier, it was very clear that it was not in the criteria for disqualification, and it cannot be. It reminds me of when Brian Redhead was on the BBC. I think he was accused of voting in a certain way, and he said to the now Lord Tebbit, “How dare you know how I voted? Nobody knows how anyone votes when they go into that booth with that pencil. It is a private matter—nobody knows.”
Let me go back to the way interviews were done. I want to thank all the panel for finding these two excellent candidates. This came to the Commission for discussion, which I will not go into, but concerns were raised. I will not say who the concerns were raised by. The panel members were asked to go and ask questions of the candidates again, and so they did. They did the due diligence and they came back. That is the process.
If Members are asking about impartiality, let me just set out exactly what Melanie Carter is. Her current role is senior partner and head of the public and regulatory law department at Bates Wells solicitors. She is an independent adjudicator for the Marine Stewardship Council. She is a tribunal judge. She is a founder member of the Public Law Solicitors Association. She has previously worked as a partner at DMH Stallard and a solicitor with Bindmans, as director of standards and deputy registrar with the General Optical Council, and with Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw solicitors. She also worked for the Government Legal Service. Her previous public appointments were as an independent member of Brighton and Hove Council standards committee, as the legal chair of the Adjudication Panel for England and as a magistrate on the south-west Bench in London.
Melanie Carter qualified as a barrister and a solicitor. As solicitors, we owe a duty to the court first. We have to uphold the truth and the rule of law. She does all that, and she does it independently. That is why the panel recommended her. Let me tell hon. Members exactly what the report says, through the Commission:
“The two candidates represent a combination of experience and qualities which should reinforce public confidence in the independent element in the House’s disciplinary processes.”
This House is now saying to all those highly qualified people who sat on the panel, “You are talking rubbish. We don’t agree with you. We don’t agree with one part of what you say, but we agree with the other part.” That is absolutely outrageous.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I cast no aspersions at all on the individual. She is clearly a very well qualified individual in her field. However, I take the point about the rules but, given that we have seven politicians who can be politically declared and seven lay members, surely we can accept that it makes sense for all those on the lay side of things to be completely beyond reproach, so that accusations cannot be made. I just wonder why we were unable to find people who were interested in being lay members but were not politically interested. I say that as, I hope, a very independent minded representative in this House.
Valerie Vaz
It is wonderful, isn’t it, when you know how someone is going to deal with a matter just on the basis of what their background is. With the greatest respect to the hon. Member, he does not know what is going to come before a Committee. The Leader of the House suggested that Melanie Carter might vote for an Opposition who were going to be good opposition for the current party, but actually, how does he know who is going to win the next the election? Nobody does, so he cannot say that she would vote for someone so that they would provide better opposition to the party that he represents.
Chris Bryant
It is actually more than that. The criteria that were sent out to all the candidates said that having been a party member need not be a bar and that, indeed, it may be an asset because they might understand politics better than some others. So we really are moving the goalposts, nine months after those people were invited to apply. I think that that shows us in a terrible light.
Valerie Vaz
I saw no bar when Tim Davie, who is now Chairman of the BBC, stood as a Conservative councillor; no one saw a bar to that. So what happened in someone’s past—and this applies to numerous people. I spent last Thursday going through how contracts were handed out to friends of the current Government—but we digress; I apologise.
Valerie Vaz
No.
I want to mention Professor Michael Maguire, because I do support the motion when it comes to appointing him. He was the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland and, among other things, he was a research officer at the University of Aston and he is currently the honorary professor of Senator George J Mitchell’s Institute for Global Peace, Security and Justice. So he, too, comes highly qualified, and we support his nomination.
To go back to some of the points that my hon. Friends have touched on, the Committee applied a selection criterion to all the candidates and the House should not derogate from that criterion, if that criterion was accepted by the panel and was accepted by the Commission—and it was.
I support the motion, and I intend to press the amendment in my name.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
When my name went down on the call list, I thought this would be a debate on one of the usual consensual motions, when we congratulate the candidates on the quality of their CVs and wish them all the best, but it has clearly turned into just a little bit more than that—although that is certainly the case in respect of Professor Maguire. That suggests that the process has been successful in identifying well-qualified, impartial candidates.
It is disappointing, and slightly unedifying, that we have ended up where we are in respect of the amendment, because, as the Leader of the House pointed out, it has the same effect as the motion in his name on “remaining orders”. With the greatest of respect, I ask why the right hon. Gentleman has tabled a motion with the effect of appointing the person whose name is on the amendment if he does not support that. That is an indication that that is Government business they want to get through, on behalf of the House of Commons Commission. It is extremely odd. Moreover, only a few hours ago the Leader of the House was at the Dispatch Box, singing the praises of the public appointments process to the Boundary Commission. He was rejecting their lordships’ amendments to reform our public appointments process because he said it was so impartial and so effective, and it made all the appropriate decisions.
Kate Green
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Does he agree that what is happening this evening in respect of the proposed appointment of Ms Melanie Carter will discourage future candidates from coming forward—candidates from whose expertise and experience the House could massively benefit—because they will see that the approval of the public appointments system is something that the present Government pay only lip service to?
Patrick Grady
That is exactly where we seem to be heading, because it seems to me that if the integrity and the suitability of a candidate that has gone through the entire system is now being questioned on the Floor of the House, then in fact the integrity and suitability of the whole system are being questioned, and that is very serious. It is a bit of a problem, not least because the same system has produced a candidate that we are all welcoming, and want to indorse this evening, in the appointment of Professor Maguire.
Both candidates have been vetted and approved to the standards of the Nolan principles. They have been recommended to the House by this House’s Commission, which the House has appointed, and the House has a say on the appointment, obviously, because they will serve as members of the Committee on Standards, but we should have faith in the system and in the Commission. I am informed by our Member on the Commission, my hon.—it should be right hon.—Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), of the qualifications and suitability of the candidate named in the amendment; that is there for everyone to see in HC 437. Both candidates are there; their qualifications are listed.
Mr Kevan Jones
The only objection that the Leader of the House put forward was that the candidate had joined a political party, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) pointed out, that in itself was not a bar to being appointed. If it is for the Leader of the House—who is clearly the Whip tonight to the Conservative majority behind him—to determine why we do not just do away with the selection process and allow the Leader of the House to make the selection.
Patrick Grady
It goes back to my fundamental point that I do not see how the system can produce one qualified candidate and one non-qualified candidate. It suggests that the Government are questioning the integrity of the system as a whole, and in that case we have to have a much bigger discussion than the one we are having right now. As the former Chair of the Standards Committee, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), just said, we desperately need talented, qualified individuals, particularly women, to come forward for these kind of roles in public life, and I cannot imagine that the thought of a debate such as this ending up on the Floor of the House of Commons is any kind of encouragement.
The SNP is happy to endorse the recommendation of the House of Commons Commission and this incredibly thorough process, and therefore we will be very happy to support the official Opposition in their amendment tonight.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I confess—I will try not to overdo my argument, if the Leader of the House will bear with me—that I am saddened by this debate. All the members on the Standards Committee try extremely hard to be impartial, to put our party membership completely to one side and to put our prejudices, whatever they may be, to one side when we are dealing with difficult cases, which are very sensitive to the individuals concerned and sometimes to the complainants as well. My experience so far—it has not been very long, but my experience so far—is that every single member, both lay and party political member, keeps their counsel, is not available to be lobbied by others and comes to what they believe to be a wholly impartial and fair decision.
I have some complaints about the way we have got to where we are tonight. The first is that we have kept these candidates waiting for months and months: the process started in February. We knew that the two previous members were leaving in May, and we have been two members down now since May. The Committee is meant to have a majority of lay members. We do not have a majority of lay members at the moment because the Government have refused time and again to bring forward the motion to allow us to put even one member on.
The Government have also kept on changing their mind. At one point they tabled a single motion for both candidates. Then I was told that there were going to be two separate motions for the two different candidates but they would be taken on the same day, and suddenly we were told that we are having the debate today for just one member to be added. Then suddenly yesterday afternoon it was announced that the Government were going to table another motion for debate next week, and then half an hour later the Chief Whip—I think he will confirm that now—indicated to our Chief Whip that the Government would be voting against that motion, even though they had tabled it. I think he can confirm that.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mark Spencer)
indicated assent.
Chris Bryant
Yes. So the Leader of the House was wrong earlier when he suggested that this was going to be resolved and it was not decided yet how the Government were going to be voting next week. I am sure he inadvertently misled us.
The second point is that we have moved the goalposts. How can we ask people to apply for a job and say that there is no bar to their applying just because they have been a party member, and then suddenly change three quarters of the way through the process once they have already been offered it? The point for the individual candidates—both Michael Maguire and Melanie Carter—is that they have been hanging around for months. I know Melanie Carter’s situation: she has resigned from various different posts because she thought that she was going to be having this post, because that is what the House of Commons Commission had decided.
The Leader of the House’s motion should be the motion that came from the House of Commons Commission. That is what Standing Order No. 149A says. He is doing it
“on behalf of the…Commission”—
not on behalf of the Government or on behalf of himself, but on behalf of the Commission, and I know that the Commission is not happy about this.
This is House business. It should not be whipped, let alone when the Government have more than 200 proxy votes in their back pocket. This is just wrong. It is the wrong way to do our business. This is House business, and we have to find ways of reclaiming some elements where we actually decide things not on the basis of which party we are a member of, but on the basis of what we think is right for Parliament.
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
I just want to ask whether, if this is House business—which I think it is, absolutely—why, therefore, is the Labour Chief Whip’s name on the amendment?
Chris Bryant
Yes, he is a Member of the House. My name is not on it incidentally, as the hon. Gentleman might have noticed, though whether my name is on it is probably not the most important thing. When we discussed this matter in the Committee today, we decided that it was not a matter for the Committee to decide who should be sitting on the Committee, and that is why I did not sign the amendment yesterday. I do support it, though, because it is taking forward precisely what was decided by the House of Commons Commission after a thorough, Nolan principle-based process of appointment.
I think this does harm to the House’s reputation, partly because we have taken so long about it, and also because we have suddenly brought politics into it at the last minute and moved the goalposts. If this were in any other business, I am sure that the person concerned would be thinking of suing, and it may well be that Melanie Carter will think about that, for all I know. She may not be able to sue the proceeding in Parliament, but there may be other elements of the process that she is able to sue. To be honest, I would say to her, “Good luck with that.”
It would of course be this candidate that the Leader of the House decides is not the appropriate one—a very successful woman lawyer who happens to be a single mum. It would be this candidate, wouldn’t it, that is the one that does not come forward? Were there any questions about any of the other candidates as to whether they had been party members previously? No. This is the only one that a question has been asked of.
Huw Merriman
The hon. Gentleman and I have exchanged texts on this issue, and I always listen to what he has to say, but I rather think we are disappearing down rabbit holes. The objection I have—I have voted against House business before when it has been whipped by the Front Bench, so I hope there is some credence here—is that I expect lay members to be completely lay, particularly when there is an even split of 7:7. It really does not show this place in the best light if there is that little taint that can always be brought up. Surely he can see that point. Taking out all the rest, to me it just comes down to what looks to be fair and completely unbiased.
Chris Bryant
It would be perfectly legitimate for the House to decide that henceforward all lay members must be people who have never held a party political membership, and that would be one of the things that would be put out in the pack to all people who were thinking of applying, so it would be clear from the beginning. But that is the exact opposite of what the House did in this situation. Applicants were told, “Not only is it okay for you to have been a party political member, but it might indeed be an asset because you would understand the party political process better.”
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I would encourage the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) to conclude his remarks soon because three other people wish to speak, and it would simply be unfair, in a debate in which we are discussing fairness, if not everyone had a chance so to do.
Huw Merriman
I was merely going to say, on that particular point, that surely every candidate who goes through this knows that this House has to be the ultimate decision maker. Otherwise it is just a rubber stamp and there is no point in having this Chamber and the Division Lobbies.
Chris Bryant
The thing is that thus far it always has been a rubber stamp. Nobody has ever voted on this, nor, for that matter, has there ever been a moment at which a Leader of the House has refused to bring to the House the motion that went through the House of Commons Commission, so this is in a different category.
I will now briefly conclude, Madam Deputy Speaker. Of course this will not, in the end, affect the long-term way in which the Committee seeks to do its business. I am very grateful to the Government for the report that was fed back to us on the basis of reports that we had done earlier this year. However, I think I preferred the Leader of the House as he was previously when he excoriated Governments for being over-mighty Executives. I find now that he rather likes being the over-mighty Executive, and I am not sure that is good for the job or good for the House.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
As the only elected Member of this House to have been part of the interview panel and therefore to have seen the recruitment process from the inside, I want to start by addressing what I think I heard the Leader of the House say in his opening remarks when he appeared to question the conduct of the recruitment process. I feel it is incumbent on me, on behalf of my fellow panellists, three independent lay members, to speak up for the integrity and propriety with which they—and we all, including staff members who sought to advise on the process, and the recruitment agency—conducted the interview, selection and recommendation to the House of Commons Commission. I feel that is owed to my fellow panellists.
As we have said repeatedly this evening, the Leader of the House is seeking to introduce a new qualification to the recruitment process that is at explicit odds with what was in the recruitment pack that the House of Commons Commission, of which he is a member, approved before the process was publicised. Let me be very precise about what the pack said. If I may quote, it said to potential candidates that lay members would have to demonstrate impartiality specifically “during their time on the committee” and, further, that they should not “during their term in office” undertake any party political activity. I think the House will accept that any candidate would reasonably take from those words that they would not be barred from appointment on the basis of prior political activity. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) pointed out, the information pack was also quite clear in not including membership of a political party in and of itself in the definition of what constitutes party political activity.
Kate Green
I think Madam Deputy Speaker would like me to speak as quickly as possible.
The Leader of the House said in his remarks that the interview questions were not seen by the Commission, and that is correct, but that is not the point I was making. The Commission should have seen the recruitment pack. If the Leader of the House did not see it and did not ask to see it prior to approving the process, I am surprised to hear that, given his thoroughness in approaching these matters. Perhaps he could be absolutely clear to the House whether or not he was aware of the contents of the pack before it was publicised.
The second thing I want to reiterate is that I am very concerned that, in unilaterally moving the goalposts from what the recruitment pack said, we are behaving as a House in a way that is deeply, deeply unfair to the successful candidates. It calls into question the conduct of the panel. It is therefore a real concern for the reputation and perception of this House. I think that matters, particularly because we know there is public and, of course, internal scepticism about the independence of our processes in dealing with Members who breach the code of conduct, particularly but not only in relation to bullying, harassment and sexual harassment. The House has worked very hard over the last couple of years to dispel that perception, but I believe that a vote now against a candidate, who has been recommended following a rigorous recruitment process in which the panel chair and three of the four panel members were not MPs, risks reinforcing it.
Finally, I just want to repeat that a vote tonight against a candidate who has been recommended for appointment as a result of an open recruitment process conducted fully in line with the Nolan principles will serve to discourage future potential candidates from applying for lay roles for which they would be eminently suited. We risk losing the valuable skills, perspectives and expertise that external appointees can bring, and that will be to our detriment.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
I presume the Government will win the vote tonight, especially if the Government Whip uses his pocket full of proxy votes, but frankly it is a pretty shabby day. The Leader of the House was at his arrogant and patronising worst in the way that he put the case.
I have to say that I am quite clear: being a party supporter and member in a parliamentary democracy is not a matter for regret or abuse; it actually shows civic mindedness, especially if someone joined the Labour party to bring about the change that has brought such an improvement in our public opinion standing. The slur is that somehow someone who is a party member, but particularly someone who is a Labour party member, is incapable of knowing right from wrong and is also incapable of exercising impartial judgment. I regard that as a completely unjustifiable slur, which discourages people from political activity. We vitally need many good people of all opinions to be involved in political activity.
I would prefer it if we widened our net in public appointments—I have always been quite clear about that —to include those with wider experience, unless they require specific scientific knowledge. Clearly, this appointment does not require that. It is about being able to know right from wrong. That is about understanding the world. Frankly, I would like to see nurses, electricians, care workers, bus drivers, company managers, engineers, doctors, farmers and even fund managers being invited to be lay members on many public bodies, rather than just those who seem to be on the merry-go-round. That says nothing about their individual qualities; it is about broadening the sphere. There is no proposal to do that in this motion. Those are not the current rules. As has been made clear several times—I should not have to reiterate it—these people applied under the current rules. I regret that this is another example of this Government, with a sizeable majority, riding roughshod over and using and abusing that majority. I am sure the Leader of the House knows full well what follows hubris.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
I am afraid that the 203 votes that the Deputy Chief Whip casts on behalf of Members have become 202.
The process is flawed in four ways. First, it is a breach of natural justice. This lady applied under terms that were explicit. They did not exclude her being a member of a political party. If my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter), who is a member of the Committee, thinks that should have been different, he should have changed the rules at the beginning. It is a breach of natural justice.
Secondly, it is a failure of judgment. The term “beyond reproach” has been used, in not being a political party member. I do not think being a political party member is a matter of reproach. It is a matter of pride for all of us and it should not be seen as necessarily undermining our ability to make a judgment. The argument does not work there either.
Thirdly, in terms of impartiality, if it really is the case that membership of a political party automatically corrupts judgment, there should not be a single hon. Member on the Committee because, by definition, they are members of a political party.
Finally, this is a matter of House business. One of the tests is how it would feel if it was the other way round. I would be outraged if I was on the other side of this argument. I say that with some knowledge, because I was on the other side of the argument through all the Blair years, when House business was not treated as House business. I am afraid that I propose to support the amendment.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). If I were on the other side of this issue and it were a Conservative under question, as I said earlier, I would still think it was an unsuitable appointment.
The shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), made points about the panel, the discussions within the Commission and the CV of the lady in question. I have always tried to make it clear that I do not wish to question the lady’s bona fides—it is merely the impartiality issue.
There is a fundamental point, which the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) raised in his speech: the reason we have lay members is that, for better or worse, the political members were not trusted to sit in judgment upon themselves and therefore needed non-political members. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden that being a member of a party is something that one should be proud of—it is civic activity. I also think it is perfectly reasonable for people to put their political beliefs behind them. The hon. Member for Rhondda was a member of the Conservative party at university; that does not remain the case, for better or worse. It is merely a question of whether the membership is immediate and close to the point at which the appointment is made.
Chris Bryant
I understand that the Leader of the House is saying that he is not questioning the bona fides of Melanie Carter, but that he is questioning her impartiality. I hope he is not. She is a tribunal judge. She shows her impartiality every day of the week. He is simply saying that, under his new rule, which he has invented, because she has been a party member, she cannot be a lay member of the Committee. Is that right?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am questioning her impartiality between various factions within the Labour party, because she joined the Labour Party to support one particular faction. The right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) slightly gave the game away, because I think he thinks that it was his faction that she supports. I do not know that and I am not stating that for certain, but he seemed to imply that in his joy at welcoming the proposed appointment.
The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) asked what the Commission knew. The draft person specification that was approved by the Commission in February made no reference to the issue of whether or not it was suitable for a prospective candidate to be a member of a political party. If that information made its way into the more detailed recruitment pack to candidates, that was not with the authority of the Commission.
We come to the failures of the recruitment process. It would have been absolutely reasonable and wise and sensible for the recruitment process to say that somebody who had been immediately involved in politics—not 20 years ago or not five years ago—could not be certain of being impartial and would not give the impression of impartiality to Members of the House. The hon. Member for Rhondda says that, absolutely, prejudices should be put to one side, but as I said, if people had confidence in that being so easy, we would not have lay members in the first place. The reason we introduced lay members is that we thought people could not put their prejudices aside. From a panel on which, as the hon. Lady the Member for Stretford and Urmston told us, she was the only politician—a Labour politician—we get somebody who was a supporter of a particular candidate in a very recent election. That seems to me to leave the impression, the risk, the danger of partiality.
Kate Green
I know that the Leader of the House would not question my integrity; he was kind enough to say so a few moments ago. I am probably the only person in the House who knows who Melanie Carter said she had joined the Labour party to support, and it may help the House to know that it was not the same leadership candidate who I supported.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The point is that we have the presentation of partiality. That is why I was so careful to say that I have the highest respect for the hon. Lady’s integrity. I was careful in my speech not to say that I have the greatest respect for the hon. Lady, because everybody knows those are bogus words; I chose the word integrity because I think it is genuine. However, I think her panel made a mistake, and that is why we are here.
Yes, of course, it is a shame that we are here, but if Opposition Members were to think for a moment, had this person joined the Conservative party to vote for my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), they would unquestionably think that that smacked of partiality. I am afraid it is the same the other way around and I will therefore oppose the amendment. I obviously support the motion.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Business without Debate
Delegated Legislation
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 8 to 10 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Exiting the European Union (Environmental Protection)
That the draft Persistent Organic Pollutants (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 8 October, be approved.
Exiting the European Union (Agriculture)
That the draft Pesticides (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were la id before this House on 8 October, be approved.
Exiting the European Union (Public Procurement)
That the draft Defence and Security Public Contracts (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 7 October, be approved.—(David T. C. Davies.)
Question agreed to.
Business of the House (11 November)
Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Wednesday 11 November, the Motions in the name of the Prime Minister relating to (a) remembrance, UK armed forces and society and (b) covid-19 may be entered upon at any hour and proceeded with, though opposed, for up to three hours and six hours respectively from the commencement of proceedings on the first Motion; and proceedings on each Motion shall lapse if not previously disposed.—(David T. C. Davies.)
Joint Committee on the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act
Resolving conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh region
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition addressing the need for the resolution of the ongoing conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, which seems to have been flaring all summer and subsequently the world seems not to have noticed much. Dozens of people in Ealing Central and Acton have signed this, reflecting the fact that I have the constituency with the most people of Armenian origin in the country and the chair of the Armenian National Committee UK, Annette Moskofian, who just wants peace.
The petition notes that the UK Government should play a greater diplomatic and humanitarian role in establishing a fair and equitable peace settlement in the Nagorno-Karabakh region. The petitioners note that the UK should formally recognise the republic of Artsakh and further note that the Government must not allow the growing influence of Russia and Turkey in the region to go unchecked. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to play a greater diplomatic and humanitarian role.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Ealing Central and Acton in London,
Declares that the UK Government should play a greater diplomatic and humanitarian role in resolving the conflict in the Nagorno-Karabakh region; further that the UK Government should impose firmer sanctions on parties that break the terms of ceasefires; and further that ceasefires between the two States must be unconditional and strictly observed by both parties.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to play a greater diplomatic and humanitarian role in resolving the conflict in the Nagorno-Karabakh region.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002622]
Safety and Littering: A34 and A420
(4 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
It is a pleasure to have secured my first Adjournment debate. As some Members will know already, one of my major transport requests is the reopening of Grove station, which was one of the stations cut in the Beeching cuts. My constituents have wanted it to be reopened for more than 40 years now. It would better connect the people of Grove, where a lot more housing is due to go, it would get people off the roads I am about to talk about, and of course it would improve our environment. I have got my bid in to the Restoring Your Railway fund, and I have everything crossed for hopeful news at some point in the future.
However, that is not my constituency’s only transport challenge. In fact, we have two issues on two roads, which add up to one big problem for the people in my constituency. What I will talk about is the responsibility partly of Government, partly of Highways England and partly of the councils, both county and district.
I will begin with the A420. The A420 has two sections, and I make no apology for being most concerned with the section that goes through my constituency, from down near Shrivenham and Watchfield, up through the Coxwells, round Faringdon, across through Littleworth, Buckland and Kingston Bagpuize, and up through Fyfield and Tubney, which I will come back to in a moment.
The road is known locally—it has been for a couple of decades now—as a “road to hell” or “Hell’s Drive”. The fundamental problem is that it is very unsafe. It is supposed to be a local road going through a predominantly rural area, but it is used for commercial traffic between Oxford and Swindon, with a lot of heavy goods vehicles, which I will come back to, and as a shortcut between the M4 and the M40. All that adds up to too much traffic, and too much traffic of the wrong kind—traffic that is too heavy for what was built as a local road.
To put the safety issues in context, because that traffic adds up to a lot of accidents, we have had 12 fatal accidents in the three years to 2019, compared with five fatal accidents in the three years before that, so the problem has been getting worse. Overall, there have been 1,057 accidents in the past six years, which averages at nearly one accident every other day. The important thing about that statistic is that it is only for accidents that were reported to the police because someone was injured; it does not account for all the other accidents we know happen that simply involve vehicle damage. With those, I think that figure would be a lot higher. Of course, the safety issues are predominantly for the vehicles on the roads, but they are also an issue for cyclists and those on foot, because I stress that this is supposed to be a local road. All the way along the road, people live near it and need to be able to cross it.
One good example of the problem is when we get to the villages of Fyfield and Tubney, which the A420 goes through, Fyfield on one side and Tubney on the other. In order to do anything other than simply stay in their houses all day every day, people need to be able to cross the road. The numbers may be small, but the problem affects 100% of the community. I hope that this brings home to the House how extraordinary the situation is with the road: because it is so difficult to cross—because of the amount of traffic, the speeding that goes on and the HGVs that go down it all day long, from morning till night—constituents are known to get a bus down the A420 to cross at one of the few crossings, and then get the bus back, because they cannot make a simple journey straight across the road.
None of our constituents should have to live like that, and we must again make the A420 a local road that is suitable for the people who live in that community. That means a number of things. It means a proper bus service with safe stops along the route, as well as safe pathways for those who are on foot or on their bike. We need traffic light crossings and pedestrian crossings along the route—it is really quite a long route. We need better signage that diverts HGVs, which should not really be on the road anyway, away from it and reduces the speed on it, and importantly, that will have to be enforced.
Of course, that should be the responsibility of Oxfordshire County Council, but the council says that it does not have the money to make the improvements, even though it recognises that they are needed. I would therefore like the Minister to respond to the question of how we might remedy that situation, because it has gone on for far too long and my constituents should not have to deal with it.
Let me turn to the A34 which, again, is in two sections. Again, I make no apologies for being most concerned about the section that goes through my constituency, which in this case starts in the south and goes past Chilton, Harwell, Didcot, Steventon, Milton and Drayton as it as it heads north. I know that many Members of this House have some experience of the A34. In the past six years we have had 50 fatal crashes on this road, and 2,593 crashes overall, which is more than one every single day. Again, those figures are only for crashes that involve people being injured; they are not the figures for just damage to cars. On Thursday, I was told that I had secured this Adjournment debate; there was a crash on the A34 on the Tuesday beforehand and on the Friday the day after—and I am just talking about the section that is in Oxfordshire.
When it comes to the A34, the problem is much better documented. Highways England has recommended a number of safety improvements. As some of those improvements have been made, I ask the Minister when we can expect the other improvements, because my constituents try to avoid this road because of the safety issues. I should say that that question is separate from that of improving connectivity across the region. The safety issues have been going on for some time, but there is a separate question about how to improve connections for people going across the region.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way on this important issue, which is of great seriousness to residents across the Thames valley—it is good to see that the hon. Member for Newbury (Laura Farris) is also in her place.
I fully support the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about safety on the road, which affects people living in the Reading area as well. Does he agree that another potential safety issue is that traffic can come off the A34 at Didcot, travel through Didcot and past Wallingford, and then take the A4074 into the northern part of Reading and use Reading as a shortcut to get on to the M4? We have serious concerns about traffic taking that shortcut route, which affects the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, the constituency of the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) and the Reading East constituency.
David Johnston
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, for which I thank him. We have all sorts of issues in Didcot and Wallingford exactly as he describes regarding those roads being used in that way. I am talking about certain roads; were this a Westminster Hall debate, we could probably talk for an hour and a half about the issues of traffic and shortcuts and what people are trying to do to get around roads that do not work effectively.
We then come to litter. I have had reports and complaints about litter on both roads. I have had complaints about the A420, but it is fair to say that I get many more about the A34. The litter itself is a safety issue. People drop all sorts—cars, lorries and road workers are dropping plastic bags, plastic bottles, tyres and a whole range of other things, which are unsightly and unsafe for constituents, and not good for the environment either.
When it comes to litter, a couple of odd situations need to be remedied. One is that one company is responsible for mowing the verges along the A34 and another is responsible for picking up the litter. That strikes me as pretty inefficient. Understandably, Highways England will not allow the A34 to be closed during the day because of how much traffic goes along it, which means that the company has to try to pick the litter at night, which is, of course, much more difficult. The question on littering, which I pose to the Minister and which a number of constituents posed to me, is: why can Highways England not be responsible for clearing litter on the A34? It has a number of other responsibilities to do with highways, and it would make sense—given that this growing problem is a regular cause of complaint from my constituents—for it to be responsible for this, given that it makes it difficult to clear the litter another way.
In conclusion, these two roads present huge challenges for my constituents—noise problems, tremors from HGV lorries making their houses vibrate, the littering problems that I described and, more than anything, safety issues, with crash after crash and near miss after near miss. Everybody in the House should agree that it is one thing for someone to avoid a road because there might be traffic and they fear they will be delayed, but it is an entirely different thing to avoid a road because they think there will be accidents and they fear they might be injured. In the case of both roads, my constituents have dealt with that fear for far too long.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
I am very grateful to my colleague and friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (David Johnston), for securing this debate. I will confine my remarks to the A34, which runs from north to south through the heart of my constituency. I must start by paying tribute to my predecessor, and indeed my hon. Friend’s predecessor—Richard Benyon in my case, Lord Vaizey in his—because they did a lot of work, together with the A34 action group, assiduously compiling data about accidents that occurred on the road and applying for funds.
In September 2017, the A34 action group invited Highways England to undertake an analysis of the A34. At its direction, I use data from the CrashMap website, which reports accidents. Between Newbury and East Ilsley, a distance of about nine miles, there were 70 crashes over a period of five years that resulted in injury, with 11 fatalities—most recently Oliver Williams, a 27-year-old Cambridge graduate who was killed last month. I was delighted to receive a letter from Highways England in October committing to upgrades of the road. Last week, I received a letter from the Secretary of State about those upgrades. However, I noticed that the focus of his correspondence was on improving congestion and commuter times along the route, and secondarily on improving air and noise pollution. I hope that the Minister will understand when I say that, while those improvements are welcome, the primary issue, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage said, remains safety.
I undertook a residents survey earlier this year and must relay the findings. The junctions at East Ilsley—north and southbound—where Oliver Williams lost his life are particularly precarious, as are the junctions at Beedon, Speen and Wash Common. All the residents who contributed said that much longer slip roads were required and asked for warning signs. In addition, there is a need to address a particular section of the road close to East Ilsley that is effectively a switchback with some blind corners. It is rare for a car accident to make it into the national news, but four years ago a lorry driver not only ploughed into the back of a car but went right over it at that point of the A34, killing Tracy Houghton, her sons Josh and Ethan and her stepdaughter Aimee. It was one of the worst car accidents that the UK saw that year. Most reporting of that case rightly focused on the fact that the lorry driver had been using his phone, and that his eyes had actually not been on the road for 45 seconds prior to the crash. However, less well known is that he had just completed the switchback section and was at a blind corner, and when he came around it, a line of stationary cars had built up that he did not see.
Everyone who responded to my survey, including several who cited that crash, asked for either speed limits on that section of the road or for a dedicated HGV lane to be created. Although Highways England’s plans for this stretch of road are welcome, I respectfully request that safety, rather than convenience, becomes the priority.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Rachel Maclean)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (David Johnston) on securing this important debate to raise the crucial issues of safety and litter on two of the key roads in his constituency, the A34 and the A420. Before I continue my remarks, I must touch on the point he raised about Grove station. I assure him that the Department has received his bid. We were delighted to receive it and we expect to announce the results soon.
My hon. Friend has done an excellent job of outlining to the House his constituents’ concern about the A420, which he notes is known locally as the “road to hell”. None of us would wish that situation upon our constituents, and I well understand the concerns he has described. He has described his mission and vision for the A420 as ensuring that it is once again a local road, and he has helpfully outlined a number of detailed improvements we can look to make. I urge him to work closely with Oxfordshire County Council, specifically on the funding issue, which I will address. He also talked about the A34, emphasising that the figures provided by the Department do not always tell the true story, because they do not always incorporate the damage to vehicles as well.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris) highlighted the tragic death of her constituent, and I understand that there have been other deaths as well. Again, that is a matter of great concern. She highlights that she wishes us to look again at the issue of safety on this road, and I am happy to let her know that Baroness Vere will be delighted to meet her. The hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) has again added his voice as another constituency MP who has experienced concerns about this road, and he also highlighted the priority of safety for his constituents.
I need to remind the House that the A34 forms part of the strategic road network managed by Highways England, whereas the A420 is a local road managed by Oxfordshire County Council. Our strategic road network is among the safest road networks in the world. The Government’s second road investment strategy, published in March, set out how we will invest £27.4 billion in England’s strategic road network to ensure that it continues to provide the safe and reliable connectivity that the country needs. This includes funding proactive maintenance and ring-fenced funding for specific priority issues, such as addressing safety and congestion. However, we have heard the specific concerns raised by Members and we are investing in two specific projects for the A34, including safety improvements to which my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage refers.
The safety of the wider road network is of equal importance. For local roads such as the A420, safety is the responsibility of the relevant local authority. Let me highlight that the Government provide financial support to local authorities to meet that and other related responsibilities. For Oxfordshire, the highway maintenance funding allocation from the Department is more than £27 million for the financial year 2020-21, and additionally in the same year Oxfordshire has been allocated more than £3.6 million through the integrated transport block for capital investment in small transport improvement projects, which can be for road safety. My hon. Friend has highlighted some issues on the A420. I understand that this is the responsibility of Oxfordshire County Council and I encourage him to engage further with the council and with Baroness Vere on the specific issue if he is not satisfied.
I recognise fully the unpleasant impacts of roadside litter, and the Government are committed to continuing to target the issue of litter on our road network, combining prevention with cure, in order to make our roads clean and safe places to work and travel. Each local highway authority is responsible for clearing litter on the roads for which it is responsible. In the case of the A34 in my hon. Friend’s constituency, which is part of the strategic road network, the responsibility falls to the local district council. As elsewhere, however, Highways England recognises its responsibility and works in partnership with local authorities to reduce littering on the A34, for example, by giving them access during planned roadworks. In that way, nearly half a tonne of litter and other debris was collected on 21 September alone—an astonishing figure, as I am sure hon. Members agree.
I turn to the specific work under way intended to improve safety on the A34. My hon. Friend referred to the proposed safety improvements for it, and I can confirm that Highways England has been carrying out a £12.1 million programme of safety improvements on it, most of which, I am pleased to say, are now complete.
The Secretary of State has also asked Highways England to commence a new project focusing on the A34 between the M4 and the M40 that will consider options for interventions to alleviate congestion now and in the future, as well as to improve safety for road users. I understand that Highways England has already arranged a meeting with my hon. Friend to hear his views on the road as part of the project. If that is not the case, I would be delighted to work with him to facilitate that meeting. Of course, I encourage him to take the opportunity to work closely with Highways England on its development.
I conclude by thanking Members of the House, including the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts), who is sitting on the Front Bench with me and is also affected by that road in his west Oxfordshire constituency. It is a road that touches many hon. Members’ constituencies and gives rise to many concerns for Members of the House and local communities. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage for securing the debate and raising these important issues.
Question put and agreed to.
Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote
Member eligible for proxy vote | Nominated proxy |
|---|---|
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con) | Mark Spencer |
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kemi Badenoch (Saffron Walden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (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 |
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
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 |
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
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 |
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Brokenshire (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (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 |
Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP) | Gavin Robinson |
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (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 |
Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (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) (Lab) | 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 |
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
James Daly (Bury North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Evans |
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mims Davies (Mid Sussex) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
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 |
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Sir Jeffrey Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP) | Carla Lockhart |
Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Ms Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
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 |
Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind) | Jonathan Edwards |
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con) | Bim Afolami |
Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con) | Caroline Nokes |
Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) | Rebecca Harris |
Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) ( Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Hancock (West Suffolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Greg Hands (Chelsea and Fulham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP) | Ben Lake |
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
James Heappey (Wells) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
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 |
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire( (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (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 |
Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con) | Mr William Wragg |
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
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 |
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab) | Kim Johnson |
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) | Patrick Grady |
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con) | Mark Spencer |
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 |
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
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 (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op) | Rachel Hopkins |
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (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 |
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con) | Rebecca Harris |
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab) | Stuart Andrew |
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC) | Ben Lake |
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con) | Rebecca Harris |
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Grant Shapps (Welwyn Hatfield) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jeff Smith (Manchester Withington) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Amanda Solloway (Derby North) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
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 |
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op) | Chris Elmore |
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) | Stuart Andrew |
David Warburton (Somerton and Frome) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
John Whittingdale (Malden) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC) | Ben Lake |
Gavin Williamson (Montgomeryshire) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD) | Wendy Chamberlain |
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab) | Rachel Hopkins |
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP) | Patrick Grady |
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab) | Chris Elmore |
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con) | Stuart Andrew |
Draft Definition of Qualifying Northern Ireland Goods (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(4 years ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, may I remind colleagues about social distancing; we are not using the central rows but Members may sit in the Public Gallery and still contribute to the debate.
The Paymaster General (Penny Mordaunt)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Definition of Qualifying Northern Ireland Goods (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller.
The statutory instrument relates to the establishment of a definition of “qualifying goods” for the purposes of delivering unfettered access for Northern Ireland goods moving to the rest of the United Kingdom market from the end of the transition period. The SI should be seen in the wider context of the Government’s clear commitment to deliver unfettered access, and to guarantee that in legislation by the end of this year. That commitment was made in the 2019 Conservative manifesto and in the ‘New Decade, New Approach’ deal, which restored power-sharing to Northern Ireland. The SI is fundamental to the delivery of that commitment.
Unfettered access is based on several fundamental tenets. First, that there will be no customs and regulatory checks and processes for qualifying Northern Ireland goods moving from Northern Ireland to Great Britain. Secondly, that no additional authorisations or approvals will be required for placing those goods on the market in the rest of the UK; and thirdly, that those goods can continue to be sold throughout the UK market.
The United Kingdom Internal Market Bill puts the building blocks in place for unfettered access for the long term. It will enshrine in primary legislation that qualifying Northern Ireland goods will benefit from mutual recognition—enabling goods to continue to be placed on the whole of the UK market, even where the protocol applies different rules in Northern Ireland—and prohibits new checks and controls as goods move from Northern Ireland to the rest of the UK.
Those are significant and robust protections, and they will be subject to only the most limited possible exceptions, such as to ensure that the UK can comply with its international obligations, for example regarding the movement of endangered species. For those protections to have effect, we must have a definition in law of what are the ‘qualifying Northern Ireland goods’ that benefit from them. That is the purpose of the SI.
It is important to be clear that the policy of unfettered access will be given effect in two phases. The first phase is focused on avoiding disruption and maintaining continuity from the beginning of next year, in line with our broader Great Britain-European Union approach. For that reason, the SI takes a necessarily broad-based approach, outlining that goods will qualify where they are in ‘free circulation’ in Northern Ireland, on the basis that they are not under any customs supervision, as will any good that has undergone processing operations in Northern Ireland under the inward processing procedure, and which only incorporates GB inputs, and inputs that were in free circulation in Northern Ireland.
Those are quite technical descriptions, but in practice they mean no more than no change to how Northern Ireland businesses move goods directly to the rest of the UK from 1 January 2021 compared with now. The SI is an important first step to make sure that Northern Ireland traders can continue to move their goods in an unfettered way from the end of the transition period, which meets the Government’s clear commitment under the ‘New Decade, New Approach’ deal. It is a necessary first step, but we want to guard against the possibility that it is used by other actors who may wish to avoid import formalities that should otherwise be met. That is why the SI is the first phase and will be accompanied in due course by anti-avoidance measures contained in legislation brought forward by my colleagues in the Treasury, which will enable us to take action in such cases.
The SI represents only the initial approach. During 2021 it will be replaced with a regime that targets its benefits on Northern Ireland businesses, to ensure that they have a competitive advantage over other traders on the island of Ireland, and that goods moving from Ireland or the EU are subject to full third-country checks and controls. That regime is in the process of being finalised through work with Northern Ireland businesses and the Northern Ireland Executive. We will provide further details on that in due course. We are also engaging with the devolved Administrations more broadly on the implications of that second phase, and we welcome that ongoing work.
In the meantime, we consider that it is right to proceed in a pragmatic way that maintains continuity for business, and our phased approach will achieve that. I hope that both Houses approve the SI because that will enable us to bring forward clear guidance for businesses that ensures that they are ready for the end of the transition period in that regard. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to rise to speak with you in the Chair, Mrs Miller.
As the Minister has said, the SI sets out the definition of ‘qualifying Northern Ireland goods’ in the context of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, about which the Opposition set out our concerns when it was debated in the Commons, and which was overwhelmingly amended last night in the other place by an extraordinarily broad coalition that included former leaders of the Minister’s party. They share our concern about the rule of law.
The Labour party clearly supports unfettered access of Northern Ireland businesses to the rest of the UK market, so will not oppose the SI today. As the Minister said, unfettered access was a commitment made in the ‘New Decade, New Approach’ agreement to restore devolved government to Northern Ireland, and Labour strongly welcomed that. However, the Opposition have concerns about the SI, which I believe the Minister anticipated in her opening remarks, and we would welcome some further assurances on them.
Our first concern relates to the breadth of the definition of ‘qualifying Northern Ireland goods’—something to which the Minister herself referred. The Government appear to acknowledge that it is problematic. It will need further clarification in further legislation because that definition is not sufficiently tightly drawn to provide protections. The SI is provided for by the Henry VIII powers under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which gives the Government extraordinarily wide powers to
‘make any provision that could be made by an Act of Parliament (including modifying this Act)’.
We opposed that when that Act was debated two years, but in terms of the specifics of the SI, the wide drafting of the definition of qualifying goods is the problem, because it includes anything that is in circulation within Northern Ireland without being subject to customs control while there. However, it also includes goods processed in Northern Ireland from GB-derived goods, which are themselves subject to customs control in Northern Ireland. For example, that includes whisky imported from Scotland to Northern Ireland which might be in duty suspension in Northern Ireland, but then used to make mince pies in Belfast. That would leave those mince pies as ‘qualifying Northern Ireland goods’, despite the whisky used to make them being subject to customs control. Therefore, as I think the Minister acknowledged, the definition of ‘qualifying Northern Ireland goods’ is not sustainable in the longer term.
Separately, the National Crime Agency has warned that Northern Ireland could become a back door into the UK internal market, with the risk of counterfeit goods or, less likely, lower standard goods flowing into the UK. I am sure that the Minister is aware that UK farming unions have expressed concern that livestock and dairy could be disproportionately impacted by the measure. The potential problems were also raised by the Police Service of Northern Ireland in its evidence to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, when it said that the definition offered in the SI is simply not good enough.
The Opposition recognise that the Government see the SI as phase one and, as the Minister said, it is suggested that they will come up with a more refined definition in due course. Can the Minister tell us when that might be? When will we have the clarity that we all need? Can she also update us on the anti-avoidance regime, which is still to be designed and approved by the end of the year, according to the Government’s intention, to address the risk of Northern Ireland acting as a back door to Great Britain.
The Opposition are also concerned about how the SI will contribute to the weakening of the devolved Administrations’ powers. It must be read alongside the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, clause 43 of which stops the devolved Governments imposing new kinds of checks or controls on qualifying Northern Ireland goods, and clause 11 applies the market principles of mutual recognition and non-discrimination to qualifying Northern Ireland goods. That means that the Welsh Government could not prevent something from being sold in Wales, or the UK Government could not stop something being sold in England, if it is a qualifying Northern Ireland good. If something is lawfully produced in, or imported into, Northern Ireland, it would have to be allowed to be sold in Wales, or indeed in Scotland or England. I appreciate that that was a principle within the EU internal market, and the Minister will probably cite that, but the issue here is the imbalance. In England, the Government have the power to amend the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill to prevent that consequence from arising, either by modifying the exceptions in the Bill through an SI, or by getting Parliament to legislate. Those options are not available to Wales or Scotland, and therefore an asymmetry undermines the devolved powers. Can the Minister acknowledge that is the case, and whether the Government are content with that, given that it significantly undermines local voices as expressed through the devolved Administrations?
We are also concerned about the impact on standards across the UK. Given that Northern Ireland is essentially within the EU single market for goods, any good allowed to be sold within the EU, as complying with the EU single market, must be allowed to be sold in Northern Ireland. If, for example, Wales decided to exceed the EU environmental standards applicable to vehicle emissions, the combination of the regulations in the SI and the terms of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill would mean that Wales could not succeed, because a lower-standard vehicle would be on sale lawfully in Northern Ireland and would be a qualifying Northern Ireland good, and the mutual recognition principle in the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill would have effect. Improving standards is an ambition that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster often espouses—despite the fact that he is refusing to sign up to any kind of safety net in the current negotiations with the EU—and I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman probably would not want such consequences to arise, but the combination of the protocol, the SI and the internal market Bill make it very hard to see how Great Britain’s standards could ever exceed EU standards in matters such as environmental protection. Is that also the Minister’s understanding? If so, can she explain how the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will achieve his ambition?
Given that processed goods coming from Northern Ireland may have components originating outside of the country, does the approach outlined in the SI for qualifying goods have wider implications for the UK’s approach to rules of origin with the rest of the world?
I appreciate that the Minister said that further work was ongoing, but the Government have had more than a year since agreeing the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol. Frankly, it is disappointing that the issues I have highlighted have not been resolved by now, so I would be grateful if the Minister could answer my questions.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield Central for his helpful remarks, and for the Opposition’s support for the SI. It is important that we regulate for the definition of qualifying Northern Ireland goods and that we can move on to provide the explanations and certainty that business would like.
We are discussing a narrow issue, and there are much more exciting things going on this week with the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, so I will not rehearse all arguments about that now. Fundamentally, the controversial clauses to which the hon. Gentleman referred are about protecting the integrity of the United Kingdom. I believe that that is well understood, certainly by the vast majority of Members of this elected House. That is the purpose of those clauses, and their powers will only ever be drawn on should we be in a situation where they are required.
I assure the Committee that the SI is part of our clear commitment to unfettered access, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that that is its purpose, along with protecting Northern Ireland’s place in the internal market. Those will remain our overriding priorities in our work in the weeks ahead.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the definition of ‘qualifying Northern Ireland goods’ is too broad. It is important to note that the SI is part of a phased approach to develop a bridge, and it is intended to be no more than a stopgap to a longer lasting regime that will focus its benefits on Northern Ireland businesses. As I outlined, that regime is being developed with Northern Ireland businesses and the Northern Ireland Executive, and will introduced during the course of 2021. In line with our broad policy, we will take a sensible, practical phased approach to that regime, which is what businesses in Northern Ireland and elsewhere have asked us to do. I note the hon. Gentleman’s concerns, but the SI is just a stopgap measure.
The hon. Gentleman also spoke of the risk of Northern Ireland being used as a back door to the GB market, and cited the seasonal example of mine pies. To prevent any traders from misusing the proposed system, the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill and the SI will be accompanied by anti-avoidance measures. I cannot give him any further information about the timetable other than what is already in the public domain. The anti-avoidance measures of which we spoken about many times, and to which we have a clear commitment, will be introduced in a timely manner to prevent businesses from moving goods via Northern Ireland in order to avoid required import formalities.
On farmers and biosecurity, appropriate authorities can use existing powers and those granted within the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill from the end of the transition period to manage and control the threat of disease, pest outbreaks and so forth in Northern Ireland and Great Britain. That will ensure that our high standards on food safety, plant and animal health, and animal welfare and environmental protections, are maintained while ensuring trade from Northern Ireland to Great Britain can continue as now. Those risks will be managed as and when they arise and they should not be the basis on which we limit access for Northern Ireland businesses to their most important market.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the devolved Administrations, and of course many of the issues that we have dealt with throughout the whole process have been very complex in terms of what powers sit where, how organisations will operate and the frameworks that govern them. I reassure him that we are working very closely with those Administrations. I spend a lot of my time doing that—I have a quad with them this week—when we talk about the issues we are debating today. Of course their views are taken into consideration and account when it comes to shaping the regimes we will set up. They are heavily involved in the operational aspects, and now attend XO meetings when appropriate and of interest to them.
I must say a word in defence of the Chancellor of the Duchy Lancaster, because I think that he is Mr Standards, as he was when at Education or when at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, when he worked for animal welfare standards, environmental and air quality standards, and he has been a champion of our retaining those standards throughout this process. A great deal is happening in the world on trade, with moves towards international standards, but fundamentally it comes back to the integrity of the United Kingdom, our country, and the standards that we wish to apply across a raft of sectors. That is incredibly important.
The regulations are simply a stopgap, another stepping-stone on the way to building new systems and regimes, and I am sure that it will not be long before my colleagues at the Treasury and elsewhere bring forward the other measures that the hon. Gentleman inquired about that will ensure that we can give businesses sight of and certainty over their future. I thank all members of the Committee for their attendance and assistance in considering the SI, which is fundamental to achieving that.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Non-Domestic Rating (Rates Retention, Levy and Safety Net and Levy Account: Basis of Distribution) (Amendment) Regulations 2020
(4 years ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members who decide to speak in these proceedings that Hansard colleagues would like any notes to be sent to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Non-Domestic Rating (Rates Retention, Levy and Safety Net and Levy Account: Basis of Distribution) (Amendment) Regulations 2020.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ali. I should begin with an apology, in that my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall) is self-isolating this afternoon. I am standing in for him as a small, but I trust no less perfectly formed, substitute.
The business rate retention scheme, which was introduced some eight years ago, allows local government to retain 50% of the business rates its raises locally and also keep 50% of the growth in business rates over and above the amounts delivered through the local government financial settlement. Authorities have estimated that, in 2019-20, growth in business rates will give them £2.5 billion of additional funding to support the delivery of local services. The underlying principle of the business rate retention scheme is simple. If an authority is responsive to local business and helps to grow its local economy, it will retain the resulting increase in business rates, which can be reinvested in its local economy and used to support local services.
However, as has often been said, particularly on the Floor of the House, the operation of the business rate retention scheme is technically very complicated. It is governed by a number of pieces of secondary legislation, which provide the framework for the calculations and rules that govern how and when the business rates collected from ratepayers are distributed among central Government, billing authorities, often district councils, and major precepting authorities, often county councils. The regulations before the Committee make several important technical amendments to the underlying regulations to update the existing framework. This is vital to the administration of the business rate retention system and will ensure that all parties receive the funding they are due.
The regulations make three main changes. They ensure that the correct calculation of the income retained by authorities that have, or have had in the past, a higher level of retained business rates income; they make the necessary changes to the rates retention system, following the most recent local government restructuring; and they adjust the calculation of retained rates income against which we determine levy and safety net payments, to ensure that local authorities are not doubly compensated for giving business rate relief for telecommunications infrastructure. I will deal with each change in more detail and explain why they are needed.
The rates retention scheme is governed by a number of pieces of secondary legislation, the most important of which are the Non-Domestic Rating (Rates Retention) Regulations 2013 and the Non-Domestic Rating (Levy and Safety Net) Regulations 2013. These regulations establish the key building blocks of the day-to-day administration of the rates retention system, including council shares of locally retained business rates income and their safety net thresholds and levy rates. Since 2017, we have allowed any number of local councils to keep more than 50% of their business rates income—the original top threshold, which was set in 2013. The devolution deal areas—Cornwall, the West of England, the West Midlands, Greater Manchester and the Liverpool city region—retain 100% of their business rates income. In the two subsequent years, following a competitive process, a number of other local authorities were chosen to be part of a business rate pilot programme, under which they retained 100% or 75% of their business rates income in 2018-19 and 2019-20 respectively. Regulations were made to give effect to those changes. Unfortunately, given the complexity of the 2019-20 regulations a few minor omissions or errors were made in the framework for that year’s pilots. Those include errors in some of the 75% pilot’s levy rates, the apportionment of the collection fund balance for one authority and the uprating of the top-up and tariff payments for London and those authorities that were 100% business rate retention pilots in 2019-20. The regulations simply put those errors right. In acknowledgment of that, they will be made free of charge to any party who purchased the 2019 regulations as local authorities often do. In addition to these changes, the regulations also provide for the uprating of the devolution deal authorities top-up and tariff payments in 2020 and 2021.
The regulations before the Committee also make minor changes consequent on Buckingham restructuring from 1 April 2020. The new Buckinghamshire unitary authority will replace its predecessor county council and its constituent district councils—Aylesbury Vale, Chiltern, South Bucks and Wycombe. For the most part, that requires no changes to the secondary legislation that governed the business rates retention scheme because all that happens is that the values that appeared in regulations in each of the predecessor authorities are simply aggregated to give the corresponding value for the new unitary. But we need to make a couple of changes when aggregated values would produce an incorrect result for the new unitary authority. Those are an adjustment to a figure that determines the cost of operating in Buckinghamshire and helps determine how much the new authority needs to cover the costs it will incur in collecting business rates and administering the tax and an updated value for the new Bucks unitary used to calculate its small business rate relief compensation.
Similarly, Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council and Dorset Council have been in place from 1 April 2019 following the rearrangement of the Dorset authorities. Since that change, the two authorities have agreed on amended splits of their revenue support grants. Revenue support grant is included within the settlement funding assessment measure, which the business rates retention system uses as the basis for distribution of any surplus on the levy account. A surplus on the levy account occurs when levy payments exceed safety net payments in that year. The regulations therefore make a small amendment to the basis of distribution to reflect the revised split of revenue support grant. I should say at this stage that those changes are being made at the request of those authorities.
Finally, the regulations make an amendment to the calculation of retained rates income, against which levy and safety net payments for authorities are determined. To avoid doubly compensating local authorities for awarding telecoms relief, for which they are already given a section 31 grant of compensation, the levy and safety net calculations must add back the compensation for business rate reliefs received by the authority as a result of changes made by the Government—in this case, we add back the value of the telecoms relief awarded. By doing so, we ensure that local authority safety net payments are not artificially increased, or levy payments decreased, by the compensation that they receive.
In conclusion, the regulations are highly technical—I can well understand why my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate did not want to be here to discuss it. They are required to make a series of minor amendment to update the framework on which rates retention is run for 2019-20 and 2020-21. In making those changes, no new policies are introduced. The regulations simply ensure the fulfilment of the original policy intention, as approved in previous years, via the settlement or by statutory instrument.
I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
It is really an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ali.
In recent times, especially through the covid pandemic, local authorities have shown how they can provide the necessary localised support to communities. When the need came, they adapted their services. They housed those who were homeless, provided food parcels for those shielding and literally became a Government at the local level.
It is not just in times of pandemic, but more generally that local authorities have a better understanding of their local communities and businesses. They are therefore able to work with local people to ensure that businesses in the UK can genuinely thrive. After a decade of reductions in funding and rising demand, from which we seem to be beginning to emerge, councils, along with the rest of the nation, have faced the impact of the covid-19 pandemic on their citizens, staff, services and budgets.
Estimates by the Institute for Fiscal Studies suggest that another £2 billion might be needed this year to meet all the pressures and non-tax income losses that councils have experienced and will continue to experience as a result of covid-19, but that that could rise to £3.1 billion, depending on whether council assumptions about the end of the pandemic are correct. Changes in legislation that provide formulas to support local authorities and their budgets in such times are therefore hugely important and we certainly welcome that.
Although I understand that the changes in the statutory instrument are technical, and some relate to individual local authorities, I would be grateful if the Minister provided further reassurances on whether the Government will make adjustments to business rate retention calculations next year to take into account the impact of covid-19 rates relief.
As the Minister knows, following the measures announced in March, 40% of business rates in 2020-21 are being covered by retail reliefs of approximately £10 billion. However, business rates collection is likely to be down, despite the increased reliefs, with current predictions by councils suggesting a £1.6 billion shortfall to the public purse. The 2021 calculations, which will be made next year, will therefore be potentially less straightforward due to the impact of the covid-19 pandemic on collection. The calculation will need to be adjusted to deal with the retail reliefs. I would welcome the Minister’s outlining any further plans that the Government have to deal with that specific shortfall.
Additionally, will the Minister provide an update on how the Department plans to deal with the shortfall arising from irrecoverable uncollected local taxation in 2021? Will the Government cover all the shortfalls in planned non-tax income and local tax revenues, including business rates? The Minister will recall that the Government have a line that they will cover whatever is needed for local councils. After a decade of cuts and then taking on the burden of a pandemic, it is important that local authorities are supported so that local people, communities and businesses are also supported.
Christopher Pincher
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for what I think is her support for the amendments to the regulations, although I have to say that she is being a little ungenerous to the Government, given the support we have provided to local government in the last financial year of a 4.4% increase in real terms in core spending power—the largest injection of cash into local government in more than a decade—and the support we have given to local authorities that are working exceptionally hard to help their communities through the pandemic.
The hon. Lady will know that we have already allowed the award of £2.6 billion in business rate payments that local authorities would normally make to central Government. We have paid £1.8 billion in grant aid to local authorities, and £11.2 billion, which would otherwise have been paid in business rates via hospitality, retail and leisure, will be returned to local government. According to a quick, rough estimate on my part, that is £15.6 billion to local authorities. We should also remember that the Government have spent approximately £30 billion for local authorities, local communities and businesses as a result of the pandemic. We will keep the services and support we provide to local government and beyond under review.
The hon. Lady asked about future changes to the business rate retention scheme and any reliefs. Until we know what the business landscape is like in local government once the pandemic has abated, we cannot make any commitments to specific changes, but my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will keep the situation under review. We will address future funding through the spending review—or before if necessary—in the usual way.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Electronic Communications and Wireless Telegraphy (Amendment) (European Electronic Communications Code and Eu Exit) Regulations 2020
(4 years ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I would like to remind Members of the social distancing requirements; available spaces are clearly marked. If any Member wishes to speak from the Public Gallery, please move to a microphone.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Warman)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Electronic Communications and Wireless Telegraphy (Amendment) (European Electronic Communications Code and EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq.
I am pleased to introduce this statutory instrument, which was laid before the House on 12 October. The draft regulations are being introduced to transpose the European electronic communications code directive—I have a copy here—into domestic law, as we are committed to under the European Union withdrawal agreement.
The regulations are a crucial milestone towards the delivery of our digital ambitions and will play a significant role in aiding the delivery of our manifesto commitments and ensure a future-proofed telecommunications regime. The changes will facilitate competition and a pro-investment regulatory environment, supporting gigabit capable roll-out across the United Kingdom. UK consumers will benefit from better information to make informed decisions. They will have stronger contract rights and will be able to switch their services more easily than before, which will help to support competition.
The regulations also ensure that the universal services remain affordable for consumers with low incomes or other specific needs.
The measures sit alongside those being implemented by Ofcom under its existing powers. It is implementing new rules on information requirements for contracts, contract duration and termination rules, and broadband switching rules. They include rules banning providers from selling locked devices, such as mobile phones, ensuring a consumer’s new provider leads any switch, strong contract exit rights and short summaries of main contract terms to help customers make more informed decisions. Although we recognise that industry will need to make changes as it responds to covid-19, Ofcom will allow providers a further year for these measures to be in place during this exceptional period.
Hon. Members should note that a small number of measures in the directive are not being implemented via the draft regulations. Some measures are being implemented through other legislation and some have already been put in place, including those relating to car radios via the Road Vehicles (Approval) Regulations 2020.
We are further considering how to take forward a limited number of measures applicable to ‘over the top’ services, including instant messenger and email communications. We have given Ofcom powers to gather further information on those services in the draft regulations.
The draft regulations introduce measures to drive investment in future-proofed networks and communications services through sustainable competition; support of efficient and effective use of radio spectrum; and the provision of a higher level of consumer protection. Although we are required to implement the changes, they are legislative changes that we would want to make in any case. The UK played a crucial role in the negotiations and indeed shaped the wider regulatory framework for telecoms that the directive builds on.
There are a number of provisions that promote competition and are pro-investment. Ofcom will be able to impose conditions to ensure connectivity and choice for consumers where it is challenging for competition to emerge in an area that already has a network. The SI also provides Ofcom with the power to ensure that another provider can access a dominant provider’s physical infrastructure assets—the ducts and poles that house the network—to ensure choice and competition, irrespective of the market scope.
We will enable Ofcom to impose longer-term, pro-investment regulation, such as implementing longer market review periods, which are focused on promoting higher capacity networks. We will support the availability of build plan information to industry and the Government better to inform any roll-out plans. We will enable co-operation between network providers, which should support those primarily rural deployments.
The measures are essential if we are to create the right environment to encourage investment, and ensure that Ofcom has the necessary powers to promote competition and protect consumers. The draft regulations include measures that will enhance consumer protections. Alongside Ofcom, the Government are implementing measures to help ensure that UK consumers will benefit from better information, stronger contract rights and the ability to switch services much more easily than before.
The draft regulations will also support the efficient and effective use of radio spectrum—the airwaves over which communication signals are transmitted—which will promote competition and the timely roll-out of 5G services and the widespread availability of mobile connectivity.
The draft regulations also contain measures relating to the universal service obligation which ensure that a wide range of telecoms services remain affordable for consumers with low incomes or other specific needs. That gives consumers a safety net to ensure full participation in society and the economy.
The SI also provides powers for the Secretary of State to establish a mobile universal service obligation in the future, if that is deemed necessary, and ensures that people who use legacy USO services such as pay phones, telephone directories, fax machines and particular methods of billing will continue to be able to do so. Additionally, the SI introduces measures that update the regime for social tariffs for telephony and broadband, should they be required. They will ensure that consumers with low incomes or other specific social needs are able to access universal services at affordable prices, where the market does not provide those commercially, or on a voluntary basis.
The importance of electronic communications has been underlined during the covid-19 pandemic. Telecoms is now more critical than ever for the country, with a large proportion of the population working from home. Combined with future expectations about new technologies and services, including 5G, building future-proofed networks will be essential to our future economy.
The changes that we are introducing today represent a significant step forward in helping to achieve our digital ambitions for the country.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq.
I thank the Minister for his opening remarks on this very important SI relating to our critically important telecoms sector. The UK telecoms industry contributes £32 billion to the economy, directly provides nearly a quarter of million jobs and has an impact on all of our lives, as we have really experienced during the pandemic. It is so important that we get regulation right for a sector that contributes so much to our economy, as well as to our work and social lives. I have to declare an interest, Dr Huq; before becoming an MP, I worked as head of telecoms technology at Ofcom, the communications regulator, where I literally spent six years with the Communications Act 2003 on my desk, as I worked on competition and investment in broadband networks. I could spend a lot of time discussing the provisions of the SI, but I will not detain the Committee longer than is necessary.
The framework that I worked with was a function of four EU directives, namely the framework, access, authorisation and universal service directives, all of which have been in effect in EU nations since 2002. Today’s SI implements aspects of the European electronic communications code, which I shall refer to as the EECC. That combined and revised the former four directives in line with the UK’s obligations under the withdrawal agreement, negotiated and signed by the Government.
As the Minister said, the EECC aims to promote infrastructure deployment and take-up of very high capacity networks through emphasising the necessity
‘to give appropriate incentives for investment in new very high capacity networks that support innovation in content-rich internet services and strengthen the international competitiveness of the Union’.
The EECC’s general objective in article 3 states that the national regulatory authority, in our case Ofcom, should
‘promote connectivity and access to, and take-up of, very high capacity networks, including fixed, mobile and wireless networks, by all citizens and businesses of the Union.’
Ofcom’s principle duty, as I am sure the Minister is aware, is to
‘further the interests of citizens and consumers, where appropriate by promoting competition.’
As I said, I had the 2003 Act on my desk, and consulted it regularly to understand what Parliament was aiming for when it set out that Act. What assessment has the Minister made of how the new duty with regard to investment will work alongside Ofcom’s existing duties? For example, how does investment and the citizen interest interact? I know that when Ofcom is looking at potential conflicts of interest, shall we say, between investment in networks and citizens’ rights and duties, it will want to refer to this debate as well as to the SI to understand what Parliament was driving at. Has the Minister assessed how the new duty will interplay with existing duties?
The EECC also aims to promote competition and to develop further the digital single market. During my six years at Ofcom, it was established that it is infrastructure competition, in which I am a great believer, as opposed to services competition that really drives investment, innovation and choice.
Chi Onwurah
I see that the Minister is nodding, so that implies that he agrees that infrastructure competition is the aim.
The powers introduced by the EECC are designed to shift the market from reliance on access to the incumbent providers’ infrastructure, in our case Openreach, to an environment that can better support investment from both incumbents and new entrants to the market. To achieve that, article 67 sets out a recommendation for Ofcom to carry out market analysis, including provision to increase the maximum review cycle from three years, as it was when I worked there, to five years. Am I right in thinking that the intention is that that will promote competition by providing more time for network operators to earn returns on their investment, thus boosting investment and therefore competition? Is that effectively the only strategy to promote competition? Is that based on the belief that investment alone will lead to a greater and more competitive market? I am not sure that is the case. What guidance will be offered on how the returns on that investment should be regulated?
I am concerned that the emphasis on promoting investment incentivised by high returns may damage consumer interest, because it is the consumers who will be paying those returns, and citizens in the case of services from Government and so on. Can the Minister assure me that that will not be the case? That comes back to how the duty to promote investment will play with the duty to promote the interests of the consumers and citizens. Can he effectively say that the interests of the consumers and citizens will always take priority and be paramount, and that we do not seek to promote investment simply by ensuring excessive returns, so that companies invest in networks as opposed to other investments that may have higher returns, for example in financial services? I hope that we can hear about what consumer groups have said on that point.
I am pleased to see that end-to-end provisions of the code seek to protect consumers with wide-ranging consumer rights. As the Minister said, articles 98 to 116 provide protections against cybercrime, enhance user rights when switching internet access services, ensure minimum standards across member states, establish a universal service, which ensures the availability of broadband and voice communications, and ensure that all users have free access to the universal European 112 emergency services number.
Given that we have left the EU, and indeed the transition period ends on 31 December, am I right in thinking that the price cap for intra-EU calls will no longer be enjoyed by UK consumers, and that as we are no longer in the EU, there will be no price cap on calls to the EU from UK phones?
The terms of the SI do a lot, but as the Minister implied, the measure does not fully implement the EECC requirements. In July, the Government stated that they would ‘deprioritise’ aspects of the EECC, including key consumer and market issues due to the pandemic. Those issues include all obligations relating to number-independent interpersonal communication services—NI-ICS—the requirement for communications service providers not to discriminate against end-users access to telecoms on the basis of their nationality and provisions regarding Ofcom’s independence and powers to issue penalties. The Government have stated that some of these measures are already covered by existing law, but can the Minister confirm to me today that the deprioritisation of such obligations is not in breach of the withdrawal agreement? Does this divergence from European Union law constitute a statement from the Government that they are ruling out future participation in a digital single market? Will these deprioritised services become a priority once the pandemic is over, or are the Government ruling out adopting these measures completely?
As a result of the adoption of the EECC measures, Ofcom will be granted many new powers, which the Minister referred to, such as network forecasting, promoting gigabit-capable networks, co-operation and competition in hard-to-reach areas, easier switching for consumers and improved regulation of bundled contracts, and oversight of the pro-investment aims that the Government and the EECC have publicised. These measures were confirmed by the Government in July, but they did not tell us what further resources Ofcom would be provided with as it takes on these responsibilities. Has the Minister spoken with Ofcom about additional resources? Will he confirm today that Ofcom will be provided with what it needs to meet those obligations? How will Ofcom be measured against its duty to promote connectivity in gigabit-capable networks? Will that fall under the Minister’s direct oversight or will he leave it to the board? Will we have a report of some kind to Parliament?
In the UK, this SI is only part of the implementation of the EECC. We must also acknowledge Ofcom’s general conditions, which will be amended to reflect the obligations. In its statement of 27 October, Ofcom set out the end-user consumer protections and confirmed the UK’s intention to
“ban mobile providers from selling locked mobile devices”
by December 2021, to extend rules on accessibility for disabled customers by December 2021, to introduce new rules for bundles that include other services or equipment sold with a communication service by December 2021, to ensure better contract information and stronger termination rights by June 2022, and to introduce improved switching processes for broadband by December 2022. Will the Minister reaffirm that these plans will remain in place following the end of the transition period and will not be rolled back on, as it were?
I finish on a point raised with me by telecoms experts, representatives of the industry and business. This SI and the transposition into UK law are obligatory under the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, but after 1 January 2021, once the transition period has ended, they will no longer be obligatory and could be overwritten. Will the Minister give a clear commitment that that will not happen? Will the Government set out an updated long-term digital strategy, providing stability and security in the sector?
The importance of working closely with our friends and partners in the European Union cannot overstated, particularly in telecommunications, for communication providers and in the burgeoning social media and application sectors. Our economy, businesses and consumer protections are reliant on our close relationship with the European Union, and our telecoms services benefit from access to European Union markets. While we might not be able to holiday in many places at the moment, we all look forward to the time when we will be making phone calls from France, Denmark or wherever. As we leave the transition period, our future remains uncertain, as the Government’s botched negotiations have left us somewhat in limbo. The Government have presided over 10 wasted years for UK telecoms infra- structure, whereas the previous Government—I will not labour this point—understood the importance of supporting investment and infrastructure competition, which led to the greatest expansion in infrastructure competition, with unbundled local loop.
The intentions behind this SI, and behind the EECC, are good and we will not oppose it, but the Government must take charge and upgrade our telecoms infrastructure, and provide reassurances on our consumer protections. I thank the Minister in advance for his answers. I know that I have asked a lot of questions. If he cannot answer them all today, I hope he will agree to write to me, because I am very interested to know the answers and it is in the interests of scrutinising this legislation that they should be responded to.
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
I did not intend to contribute to this debate, but the Minister’s opening remarks have moved me to do so. First, I would like to declare my interests: previously I was a private practice lawyer and an in-house lawyer at BT, lobbying and working on the electronic communications code. I also chair the PICTFOR—Parliamentary Internet, Communications and Technology Forum—all-party parliamentary group, whose membership, as the Minister knows well, includes many companies interested in this legislation.
I would like to make one short contribution. I was interested to hear the Minister say that he has opened the door to a universal service obligation on mobile connectivity, with an intention, I think he said, to introduce further legislation in due course. We know from the pandemic, but also from before that, that many families on low incomes who cannot afford broadband connectivity rely on their mobile connectivity to access online education, shopping, social media and other types of services. I would be interested to hear from the Minister what intention the Government have to bring forward that legislation for a USO on mobile connectivity.
Matt Warman
I am tempted to take up the offer made by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and say that I will write to her on everything. I will not do that, but I shall try to rattle through a lot of what she asked.
In short, the regulations crystallise the existing factors, with which she is so familiar, that have to be taken into account when assessing whether a market has competition problems and would require Ofcom intervention. As she knows, that requires Ofcom to consider innovation, competition and future networks when imposing those conditions. Much of this is about crystallising in legislation the good practice that we already see in Ofcom.
The hon. Lady is right to say that longer review periods potentially promote greater certainty around the really significant investment in infrastructure that we are seeing and would like to see more of. There is an important balance as to making sure that we do not entrench monopolies, and that we get the right and fair degree of certainty for investors so that they can make a return, but she is right to ask: are consumers at the heart of everything that Government and Ofcom do? Of course they are, and they will continue to be so. It is in consumers’ interests to have sustainable companies making pragmatic investment decisions, but ultimately it is the consumer that has to be at the heart of all of this.
The hon. Lady asked briefly about mobile roaming. She is right that when we leave the European Union we will be under different rules. In theory that will leave companies able to make decisions on roaming that they are not currently able to make, but the Government will continue to engage intensively on that. We have no indication from companies—they themselves have said it publicly—that they have any intention of changing the landscape in the near future.
Chi Onwurah
I thank the Minister for his approach in responding to my questions. Intra-EU phone calls are about making calls from one European country to another, and not necessarily about roaming. Will he also confirm that he has discussed that point, or will be discussing it, with providers in the UK so that we can retain that benefit if possible?
Matt Warman
Yes. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that that is also the case, and we continue to take an interest in exactly that. On that front, there are no indications of immediate changes either.
The hon. Lady mentioned what we call ‘over the top’ services—number-independent services that translate to calls via WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger and the like. As I said, we are not dealing with the matter immediately, but we are looking at the best way forward for those with Ofcom. Similarly, where issues have been deprioritised during the pandemic, that is not to suggest that they are not important. As I said in my opening remarks, the UK was key to the original negotiations and we would not seek to deprioritise them other than in the exceptional circumstances in which we find ourselves.
The hon. Lady asked about the resources for Ofcom. In close collaboration with Ofcom, we have asked what, if any, further resources it feels it needs; at this stage, the answer is that it is content with what it has. Obviously, we want it to be resourced properly, and we will make sure that it continues to be so.
The hon. Lady also asked about gigabit roll-out and that is something on which the Government work closely with Ofcom. It is ultimately my responsibility and that of Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, and indeed a priority for this Government, to see that roll-out go as far and as fast as it possibly can. To that end, no, we will not be rolling back on any of the provisions in the draft regulations as soon as we end the transition period. We welcome the measures and are proud to have played a significant part in negotiating them with the EU, because we believe that they will drive forward important ambitions for this country and for all our citizens who, as we have heard, increasingly rely on digital connectivity.
Chi Onwurah
On Ofcom’s resources, and I have declared an interest, I am somewhat surprised that it will take on the additional powers and responsibilities under the SI without any additional resources. We know that at some point, when we get the online harms Bill—again at some point—Ofcom will be involved in the regulation of high risk vendors. A number of additional requirements are being placed upon it, so will the Minister discuss the need for additional resources in the round with other Ministers whose responsibilities come under Ofcom’s purview? I am quite convinced that Ofcom does not have the resources it needs to take up all those additional duties.
Matt Warman
The hon. Lady makes an entirely reasonable point that Ofcom will be taking on a number of additional duties in the future, and considering its resourcing needs in the round is absolutely vital, but on this relatively narrow point, Ofcom is content with the resources it has.
In response to the hon. Member for Bristol North-West, the draft regulations give us the powers to consider what a mobile USO might look like. We do not immediately intend to take that forward, but it is a statement of the obvious that more and more households, especially with the growth of 5G, will be able to rely on a mobile service rather than anything else. Given that the USO is really important, the draft regulations give us the power to go further but we are not announcing anything as yet, but the hon. Gentleman’s Select Committee may wish to take an interest, I suspect.
I commend the regulations to the Committee. They are an important step forward, and I am pleased to hear that the Opposition do not oppose them, because I think there is real consensus across the House on the value of digital connectivity. The Government’s ambition is unashamedly extraordinary in going as far as we possibly can with gigabit connectivity. The regulations allow us to continue to drive that forward at the fastest pace we possibly can, and I commend them to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Inquiry into policing at the Orgreave coking plant, 18 June 1984
Environment Bill (Twelfth sitting)
Tuesday 10th November 2020
(4 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Environment Act 2021 View all Environment Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 10 November 2020 - (10 Nov 2020)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
We have a great deal to get through today, so there is no time for idle chitchat.
Clause 37
Duty of the OEP to Involve the Relevant Minister
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
Hon. Members will see that under clause 38, when the Office for Environmental Protection
“gives an information notice or a decision notice, applies for an environmental review, judicial review or statutory review or applies to intervene in a judicial review or statutory review, it must publish a statement”.
What is curious about this clause is that while it states at the beginning that the OEP “must” publish a statement, the next subsection says that that does not apply
“if the OEP considers that in the circumstances it would not be in the public interest to publish a statement.”
My concern is this: in what circumstances would it not be in the public interest to publish a statement; and why is it only for the OEP and no one else to decide that it should not publish such a statement? I would like to hear from the Minister what she considers those circumstances to be and, if the OEP so decided, what would be the criteria upon which that decision would be taken?
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
When we last met we all agreed that the OEP should have as much independence as possible. I fully support that. What I find confusing about the hon. Gentleman’s argument is that he is talking about reducing the OEP’s ability or flexibility to do what it sees fit, and he is trying to set down in law exactly what it should do in different circumstances. Surely we should appoint an independent regulator, make sure that the best people are running it and—as much as one can—let it decide whether to issue a notice or not. This would limit its independence.
Dr Whitehead
The hon. Gentleman will have accepted already that, throughout the passage of the Bill, we have tried to assert robustly—this is accepted on all sides—that the OEP should be truly independent and should undertake its activities in that spirit of independence. We have tried to point out that a number of measures in the Bill would undermine that independence by putting constraints on the way in which it acts.
Secondly, we have tried to ensure that the OEP is set up in such a way that it is fully transparent and organisationally accountable for what it does. Those two things go together: the OEP should be fully independent, and it should be set up in such a way that that independence is based on accountability and transparency in its actions. Clause 38—I remind hon. Members that this is a clause stand part debate, not an Opposition amendment—appears to suggest that the OEP has an option to be less than transparent in its dealings with the public in relation to public statements. That is a substantial caveat on a requirement. It is a “must”, not a “may”. It “must” publish those statements, but the caveat is that if the OEP thinks that it is not in the public interest, it does not have to do so. On the face of it, that is resiling from the second principle that I set out: that the OEP should act in a publicly transparent and accountable way.
What I want from the Minister is either an explanation of why that subsection has been placed in the Bill or to know whether there could be a potential challenge to the subsection, which appears to enable the OEP to decide, regardless of any other criteria, that it feels something would not be in the public interest. If the OEP decided that it would not be in the public interest to publish a statement—so no such statement would appear and people would not know even that a statement was about to come out—what would be the potential challenge, and what machinery exists elsewhere in the Bill that one may not yet have seen that would enable criteria to be applied to how the OEP considers what is in the public interest or otherwise? All hon. Members will agree that if the question of public interest is subjective and internal to an organisation, that is not necessarily a good test of what the public interest might be considered to be.
That is why this is a stand part debate: it is a question to the Minister, rather than a suggestion that this clause be removed.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Good morning, Mr Gray. My hon. Friend is making important points. In paragraph 340 of the explanatory notes, there is a comparison with how the European Commission works. One of the key issues is: is this system now stronger or weaker? Does my hon. Friend believe that this is a more or less transparent process?
Dr Whitehead
As my hon. Friend suggests, it is a less transparent process than before. It appears that, in this clause, we are retreating from the principle of transparency. Of course, I may be completely wrong, and there may be factors, to which I hope to be pointed shortly, that mitigate or dissolve that concern. I am sure that the Minister can reassure me on that, or point to things that mean that the clause, odd though it looks in terms of transparency, is not as bad as it seems on the surface.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
It is good to be back. I thank the shadow Minister for his comments, and all hon. Members for carrying the proceedings last week when I was unwell. I put on record my thanks to the Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot, who did a sterling job, and to the Opposition for, I think, being kind.
We are talking about clauses 37 to 40 en bloc. Those clauses ensure that the OEP can operate effectively, openly and transparently when carrying out its important duties, which of course is vital. Clause 37 ensures that relevant Ministers are informed and able to participate in relevant enforcement cases, and that the OEP can recommend ministerial involvement in legal proceedings. That allows it to make a case for a Minister’s participation in instances where it may be helpful for Ministers to provide input to the proceedings.
The shadow Minister touched on clause 38. I gather that he will not oppose it, but it is always good to have some questions and inquiries. I hope I will make it clear that the clause requires the OEP to publish statements at specific points during the enforcement process. The clause is important because it establishes the OEP as an open, effective and transparent watchdog.
If the OEP, having decided to carry out an investigation, is to do so effectively, we must enable it to obtain and review all the available information from other public bodies, so that it can reach a robust and fair conclusion. Clause 39 therefore ensures that, in appropriate circumstances, obligations of secrecy that would otherwise apply are disapplied to enable public authorities to provide information to the OEP in complaints and enforcement cases. All these clauses work together. It is important to note, though, that we have also ensured that certain fundamental protections, such as those set out in the Data Protection Act 2018, are unaffected by this clause.
Openness and transparency are important, but confidentiality is also vital to allow the OEP to establish a safe space for dialogue with public authorities, so that it can quickly and effectively establish the facts in a case and explore potential pragmatic solutions without the need for litigation, where that can be reasonably avoided. The whole system has been set up in a way that means that when the OEP is carrying out its enforcement functions, it first takes a liaison, advisory and discussion role. We want to do all that before we get down the road of litigation and all those other things. That is very important.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire for his comments. He is absolutely right that we do not want to tie the hands of the OEP. It has to be independent, and it has to be able to come to its conclusions about which bits of information will and will not be relevant.
Clause 40 plays an important role in the OEP carrying out its functions by ensuring an appropriate degree of confidentiality during the enforcement process. I assure the shadow Minister that the clause does not create a blanket ability to prevent information being disclosed, which I think is his fear; that is not how the OEP will operate. The OEP and public authorities will still have to assess any requests for information case by case, in line with the relevant regulations.
Clauses 39 and 40 therefore strike a careful balance between retaining confidentiality of that very sensitive aspect of the enforcement process and creating greater transparency across the process. As has been said many times, transparency is absolutely key to good governance. The EU does not even have such a system, so we are setting ourselves up as world leaders by introducing this kind of independent body. I hope those points have reassured the Committee.
Dr Whitehead
I thank the Minister for her explanation. I am not entirely happy with the way the clause is drafted, but I accept what she has said and will not oppose it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 37 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 38 to 40 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 41
Meaning of “natural environment”
The Chair
We now come to amendment 113. No member of the Committee has signed the amendment, but anyone may move it if they wish. No one has signalled that they wish to, so we will move straight on.
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 126, in clause 41, page 25, line 35, after “structures” insert
“but including sites of archaeological, architectural, artistic, cultural or historic interest insofar as they form part of the landscape”.
This amendment seeks to widen the definition of “natural environment” in this Part to include the historic environment. For the avoidance of doubt, we do not seek the inclusion of the historic environment in the definition of “environmental law”, or in the enforcement functions of the OEP.
The amendment revisits, in a slightly different way, a discussion that we had about the definition of “natural environment” and the effect of buildings and other structures on the environment. As the Committee will recall, when we spoke about that in a previous sitting, we discussed the fact that the appearance of the natural environment has, over centuries, been changed by human activities. If we went back in time, there would be no point at which we could say, “This is the natural environment, so we will use this point in time for our definition, because after this time, it is no longer the natural environment.” The natural environment is clearly constantly changing through human intervention.
Amendment 126 would give the clause a better grip on the issue than amendment 113, which was not moved. Amendment 113 sought to leave out
“(except buildings or other structures)”,
but amendment 126 would insert
“but including sites of archaeological, architectural, artistic, cultural or historic interest insofar as they form part of the landscape”.
That is the nub of the question, as far as our landscape is concerned. Not only has the natural environment been changed over time in the way that I have described, but there are, in our natural environment, a whole host of structures—they might come under the definition of “buildings or other structures”, which, as hon. Members can see, are effectively excluded from the clause—that in various ways become part of the natural landscape as a result of their longevity in it, and because they have, at some stage, changed that landscape, thereby becoming a part of it.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. It is important to recognise that people may not even know of such places. There is a mountain called Twmbarlwm just outside my constituency. On the top, it has a twmp, or pimple, which is an iron age burial mound. People do not even know that that pimple is manmade. They would be affronted if anyone tried to deal with it. They assume it is natural, but it is not, though it has been there for hundreds of centuries. It is important that we make every effort to cover all eventualities. If this Bill is to be groundbreaking for generations to come, we must cover all bases.
Dr Whitehead
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. That underlines what we know is right in our hearts. If we reduced this to a few lines on a piece of paper, we might have to start making them distinctive in order to define what we are talking about. This amendment tries to ensure that such structures are regarded as part of the natural landscape.
Anthony Browne
The hon. Gentleman makes the valid point that many historical monuments have become part of the landscape. The UK is one of the most densely populated countries in the world. After 40,000 years of continuous human habitation, there is virtually nothing left that is not touched by the hand of man. I fully support the desire to protect monuments and so on, but the Bill is about protecting the environment. There is a separate legal framework for protecting monuments. I am worried about confusing the objective of the Bill, and worried that the OEP will be tasked with protecting monuments—when there is a separate legal framework for that—rather than protecting the natural environment.
Dr Whitehead
I take the hon. Gentleman’s point but it is not a question of the OEP having to take on the mantle of English Heritage, or a national monuments commission, and assiduously sweeping the leaves off ramparts and other things. Hon. Members will see that clause 41 is simply a meaning clause: it defines what we mean elsewhere in the Bill. It is important inasmuch as it provides a serious context in which other measures in the Bill can be seated. That is its only function. When we are seating those meanings within other parts of the Bill, it is important that we are clear about the extent of those meanings or indeed the limits of those meanings. That is all that the amendment seeks to do. It does not seek to do anything more, and does not give the OEP any obligation as far as these monuments and buildings are concerned, nor the changes in the landscape to which I refer. The hon. Member can rest assured that there would be no duty of care on the OEP, and it is merely a matter of including that in the definition.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend share with me concerns that the National Trust—one of the custodians of our British landscape—is also concerned about that very clause? They say that heritage and the natural environment “go hand in hand”. They will be looking to the clause to put them together in the correct way, as my hon. Friend said, for the very nature of our British environment. Nobody in this room would disagree with that.
Dr Whitehead
I thank my hon. Friend for that point, which I had not fully covered. The National Trust is, indeed, responsible for sweeping the leaves and various other things from these monuments, and it is among the bodies expressing concern that the meaning of clause 41 will not adequately serve the purpose of guiding the clauses that go before it. I hope that the Minister can provide a good explanation for the meaning in parenthesis being as it is. It is not that it should not be there—it will cover a number of issues, and if it was not there then we might start considering a modern block of flats part of the natural environment. Clearly, we would not want to go that far. I hope that the Minister accepts that amendment 126 strikes the right balance, ensuring that we have a much better definition to work with and that we make a distinction between buildings and other structures that are clearly not part of our natural environment and those that have become so, certainly in the public’s view, and deserve to be included in this meaning clause.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his amendment on the meaning of the natural environment. Obviously, we discussed this previously in some of the earlier clauses relating to heritage and such. I recognise that the natural environment does not exist in a vacuum and that our interactions with it and use of it create a heritage that we should be proud of, as I think we all are. It does not exist in a vacuum—the shadow Minister himself touched on this—but I believe it would be inappropriate to include the elements in the amendment in this particular definition, given that one of its key aims is to determine the scope of the functions of the Office for Environmental Protection.
The OEP must remain focused on its principal objective of environmental protection and the improvement of the natural environment. It is not its place to investigate complaints against breaches of legislation such as that concerned with cultural heritage such as listed buildings, which my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire touched on, listed building consents or protection for ancient monuments. There is a raft of legislation that deals with all those things, and that is not the role of the OEP.
Daniel Zeichner
I welcome the Minister back to the Committee. This is a fine distinction, but does she not agree that, in so dramatically excluding “buildings or other structures”, the Bill goes too far, and the amendment is an attempt to bring it back slightly?
Rebecca Pow
Obviously all that has been considered and thought about, but the hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I will come on to what the 25-year plan says in a minute, because that really nails why the wording he wants is not there: it is because we believe it is already covered. It is important to note that the hon. Member’s explanatory statement—[Interruption.] I will just stop that buzzing, Mr Chairman; it is very annoying.
Rebecca Pow
I apologise—I did not know it was on.
It is important to note that the hon. Member’s explanatory statement is very specific about the effect he intends the amendment to have. It states that he specifically does not wish the historic environment to be included,
“in the definition of ‘environmental law’, or in the enforcement functions of the OEP.”
It is necessary to have a distinction to ensure that, as I have just touched on, laws concerning, for example, building safety or other matters do not get tangled up in this and are not included in the OEP’s remit. Its focus must be the natural environment.
The clarification is welcome, and it is good to think about it, but unfortunately I must also point out our concern about the unintended effect that this amendment will have. The three definitions in clauses 41, 42 and 43 are intrinsically linked, working together to underpin the OEP and determine the scope of its enforcement functions. Therefore, including those matters within the meaning of the natural environment would mean that they would also be included in scope of the meaning of “environmental law” and the OEP’s enforcement policy.
Going slightly back on the previous point I made, the definition would not preclude the OEP’s looking at any breaches of environmental law that were related to the environment, for example, around Maiden castle or the twmp mentioned by the hon. Member for Newport West. Say, for example, that that was a protected habitat or there was a protected species within that habitat—I have the same around my wonderful Wellington monument, which is managed by the National Trust—and there was seen to be some contravention of the nature conservation law in relation to that habitat, which I would say Maiden castle is very much part and parcel of; that would come under the remit of the OEP to investigate, so a lot of it is included.
In line with the explanatory note, I am sure hon. Members will agree with my earlier point that it would not be appropriate for the OEP to oversee legislation in relation to all those specific wider matters. I assure the shadow Minister that the absence of the historic environment from this definition does not preclude the Government’s work on important aspects of the historic environment. For example, to touch on the previous intervention, the Bill ensures that the 25-year environment plan, including the recognition of the connection between the natural environment and heritage that is specifically written out in that 25-year plan, will be adopted as the first environmental improvement plan through the Bill. I also remind hon. Members that we have a manifesto pledge to protect and restore the natural environment, which is all part of this—it is all-encompassing. The 25-year environment plan will set the benchmark for future plans, including how to balance environmental and heritage considerations. In the light of that explanation, I ask the hon. Member to kindly withdraw the amendment.
Dr Whitehead
With the greatest respect, I do not think the Minister has made the sort of case I anticipated she might make this morning to explain why the clause is so loose as far as buildings and other structures are concerned. It is not the case that our amendment would prejudice clauses subsequent to this—the Minister set out clauses 42 and 43 as falling within, for example, the meaning of environmental law. We think it would be a good thing if the structures and buildings that have changed the natural environment and have effectively become part of it were included in those considerations.
Rebecca Pow
I have the exact words here of the 25-year environment plan, which is the first environmental improvement plan. It commits us to:
“Safeguarding and enhancing the beauty of our natural scenery and improving its environmental value while being sensitive to considerations of its heritage.”
It is in there.
Dr Whitehead
I am sorry to say that that is rather a tenuous linkage to the fact that we must set out a plan. I have a copy of the plan we have already set out in front of me. There is merely half a line within that general plan to say that we should be “sensitive”. There is nothing else in the plan, as far as I can see, that says anything further than that—nothing that goes anywhere near the sort of consideration that we are putting in front of the Committee this morning.
The amendment makes it clear that we should not only be sensitive, but that we should include as a consideration those historic monuments and those elements of heritage that effectively form part of the natural landscape. Nothing in the Bill addresses that point, and the amendment seeks to put that consideration on the face of the Bill.
The Minister has underlined our point to some extent. Being sensitive is not good enough; we have to have something in the Bill that spells out the overall consideration that should be made when thinking about the natural environment. We think strongly about this point, to the extent that we will press the Committee to a Division this morning. The amendment has very considerable merit and, whether or not the Division is successful—we will see when the votes come out, rather in the way of the American election—we nevertheless hope that the Minister will consider the point further.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 125, in clause 41, page 25, line 35, after “water” insert “, including the marine environment”.
This amendment clarifies that the natural environment includes a reference to the marine environment and is not confined to inland waters.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 193, in clause 41, page 25, line 35, at end insert—
“(d) the marine environment,”.
This amendment aims to ensure that the seas and oceans and the health of those environments are considered when the OEP is working.
Dr Whitehead
Before I discuss the amendment, I would like to seek your guidance, Mr Gray. As you can see, unfortunately, our Whip is not with us this morning through illness, but I wish to get a note to the Government Whip. Since I cannot walk out of the room to talk to him, may I through you or somebody pass this note to him?
The Chair
I would be delighted to pass that to the Minister, who will pass it on to her Whip.
Dr Whitehead
I shall be grateful if the Minister could draw the Whip’s attention to that when he returns.
The Chair
It might be appropriate for the shadow Minister to appoint one of the other Labour Members as a temporary Whip. That might be helpful for the Committee.
Dr Whitehead
Yes, that is quite right. Perhaps I should have thought of that; it is difficult to do mid-flight.
It was also remiss of me not to welcome the Minister back to her place this morning. I think she knows that when she was absent last week, we sent her our good wishes for a speedy recovery. Indeed, our wishes have come true as she is with us today. I am pleased to see her in her place and I hope that she has indeed had a speedy recovery and is fully back with us, as I am sure she is. I am sorry that I did not place that on the record earlier, but I was rather preoccupied with Maiden castle and various other things.
The amendment seeks to include a better definition, effectively through a few simple words, in the same clause that we were talking about previously concerning the meaning of “natural environment”. It would mean that subsection 41(c), which begins
“land (except buildings or other structures), air and water”,
had at the end a clarification that that includes the marine environment.
It seems pretty obvious that that ought to be in the Bill. We are a country with a length of coastline that is almost uniquely extensive in Europe, and we are an island. Obviously, in the UK, we also have extensive inland waterways, such as lakes, rivers and, indeed, man-made inland waterways that have effectively become part of the natural environment, as I am sure hon. Members agree, such that they merit the sort of protection suggested by the definition in this clause. When the Minister replies, will she assure us that man-made inland waterways are included in the definition of “water” in the clause?
At no point does the Bill mention the marine environment. To the credit of Members across the House, we have developed sites of special scientific interest and conservation zones in the marine environment and around the coastline, sometimes quite a way offshore. It is not a question of having the land and the foreshore, and then simply the deep blue yonder. The marine environment must be seen as an integral part of the process of environmental conservation. Our legislation includes substantial activity to enable environmental protection and conservation to take place in those zones.
Ruth Jones
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. During the passage of the Fisheries Bill, we spent a long time considering how to avoid dredgers damaging the marine environment. That should be included in this Bill, so that our legislation is joined up and cohesive, and ensures that the marine environment is as protected as the land.
Dr Whitehead
My hon. Friend’s important point underlines the purpose of our amendment and impels me to highlight that this is not just a theoretical question about the protection of the marine environment, but a practical question about how we approach that. For example, the marine conservation zone in Lyme bay has the very practical effect of—among other things—preserving the environment for cold-water corals and various other things in that very fragile ecosystem that require our protection to survive and thrive. Those considerations of the marine environment are absolutely and indistinguishably conjoined.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman clarify the purpose of the amendment? Given that paragraph 355 of the explanatory notes to the Bill states:
“This includes both the marine and terrestrial environments. ‘Water’ will include seawater, freshwater and other forms of water”,
I am not sure what the purpose of the amendment is.
Dr Whitehead
The hon. Gentleman has quoted the explanatory note, which is not legislation. One of the problems that Committees face is that explanatory notes have a sort of half-life: they are quite often helpful for elucidation, but they add nothing whatsoever to, or take nothing away from, the legislation in front of us. Explanatory notes might mention what is or is not the case, but essentially they indicate only how benevolently or otherwise the Government look upon the legislation.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
I am as big a champion for the marine environment as anyone in this room; before this time last year, it was our livelihood. I am struggling to understand the purpose of the amendment because everything in the marine environment is covered by
“land (except buildings or other structures), air and water, and the natural systems, cycles and processes through which they interact.”
I am struggling to see what in the marine environment is not covered by the Bill as originally written.
Dr Whitehead
The hon. Member will see that the Bill merely contents itself with the word “water”, which can have a number of different interpretations. In this instance, it has a substantially strong interpretation. This is not a problem with the present Government, but we are talking about legislation that must stand the test of time. It is possible and reasonably straightforward to define “water” in this case as internal waterways, rivers and other water services within the land mass. The hon. Member will see that that is what the clause appears to suggest. The “natural environment” is defined as
“plants, wild animals and other living organisms,”
“their habitats” and “land”, which suggests that the word “water” should be taken in the context of the other things in the clause.
Cherilyn Mackrory
With respect, I disagree. What the hon. Member suggests is that the land stops on the foreshore. It does not, of course; it goes straight out to sea and becomes the seabed. The land does not stop. What we are arguing here are the semantics of where our land and our waters end, which will be covered in the Fisheries Bill.
Dr Whitehead
The hon. Member is right to the extent that land does extend under the water, otherwise the seas would drain fairly rapidly and we would be in a bad state. According to the hon. Member’s definition, we are conjoined with every other country in the world. The clause does not say that we must have a definition of “natural environment” that includes that—it stops in terms of what is on our land and what is not under the sea, as far as land is concerned. Arguably, the fact that it includes water could be defined, as the hon. Member suggests, as including everything on that land that is under the sea. It is nevertheless our responsibility—there are different areas of concern expressed in international treaties about territorial waters and various other things.
Anthony Browne
I completely and utterly support that the definition should cover the marine environment. My question to the hon. Member is why he picks on the marine environment as the one point of clarification needed in “land…air and water”. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth has talked about some aspects of the land, but does it cover soil? Does the hon. Gentleman want clarification on that? Does it cover underground waterways, for example, which are big in my area? The big issue in South Cambridgeshire is the aquifer, which is definitely under the ground. Does it cover cave systems? Is “air” just the air we breathe when we talk about air pollution, or is it also the ozone layer and so on? We could carry on with multiple long definitions and a long train of different qualifications, but I think that would create legal uncertainty for lawyers to interpret. The Bill is very generic—“land…air and water” covers everything that is important.
Dr Whitehead
The hon. Gentleman tempts me to go down a detailed path of discussing subterranean water outlets. I assume, because water is within our land mass, that those would be covered by the elision of land mass and water, which is suggested by the clause. Without going into a lengthy disposition about how far under the ground water might be counted as being covered under this arrangement, we can rest assured that those matters are not a serious issue of dispute.
That is why I do not want to go into enormous detail. The amendment is straightforward and short. It proposes several words that would put the matter to rest. It just states in a modest way that the definition should include the marine environment, so that if anyone is in any doubt, there it is in the Bill. That is all we are suggesting. There is no side to that. There are no additional consequences. It merely says we should be clear that that is what it includes. I think we all agree that it should include that.
This morning, we were treated to a quote from the explanatory notes, which indicated that the marine environment should be included, but it is not. We are just doing a modest labour in the vineyard by attempting to ensure that when people say something, they mean what they say. The best way to ensure that people mean what they say is to say it. That is what we propose to do on the face of the Bill.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Amendments 125 and 193 have similar intentions. My amendment was meant as a probing amendment. I will not revisit the areas that the shadow Minister has eloquently gone through. My assumption was that the marine environment was considered for inclusion here and the decision was taken to exclude it. I would be interested to hear from the Minister what the rationale was for that.
Obviously, marine life is just as vital to the global ecosystem as terrestrial life, and the health of marine environments also needs to be protected. There may be some other agencies responsible, which the Government reckon should do the job, but surely there is a good case to be made for an agency with an overarching view of these tasks and challenges for the whole environment. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.
Daniel Zeichner
This is a short clause, but it is very important. I am fortunate to represent Cambridge, a city with some fantastic environmental organisations. The David Attenborough Building is renowned. It houses the Cambridge Conservation Initiative, which includes the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Fauna & Flora International and BirdLife International. I was fortunate to visit them a while ago, when I was preparing for a Westminster Hall debate. I was briefed by a range of dazzling experts. I was struck from their presentations by how many talked about the marine environment. I had not realised how significant it was. That was very much the term they used throughout their recommendations and advice to me.
I know the Minister cares passionately about the marine environment. I remember a Prime Minister’s Question Time when she questioned the showering habits of the Speaker. It is amazing the things that people remember. I should be clear that she was referring to the microbeads in Mr Bercow’s shower gel. I do not doubt the passion that she feels for the marine environment.
That leads me to question, given that we all agree on this point, why it cannot be put in the Bill. I believe the Government intend to include it. If there is such resistance to putting it in the Bill, it is either because each side wants to defend its position and does not want to give way, or there is something a bit more sinister.
Daniel Zeichner
The Minister says no. She might want to think about that, maybe not this morning, but as the Bill progresses. I would have said that including that one phrase would strengthen the Bill from the Government’s point of view and not leave people wondering what other treasures close to our land mass some parts of Government organisations have their eye on.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the shadow Minister for his very kind opening words. I also thank him for his interest in the clause, which is crucial to future environmental governance. I appreciate the sentiments behind the amendment, but I must disagree and say that it is unnecessary. I have thought about this matter a great deal myself, as hon. Friends and Members can imagine. I have also spoken to the Natural Capital Committee at length about this, and it is satisfied with what we have come up with after much discussion.
Hon. Members are aware that the marine environment is by far the largest part of the UK’s environment and, as such, is an enormous part of our natural world. It is therefore vital that we safeguard crucial marine ecosystems, and that is a core part of our environmental policy. One of the names I get in my portfolio is the marine Minister, so I say, “Leave water and the marine space out at your peril.”
That is why the marine environment is included within the existing clause, as is clarified on page 57 of the explanatory notes. I hear what everyone says about the explanatory notes, but the meaning of the natural environment explicitly covers “water”. This includes seawater, canals, lakes, the Somerset levels—which are seawater that has come inland, goes back out, and is then joined by inland water—and all the underground aquifers.
A very good point was made: where do we stop with these lists of things? That is important to remember. The definition also covers—I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Truro and Falmouth and for Keighley for mentioning this—the land that includes the seabed, the intertidal zones and the coastal plains. They are all part of the natural environment. Any plant, wild animal, living organism or habitat is also included in the definition, regardless of where it is physically.
Out of interest, I want to touch on the target-setting powers in the Bill. Targets can be set on any matter relating to the natural environment, which could include the marine environment. That means we can set long-term targets or legally binding targets that can help improve the marine environment. The Government must set out at least one target in their four priority areas, which include air, biodiversity, water and nature. The initial round of targets might include a marine environment target, and that could be one of the biodiversity targets. That measure is already in the Bill; it will actually bolster, protect and strengthen the myriad measures we already have in place for protecting the marine space. All of this will dovetail with the sustainability elements in the Fisheries Bill, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Newport West, so it is all part and parcel.
I hope I have provided some assurances. The marine environment is very much included within the definition and, as such, each element of the environmental governance framework—including the OEP—will apply to it. On those grounds, I propose that the amendment is unnecessary, and I respectfully ask the shadow Minister to withdraw it.
Dr Whitehead
The Minister has given some good and solid assurances concerning what she thinks the clause could be interpreted to mean. Clearly, the fact that she has said that this morning suggests that it might be possible, should there be a dispute about this, to draw upon her words as underlining the Government’s good intentions. We have never disputed that. We are happy that the Minister thinks in that particular way.
The Chair
I hope it is not impertinent of me to point out that we have now been at this for more than an hour and have achieved only clause 41, which is less speedy progress than other Committees I have chaired. It might be helpful to the Committee to seek to make speedier progress.
Clause 42
Meaning of “Environmental Protection”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
I beg to move amendment 31, in Clause 42, page26, line 1, after “considering” insert “advising”.
Member’s explanatory statement
The fourth limb of the definition of environmental protection covers the functions of monitoring, assessing, considering or reporting on anything within the other three limbs. This amendment adds the function of “advising”, which was included in the equivalent provisions of the draft Environment (Principles and Governance) Bill (clause 31(2)(d)), and last session’s Environment Bill (clause 40(2)(d)).
Rebecca Pow
Before I begin, it was terribly remiss of me that I omitted to mention the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith when discussing the previous amendment. I meant to do so, but I forgot to pick up my bit of paper. All the hon. Lady’s comments were welcome and duly noted, and added to the general discussion and debate that we had about marine matters. I apologise for that; I meant to do so and then it was too late.
Government amendments 31 and 65 insert the word “advising” into clause 42(d) of the Bill and make the same amendment to schedule 2 in respect of the Office for Environmental Protection in Northern Ireland. This is a technical amendment to ensure that our new environmental governance framework can operate fully and effectively.
Environmental protection is at the heart of what the Bill intends to achieve, and as such it is vital that we ensure that the meaning of environmental protection provided in the Bill is as effective as possible. Without the amendment, statutory duties for public bodies to advise on environmental protection, such as section 4 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006—which we all refer to as the NERC Act—which places a duty on Natural England to provide advice at the request of a public authority, would not be considered environmental law.
The OEP would not be able to monitor or enforce this kind of legislative provision and the Secretary of State would also not be obliged to make a statement about any new legislation in this place. Therefore, not including “advising” in this clause would place unnecessary and unhelpful limitations on our new environmental governance framework. This would limit the Government’s ambition to be a global leader in championing the most effective policies and legislation for the environment. I therefore commend the amendment to the Committee.
Dr Whitehead
The Minister’s amendment does indeed clarify matters and enables a better definition for monitoring assessments and reporting. The Opposition are happy for the word “advising” to go into the clause, but I would like the Minister to reflect briefly on why that word, which she is now putting in as an administrative amendment, was in previous iterations of the Bill. It was in the original Bill two years ago and also in the current Bill’s immediate predecessor, which was unable to make progress because of the election. Why is it, then, that the word did not appear in the current Bill? Was it an accident? Did someone consider it inappropriate, and is the Minister now making up for that lapse? Unless it was an accident, could the Minister assure me that there was no underlying reason for leaving out the word, the reinsertion of which now requires a Government amendment, and that she has not mentioned anything that we ought to consider?
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question and for saying that the Opposition are happy with getting the word “advising” into this clause. I think I am at complete liberty to say that it was just a technical correction. I am pleased that it has been spotted and thank the hon. Gentleman for having done so.
Amendment 31 agreed to.
Clause 42, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 43
Meaning of “environmental law”
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 127, in clause 43, page 26, line 6, leave out “mainly”.
This amendment ensures that any legislative provision that concerns environmental protection is included in the definition of “environmental law”.
Clause 43 concerns itself with one word, but, as I think hon. Members will appreciate, it provides, as is the case with many Bills, the crucial underpinning of a particular part—namely, those clauses up to clause 43. In other words, it defines the words we have discussed this morning and on other occasions. Although it may appear that a great deal of debate is focused on very small parts of the Bill—on one or two words—it is important to pay attention to them and to get this right. I appreciate that we may appear not to be making the progress we would otherwise want to make, but this is essential for the overall progress of the Bill. I can reveal to the Committee that I have discussed with the Government Whip exactly how much progress we can make today, and we need to ensure that it is commensurate with getting the Bill through in good order overall. I assure hon. Members—and, indeed, you, Mr Gray—that we want to make good progress and get the Bill through in good order and in good time. I hope that what we do this morning will aid rather than impede that progress.
Clause 43 concerns itself with the meaning of environmental law. Subsection (1) states that it
“is mainly concerned with environmental protection, and…is not concerned with an excluded matter”.
Subsection (2) defines excluded matters. We are concerned about the word “mainly”. We think that legislation that defines the meaning of environmental law should be “concerned with” environmental protection, not “concerned mainly with” with environmental protection. The use of that word implies that a number of other things could be construed as not being concerned with environmental protection. Logic suggests that the inclusion of the word “mainly” admits the possibility and, indeed, the likelihood that there are things outwith that particular definition.
Subsection (2) refers to excluded matters and I think we will discuss some of those in a future debate. Nevertheless, assuming it stands, it defines what is outwith the concerns of environmental protection. The Bill itself puts forward the things that are excluded from consideration, while subsection (1) uses the word “mainly”, which adds another area of uncertainty regarding what is and what is not excluded.
Ruth Jones
Does my hon. Friend agree that the term “mainly concerned” is ambiguous, with no clear legal meaning? Indeed, Dr David Wolfe QC drew attention to this issue in his written evidence to the pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill.
Dr Whitehead
My hon. Friend is a mine of carefully culled information from previous sittings of the Committee, including the evidence sessions, which underline the points we are making this morning. She has set out that this is not just our concern; it is widely shared outside this Committee Room, and for that reason it deserves additional consideration.
Our case is that the word “mainly” should be removed and that the definition of environmental law should be that it is “concerned with environmental protection”. Subject to concerns that we may have about some of the areas listed under excluded matters, the fact that subsections (1) and (2) sit together should provide a very clear line of discussion about the meaning of environmental law as far as legislative provision is concerned.
Rebecca Pow
I support the broad approach to defining environmental law, which has always been our intention with clause 43. We also need to ensure, however, that the definition is practical and workable, particularly for the OEP. The definition must not give the OEP such a wide remit that it is unmanageable or intrudes into areas where it would be inappropriate for the OEP to act or to be expected to act.
Rebecca Pow
I think that is quite a good example, but the hon. Member for Cambridge might come up with another.
Daniel Zeichner
I will not come up with a counter-example, but I think many would draw a very different conclusion from the Minister’s example. I am not a lawyer, but we are advised that the term “mainly” is mainly ambiguous in law. Others have suggested that “related to” would be a better term. Why have the Government chosen “mainly” rather than “related to”?
Rebecca Pow
Just like the hon. Gentleman, we have also taken a great deal of advice and have used “mainly” for the reasons that I have set out. Although the OEP could still prioritise, it would be unhelpful for stakeholders were the OEP to be concerned in a huge range of issues that have only minor or tangential links to environmental protection or improvement.
It is important to note that the definition is already broader than it might initially seem because it applies to individual legislative provisions, so it could be part of a wider Act or statutory instrument. That means that even if most of an Act or statutory instrument is not mainly concerned with environmental protections, any specific provisions that are considered environmental law would come under the OEP’s remit. It is also worth noting that the term “mainly” is not prescribed in the Bill. The OEP and public authorities will therefore be able to interpret it in accordance with its normal—another legal word—meaning.
I appreciate the intentions of the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, but the amendment is not necessary or appropriate because the existing definition is sufficiently broad and balanced with the need to maintain the OEP’s focus on the protection and improvement of the natural environmental. I therefore ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Dr Whitehead
I thank the Minister for her response—she had a good go at it. We will not withdraw our concern, but as the Minister has given some reassurance about how the term “mainly” might be interpreted and has indicated that some thought was given to that prior to the Bill’s drafting, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Deidre Brock
I beg to move amendment 115, in clause 43, page 26, line 10, leave out paragraph (b).
This amendment removes the exceptions for legislative provisions relating to armed forces and national security matters from the definition of ‘environmental law’ for the purposes of the scope of the OEP’s functions.
I thank the Minister for her kind words and would like to correct myself slightly because I did not welcome her back to her place earlier. I am very pleased to see her and am glad that she has recovered.
The armed forces are potentially among the biggest polluters. The evidence from Scotland demonstrates that there has to be some oversight of the potential for environmental damage. I mentioned that previously in respect of the issues that have arisen. The nuclear bases on the Clyde do some work with SEPA—the Scottish Environment Protection Agency—and local authorities to alert them to some instances, but not all. Even those scant measures are the subject of voluntary agreements rather than obligations or regulatory oversight. No information is forthcoming, however, on the rest of the defence estate across Scotland. I imagine there is nothing about the estates across England either.
We know that the MOD does environmental assessments because it told me so in answer to written questions, but that information is kept secret. That is not good enough. We all have to play our part. As I have said, no individual Department should be completely excused from shouldering that responsibility. The phrase “so far as is reasonably practical” is used in a lot of legislation from which defence and our armed forces are exempt, and it could be too easily used as a get-out when that suited. It is time for that loophole to be removed, and for oversight to be in a place whereby such activities could receive independent and robust scrutiny that—while allowing for sensitivities around national security and similar matters—ensured that activities could be monitored satisfactorily. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution. We heard something about the issue with respect to previous clauses as well, and we recognise the intention behind those. Protecting our country is fundamental, which is why exemptions for the armed forces and national security are maintained. Any legislation that could be covered by those exemptions would concern highly sensitive matters that were vital to the protection of our realm, so it is appropriate to restrict the OEP’s oversight of and access to information in such areas.
We want to make it clear, so that there is absolutely no doubt, that legislative provisions relating to these matters cannot be environmental law, and so cannot fall within the OEP’s remit. Legislative provisions concerning national security would cover matters such as the continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent and other policy areas vital to the protection and defence of the UK, which are of the utmost importance.
The single most important thing that we do is protect our people. It would not be appropriate for the OEP to have jurisdiction here, where its intervention could hinder vital work. We expect that such specialist matters would also be outside the OEP’s areas of expertise. As such, the OEP would not be appropriately qualified to enforce such issues. Legislative provisions concerning the armed forces would cover matters related to personnel and staffing that link to defence capability and matters such as the Armed Forces Act. It would not be appropriate for the OEP to have a role overseeing the legislation.
To be clear: the exemption does not mean that public authorities such as the MOD or any of the armed forces will be exempt from scrutiny by the OEP in respect of their implementation of environmental law—for example, a lot of MOD land has site of special scientific interest designation; it simply means that legislation concerning the armed forces or national security will be excluded from the OEP’s remit. Much of the defence land is protected land with SSSI designation. The OEP will still be able to hold public authorities accountable on that land for their statutory duties concerning the protection of the site, as the relevant legislative provisions will not be covered as regards national security or the armed forces.
The Scottish Government have, I note, taken a similar approach on the issue in section 10(3)(a) of the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Legal Continuity) (Scotland) Bill 2018. They also have a number of exemptions that are not unrelated to this. It is worth noting that the Ministry of Defence has its own environmental policies, and it went into that in some detail last week. It does a great deal of good environmental work. I should mention the stone curlew project I visited, but there are many others where it is doing excellent work for protected species and habitats. It prides itself on that, and has a strong record of delivering on those commitments. On the whole, its SSSIs are in pretty good condition, so all credit to the MOD.
I know that the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith has done a lot of work in this area, and it is something she has talked about from the beginning. I thank her for raising this, because it gives us a chance to make the argument. Given the sensitivities and existing environmental commitments, and given my clarification that the provision does not exempt from scrutiny public authorities that are concerned with national security, I hope she will consider withdrawing the amendment.
Deidre Brock
I remind the Minister again that the Scottish Government have no control over defence issues, so it is perhaps no surprise that they have had to exempt that in the continuity Bill. I hear what she says about some scrutiny being applied, but I still feel that there is too much of a blackout around the information relating to these areas. That is what I, environmental groups and members of the public have issues with.
I appreciate that there are sensitive areas that will have to be dealt with differently, but I am afraid I remain to be convinced that the exemptions are appropriate in this day and age, and that transparency across Government is not required by the public and various environmental groups that we have all dealt with. This is certainly a principle that is very important to me. With that in mind, I will push the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Deidre Brock
I beg to move amendment 116, in clause 43, page 26, line 11, leave out paragraph (c).
This amendment removes the exceptions for legislative provisions relating to tax, spending and the allocation of resources within government from the definition of ‘environmental law’ for the purposes of the scope of the OEP’s functions.
You will be relieved to hear, Mr Gray, that I will not be pushing the amendment to a vote, although that is something I am keeping in my back pocket for the future. It seems to me that by fully exempting the main thrusts of Government policy, which are the biggest tools in the Government’s cupboard, the Government are not driving their policy towards the best possible environmental goals. By wholly exempting tax and spend from their thinking on such matters, the Government are missing a chance to engage their biggest public policy lever.
I would have thought that at least some consideration of these issues would have been useful for the Government. That would have shown real commitment to change, improvement, making a future unlike the past and putting the environment at the middle of decision making. As I have said in the past, I appreciate the Minister’s sincerity and her belief in these issues, but surely she does not want it to look as though the Government are merely ticking a box to say that the gap left by Brexit is being filled. Instead, she can show that there is an environmental heart to this legislation and this Government, not simply warm words. Here is an opportunity to prove that.
I am particularly keen to hear the Minister’s reasoning behind the exemption, because it seems that the Government are missing a trick by not showing their commitment to environmental issues on this particular point.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Lady for tabling her amendment and for saying she will not push it to a vote. Although I recognise the intention behind the amendment, it is important that the exemption is maintained to ensure sound economic and fiscal decision making. It would be inappropriate for the OEP to have oversight of the implementation of legislative provisions that specifically concerned taxation, spending or the allocation of resources, as the OEP needs to keep its focus on the protection of the natural environment.
Legislation regarding taxation is developed by Treasury Ministers, as the hon. Lady knows, and it is important that they are able to set taxes to raise the revenue that allows us to deliver essential services, such as the NHS, policing, education and schools—all those things that we all need and want. It would not be appropriate for the OEP to have jurisdiction over this area or over the administration of taxation regimes by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.
I want to give a bit of clarity on this, as I think there may be some confusion: the term “taxation” does not extend to legislation relating to regulatory schemes such as the plastic bag charge, which was particularly successful, or the imposition of fees to cover the cost of a regulatory regime. Therefore, legislation relating to these matters could be considered within environmental law, and the OEP could take enforcement action if the public authority failed to comply.
The words
“spending and the allocation of resources within government”
refer to decisions about how money and resources are designated within and between Departments. When specifically considering the exclusion or allocation of resources, it is important to note that it is only the legislative provisions on this subject that are excluded. It is just a matter of being very clear about that, as there are many other areas, such as the plastic bag charge, where the OEP will be able to engage.
If a public authority were to argue that it did not have adequate resources to implement an environmental law, that would not stop the legislative provisions in question being environmental law, although the authority’s comments on its resources could, of course, be considered during the OEP’s investigation. On those grounds, I ask the hon. Member whether she might withdraw her amendment, now that I have given her more clarity.
Deidre Brock
I thank the Minister for her comments, which have provided me with some clarity. As I said, I will not be pressing this matter to a vote, although I think I will pursue it in the future. We are all well aware of the Treasury’s track record in resisting attempts to constrain its activities in any way—I suspect there has been some arm twisting done behind the scenes on this one—and this is an issue I will revisit. I thank her again for her words and beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments made: 32, in clause 43, page 26, line 16, leave out
“the National Assembly for Wales”
and insert “Senedd Cymru”.
See Amendment 28.—(Rebecca Pow.)
Amendment 33, in clause 43, page 26, line 21, leave out
“the National Assembly for Wales”
and insert “Senedd Cymru”.
See Amendment 28.—(Rebecca Pow.)
Amendment 34, in clause 43, page 26, line 22, leave out “Assembly” and insert “Senedd”.
See Amendment 28.—(Rebecca Pow.)
Clause 43, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 44
Interpretation of Part 1: General
Amendments made: 35, in clause 44, page 27, line 7, leave out
“the National Assembly for Wales”
and insert “Senedd Cymru”.
See Amendment 28.—(Rebecca Pow.)
Amendment 36, in clause 44, page 27, line 17, leave out
“the National Assembly for Wales”
and insert “Senedd Cymru”.
See Amendment 28.—(Rebecca Pow.)
The Chair
We come to amendment 78. It was not moved previously by any member of the Committee, but if any member of the Committee wished to move it now, they would be welcome to do so.
Dr Whitehead
I would like to. This amendment, as hon. Members will see, Mr Gray, was tabled by two previous members of the Committee. With the effluxion of time, however, they are no longer members of the Committee, for reasons of ascent—
Dr Whitehead
Elevated indeed, to higher and more august posts in the Opposition ranks. They are therefore no longer on the Committee, but that does not mean that what they put forward should have less consideration by the Committee.
The fact that additional consideration should be given is underlined by the information that we received just before the Committee met, which was that the Government proposed to table amendments that will come up later in the Bill’s consideration, concerning illegal deforestation in supply chains and the due diligence to be carried out in connection with those supply chains. Hon. Members will see from the latest marshalled list of amendments that those amendments—a new clause, which we will debate later, and a defining amendment that will be debated a little earlier than that—have now indeed been tabled.
The amendments, in essence, adopt substantial parts of another amendment that was tabled by some hon. Friends and will appear as new clause 5, which we will debate much later. This concerns the question of due diligence in respect of overseas supplies of timber, for example, and various other elements such as that. I suggest that my amendment was an essential defining part of new clause 5, which has in effect been run with by the Government in the proposals they have just tabled. There is a complete chain of connection between all those.
In that context, what is missing from the Bill is a definition not just of environmental harm, whether direct or indirect, but of what is meant in that context by the global footprint of environmental harm or environmental activity. By tabling their amendments, the Government are strongly indicating that the global footprint of environmental harm is a key element of the Bill.
I am delighted that the Government have tabled their amendments, because they cover an area that a lot of people have been concerned about for a long time. We will debate the detail when we get to the new clause, but the fact that the Government have considered the issue, listened and looked at what is before us in Committee—
Ruth Jones
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is good to see the Government using the important proposal tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) and for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) as a stepping stone to improve the Bill? We should welcome the Government doing that.
Dr Whitehead
Yes, indeed. My hon. Friend reminds me of the constituencies of our hon. Friends who tabled new clause 5, so I may now refer to them.
The amendments that the Government have tabled are important and we welcome them. We would like to add to our welcome the idea that the definition in the clause––which is, after all, as I have emphasised, an interpretation clause to ensure that we know the content, detail and background––should be placed so that it links not only to what we have already discussed in the Bill but to what is in the Government amendments. This will be our only opportunity to discuss this because, by the time we get to the Government amendments, we will have gone past this section of the Bill, so it is important that we decide this one way or the other today.
The Chair
I apologise to the Committee. I had not spotted the fact that this amendment was debated on a previous occasion and that we therefore should not be having a second debate on it but should have moved it formally.
Amendment proposed: 78, in clause 44, page 27, line 24, at end insert—
“‘global footprint’ means—
(a) direct and indirect environmental harm, caused by, and
(b) human rights violations arising in connection with the production, transportation or other handling of goods which are imported, manufactured, processed, or sold (whether for the production of other goods or otherwise), including but not limited to direct and indirect harm associated with—
(i) greenhouse gas emissions;
(ii) ecosystem conversion and degradation;
(iii) deforestation and forest degradation;
(iv) biodiversity loss;
(v) water pollution and abstraction; and
(vi) air pollution.”—(Dr Whitehead.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Question negatived.
Clause 44, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 45 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 2
Improving the Natural Environment: Northern Ireland
Amendment proposed: 194, page 127, line 6, schedule 2, leave out sub-paragraph (4) and insert—
‘(4) An environmental improvement plan must set out—
(a) the steps that the Department intends to take to improve the natural environment;
(b) any steps that any other Northern Ireland department intends to take to improve the natural environment;
(c) long-term targets, setting a measurable standard which must be achieved by a specified date that is no less than 15 years after the target is set; and
(d) interim targets relating to each long-term target, setting a measurable standard which must be achieved by a specified date that is—
(i) no more than 5 years after the target is set; and
(ii) no more than 5 years after the most recent review of the environmental improvement plan.
(4A) It is the duty of the Department to ensure that all long-term and interim targets set in an environmental improvement plan are met and the Department must publish an annual report stating how it is meeting these targets.” —(Deidre Brock.)
The amendment will ensure that Northern Ireland has interim and long-term environmental targets, and places a duty on the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to ensure these targets are met.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Question negatived.
Amendment made: 65, page 132, line 1, schedule 2, after “considering” insert “advising”. —(Rebecca Pow.)
This amendment makes provision for Northern Ireland equivalent to the provision made by Amendment 31.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 46 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 3
The Office for Environmental Protection: Northern Ireland
Amendment made: 66, in schedule 3, page 133, line 33, at end insert—
“(2A) But the OEP must not monitor the implementation of, or report on, a matter within the remit of the Committee on Climate Change.
(2B) A matter is within the remit of the Committee on Climate Change if it is a matter on which the Committee is, or may be, required to advise or report under Part 1, sections 34 to 36, or section 48 of the Climate Change Act 2008.”—(Rebecca Pow.)
This amendment modifies the OEP’s duty to monitor, and power to report on, the implementation of Northern Ireland environmental law under paragraph 2 of Schedule 3. It provides that the OEP must not monitor or report on matters within the remit of the Committee on Climate Change, which is defined in sub-paragraph (2B) by reference to specified provisions of the Climate Change Act 2008.
Rebecca Pow
I beg to move amendment 221, in schedule 3, page 146, line 24, at end insert—
“22A (1) Section (Guidance on OEP’s enforcement policy and functions) (guidance on OEP’s enforcement policy and functions) is amended as follows.
(2) At the end of subsection (1) insert ‘, so far as relating to the OEP’s Part 1 enforcement functions.’
(3) In subsection (2)—
(a) in paragraph (a) after ‘policy,’ insert ‘so far as relating to its Part 1 enforcement functions,’;
(b) in paragraph (b) for ‘enforcement functions’ substitute ‘Part 1 enforcement functions’.
(4) In subsection (5) for “enforcement functions” substitute ‘Part 1 enforcement functions’.”
Schedule 3 to the Bill confers on the OEP enforcement functions in relation to Northern Ireland, which are similar to its enforcement functions under Part 1 of the Bill. Guidance issued by the Secretary of State under NC24 is not to apply to the enforcement functions conferred by Schedule 3, which are devolved. This amendment ensures that when Schedule 3 comes into force, the guidance power under NC24 will be limited to the OEP’s enforcement functions under Part 1 of the Bill and will not include its enforcement functions under Schedule 3.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 24—Guidance on OEP’s enforcement policy and functions.
Rebecca Pow
That was a massive canter or, actually, a gallop. We have whizzed on. The amendment and new clause will provide a power for the Secretary of State to issue guidance to the OEP on the matters listed in clause 22(6) concerning its enforcement policy. The OEP will be required to have regard to this guidance in preparing its enforcement policy and in carrying out its enforcement functions. This is an important new provision, which will allow the Secretary of State to seek to address any ambiguities or issues relating to the OEP’s enforcement functions where necessary. We expect the OEP to develop an effective and proportionate enforcement policy in any event, but Secretary of State guidance can act as a helpful resource for the OEP in the process. For example, the Secretary of State may issue guidance to the OEP relating to how it should respect the integrity of other statutory regimes, including those implemented by regulators such as the Environment Agency. That could also be invaluable to resolve and clarify any confusion that may arise regarding the wider environmental regulatory landscape.
As the Minister ultimately responsible to Parliament for the OEP’s use of public money, it is appropriate that the Secretary of State should be able to act if the OEP were not exercising its functions effectively or needed guidance from the Secretary of State to be able to do so, for instance, if it were failing to act strategically and, therefore, not taking appropriate action in relation to major systematic issues. The new clause will not provide the Secretary of State with any power to issue directions to the OEP—that is important—or to intervene in specific decisions. Rather, the OEP is simply required to have regard to the guidance in preparing its enforcement policy and exercising its enforcement functions. Furthermore, the Secretary of State must exercise the power in line with the provision in paragraph 17 of schedule 1, which requires them to
“have regard to the need to protect”
the OEP’s independence. That is important as well.
Rebecca Pow
May I just finish? Any guidance must also be laid before Parliament and published. That means that the process will be transparent, and the Secretary of State will ultimately be accountable to Parliament.
There are precedents elsewhere in legislation for this type of approach. For example, the Climate Change Act 2007 provides for the Secretary of State to give guidance to the Committee on Climate Change—a body that is considered to be highly effective and independent.
Daniel Zeichner
This is very important, and it came as a surprise to many of us that the Government are introducing it as an amendment. Will the Minister explain why it was not in the Bill originally? What was the process that led to the introduction of these amendments?
Rebecca Pow
As usual, much debate and discussion went on. It is all about transparency and clarity for the OEP—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is raising his eyebrows. The Opposition are always seeking to suggest that there is something underhand going on, but I wear my heart on my sleeve, and this is all in the interests of transparency. There is a whole flowchart about how the OEP will remain independent. Schedule 1(17) sets out that the Secretary of State must be aware of the independence of the OEP. It is about giving much more clarity and focus to the way that the OEP will operate.
Amendment 221 is a consequential amendment to schedule 3, which provides an option to extend the OEP’s funtions to apply to devolved matters in the future. As the functions conferred by schedule 3 are devolved, the amendment ensures that, if schedule 3 comes into force, any guidance issued under new clause 24 will not apply to those devolved functions. Amendment 221 is therefore necessary to ensure that new clause 24 is compatible with the devolution settlement in Northern Ireland. It leaves the Government the flexibility to assist the OEP through guidance if ever necessary while ensuring that it remains an independent enforcement body. In the light of that, amendment 221 is essential to ensuring that new clause 24 is compatible with the devolution settlement for Northern Ireland.
Dr Whitehead
I do not have any great objections to this clause, but we should reflect on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge. It is a bit shocking that this proposal was not in the Bill previously. This section is about ensuring that the OEP is set up and functions well in Northern Ireland, with all the issues that go with devolved government and the replication of its functions in the Province. Yet the ability to transfer functions on a devolved basis appears not to have occurred to the framers of the Bill before it was put before us. It is only after what in this context we might call the fortunate suspension of the Bill for quite a long time that it has been possible to reflect on that omission and this amendment appears before us. That is a bit concerning, in terms of what else in the Bill might not do justice particularly to the devolution settlements. That is a worry, but we are not worried about the actual content that has appeared. Therefore, we do not want to divide the Committee on this amendment.
Amendment 221 agreed to.
Amendment made: 67, in schedule 3, page 148, line 18, leave out
“the National Assembly for Wales”
and insert “Senedd Cymru”. —(Rebecca Pow.)
Environment Bill (Thirteenth sitting)
Tuesday 10th November 2020
(4 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Environment Act 2021 View all Environment Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 10 November 2020 - (10 Nov 2020)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
There are two things on which I want to reflect. We must remember that the schedule concerns the Northern Ireland function of the Office for Environmental Protection, and should effectively provide the devolved Northern Ireland Assembly with a reasonable replica of what is required to set up the OEP in England and Wales. At the same time, it should provide for substantial reporting and discretion to the Assembly by the OEP.
A particular concern, about which I hope the Minister will reflect and respond, is that that replication of the OEP’s operation for its Northern Ireland function is not as close as it could be. Amendment 194, which was tabled by the hon. Members for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) and for Foyle (Colum Eastwood), who both represent constituencies in Northern Ireland, was discussed earlier as part of a debate on a group of amendments, so we did not actually discuss its content. I draw the Committee’s attention to the effect that amendment would have on the OEP in Northern Ireland: it sought essentially to provide a mechanism for long-term and interim targets.
That mechanism was the same as the one for the OEP response to targets set out in clauses 1 to 6. Although there is reference to those targets in general, it is very different from clause 1. Indeed, it does not include, for example, achievement measures and does not specifically discuss interim targets. That could have been resolved with the amendment, as the formulation is different from the one for England and Wales. I wonder whether that has arisen by commission or omission. Was the Government’s intention that there should be different arrangements relating to targets and interim targets for England and Wales and for Northern Ireland? Was their intention that the OEP should have different responsibilities towards targets in Northern Ireland? That is the first concern.
The second concern relates to the formulation of the requirement for Ministers to lay before Parliament the notices and legal actions that the OEP has introduced in respect of environmental law and environmental protection. Hon. Members will see that there is a repetition of our earlier debate about what we characterised as a particularly egregious “may” and “must” issue. Clause 3(6), on page 134 of the Bill states:
“The Northern Ireland department concerned may, if it thinks fit, lay before the Northern Ireland Assembly— (a) the advice, and (b) any response that department may make to the advice.”
Hon. Members will recall that is exactly what we debated, and whether the Minister responsible might decide that he or she would lay something before Parliament or, on the other hand, they might decide that they would not lay something before Parliament, and that was the end of that. We expressed concern about what we thought was a very poor formulation, as far as the UK Parliament was concerned, when we discussed the relevant amendment.
In the first instance, it looks as if that formulation is simply being repeated as far as the OEP and the Minister are concerned, in Northern Ireland, but there is a difference: it is not the Minister who may lay something before the Northern Ireland Assembly if he or she sees fit, but the Northern Ireland Department. I am puzzled by that formulation. How it is possible for an entire Department to think that something is fit, or not? In the formulation used in the England and Wales version, there is a person—the Minister—who must decide whether or not it is fit. We criticised the potential actions of that person in not thinking that something was fit.
I am puzzled about how this will work. Someone, somewhere, may or may not decide to lay something before the Northern Ireland Assembly. That is okay as far as it goes, but we do not like the idea of “may or may not”. However, I do not think what we are considering is a particularly easy legal concept: not only an entire Department thinking fit, but an entire Department thinking at all. The formulation that the Department “thinks fit” would require an entire Department to decide something, and an entire Department then to decide whether what it thought fit would be laid before the Northern Ireland Assembly.
There is no identified person at any stage in this to whom the Northern Ireland Assembly say, “We would rather you had put that in front of us. Why have you not, and why did you not think it was fit to put that in front of us?” Instead, they presumably have to knock on the door of the UK’s Northern Ireland Office and ask to speak to someone who could shed some light on that, then pursue how that thinking and fitness came about in the corridors of that Office.
That seems to be a very strange formulation. Can the Minister elucidate whether that means that an individual, one way or another, is responsible in the Northern Ireland Office and can be identified and can take the responsibility for thinking fit or otherwise? Or is it just a formulation that is so legally opaque as to make it virtually unworkable? If that is the case, would the Minister think about taking that away and thinking again about how the provision is formulated as far as Northern Ireland is concerned?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
I want to be clear that, as part of our dual commitment to a strong Union and protecting and enhancing the natural environment, the Northern Ireland Executive have asked us to extend certain aspects of our new environmental governance framework to Northern Ireland, subject to affirmation from the Assembly. A great deal of discussion has gone into that, and the Executive asked for that. I want to be clear about that. They do not believe it is clouded in opaqueness, because they have been fully engaged.
Schedule 3 provides an option to extend the OEP’s functions to apply to devolved matters in Northern Ireland in the future, should the Assembly decide to do so. That is important. The shadow Minister touched on targets, but we voted on that earlier in schedule 2, so I do not think that is necessarily relevant to what we are talking about now.
The provisions in part 1 of schedule 3 will provide the OEP with powers in Northern Ireland broadly equivalent to those in England. For example, the OEP will be able to monitor and report on the implementation of Northern Irish environmental law, much as it would be able to do in England under clause 26. Similarly, schedule 3 provides for the extension of the OEP’s enforcement functions to Northern Ireland, taking into account the two nations’ different court systems. Part 2 will provide for the OEP to adapt its operating procedures appropriately if extended to cover devolved matters in Northern Ireland, and amends the general functions of the OEP so they may adequately apply to Northern Ireland. For example, part 2 ensures appropriate Northern Ireland representation on the OEP board and ensures that the OEP’s remit covers Northern Irish environmental law. Schedule 3 is essential to ensure the extension of the OEP to Northern Ireland should the Assembly decide to do that. I hope that I have made that quite clear.
Dr Whitehead
I do not think the Minister has clarified what paragraph 3(6) of schedule 3 means. I offered a possible interpretation of what that clause meant—it appears to say that an entire Department is responsible for thinking, and for thinking something fit. I assume that the entire Department that is mentioned in the provision is the Northern Ireland Department concerned, so that, as the Minister said, should these matters proceed properly towards devolution, there will be—she said that there has been, as I anticipated there should have been— extensive discussion with the devolved Administration in Northern Ireland on how this will work and what it means, and that a substantial part of this process is at their request. It is important to understand, since we are making legislation here for that to work there, what this actually means. I assume that it does not mean that the UK Northern Ireland Office is responsible, if it thinks fit, for laying before the Northern Assembly—
Rebecca Pow
First, I want to clarify the fact that the decision to commence provisions to extend the OEP to devolved matters to Northern Ireland is a matter for Northern Ireland Ministers and for affirmation by the Assembly. I also want to point out that it is common practice for Northern Ireland to confer powers on a Department. Departmental functions are exercised subject to the direction and control of the departmental Minister, as set out in the Departments (Northern Ireland) Order 1999.
Dr Whitehead
I thank the Minister for that. That is very helpful. If it is the case that a Department, in Northern Ireland practice, effectively takes its cue for these things from the Minister in the Department that is responsible, that potentially answers my particular question. I have not heard that before, but it would be good if we could be assured that that is what will happen in practice once that goes into devolution—that there will be a person responsible for thinking fit, namely, the Minister in that Department.
Rebecca Pow
I will intervene again and give those assurances. I send a great many letters to my counterpart in that Department. We have a lot of toing and froing, so the hon. Gentleman can be assured that there is a lot of communication. We want it to work for Northern Ireland the way that they want it to work
Dr Whitehead
Absolutely, and that is what we want to do as well. That is why we want to ensure that it works as well as it should. It appears, I hope, that this formulation, strange as it looks, is capable of being operated in a sound way, as far as the Assembly is concerned for the future, and that people will not be running around corridors asking a building to think, but running around corridors asking the Minister to think, which is what I thought should have been in the Bill. If it works that way round, that is fine. I thank the Minister for her clarification. I have no intention of opposing the schedule.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, accordingly agreed to.
Clause 47 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 4
Producer responsibility obligations
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 16, in schedule 4, page 151, line 12, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
It is still a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray, even though we are not mentioning that. It is lovely to have the Minister back in her rightful place. The Environment Bill is very important and long overdue, as we have heard. I want to touch on the reason we are here, what we are dealing with, and how we can honour the pledges and promises made to the people of the United Kingdom, primarily in England.
The Bill, according to the Government’s published paper, comprises two thematic halves. The first provides a legal framework for environmental governance, which my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test so knowledgably touched on this morning and last week. The second half of the Bill makes provision for specific improvement of the environment, including measures on waste and resource efficiency, which we are discussing today. In the coming days, we will cover air quality and environmental recall; water; nature and biodiversity; and conservation covenants. They will all be discussed. We need to get the Bill right to ensure that we honour the promise to provide a once-in-a-generation piece of legislation—a promise that the Minister and many Government Members heralded at every opportunity, at least until the Bill disappeared back in March. It is so good to have it back.
That is why Her Majesty’s Opposition have tabled this amendment. We must not have a Bill that is made up of passive “mays” or “coulds”; we need “wills” and “musts”. Many in this House and across England, and those in the sector, have waited hundreds of days for the missing-in-action Bill. Now that it is back and we are here in Committee, we must not waste—I apologise for the pun—the opportunity to have the strongest possible legislation, so we have tabled the amendment.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Member for proposing the amendment. I also welcome her taking up the cudgels—perhaps I should say something less aggressive.
Rebecca Pow
Yes, taking up the baton on behalf of the Opposition. May I assure the hon. Member for Newport West that the Government have every intention of making regulations using schedule 4? The Bill creates producer responsibility obligations in respect of specified products or materials. That is one of a number of provisions that will enable us to take action significantly to improve the environmental performance of products across their entire life cycle—from the raw material used, to end-of-life management. Other powers in the Bill include our ability in schedule 5 to require producers to pay disposal costs for their products; our powers in schedule 6 to introduce deposit return schemes; and the powers in schedule 7 to set resource efficiency standards in relation to the design and lifetime of products.
The Government need the flexibility to decide what measures will best deliver the outcomes that we want. Imposing producer responsibility obligations in all cases may not be appropriate. The power is drafted in a way that gives us the flexibility to choose the appropriate measure or combination of measures for any product, and to decide which producers are obligated, the obligations on them, and the steps that they need to take to demonstrate that they have met their obligations.
In this instance, we will use these powers to introduce new regulations for producer packaging responsibility. That will increase the reuse and recycling of packaging and reduce the use of unnecessary and avoidable packaging. In 2019, we consulted with the devolved Administrations on proposals to reform the regulations, and we will consult again in 2021, so it is a lengthy process, but a lot of discussion has informed this. In the resources and waste strategy for England, we made commitments relating to updating our already up-and-running producer responsibility schemes on waste electricals, waste batteries and end-of-life vehicles; these powers are needed to implement those commitments. We also committed to taking action to address food waste.
Products vary. They have different supply chains, use different materials and have different impacts on the environment. That is why we need to be able to introduce product-specific regulations, using the appropriate powers. This power provides the flexibility to impose producer responsibility obligations where it is appropriate to do so, and that flexibility would be removed by the amendment. I therefore ask the hon. Member to kindly withdraw it.
Ruth Jones
I thank the Minister for her comments. I take the point about flexibility; in my previous job as a physiotherapist, however, we had both flexibility and control. Splints and corsets were very useful in ensuring flexibility in confined areas. That is why the “mays” should be turned into “musts”. The grammar is important to us. But I take the point, and this is a probing amendment, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Ruth Jones
I beg to move amendment 158, in schedule 4, page 151, line 16, after “waste” insert
“, reducing the consumption of virgin materials,”.
This amendment is about taking strengthened measures on tackling waste. It refers to virgin materials, which the Minister mentioned previously. For the benefit of those outside these walls who are maybe not as knowledgeable as the Committee, these are materials like new paper or plastic.
This amendment, although specific and focused in its approach, seeks to ensure the Bill includes the strongest possible measures to tackle waste. The wider focus on the obligations and responsibilities of producers is important—not because the Bill will directly impact those parts of the world outside the UK, but because of the need to get our own house in order in the UK, and in England specifically. We need to do this because it is important to set an example to others, and the Minister alluded to this in discussions about COP26 next year.
We want a strong Bill. If colleagues support this amendment, we will help deliver a strong Environment Bill with a strengthened schedule 4. It would make clear to the producers of materials used in everyday life that they have responsibilities and we are going to hold them to account.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I welcome the intention behind the schedule, which is to shift the burden of disposal costs from local authorities and the taxpayer to producers; the burden on them has historically been too low. I also welcome the shift in this Bill towards tackling food waste. I have been campaigning on this in Wandsworth borough for many years, and to see that it will be in the legislation and has to be addressed by the council is very welcome. However, in some ways, the drafting is too loose; as often in this Bill, it needs some tightening up, and I hope that these Labour amendments will be useful in doing that.
In terms of virgin materials, it is not good enough to focus on the end-of-life solutions for materials. The schemes introduced under this schedule need to incentivise producers to make the right decisions at the start of the process, as well as ensuring that they fulfil environmental responsibilities at the end. As the UK Environmental Law Association recommends, the Government need to clearly signal that extended producer responsibility covers the full life cycle, not only waste disposal. Reducing virgin material use is key to this, and to the Bill being as ambitious as we want it to be. Amendment 158 adds some words to ensure this.
Virgin materials include timber, plastic resin derived from the petroleum refining process and mined materials. This amendment would ensure that the producer responsibility scheme considers upstream measures that tackle consumption and production as well as waste minimisation. Although waste minimisation is important, it is not sufficient by itself to guarantee a reduction in virgin material use. Without adding this amendment, we cannot be sure the outcome will be the reduction that we need to see.
Manufacturing products with virgin materials usually requires much more energy and depletes more natural resources than using recycled materials, so when we reduce their use, there is also an offset for other processes. Action to reduce usage of virgin materials is essential to tackle overall depletion.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Member for her interest in this provision and for this amendment. I reassure her and the Committee that the amendment is not needed.
Reducing the consumption of virgin materials is important; we all agree on that. In our 25-year environment plan, we stated our long-term ambition of doubling resource productivity by 2050. That is about maximising the value and benefits we get from our resources, and managing these resources more sustainably to reduce associated environmental impacts.
I can assure the hon. Member for Putney that we are tackling this issue in the Bill. We have powers in schedule 5 to require producers to pay the disposal costs of the products or materials they place on the market, and for these costs to be varied according to the design or consumption of the products. Through the costs that producers pay, they can be incentivised to design and manufacture products that use fewer materials, that include more recycled materials, and are much easier to recycle and break down, so that the parts can be reused elsewhere.
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
In my constituency, as in many others, I suspect, there is often difficulty getting recycling plants put in. I completely agree with the Bill’s intention to shift the cost to producers. However, what proposals are there to get recycling plants and places to process the waste, paid for by the producers, put in the right places? One could spend all the money one likes, but if there is nowhere to get the waste recycled, it cannot be recycled.
Rebecca Pow
I thank my hon. Friend. He touches on the crux of the matter. This is all-encompassing. We are driving towards what we call a circular economy. That is the purpose of the measures on waste and resources. They will ensure consistent collections, though we have not got on to that yet, and require products to be more recyclable, but we will need them to be collected and recycled. That will drive the demand for those plants to be established in the right place. Things will join up much better than they do today. That is what the measures in the Bill are all about. I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point. This should make the whole procedure a more complete circle.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Do the Government intend to invest in some of those recycling centres, or is the intention to leave it to the private sector to fill that need? That is a topic I have been pursuing lately and I am interested to hear the Minister’s views.
Rebecca Pow
That topic is not referenced in the Bill. Those are issues relating to how the regulations will work when it comes to producer responsibility and deposit return. Local authorities will still play a huge role, but the great point is that they will not be responsible for all the costs any more. What is brilliant is that the costs will be shifted on to the businesses. They will then be forced to design products that are much easier to recycle. That brings us again to the circular economy. I thank the hon. Lady for raising another good point.
The measures will help us to tackle waste from the beginning of the life cycle, and complement measures elsewhere in the Bill that support the later stages of that cycle. There are also powers in schedule 7 that will allow resource efficiency requirements to be placed on specified products. Those requirements will relate to factors such as the materials from which the product is manufactured, and the resources consumed during its production. For instance, thinking off the top of my head, one could say that clothing or textiles must contain a certain amount of recycled fibre. There could be a requirement to use fewer virgin materials or more recycled materials in the manufacture of the product.
I am pleased that the hon. Member for Putney welcomes the schedule. It is great to have that positivity, and I applaud her work on food waste. It is very exciting that it will become law for food waste to be collected. That will be an important part of the Bill, because while some local authorities, such as mine in Taunton Deane, do collect it, loads do not. Much of it ends up in landfill, giving off emissions. We could make so much better use of it, and could focus attention on how much food waste is produced, which is frankly shocking.
Dr Whitehead
Is the Minister’s example of requiring a certain proportion of textiles to include recycled materials now a policy?
Rebecca Pow
I was just giving a random example, off the top of my head. I do not see any policies written here. Is the hon. Gentleman trying to catch me out?
Rebecca Pow
The measures are the kind of thing that will open up the doors to all those opportunities.
The Chair
If it is any comfort to the Minister, she was deviating slightly from the content of the amendment.
Rebecca Pow
I was, and I thought the Chairman was going to interrupt me when I mentioned all the food.
Finally, schedule 4 allows us to set obligations on producers in relation to reuse, redistribution, recovery and recycling. All that will contribute to a more resource-efficient economy. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.
Ruth Jones
I am grateful for the Minister’s reassurance, in which she stressed the importance of the cyclical nature of the production of goods. We must break the cycle of new, new, new. I am risking the wrath of the Chair, but when I sat on the Environmental Audit Committee, we had an investigation and report into the throwaway nature of the fashion industry; that is very relevant to the Bill.
I thank the hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden, my hon. Friend the Member for Putney and the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith for mentioning the importance of recycling centres. There is no point in everyone sorting their recycling at home if there is nowhere to recycle things. That is an important part of the process, which is why we will press after the legislation is enacted to ensure that happens. Having received the Minister’s reassurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Ruth Jones
I beg to move amendment 159, in schedule 4, page 151, line 32, after “be” insert “prevented, reduced,”.
As you might notice, the amendment is very similar to others put before the Committee today. It focuses on the strength of the language that Ministers have chosen to use in the Bill. In recent days, my hon. Friends the Member for Southampton, Test and for Cambridge and I have said that we will hold Ministers to their promise to deliver a once-in-a-generation Bill. “Once in a generation” means it has to be big, bold and comprehensive. That is why we are calling on the Minister to use the strongest language in the Bill. I implore the Minister to be ambitious and bold in the text that is used.
I want to be helpful. I want the Minister to be able to sing from the rooftops about the Bill. I hope she will acknowledge the Opposition’s willingness to make it an even better Bill that really delivers for people across the whole UK. Let us not limit ourselves to moving things around, or shuffling deckchairs on the Titanic. Let us use this Bill to deliver real, long-term change.
The amendment would add “prevented” and “reduced” to the Bill, so that it does not just say “reused” and “redistributed”. We want the country to cut its reliance on plastics and paper, and to tackle waste in a meaningful way. Once again, the amendment will help deliver a strong Environment Bill with a strong schedule 4.
Fleur Anderson
As my hon. Friend has described so well, the amendment would widen the powers, so that producer responsibility regulations allowed targets for waste prevention and reduction, not just reusing and recycling. That is absolutely vital to achieving real carbon reduction and real waste reduction.
Waste prevention focuses on reducing the amount of waste generated from the source. It involves looking at manufacturing, processing, packaging, storage, recycling and disposal processes, to identify opportunities to manage waste and minimise the impact on the environment.
Although this looks like a minor amendment, the two words to be added would create another dimension to the powers of the Bill and the impacts it covers. activities would include mapping packaging and production waste to inform and develop good practice, and developing recommendations and strategies for prevention, recovery and reuse. The words “prevention” and “reduction” are essential for doing that. An example from real life is utensils. The measures would look not just at plastic utensils and how to deal with them when they are thrown away, but reusing utensils from the start, so there is no re-packaging to look at. I have been campaigning about nappies, which form a huge part of our landfill. Preventing the use of disposable nappies would incentivise producers. “Prevention” could be a game-changing additional word in the Bill. A home composting scheme run by my neighbouring borough of Lambeth looks at the prevention of waste right from the beginning, in the home.
This provision would enhance the Bill. I endorse the addition of the words “prevented” and “reduced” .
Dr Whitehead
I want to add a little bit of context to amendment 159. As my hon. Friends the Members for Putney and for Newport West have already mentioned, it increases the dimension within which these issues can be considered in terms of targets. It does so not by an accidental addition of words, but essentially by adding what is in the Government’s White Paper “Our waste, our resources: a strategy for England”, which was published in 2018.
In that White Paper, the Government fully embrace the notion of the waste hierarchy, and the document contains lots of good charts to illustrate it. At the bottom of the waste hierarchy are things such as landfill. Moving up the hierarchy, we find energy from waste, which is still pretty low in the hierarchy; after that, it is necessary to start recycling. From a policy point of view, measures should always drive waste as far up the hierarchy as possible. If it is possible to recycle waste, rather than putting it into an incinerator as an alternative to burying it in the land, that is what should be done. If, however, there is residual waste that cannot be incinerated or recycled—there is some of that in the waste stream—it should be put into landfill, but only on a residual basis. We would hope that over time, the amount of waste going into landfill will be virtually nil, because we have moved up the waste hierarchy in terms of how the system works.
In the waste hierarchy, there are two other categories above recycling: reducing and preventing. The best way to handle a waste stream is to make sure that there is less waste in it in the first place, and that it contains only things that cannot be reused or prevented from arising. At that point, we would be dealing, pretty much, with a residual waste stream when it came to volume and climate change energy considerations. In the whole waste stream, the only waste to be addressed would be residual waste from a largely circular economy, in which products are designed to come apart so that the parts can be put to other uses, and, through industrial symbiosis, products that one company views as waste are presented to other organisations as raw material.
That process is possible only if product design or articulation allows it to happen. For example, the expectation would be that a vehicle could be taken apart and all the components—even if they are made of different elements, and they are not all metal or plastic—would be sufficiently pure and reusable to be used as the raw material for something else straight away. As we will discuss later, that is particularly important with the coming upon us of electric vehicles. If electric vehicles cannot be taken apart—in particular, if their batteries cannot be taken apart to recover the rare earth elements, lithium and other materials for use in other batteries, so that they are not put into the waste stream in the first place—we are not very far down the line of recycling.
Daniel Zeichner
My hon. Friend speaks with passion and experience on this issue. This is not novel, so I have found myself wondering, exactly as he does, why those words have been excluded. Would he care to speculate on why the Government would choose not to have them in the Bill?
Dr Whitehead
My hon. Friend, as always, makes an important point about what is and is not in the legislation. I would expect him to have similar views about other words. It seems plain to me that if the waste hierarchy is to be adopted, all the components of that hierarchy must be in the description. They are not there, and I cannot speculate on why not. It may be that those who drafted the Bill were not fully aware of the waste White Paper when they sat down late at night to write that passage. If they were not, they should have been. The amendment would offer an opportunity to rectify that omission. We are not suggesting that there was any malevolent intention; perhaps it is just an omission. I hope the Minister can oblige us by ensuring that the words sit proudly in the Bill, alongside Government policy.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Member for Newport West for the proposed amendment. Although I recognise the intentions behind it, I must disagree with it. She pressed the Government to be as ambitious as possible, and I assure her that we are being ambitious. I am delighted that we think in the same way in wanting the highest ambition; I like to think that we are as one on that.
I do not believe we need the amendment. The power, as drafted, already allows us to place obligations, including targets, on producers to prevent waste or to reduce the amount of a product or material that becomes waste. Paragraph 2(2) gives examples of how targets may be set. They include, but are not limited to, the setting of targets to increase the proportion of a product or material that is reused, redistributed, recycled or recovered to prevent it from becoming waste. Those examples do not prevent the powers in schedule 4 from being used to set targets in relation to preventing waste from being produced, or reducing the amount of waste that is produced.
Producer responsibility obligations could be set as targets to incentivise producers to prevent or reduce waste, but they do not have to be set only as targets. We can all get a bit hung up on targets. Targets are important, but we could use the powers, for example, to require producers to take specific action to tackle waste, such as by requiring retailers to take back products. There is a lot of work in this space in the area of electronic waste, where department stores are expected to take back products. Another possibility could be single-use cups, once they have been used. Obligations such as this should create a strong incentive to create less waste in the first place: I think we are all agreed that that is what we are driving towards.
The hon. Member for Putney made a similar case about the circular economy. I applaud her work on nappies; I was one of those mothers. I have three children, and—this was a long time ago, when people were not talking about this sort of thing—with my first child, I used only washable nappies. Can you imagine, Mr Gray, how much work that was? Oh my goodness—not to mention the smell! I am not digressing, because this is all relevant. I was a news reporter at the time, and I interviewed a lady who had set up a business making these nappies, so I thought, “I am going to use those.” In fact, I think I used my child allowance support to pay for them. That was what I had decided I would do, but it was a labour of love.
The point is that through all these measures in the Bill, manufacturers of any product will be driven to think about what is in it. For example, are nappies made of recycled material? Do they have recycled content? Could they be reused? Are they washable? The Bill will drive everyone to think like that.
Rebecca Pow
Did he?
The hon. Member for Putney also raised an important point about garden waste. We have now legislated for garden waste to be collected: that is in clause 54.
I also wanted to give a quick résumé about the life cycle issue that the hon. Member for Southampton, Test touched on. He mentioned the waste hierarchy, which is basically driving towards a circular economy. That is the driving force of the resources and waste strategy, and it is the intention behind the Bill. I will whizz through the related measures in the Bill, which are about raw material, extraction and manufacturing.
The resource efficiency requirement power enables standards to be set that relate to the materials and techniques used by manufacturers, such as specifying the minimum amount of recycled fibre in clothing, as we mentioned earlier. The resource efficiency information power will drive the market by providing consumers and businesses with the information they need to make sustainable choices. I can see my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester looking at me; in order for him to be able to make the right choices, he wants to know how sustainable a product is, so that he can buy that one as opposed to another one. There will be more information and more labelling.
On end of life, the resource efficiency powers can be used to specify that products are designed so that when they reach end of life, they can easily be dismantled—exactly as the hon. Member for Southampton, Test has outlined—and the materials can be recovered and recycled. Our powers for deposit return, extended producer responsibility and recycling collections would enable better management of products and materials at the end of life. That will increase reuse and recycling, and it will reduce the amount of material that is incinerated or landfilled.
Preventing waste from being created in the first place and reducing the amount of waste that is produced is a priority for the Government. That is why we have stated our ambition to achieve zero avoidable waste by 2050. We will do this though the measures set out in the resources and waste strategy—we seek the powers for some of those in this Bill—and through other initiatives such as the new waste prevention programme, which we hope to publish and consult on in the near future. On all those grounds, I ask the hon. Member for Newport West if she might withdraw her amendment.
Ruth Jones
What an enlightening debate we have had. In terms of one-upmanship, dare I say it, my hon. Friend the Member for Putney has managed reusable nappies for four children. This debate has been useful, and it is good to have all the ideas, because only by putting all our heads together can we make this Environment Bill ground-breaking. We want it to work, and that is why our amendments are designed to help, not to hinder.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test made the important point that as well as recycling, the reusing of goods, parts and components is crucial. People want to do the right thing. Since programmes such as “Blue Planet” have come along, people are much more aware of pollution and how they can play their part. They want to do the right thing, and this Bill must make it easy for them to do so.
The Minister mentioned garden waste. At the risk of blowing Wales’s trumpet, Wales already has a successful garden waste scheme—in fact, recycling rates in Wales are very high—so perhaps she can look across the border. She also mentioned targets. If we do not have targets, how do we know if we are getting to the end of the road? How will we know if we are improving unless we set targets in the first place? We should set targets not to be punitive, but to help us to assess our progress; that is why they are important. We believe that the amendment is also important, so we will press it to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Ruth Jones
I beg to move amendment 160, in schedule 4, page 154, line 38, leave out “any” and insert “specified”.
This amendment is very similar to others that have been tabled. It focuses not on the strength of language, but rather on the choice of language that Ministers have opted for in this Bill. By leaving out “any” and inserting the word “specified”, we are looking to ensure that we deliver results, rather than a scattergun or “we hope” approach. The amendment is relatively straightforward, so the Chair will be pleased to know that I will not go on when I do not need to. I hope that Ministers will take the amendment in the spirit in which it is intended, because we want the Bill to have teeth and to be effective. Above all, we want it to be useful and to deliver, so this amendment seeks to ensure we are focused on results, not just on good intentions and misplaced hope. As I have said, “once in a generation” means that the Bill has to be bold, big and comprehensive, so we call on the Minister to use the right language. We believe that the amendment will help to deliver a stronger Environment Bill, with a strengthened schedule 4.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Lady for the amendment, but I reassure her and the Committee that it is not needed. Paragraph 11(2) provides the ability to specify in regulations the activities that count as recovery. That means that the way in which energy is to be obtained from a product or material can be specified in regulations. The power is designed to be flexible, given the broad range of possible products on which we may decide to impose producer responsibility obligations. I reassure her that in making any regulations, it would be our intention to impose regulations on producers in relation to options higher up the waste hierarchy, such as prevention, reuse and recycling—all the things that we discussed earlier—as a first priority. In simple terms, it means that we will be encouraging the prevention, reuse and recycling of waste over energy recovery. I therefore ask her to withdraw the amendment.
Ruth Jones
Having heard the Minister’s words, I am somewhat reassured, but not entirely. We will therefore not press for a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clause 48 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 5
Producer responsibility for disposal costs
Ruth Jones
I beg to move amendment 17, in schedule 5, page 157, line 9, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
Earlier this afternoon, I noted how important the Bill is and how we need to ensure that it receives thorough scrutiny, so that it is as strong and coherent as it can be. With that in mind, we need to do what I urged the Committee to do earlier: get the Bill right, so that we honour and meet the promise of a once-in-a-generation piece of legislation. I remind the Minister that she and her colleagues heralded that promise at every opportunity, until the Bill disappeared in March, only to return now.
That is why we are proposing the amendment. As I noted with amendment 16 to schedule 4, we must not rest on our laurels. We cannot have a Bill that is simply made up of passive and weak “mays” and “coulds”; we need the “wills” and “musts”. The fact that we have waited so long, listening to campaigners and those active in the sector, means that we cannot waste the opportunity to deliver a strong, wide-ranging and competent piece of legislation.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Lady for her amendment, but I reassure her that we feel it is not needed. The Government need the flexibility—I have mentioned this before—to decide what measures will best deliver the outcomes we want to see achieved. Requiring producers to pay disposal costs in all cases might not be the appropriate option.
The power is drafted to give flexibility to choose the appropriate measure, or combination of measures, for any product. It also gives us the flexibility to decide for which products or materials producers must pay disposal costs, the producers who must pay the disposal costs, the costs that they must pay and what those costs should be.
At this point, I will take a step back to reflect on what the measures will actually mean. The powers will allow us to create a strong financial incentive for businesses to do the right thing. I have spoken with businesses, and of course they want strong signals, because without them they will not be inclined to invest, innovate or go in the direction that we want them to go. That is so important.
The measures will encourage producers such as supermarkets to reduce the packaging they use in their products, so that less waste is produced. Everybody will start thinking about their products and their packaging, because they have to be responsible for what happens to it at the end of the day. It would be in the best interests of manufacturers to make products that are more reusable and recyclable. Thinking back to nappies, if they are to be reusable or rewashable, they could contain recycled fabric—in fact, that is a jolly good idea, and someone is probably already doing it. That is just an example. Such decisions should all have sustainability in mind, and the customers will see that—with the new labelling and all the information—in the products that they buy.
I can therefore reassure the hon. Member for Newport West that the Government have every intention of making regulations using schedule 5. The resources and waste strategy also commits us to reviewing and consulting on measures, including extended producer responsibility for five other waste streams by the end of 2025. Those five include textiles, construction materials and fishing gear. Along with the other products in that list, they have all been highlighted as urgent areas that could do with this kind of focus.
We need to retain the flexibility to introduce product-specific regulations using the appropriate powers, and as drafted, this power provides the flexibility to impose extended producer responsibility obligations where it is appropriate to do so. I hope that is helpful, and I therefore ask the hon. Lady whether she might withdraw her amendment.
Ruth Jones
I thank the Minister for her words, and respectfully say that strong signals sometimes need to be backed up with strong words, which is why we wanted to amend the wording of the schedule to “must”, not “may”. However, that point having been made again, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Ruth Jones
I beg to move amendment 161, in schedule 5, page 157, line 13, leave out from first “the” to end of sub-paragraph (2) and insert
“social costs incurred throughout the lifecycle of the products or materials.”
As the Committee will know, schedule 5 allows the relevant authority to make regulations that require
“those involved in manufacturing, processing, distributing or supplying products or materials”
to
“meet, or contribute to, the disposal costs”
of those products. This is all about the journey, from start to finish, of the materials that we all rely on every day, even when we do not think about it. We have already had ample examples of the kinds of recyclable things we need to consider. I have to say to the Minister and her colleagues that the issues covered by this amendment will be mentioned both now and in coming days, because the Bill lacks foresight in a number of areas, but particularly when it comes to assessing the whole life cycle. That is particularly important, and it should be part of this Bill.
Thinking through this amendment and the background to it reminded me of recent events in Sri Lanka. That reminder was further reinforced when I received the answer to a written parliamentary question that I tabled to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—for those who may be interested, it was question 109651. I asked the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
“what discussions he has had with his Sri Lankan counterpart on the 21 containers of waste returned to the UK from that country in September 2020.”
The answer I received from the hon. Member for Taunton Deane was as follows:
“The Environment Agency (EA), as the competent authority for waste shipments for England, is proactively engaging with the authorities in Sri Lanka on these containers and is leading the response on this matter.
The 21 containers arrived back in England on Wednesday 28 October. The containers, which were shipped to Sri Lanka in 2017, were found by Sri Lankan authorities to contain illegal materials described as mattresses and carpets which had been exported for recycling. With the shipment now back on English soil, EA”—
that is, the Environment Agency—
“enforcement officers will seek to confirm the types of waste shipped, who exported it and the producer of the waste. Those responsible could face a custodial sentence of up to two years, an unlimited fine, and the recovery of money and assets gained through the course of their criminal activity.”
That was the answer I received from the Minister, and the issues it covers show why this amendment is so necessary. There are some parts that I will be following up on outside this Committee, but its arrival in my inbox was timely for today’s debate.
The Minister’s answer to the question demonstrates that waste and the issues that go with it simply do not disappear. Containers that left the United Kingdom in 2017 and travelled across the world are now coming back to cause trouble. This Bill can design out some of those issues if Ministers want it to, and this amendment would help to ensure that it does. We need to ensure that the life journey of the materials used is followed through by their producers from start to finish, focusing not just on the waste element but on the production and useful lifetime element of these issues. I urge the Minister to think about the social costs of the issues we are discussing, not just the environmental costs. Many of these issues require a cohesive and coherent approach that deals with a number of different factors, and I hope the Minister will give proper consideration to this.
As the Committee will know from the papers, this amendment is relatively self-explanatory, but it is important, and I hope the Minister will give it serious consideration. Once again, our amendment will help to deliver a strong Environment Bill with a strengthened and more comprehensive schedule 5.
Fleur Anderson
We moved this amendment to urge the Government to go that bit further in their ambition for this Bill. We have gone this far—we have set up the office, and have put in place all of these schedules and provisions—and by going just a little bit further, we could achieve so much more. Including
“social costs incurred throughout the lifecycle of the products or materials”
in schedule 5 would make a great difference.
The Local Government Association also believes that this schedule does not go quite far enough. It is concerned that litter and fly-tipping of discarded packaging is not included in the schedule, and that greater clarity on what producer responsibility will cover is needed. It also questions why the Bill does not currently include the term “full net cost”. There is a commitment to pay local authorities, but it should set out clearly that producers will be required to pay the full net cost to councils. To achieve that, the schemes should seek to reduce consumption of materials in the first instance, reducing the full life cycle impacts arising from sectors and product groups.
That is why I urge the Minister and her Government colleagues to consider supporting amendment 161, which would address this omission by factoring social costs into the fees, alongside environmental effects. It would also ensure that fees are implemented across the full life cycle of products and packaging, rather than just, as we have said in previous amendments, the end of life impact. Such a change would incentivise responsible and sustainable design to minimise these costs in the first place and enhance the environment for us all.
Dr Whitehead
Just to add to my colleagues’ excellent expositions, I draw the Committee’s attention to the wording of the schedule. It is headed “Producer responsibility for disposal costs”—fair enough. Paragraph 1(2) talks about
“the disposal costs of the products or materials”.
It is then as if the framers of the schedule thought, “Hang on a minute, is that what we really want to do?”, because paragraph 2(2) says:
“In this Schedule the ‘disposal’ of products or materials includes their re-use, redistribution, recovery or recycling.”
In order to continue with the way that the schedule is set out, the framers have had to mangle the English language to such an extent as to make it unrecognisable. A reasonable dictionary definition of “disposal” is “the action or process of getting rid of something”. The whole point about the circular economy and the waste hierarchy is to avoid doing that as much as possible in processing waste. Rather, one should try to recycle it, reuse it and keep it in life. It should go round the circular economy for as long as possible.
This schedule therefore looks like it is facing the wrong way in its whole outlook. The amendment goes some way to putting that right by emphasising that it is about the whole life of the product: what happens after it has been used the first time and how it can best fit into the circular economy definition of continuing with its use in the economy, so that new materials do not have to be brought in because the previous materials have been disposed of.
I suggest that the amendment is tremendously helpful, because it puts right the mangling that has gone on to get the schedule into existence in the first place. While paragraph 2(2) goes some way to un-mangle the phrase, the amendment completely un-mangles it. It emphasises what we should all emphasise—indeed, it is policy to emphasise—namely the whole life; the circular life of products that go round and round in the economy.
I hope the Minister will accept the amendment in the positive spirit in which it is intended. Among other things, it will restore to the Bill what most members of the public would consider to be the meaning of the word “disposal”. It is quite important that we ensure that legislation is not just intelligible to the general public, but can be received by them in the spirit in which it was put forward—that is, that they understand a particular phrase to mean what they think it means, not what someone somewhere in a building far away has invented it to mean because they could not get it right in the first place.
Rebecca Pow
First, I thank the hon. Member for Newport West for withdrawing her previous amendment and not pushing it to a vote. I thank her for her consideration of this particular amendment, but I would like to reassure her and the Committee that I do not believe it is necessary.
The hon. Lady is absolutely right: it is important that as a society we monitor and address social issues relating to the manufacture of products and materials. In the UK, we address them through legislation, such as the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and the Human Rights Act 1998. Other initiatives, such as the United Nations’ International Labour Organisation and the Forest Stewardship Council, look to tackle those issues on a global scale.
However, the core focus of extended producer responsibility is to encourage producers to take actions that will help to protect and improve the environment, including paying the costs of managing products at the end of their life and improving the design of products to make them recyclable or increase the amount of recycled material that they contain—all the things that we have mentioned previously. Recycling rates will then increase and the supply of secondary material will increase.
I will quickly address the issue that the hon. Lady touched on about Sri Lanka. I just want to highlight that it is a manifesto commitment, which we will implement through this Bill, to ban all exports of plastic waste to non-OECD countries. That is in clause 59, I think—I cannot read my writing. I have terrible writing.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister, because this is very important and the hon. Member for Newport West was right to raise it. Those of us who have responsibilities as trade envoys are very conscious of some of the damage done to relationships with overseas countries, particularly Commonwealth countries, where waste has effectively been dumped by local councils. That is partly due to the supply chain for waste disposal. Does the Minister agree that this Bill will make real steps forward in tackling that problem?
Rebecca Pow
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. The hon. Member for Putney touched on litter, and I was going to say that this is a very wide subject—waste, hazardous waste, export of waste, litter—and clauses 60 to 68 deal with a whole lot of those issues, so we will discuss them at length when we get to them. However, we are mindful of what my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester says, and there are measures in the Bill to really get to grips with some of those things, which are rightly important, especially for our global standing, as he says with his trade envoy hat on. I know he does such great work representing us, so I thank him for that.
I must disagree with the hon. Member for Southampton, Test about words being mangled. The only thing that we want mangled is the waste, so that we can take it apart and turn it into something else. I completely disagree that the words have been mangled by those who have so carefully drafted the legislation. I will highlight the fact that the extended producer responsibility scheme and the requirements to cover the full net disposal costs of their products and materials when they become waste will encourage producers to make these changes that we all want to the design and the materials that will have an impact on the whole supply chain. That is the purpose of all this. That will then increase the supply of materials for recycling and the quality of material for recycling, by reducing contamination and the use of hard-to-recycle products and materials. The whole circular system will be dealt with, so I take issue with his mangling suggestion.
At the end of the day, our supply chains will be strengthened in secondary materials, which is so important that we will then give investors the signal and the confidence they need to invest in our UK recycling industry, so we can put the recycling units that my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden mentioned everywhere they are required and companies such as Coca-Cola can have all the PET plastic they want to make all the bottles they would like to make from good-quality recycled plastic. It is difficult to get hold of enough of many those things now, but when we get these measures in place, the idea is that it will all be sorted out. I can see the hon. Member for Cambridge smiling at me, but I know he knows that I am on the right track.
Richard Graham
My hon. Friend the Minister made a good point about making sure that the costs to the private sector involved in helping us recycle more come to a level at which it is important for them to invest. The fringe benefits from that are massive. Many of the recycling centres that previously sent waste to landfill are now available for all sorts of green energy projects including solar, hydrogen and onshore wind. It will make a huge difference in my constituency of Gloucester, so I am grateful for what she says about how the Bill will help that.
Rebecca Pow
I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning his constituency and for raising that important point about how we need to get business on board, and how we need to give the right signals and get the right things to happen to move us to the circular economy. At the end of the day, we want less waste landfilled or incinerated, less litter and a decrease in the use of virgin raw materials. These outcomes bring wider social benefits —touching on amendment 17—as they improve the environment for the public and for wildlife. They also reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For all of these reasons, the measures in the Environment Bill are strong enough as they stand, and it follows that social issues such as poor conditions for workers are considered outside the scope of extended producer responsibility. I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.
Ruth Jones
I thank the Minister for her explanation and I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Putney for highlighting the issues of litter and fly-tipping, which really vex people. My inbox is full of complaints about such issues as are, I am sure, those of most Members here if their constituency is anything like mine. It is important that the quality of people’s environment is enhanced and made as good as possible. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test: as he points out, the wording is important. People outside these walls do not fully understand what the Bill is trying to say: the word “disposal”—as he says—is in the dictionary and it means getting rid of something, but we want to make sure that we have a cyclical economy. We come back to making sure that words matter.
I was pleased to hear the Minister highlight the manifesto pledge not to dump rubbish in non-OECD countries. It raises the issue of whether it will go to OECD countries, but that is obviously important. I was also pleased to hear COP26 raised. It is important that the UK sets a shining example to the rest of the world on that, and that is why we are pushing amendment 17: it is so important that we make sure we get it right at this stage so that, as has been mentioned, future generations look back on the Environment Bill with pride. We will be seeking to divide the Committee.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 18, in schedule 6, page 161, line 21, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This is another “may” and “must” amendment. Hon. Members are familiar with the arguments, so I will not rehearse them at this late hour of the day. In moving the amendment, I am adding to the pile on the Minister’s desk. I ask her to consider whether, even at this late hour, it might be a good idea to start putting in a few more “musts” than was the case previously. I hope the Minister will look at that favourably in the future. I do not wish to push the amendment to a vote.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Member for his amendment. He is trying at every opportunity to sneak in a “must”, but we share the sentiment and recognise the importance of taking action to improve the design of products—that is what this is all about—including by mandating the provision of information relating to resource efficiency on products. Given the pace of change and the need for flexibility in deciding where regulation is necessary, however, it is not appropriate to insert a requirement that we must take such action across the board for all products, nor to specify a list in advance. Our intention is to use this power to set resource efficiency information requirements where they will give the greatest impact. I can reassure the hon. Member that we are committed to doing that.
I am pleased that the first anticipated use of the information power will mandate labelling to show the recyclability of packaging, which I know is a source of stress for many households, including my own. In fact, I go absolutely berserk if I get home and find that my children have gone to a shop where everything is in packets, instead of buying it loose. Labelling and clear messaging about the damage that some packaging can do would get the message through.
The Government are considering how we should implement these measures beyond packaging, and we want to ensure that, where requirements for more information are introduced, it will have significant positive impacts on the environment. We expect that some industries will be motivated to proactively settle or improve their standards for products. Where industry does not, however, these powers will enable us to set mandatory requirements in future. It has to be said that lots of supermarkets are already looking at what they can do to reduce their packaging, which is to be welcomed.
For those reasons, it is appropriate to take regulation-making powers, rather than impose a duty on the Government to set standards. Primary legislation consistently takes such an approach to the balance of powers—what may be done; a duty is what must be done—and this power is no different. This approach will provide sufficient flexibility to implement or modify requirements at different times for different products, and within a reasonable timespan. Additionally, it will facilitate the making of separate provisions for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland should the devolved Administrations wish to exercise this power.
On those grounds, I ask the hon. Member whether she would kindly withdraw the amendment.
Rebecca Pow
I am sorry. I ask the hon. Gentleman to kindly withdraw the amendment.
Dr Whitehead
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
We now come to amendment 226, which the sharp-eyed will have seen is not on the selection list. That is because it is what is known in the trade as a starred amendment, which means that it was tabled after the cut-off date last Thursday. I have nevertheless taken the view that it is appropriate to debate it under schedule 6, which we have now reached. I call Alan Whitehead to move the amendment.
Dr Whitehead
I have no idea what amendment 226 is about—or at least I have not got it in front of me.
The Chair
While he is finding his feet, it may help the hon. Gentleman if he looks at page 8 of the amendment paper, where he will see that amendment 226 amends schedule 6, line 7.
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 226, page 162, line 7, schedule 6, after “product” insert
“and the expected total environmental impact the product will have throughout its life”.
This amendment requires manufacturers or sellers to evaluate the environmental impact of a product throughout its life cycle, alongside the expected life of the product.
The amendment speaks for itself. As the Chair has kindly reminded us, it concerns the overall life of the product, not specific moments in the life of that product. As hon. Members know from stories such as the 5,000-mile yoghurt pot, the overall life of a product includes a range of travel, processing and other activities before it gets on to the shelf. Modern arrangements mean that something that looks very simple will have been fabricated in one country, exported to another and further processed there, exported back to the original country and filled with another product, while the lid is added somewhere else during the refrigeration process and then it is back to where it started from. In my constituency, there are many instances of stuff leaving the port in a container, going to the other side of the world for processing and coming back for sale in roughly the place it started out from.
The lifetime of the product is about all the things that happen to it on its journey. The amendment recognises that that is the case and that, in moving towards a circular economy, we need to be mindful that the lifetime of the product is a theme that needs to be seriously taken into account so that we can ensure that it is as efficient, economical, low-carbon and resource-efficient as it can be. That is why we have tabled the amendment.
Rebecca Pow
I am very happy to discuss the amendment in the circumstances outlined by the Chair, and I thank the hon. Member for Southampton, Test for tabling it. The Government recognise the value of providing consumers with information on the expected lifecycle and environmental impact of products. The amendment is not necessary, because the powers in the Bill already allow for that. Indeed, I hope that it is clear from everything we have been talking about that it is the whole lifecycle of the product that will be the key thing once the measures in the Bill are in place.
The resource efficiency powers set out in the Bill enable us to achieve the amendment’s goal. However, the current drafting allows us to provide greater clarity on the aspects of a product’s lifecycle that can be covered, in recognition of what it is practicable and feasible to require. The schedule covers the scope of the powers in relation to lifecycle impacts, including production processes, pollution impact during production, use and disposal, product lifetime and related aspects such as recyclability. There is a broad and comprehensive list of what consumer information could be about. It provides the scope for meaningful and specific provisions relevant to a product’s impact on the natural environment without placing overly complex or impractical requirements on manufacturers.
We want this to be simple for manufacturers and to help consumers make the right choices. It is a two-pronged attack: we want manufacturers to do the right thing, but they need to be able to do it, and we want to give the consumers the information to make the right choices. For example, we could require that items of clothing are sold with information about the resources used to make them, as well as about the pollution—for example, greenhouse gas emissions—arising from a garment’s production, use and disposal. All of those things could be possible. Customers, should they wish, could then use that information to choose products that have less impact on the environment across their life cycle.
I know from talking to people who watch the Attenborough documentaries, and others, that they know about the horrific impacts and consequences of the products they buy. They do not want that to happen, so the information and labelling will really help, as will the whole new life cycle approach that this Bill will introduce. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Southampton, Test to withdraw the amendment, given that the current provisions already do what it suggests.
Dr Whitehead
I am encouraged by the Minister’s response, although I am not sure that the wording is exactly as it should be. I, like, I suspect, her, am very taken by the idea of a backpack on a product. For example, if a pen has a gold nib—unfortunately, my pen has a steel nib, but there we are—it would have a substantial backpack outlining the cost of mining that gold and the amount of resources used, such as oil, in getting the gold out. Everything would have a backpack: some products would have huge backpacks, while others would have smaller ones. I take on board the Minister’s comments. The aim is to start talking about those backpacks and how we relate to products. The life cycle information relates to not just what is in the backpack but how far the backpack has travelled.
Rebecca Pow
This whole subject is interesting. “Product passport” is another term that could cover all that detail. The Bill will also allow us to introduce labelling requirements relating to water use and carbon footprint, so it will open up a wealth of opportunities in the space that the shadow Minister is talking about.
Dr Whitehead
Indeed. That is absolutely right: “passport” is another good way to describe it, although only a limited number of things can be jammed in a passport, whereas rather more things can be jammed in a backpack. The principle, however, is exactly the same, and I am encouraged to hear the Minister speaking of it in that particular way. I do not, therefore, wish to push the amendment to a vote and hope that what the Minister has said is how the schedule will be interpreted in future. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Leo Docherty.)
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Obesity: Covid-19
(4 years 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
Philip Davies (in the Chair)
I remind Members of the changes to normal practice to support the new call list system and ensure that social distancing can be respected. Before they use them, Members should sanitise their microphones using the cleaning materials provided, and they should respect the one-way system around the room.
Members may speak only from the horseshoe and if they are on the call list. Even if debates are under-subscribed, Members cannot join the debate if they are not on the call list. They are not expected to remain for the winding-up speeches, but I would not discourage anyone from doing so.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered obesity and the covid-19 outbreak.
This issue has come to my attention so many times over the past few months—I am highly aware of it. I applied for this debate in March, but because of the covid-19 restrictions I was able only to introduce a petition. I am glad to have reached this pinnacle of opportunity to speak on the matter.
I thank colleagues who supported my application for the debate and the Backbench Business Committee, which kindly found time for us to discuss this important issue. I also thank Members for attending the debate and for emailing me to register their interest in speaking in it. I look forward to hearing from the shadow spokespersons of the SNP and Labour party, and especially from our Minister, who is always courteous to everyone, with the answers we hope to hear from her on this topic of great importance.
For the first time in many a month this nation can smile, following the news this morning that it is hoped a vaccine will be available. I do not want to pre-empt the final trials, but for once the nation smiles with hope that better days lie ahead, which must good news for us all.
Obesity is one of the country’s greatest health challenges. The UK has, unfortunately, the highest obesity rates in western Europe, and they are rising faster than those of any other developed nation. We cannot ignore that, which is why we are debating it today and why the Minister is here to respond. We are a majority-overweight nation, with more than six in 10 UK adults being overweight or living with obesity. That has a significant effect on the nation’s health, on the NHS and on the quality of life of each and every one of us living with the condition.
Obesity increases the risk of developing conditions such as type 2 diabetes, and I declare an interest as a type 2 diabetic. I was once a 17 stone, overweight person.
Jim Shannon
I was having Chinese takeaway five nights a week with two bottles of Coke. It was not the way to live life, but I had a very sweet tooth.
Until about a year before I realised I was a diabetic I did not know the symptoms. My vision was a wee bit blurred and I was drinking lots of liquids—two signs that should tell you right away that something is not right. I took a drastic decision to reduce weight and lost some 4 stone, which I have managed to keep off.
We need to look at our diet and our lifestyle. We all live under stress, and we all need a bit of stress because it keeps us sharp, but there is a point where we draw the line. I recall the day I went to the doctor and he told me, “We are going to put you on a wee blood pressure tablet.” I said: “If that is what you think, doctor, I will do what you say.” He added: “When you start it, you have to keep at it. You cannot take a blood pressure tablet today and then not take it next week, because your system will go askew.”
Obesity leads to high blood pressure and some types of cancer and is strongly associated with mental health and wellbeing, which is so important in the current crisis. There are strong links between the prevalence of obesity and social and economic deprivation. People living with obesity face extraordinary levels of stigma and abuse. We need to be careful and to be cognisant of other people’s circumstances, because they might have a genetic imbalance, which I will speak about later.
The outbreak of covid-19 makes the obesity epidemic more urgent. It is deeply concerning that obesity is a risk factor for hospitalisation, admission to intensive care and death from covid-19. The facts are real. People with a body mass index of 35 to 40 are 40% more likely to die from covid-19 than those of a healthy weight. In people with a BMI of 40-plus, it rises to 90%. That places the UK population in a very vulnerable position.
In the latest report from the Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre, which audits intensive care units in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, almost half—47%—of patients in critical care with covid-19 since 1 September had a BMI of 30 or more. In other words, they were classified as obese. Those figures show that almost half the people in critical care had a lifestyle that they needed to address. That figure compares with the 29% of the adult population in England who have a BMI of 30 or more. People with obesity are much more likely to be admitted to critical care with coronavirus.
We also know that covid-19 has a greater impact among black, Asian and minority ethnic communities. Currently, 74% of black adults are either overweight or living with obesity. That is the highest percentage of all ethnic groups. That is a fact—an observation—not a statement against any group, but we have to look to where the problems are and see how we can reach out to help, because we need to reach those groups.
It is encouraging to see the Government setting out the steps that they will take to support people to live healthier lives and reduce obesity. Those steps will make a positive contribution to the environment we live in and will encourage people to make healthier choices, helping to prevent obesity. I will also speak about other groups, because it is sometimes those in a certain financial group who do not have the ability to buy the correct foods and are driven by the moneys that they have available.
The Government now have to implement their proposals and fund them adequately. Then they need to measure their success and to review what more can be done. Three childhood obesity strategies have been published since 2016, and the proposals have not yet been fully implemented. One reason we are here today is to see how those proposals can be implemented, and we need a timescale. I know we are on the cusp of finding a vaccine, but we also need to address the issue of obesity in the nation as a whole. Perhaps covid-19 is an opportunity to address it. We cannot afford a delay. It has to be an urgent priority for the Government and the Minister if we are to protect people from severe illness from covid-19.
Furthermore, we need to address the structural drivers of obesity. Inequality is a key element, as I mentioned a little earlier. Obesity prevalence in children is strongly linked to socioeconomic deprivation. Families with lower incomes are more likely to buy cheaper and unhealthier food because what drives them—let us be honest—is what is on offer this week and what budget is available to buy the food that is on the shelf. We do not always check the labels. Is it high in calories, sugar and salt? Those are things that we probably should check, but we do not, because the driver is money.
A report by the Food Foundation in 2018 found that the poorest 10% of households need to spend 74% of their income on food to meet its Eatwell guide costs. That is impossible for people on low incomes. When the Minister sums up, perhaps she will give us her thoughts on how we can address that issue directly.
I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to the support for schoolchildren and school meals. It is good news; it is good to know that the four nations in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are united in taking action on that issue. Scotland is doing it, Northern Ireland is doing it, Wales is doing it and now England is doing it. That is good news, because by reaching out and offering those school meals we will help to address some of the issues of deprivation and how the mums and dads spend the money for food in the shop. This is a way of doing that. We all know that school meals have a balance as well, so it is really important over the coming school breaks and other times that children have the opportunity to have them. In Northern Ireland, the Education Minister set aside £1.3 million to help to provide school meals over the coming period.
The Government need to work more closely with the food and drink industry as well, to make the healthy option the easiest option. However, while we need to support healthier choices and behaviours, there is no point in seeking to make individuals’ behaviours healthier if the environment in which they live is not suited to healthy behaviour. It is okay to say these things, but how do we make them happen? We need to look further at the social factors that lead to obesity, and we need to address them to make them more conducive to healthy living. To give just two examples, eating more fruit and vegetables and walking, which gives the opportunity to be out and about, are among the things that we need to look at.
There is a long-term process, which involves planning, housing, the workplace, the food supply, communities and even the culture of life in the places that we live in. It is about the groups of people we live with and the people we have everyday contact with. Earlier, I mentioned genetics, which is also an important factor in causing obesity. Again, it is a fact of life that there are people who may carry extra weight because of their genetics. Indeed, it is suggested that between 40% and 70% of variance in body weight is due to genetic factors, with many different genes contributing to obesity. Again, I am sure the Government have done some research on that issue, working with the bodies that would have an interest and even an involvement in it. It might be helpful to hear how those people who have a genetic imbalance, for want of a better description, can address it.
Without going into the motivations and challenges faced by people living with obesity, and particularly those living with severe obesity, it is clear that it is not always easy for them to lose weight. Let us be honest: it is not easy to lose weight. Some people say, “Well, what do you do? Do you stop eating? Do you cut back on your eating?” But if someone enjoys their food—I enjoy my food, although in smaller quantities, I have to say—and overeats, we have to address that issue as well.
We want to encourage people to improve their wellbeing and mental health and to have the willpower. There are a lot of factors that need to be part of that process. I was therefore pleased that the Government strategy sets out plans to work with the NHS to expand weight management services. Again, perhaps the Minister will give us some idea of what those services will be.
Support for people to manage their weight can range from diet and exercise advice to specialist multidisciplinary support, including on psychological and mental health aspects, and bariatric surgery. We have the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance on these treatment options, which sets out who should be eligible for them, yet they are not universally commissioned, which means that many patients cannot access support even if they want to. Given the urgent need for people to reduce weight to protect themselves against covid-19, we need to make these services more accessible by increasing their availability and the information provided about them to patients and the public.
Over the years, I have had occasion to help constituents who probably had a genetic imbalance and were severely overweight. The only way forward for those people—men and women—was to have bariatric surgery. On every occasion that I am aware of involving one of my constituents, bariatric surgery was successful. It helped them to achieve the weight loss that they needed and it reduced their appetite. That made sure that their future was going to be a healthy one.
We have strict acceptance criteria in the NHS for obesity treatment that are not found with other conditions. If a person has a BMI of 50, they must follow diet and exercise advice and receive a multidisciplinary specialist report. These services are otherwise known as tier 2 and tier 3 services. We are almost sick of hearing of tiers 1, 2 and 3, but they are a fact of life for obese people before they are even eligible for surgery.
If a patient does not complete those courses, they must start again, which can make some people lose motivation. The lower levels of support are absolutely necessary and effective for the appropriate patients, but it would be better to remove the loopholes and duplications. That would allow more people to achieve the appropriate support, even before additional resource is provided.
Currently, the United Kingdom performs 5,000 bariatric surgeries every year, which represents just 0.2% of eligible patients. If more people had the opportunity to have that bariatric surgery, they would probably take it. Can the Minister indicate what intention there is to increase the opportunities for surgery? We lag behind our European counterparts when it comes to surgery for obesity, despite it showing benefits in terms of cost, safety and the ability to reverse type 2 diabetes.
Many reports in the papers in the last few months have indicated how people can reverse their type 2 diabetes and the implications of that. Talking as a type 2 diabetic, I am ever mindful that if people do those things and reduce their weight, it helps, but it may not always be the method whereby type 2 diabetes can be reversed. When I lost that weight, I found that my sugar level was starting to rise again after four years, and I moved on to tablets and medication, which controls it now. Ultimately, the control will be insulin, if the level continues to go the wrong way.
The British Obesity and Metabolic Surgery Society has recommended that the number of surgeries should increase incrementally to 20,000 a year—a massive increase from 5,000, but we believe it will heal some of the physical issues for the nation. This is a small proportion of the total number of people with obesity, but they would also benefit the most. This debate is not about highlighting the issues, but about solutions. I always believe that we should look at solutions and try to be the “glass half-full” person rather than the “glass half-empty” person, because we have to be positive in our approach.
For people who require nutritional, exercise or psychological advice, face-to-face services were closed during the first wave of the pandemic. I understand the reasons for that. While digital and remote services can provide help to vulnerable people during lockdown, these new ways of working cannot reach everyone. How do we reach out to all the people who need help? That is vital as the country moves through future stages of the pandemic. We hope we have turned the corner, but time will tell in relation to the trialling for the new vaccine. Obesity continues to be a priority, and services should remain available.
Lastly, in future, obesity services should not be cut as part of difficult funding decisions. I understand very well the conditions in the country and the responsibility that falls on the shoulders of the Health Ministers not just here in Westminster, but in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is vital that the inequity in access to these services is corrected to ensure that people can access support, no matter where they are in the country. What discussions has the Minister had with the regional Administrations—with the Northern Ireland Assembly and particularly with the Minister, Robin Swann, and with our colleagues in Scotland and Wales? If we have a joint strategy, it will be an advantage for everyone. I would like to see the person in Belfast having the same opportunities as the person in Cardiff, Edinburgh, London and across the whole of this great nation.
I have three asks of the Minister, along with all the other questions I have asked throughout my speech—I apologise for that. Can she reassure us of the continued political prioritisation of the prevention and treatment of obesity? I call on the Government to implement, evaluate and build on strategies to reduce obesity. Can the Minister tell us how have discussions on that been undertaken with the regional Administrations across the UK? I also call on the Government to work with local NHS organisations and local authorities to ensure that services are available to our constituents who wish to manage their weight.
In summary, given the range of secondary conditions caused by obesity—this also applies to covid-19—would it not be more prudent to address their underlying cause before they occur? I always think that prevention, early diagnosis and early steps to engage are without doubt the best way forward, and it would be helpful for the nation as a whole if those things were in place. I believe that would help to reduce the impact of conditions such as type 2 diabetes, heart disease, kidney disease, high blood pressure, stroke, sleep apnoea, many types of cancer and more. The problem with covid-19 is that although our focus should rightly be on covid-19, we must not forget about all the other, normal—if that is the right word—health problems that people have, because dealing with those is very important for our nation to move forward.
The NHS currently faces huge demands, but reducing obesity now would significantly reduce demand on wider NHS services. It is a question of spending now to save later, if we are looking at the financial end of it. It is not always fair to look at the financial end, but we cannot ignore it, because there is not an infinite budget available to do the things we want to do; we have to work within what our pocket indicates. And we have to do that while also protecting people who are vulnerable to coronavirus.
I commend the Minister and our Government for their focus on obesity. I very much wish their new obesity strategy success. How it will work across the four nations is important, but we need to do more, in both the short and long term, to prevent and treat obesity, and we must do so with adequate funding, which is crucial to enable the operations, strategies, early detection and early diagnosis to be in place.
I hope that our future strategies to reduce obesity will continue to focus on how people can also be supported to live healthily. When it comes to these things, we have to be aware that it is not just one person who is living with the obesity; the family also live with it. Sometimes we forget about the impact on children, partners, wives, husbands and so on. Whenever someone sits down for a meal, is their meal the same as what the rest of the family are having? It would be better if they were all eating the same food, in terms of diet and content. I believe that if we can achieve that, we will find a way forward.
May I thank in advance all right hon. and hon. Members for taking the time to come to this Chamber and participate in the debate? Like me, they are deeply concerned about how covid-19 is affecting those with obesity issues. Today is an opportunity to address this issue, and I very much look forward to hearing other contributions; I am leaving plenty of time for everybody to speak.
Philip Davies (in the Chair)
It might be helpful if I say that I intend to get to the Front Benchers no later than 10.30 am. There are currently five Members on the Back Benches who want to speak, so if people could take seven minutes or so each, that would be helpful to give everyone a fair crack of the whip.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I congratulate him on initiating today’s important debate and on his thoughtful introductory comments. It is great to see the cross-party representation here today on this matter.
As a vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on obesity and a practising GP, I am only too aware of the significant health and financial implications of obesity. In the course of this year, a realisation of the link between obesity, its comorbidities and poor covid-19 outcomes has sparked renewed interest in tackling Britain’s obesity crisis. It is the case that 19.8% of critically ill covid patients are morbidly obese; that is almost three times the national average, which stands at 2.9%. And for those who are overweight or obese, the likelihood of dying from this virus is 37% higher than average.
There are of course numerous international league tables that rank covid’s impact on countries, and many people have suggested that the UK’s unenviable position in those tables is due at least in part to the fact that the number of overweight or obese individuals in the UK stands as high as 67%. Of course, obesity is frequently an outcome of poor life chances, but it can also perpetuate them. The economic impact of obesity cripples some of our communities, and tackling it is therefore a matter of social justice. Obesity rates among the most deprived 10% of the population are more than twice that for the least deprived 10%, and the gap in prevalence of obesity between rich and poor is, tragically, still growing.
My constituency in many ways epitomises the national picture. I can travel from one area, a coastal pocket of deprivation and the poorest ward in Wales, where obesity and poor health go hand in hand with economic inactivity and high premature death rates, to another area, just several miles away, where the average body mass index is markedly lower and life expectancy and income levels are significantly higher. To me, that inequality within a single constituency is unacceptable. Not only is reducing obesity levels vital as we seek to minimise the impact of the pandemic; as an issue that I fear will become even more important in the aftermath, it should also be considered a critical element of the Prime Minister’s levelling up agenda.
The harsh truth is that obesity is strongly associated with a number of serious health conditions, including many leading causes of death. It is also associated with poorer mental health outcomes and reduced quality of life. Being overweight can exact a tough emotional toll, from bullying at school to the pain of lifelong judgmental attitudes and stigma.
The overall societal cost of obesity is estimated to be £27 billion a year, saddling the NHS with an annual bill of several billion. As a GP, any day’s work reinforces to me that we live in a society where the freedom to make the right choices is severely constrained for some. Supermarkets are packed with temptingly priced, high-fat, sugar and salt—HFSS—products. There are takeaways on every street corner, bountiful coffee shops serving syrup-laden flavoured drinks, and pubs and bars offering large, 200-plus calorie glasses of wine. We have a culture that normalises these things on a day-to-day basis. It is far too easy for all of us to consume more calories than our sedentary lifestyles can withstand.
While some may navigate this environment unscathed, making healthy choices has become increasingly difficult, even more so in poorer communities. Whether under enormous stresses and strains from other aspects of life or fighting to feed a family on a tight budget in limited time, the long-term health outcomes of what we eat and drink may not always be our top concern. The measures we need to implement are not about taking away choice, but about the Government helping to rebalance the playing field in favour of healthier options, for the benefit of all.
In July, the Government published a new strategy, “Tackling obesity: empowering adults and children to live healthier lives”. This committed the Government to introducing a new campaign to encourage all those who are overweight to take action with evidence-based tools and apps. We should not forget the huge impact of exercise and dietary advice; in my experience we often have a very poor understanding of what is healthy.
The strategy also committed the Government to expand weight management services via the NHS; to consult over improving the traffic light system on food labelling; to legislate to require large, and potentially smaller, restaurants, cafés, and takeaways to add calorie labelling to the food they sell; to consult over calorie labelling on alcohol; to legislate to end the promotion of HFSS foods through product placement, online and at the end of supermarket aisles; to get rid of “buy one get one free” offers relating to unhealthy foods; and finally to ban the advertising of these same products online and before 9 pm on television.
These proposed measures follow on from apparent success through reformulation and the soft drinks industry levy, which has reduced the levels of sugar consumed from soft drinks. I have been pleased to join many others in pushing for such measures in my time on the Health and Social Care Committee, particularly as part of the childhood obesity strategy. Obesity in children at reception age currently stands at 9.9%, reaching 21% in year 6. We know that children with obesity are more likely to develop complications and disability later in life at a younger age, and there is a continuously worsening picture year on year.
With this in mind, we need to consider going beyond the measures in the Government strategy. If we look at the world through the eyes of children, I feel we need to attempt to tackle issues such as the location and quantity of fast food outlets on a cross-governmental basis. I would be pleased to hear the Minister’s perspective on this and also when a timeline might emerge for implementing the remainder of the Government’s obesity strategy. Further, how will the Government ensure that support is available across the country and includes those with severe and complex obesity, for whom diet and exercise alone are not sufficient? How and when will weight management services and bariatric surgery become more accessible?
In the immediate future, how do the Government intend to ensure that those living with obesity will be among the first to receive the covid-19 vaccines that we have heard so much about in the last day or so? Looking to the longer term, how do they intend to ensure that tackling health inequalities through the levelling up agenda will proceed despite the huge financial impact of the pandemic?
To conclude, the Prime Minister’s obesity strategy announcement in June created welcome attention and dialogue, which have been continued through an all-party parliamentary group inquiry, today’s debate and, it is now likely, Government action. However, it is vital that we keep up the momentum, especially given that the covid-19 pandemic is still, sadly, very much with us.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on bringing this important debate before the House.
When the Prime Minister announced the improvements to the child obesity strategy a few weeks ago, he made the point that the UK is unfortunately an outlier, in that we are the most overweight nation in the whole of Europe, after Malta. Sometimes I think we do not quite realise how serious our national situation is or the implications it has for people’s lives. To me, this has always been a social justice issue, because it significantly adversely affects the poorest people up and down our country.
I was struck by some information in the House of Lords Select Committee on Food, Poverty, Health and the Environment report, “Hungry for change: fixing the failures in food”, which is a very good read, for any Members who want to take the issue further. It points out the reason we are the most overweight nation in Europe, after Malta. It is not difficult to see. On page 19 the report states:
“In the UK, more than half (50.7%) all total dietary energy from purchases came from highly processed foods”.
That compares with Italy, where the figure is only 13.4%, and Portugal, where it is only 10.2%. In other words, our diet is five times worse than that of the Portuguese. All the figures are going in the wrong direction. Despite all the strategies, it continues to get worse. The debate today needs to be a national wake-up call on this issue. Well done to all the Members who are here. I know the Minister gets it, and I know the Secretary of State gets it, but this is a combined national effort. It is not just up to the Government. It is up to food retailers, local authorities and schools—and, yes, it is up to us as families, parents and individuals to do the right thing. Everyone needs to pitch in and do the right thing.
Further into the report, on page 20, I found it completely shocking that 47% of primary schoolchildren’s dietary energy comes from products that are high in fat, sugar and salt. That is nearly half, and it just is not good enough. It does not have to be like that. There is healthy, nutritious food that will help our children to grow and develop as we all want them to. The figures show that a fifth—one in five—of children born today are on a trajectory to have type 2 diabetes by the time they are 65, with all the limiting implications that has for their lives and what they will be able to do, as the hon. Member for Strangford said.
At the really gruesome end of the statistics is the average number of diabetes-related amputations over the last three years, or from 2015-16 to 2017-18. The NHS undertook 9,155 amputations because of type 2 diabetes, with taxpayers’ money. Of those, 27%—more than a quarter—were major amputations, or above the ankle. People are losing their feet because of a lifetime of bad diet. It is a bit grim to spell it out this early on a Tuesday morning, but we cannot tiptoe around the issue. It really is that serious, and we need to do something about it. Yet a number of things are still going in the wrong direction.
I am a massive fan of the Food Foundation, which is run by our wonderful former colleague Laura Sandys CBE. Its “Broken Plate 2020” food report shows that 14% of local authorities in the last 18 months saw a more than 5% increase in the number of fast food takeaways. What were the directors of public health doing in those 14% of local authorities, where things were clearly going in the wrong direction? Indeed, fast food takeaways in the local authority areas with the highest number make up some 40% of all food outlets in those areas. We really can do better than that.
We need to hold the food industry to account, as the Obesity Health Alliance has said, to meet its targets to reduce sugar and overall calories from everyday food. Yes, there has been some progress in children’s breakfast cereals—so thank you for that; well done—but not nearly enough progress on a huge range of food.
I often quote the Dutch supermarket Marqt, which is a private business looking to make a profit, but its whole raison d’être is to sell healthy, nutritious food; it is not part of its philosophy to sell food that will be bad for its customers. If Marqt can do it, as a commercial business in the Netherlands, come on Sainsbury’s; come on Tesco; come on Asda; come on Morrisons: step up and show that you can do that too. Colour coding on front-of-pack labelling will be mandatory from next year. We can do more of that, which would make it easier for people to pick up the right, healthy things.
I find it surprising that the quality and outcomes framework for our GPs does not include a specific incentive for them to do anything about children being overweight or obese. That has to change. We pay our GPs to do lots of very good things. If this is a national priority—and I think everyone here thinks it should be—then for goodness’ sake let us align the financial incentives for GPs with what we are all trying to achieve and deal with this issue early on, in the right way.
Overall, if we want a strapline for what we are trying to do, we want healthy food to be the easiest option for people, and it also needs to be affordable. Amazingly, in Europe, healthier food is often cheaper than the less healthy food—this is according to the 2019 Food Foundation report. It does not have to be the case that unhealthy food is cheapest; in other parts of Europe, it is not the case. We could align the financial incentives to make it easy on people’s pockets, when money is tight, to put healthier things in their shopping baskets. We also need to stop the stigma in this area. Some of our press do not report this issue well, and that is not helpful. Further, we need to ensure enough bariatric surgery to help people who have become severely overweight or obese.
I have a few questions for the Minister. Can she give us an update on menu labelling? The Government say that they will use the powers in the Food Safety Act 1990 to lay the legislation before Parliament in 2020. There is not much of 2020 left, so can the Minister tell us when that will happen?
The consultation on the labelling of alcoholic drinks has not been published yet. When can we expect that? The consultation on promotions of products that are high in fat, sugar or salt has not been published yet. When can we expect that? The long awaited 9 pm watershed has not been published yet. When can we expect that? The “What Next?” proposals include eight additional policy proposals with limited information about who is responsible, so it would be good to have some more detail on that. I would like to see schools gripping this issue. They do a good job now in providing healthy and nutritious food, but they should have more of an emphasis on teaching children about the importance of healthy nutrition throughout their lives and about how to cook well, which is also extremely important.
All our healthcare professionals have a role. Every contact is supposed to matter, and this issue is supposed to be mentioned in every contact between a healthcare clinician and a patient. Dr Susan Jebb from Oxford has done lots of good work on how to do that well. We can copy the great work that has been done in Amsterdam to bring down child obesity in particular.
There are even little things that we can do. Dr Jebb said that when we fill up at the petrol station, we should sometimes pay at the pump because there is an array of temptation when we pay in the shop. It seems a trivial thing. Lots of us pay at the pump because of covid, so perhaps that will help a bit. There are lots of things that we can do. This strategy is very urgent, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister how we are going to take it forward.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate with you in the Chair, Mr Davies, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on introducing this important issue. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Members for Vale of Clwyd (Dr Davies) and for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous). The hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd is a GP and the vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on obesity, so he speaks with great authority on this subject.
I believe that we have to focus on the social inequalities that are at the very bottom of this issue. Let us tackle it from that perspective. Obesity is, of course, a major problem and can greatly increase a person’s risk of other health conditions. It is absolutely right that supporting people towards a healthier weight is a Government priority, and I fully support it. Any strategy aimed at tackling obesity must recognise that it is a complex condition with many underlying causes, including factors tied to socioeconomic issues. Managing weight is often not simply a matter of just eating less and exercising more. Unless that is recognised, this strategy will not be effective in the long term.
I want to say something about my experience as a councillor. Before I became a Member of Parliament, I was a councillor in one of our most deprived councils, and 10 years ago we tried to ensure that children learned how to eat healthily. If people cook their own food at least they know what is in it, so we tried to ensure that people knew how to cook. We then recognised, going even deeper into that, that a lot of families did not even have the means to cook. Some of the children had never seen water boil.
Those are the issues we face if we are talking about how to teach children early how to eat healthily, cook their own meals and know what is in their own food. Some families are at that level of deprivation: children have not learned to cook and have not seen their parents cook. That is how deeply we need to get into the issue. We need to understand that, without stigmatising families who live like that and without using language that shames people who are overweight. We must understand that, additionally, there are mental health problems and other deeper underlying problems that go with this issue. I urge the Minister to go deeply into that subject and recognise the social inequalities that lie at the bottom of it.
I want to talk about one particular aspect of the strategy that concerns me—calorie labelling in restaurants. There is limited evidence to suggest that that measure has a meaningful impact on tackling obesity. Worse still, it could be harmful for those at risk of living with or recovering from an eating disorder; that is, of course, at the other end of this problem. There is an epidemic of people suffering from eating disorders such as anorexia and bulimia and being underweight. Approximately 1.25 million people suffer from an eating disorder in the UK. It is also true that many people living with an eating disorder also live with obesity. Treatment, therefore, is not as simple as consuming fewer calories. The eating disorder charity Beat is one of many voices sharing concerns about that aspect of the obesity strategy, and I ask the Minister to look carefully into that concern. Calorie counting is well recognised as an unhealthy behaviour: one sufferer described it as an “all-consuming obsession” that “took over my life”. Learning to disregard calorie counts is a large part of recovery from an eating disorder. Having the freedom to go to a restaurant with friends or family—something that many of us take for granted—can be a very big step.
I highlight a quote from one of Beat’s volunteers:
“One of the greatest joys of recovery is being able to go to a restaurant for a meal with friends, and I enjoy going out now with my friends and family, but I really struggle to eat in public once I have noticed the calories. Once I have seen the number, I can’t stop my brain telling me I can only have the food with the lowest amount of calories.”
Research shows that individuals with anorexia or bulimia are more likely to order significantly fewer calories when that information is provided.
Eating disorders and obesity can in many ways be part of our somewhat strange relationship with food. People can go from obesity into bulimia—these things are connected—and it is important that we recognise that. I was extremely grateful to the mental health Minister for meeting me and representatives from Beat a few weeks ago. I appreciate the time she spent listening to our concerns about this element of the strategy, and I know she is committed to supporting those with an eating disorder. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on eating disorders, I would welcome the opportunity to have another meeting with her and representatives of Beat to talk about that particular, very concerning aspect of the obesity strategy.
Yes, we absolutely need to recognise that obesity is a massive public health issue. We need to tackle it, and I welcome the fact that the Government have made it a priority. But it is important that we make sure that the strategy does not hit people with an eating disorder, such as anorexia or bulimia, in an adverse way.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for having secured this incredibly important and timely debate. The contributions we have heard so far show how broad a subject this is, and how vital it is that we discuss it in full. As a member of the all-party parliamentary group on obesity and chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the national food strategy, I am very much aware that this issue should be top of our agenda as we come out of covid and look at public health. I join my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) in congratulating the Food Foundation on the excellent work it has been doing on this issue.
The global pandemic has made us all aware of our vulnerability. It has forced us to question how our underlying health might impact our personal level of risk from the virus. Although current evidence does not show that excess weight increases a person’s chances of contracting covid-19, it does indicate that obese people are far more likely to become seriously ill and to need intensive care. Over the past 12 months, we have seen a dramatic shift in public attitudes towards measures for tackling obesity, as a result of many people seeing only too clearly the health consequences and risk factors of being overweight. Reducing the risk of serious illnesses and the raised risk of suffering badly with covid-19 is reason enough to prioritise tackling obesity; other reasons include the estimated cost of £6.1 billion to the NHS every year, and three times that cost to the economy through absences for sickness, as well as the increased risks associated with heart disease, type 2 diabetes and certain types of cancer.
Tackling obesity is central to our commitment to levelling up. Statistics tell us that excess weight is more likely among those living in deprived areas, those with disabilities, and those without qualifications. That means that areas such as Stoke-on-Trent Central, my own constituency, have higher than average levels of obesity. Levelling up is not just about the left-behind areas catching up with other parts of the country: it is about tackling the entrenched economic and social inequalities of our society—the social inequalities that hold people and communities back right across the country.
In my own constituency of Stoke-on-Trent Central, a number of socioeconomic inequalities are known to have direct links to higher rates of obesity and poor nutrition, which in turn can lead to malnutrition. A recent analysis conducted by the Health Foundation charity found that people living in post-industrial towns and cities across the midlands, the north-east and parts of Wales have unequal exposure to the potential causes of obesity. That means that, on average, residents living in areas such as Stoke-on-Trent live much closer to fast food and junk food outlets compared with the rest of the UK—on average, they have 114 fast food outlets per 100,000 people, compared with 77 per 100,000 in the south-east. That matters, because evidence shows that an individual’s ability to be active or eat healthily is strongly influenced by the circumstances in which they live.
Wera Hobhouse
The hon. Lady is focusing on the number of takeaways in those communities. They are there because people cannot cook for themselves. It is important that the Government look at how many families have the ability to cook for themselves. I recognise the temptation to order a takeaway, but it is the result of the problem of people not being able to cook.
Jo Gideon
I thank the hon. Lady and absolutely agree. There are other factors as well, including income, housing, access to green space and exposure to junk food advertising.
On the extra factors, I discussed the issues around exercise with Stephanie Moran, the executive principal of the Esprit Multi Academy Trust, and visited the Grove Academy in Hanley to see first hand the challenges of organising outdoor exercise in a covid-safe way. This Victorian-built junior school, which was built for 100 people in a busy, dense residential area, has no green space and an inadequate playground area for what are now up to 480 pupils to exercise daily. We must include the right to exercise as a vital element of tackling obesity as well as looking at nutrition, and ensure that schools such as Grove Academy have access to green space.
Recently, I spoke to consultants at the Royal Stoke University Hospital, who shared their concerns about the increasing number of children with type 2 diabetes whom they had to refer as a consequence of poor diets and unhealthy lifestyles.
The Government started to address the challenge of poor diet in 2018 with the soft drinks industry levy, which has led to a significant reduction in the sugar content of drinks. This July, I wholeheartedly welcomed the Government’s Better Health campaign, which looked to address some of the issues through measures such as a ban on the TV and online advertising of fatty foods before 9 pm, and an end to all “buy one get one free” deals on unhealthy foods.
However, successive Governments have adopted different approaches to tackling obesity and, until now, they have neglected to address the structural inequalities that are so strongly linked to levels of obesity. The national food strategy and the Government’s obesity strategy are intended to be long-term approaches with comprehensive and holistic solutions.
I was delighted with the announcement from the Department for Work and Pensions earlier this week. It confirmed that, as of April next year, the Government will increase the amount of financial support made available to pregnant women or those with children under the age of four, to help them buy fruit and vegetables. The recommendation is to increase the rate of the Healthy Start payments from £3.10 to £4.25—just one of the core recommendations in part 1 of the national food strategy. It is a decisive step in the right direction, and I look forward to working with the Government, through my chairmanship of the all-party parliamentary group on the national food strategy, to see future recommendations implemented as part of their strategy for tackling obesity and malnutrition in the UK.
I say this to the Minister: although obesity is perceived as a health issue, for the reasons we have discussed today, it very much also goes to the heart of levelling up, so I believe that the solution can only be found in a cross-departmental way.
As we slowly but surely emerge from this pandemic, it is important we do everything in our power to capitalise on the momentum and shifting public perception within our attitudes towards tackling adult and childhood obesity. By addressing the structural, economic and social inequalities that exist in parts of the UK and by implementing the long-term and holistic solutions that will emerge from a national food strategy, we will be in the unique position to turn the tide on obesity once and for all, and ensure that everyone has access to healthy food and opportunities to exercise in every community across our country.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, and I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).
We have had an important and interesting debate. I would like to follow what my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) said by stating that we need to look at the issue holistically. This is not just a health problem; it is also an education problem and a Department for Work and Pensions problem.
I was particularly struck by the comments of the hon. Member for Strangford: we cannot use fat shaming and stigma to force people to lose weight. Over the summer, we learned from the Prime Minister’s brave words about his own battle with covid, his own unwellness and how that had been exacerbated by his weight. It might be easy from Downing Street to recruit the services of a personal trainer, but that is not open to everybody; we have to find routes to enable individuals to empower themselves to take control of their own wellbeing—whether that be through exercise and diet, or through receiving the emotional and mental support they need.
We all know that weight is not just a physical issue—there is an inextricable link between food and the way people feel about themselves. It is critically important that the support services are there to dig into that and to find the best routes, because we all know it will be an individual journey for each and every person.
I have to admit that the Prime Minister inspired me throughout lockdown; I made sure my “covid stone” was in the right direction, but for many that was not the case. It has been demonstrated that people have put on weight, and as we go into another lockdown there is real anxiety about the impact on people’s wellbeing.
I keep banging on about wellbeing—people think that I have gone all airy-fairy and am about to break out the crystals and the twinkly music—but the reality is that mental, physical and emotional wellbeing are all linked. Just yesterday, I was at Focus Fitness in Southampton talking to the personal trainers, who are all operating over Zoom in a covid-secure way. They made the point that there has to be a wellbeing approach that reaches across all generations and socioeconomic groups, and that we must find routes to help the poorest in our society embrace these initiatives as well.
Many people have mentioned cooking. During half-term, I was at the community pantry based at Romsey Community School, where we were talking about the Connect4Summer courses that were run over the summer and the half-term courses. They bring families together and give them ingredients, recipes and those basic cooking skills, which are so important. What really struck me was that the pantry gives away fruit and veg—there is a free bag of fruit and veg that people can take. I asked, “Why are people not taking it unless it is free?” I was told that it was because people did not know how to cook with it.
The point is absolutely crucial. I was blessed, in that my mother taught me how to cook reasonably well, but I know that I am lazy and do not have the time to cook properly from scratch. Lockdown enabled me to hone some of my cooking skills, but we have to make sure that those who are time-pressured—who in some cases are working two or three jobs—also have the ability to pick up that bag of vegetables and know they can cook something nutritious, quick and, mostly importantly, tasty.
I turn to the comments from the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse). I have a lot of sympathy with what she said about calorie counting. Some of the major chains such as Costa Coffee and McDonald’s have been advertising calorific values for years, yet the trajectory has been in the wrong direction: we are still getting fatter. In many instances, the battle has already been lost the minute a person walks through the door. Regardless of what the indication of calories on a menu is, people are in the wrong place to be making healthy choices.
It is important that we make labelling really straightforward. There is less than two seconds between someone picking up something in a supermarket and putting it in their trolley. That is no time to be inspecting the calorific fat and salt levels, so traffic lights or whatever mechanism makes things quick and easy have to be the way forward. People also have to have the skills to cook the healthier choices.
We have seen a rush over the last few days: the national media have been talking about how to lose a stone before Christmas and how to drop a dress size. Yet again, this is appearance-based, with little understanding that the issue is about people’s long-term wellbeing. I recognise that in some instances diets do not work and people will engage in yo-yo dieting, but in other instances they do. We have to find a way to empower people to make the lifestyle choices to bring about sustainable long-term differences to their way of life.
I think I have covered everything that I wanted to in a very limited time, but I look forward to the Minister’s coming up with some practical solutions as to how we can make a real difference to the people in our constituencies who need the most help, the most encouragement and the most support.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I want to begin by thanking the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his comprehensive exposition of the issue, setting out the scale of the challenges in tackling obesity and how the Governments across the United Kingdom must do all they can to tackle obesity across the UK in a holistic way. I am glad to be able to participate in this debate on obesity and covid-19 because it is very important, as many have said. There is huge consensus across this Chamber today: we have a real public health challenge and we need to tackle it with all the influence and tools that we have.
The pervasiveness of obesity in our society coupled with the health and economic consequences and the additional associated risk between obesity and covid-19 shows that supporting adults and children to be a healthy weight is, must be and must continue to be a public health priority. The recent report from Public Health England provided evidence-based insights into the relationship between excess weight and covid-19. We have heard today that the higher a person’s body mass index, the more likely they are to test positive for covid-19, they are more likely they are to be admitted to intensive care and, potentially, more likely to die a covid-related death. We heard from the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Dr Davies) that if someone is obese, they are 37% higher than average more likely to die of covid-19. Those facts persist when studies are adjusted for confounding factors such as age, gender, socioeconomic status, ethnicity and comorbidities.
Over the years, since 2015 when I was first elected, I have spoken in a number of debates on issues such as healthy eating, junk foods, healthy lifestyles and so on. One thing I always think is important, and it has been noted today, is that we must always try hard not to sound as if we are telling people off for the food they eat and stigmatising them for the food they give to their children. If we sound as if that is what we are doing, we will not get our message across, as the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) said. The message we want to get across is that we understand that obesity is one of the most complex and biggest public health challenges of our time. As the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) reminded us, the UK is the most obese country in Europe, with the exception of Malta.
I believe this is a matter that has to be treated with a bit of sensitivity. We know that it is easy to eat healthily the better off you are financially. By way of illustration, it costs £3 in Tesco for 250g of blueberries. Blueberries are very healthy; they are a superfood. However, in Iceland supermarket, we can buy 10 chicken burgers for £2, which are not so healthy. If someone is on a budget, as a parent, their priority is to feed their children and keep them safe from hunger if at all possible. No one has the right to tell those parents that their choices are bad. The fact is they are doing the best they can with the income they have. Using another example, in Tesco, four oranges cost £1.50, but a multipack of 10 packets of crisps cost 99p. Although we know the blueberries and oranges are the healthy choice and the burgers and the crisps are not, if someone is on a very limited income, healthy choices are not always on the menu, as others have pointed out.
It is clear that the key to tackling obesity is tackling poverty and inequality. We also know that the poorer people are, the poorer their health and lifestyle outcomes. I know that because I grew up in poverty. My parents both died in their early 50s: the same age that I am now. Their poverty and early deaths are not coincidental—not at all. It is the same story up and down our constituencies wherever poverty thrives and preys on our constituents.
Obesity does not just make people more prone to covid and its serious consequences, although it certainly does that. Obesity prevents people from living fulfilled and active lives. It is the second-biggest preventable cause of cancer and is linked to around 2,200 cases of cancer every year in Scotland. Living with extra weight or obesity is the most significant risk factor for developing type 2 diabetes and can result in increased risk of other conditions, including cardiovascular disease and hypertension.
The annual cost in Scotland of treating conditions associated with being overweight and obese is estimated to range from £363 million to £600 million. The total annual cost to the economy in Scotland of people being overweight and obese, including labour market costs such as lost productivity, is between £1 billion and £4.6 billion, and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) set out the overall UK costs. Studies last year showed that 66% of adults in Scotland over the age of 16 were overweight, with 29% being obese. Men are more likely to be affected, but obesity rates are consistently higher in our most deprived communities. The hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd reminded us that tackling obesity must ultimately be about tackling social injustice—a sentiment that everyone in this Chamber can accept.
What covid has exposed with crystal clarity, if it were needed, and what it has exacerbated are the shocking health inequalities in our nation. I want to see a Scotland—a United Kingdom—in which people eat well, have a healthy weight and are physically active: who would not want that? The Scottish Government have committed to supporting a targeted approach to improving healthier eating for those on low incomes, expanding and improving access to weight management services for those with or at risk of type 2 diabetes, and extending access to weight management services to everyone living with obesity. They seek to build on and consolidate the positive physical activity behaviour changes that we have seen during covid-19, such as walking, cycling and a range of measures that I do not have time to go into.
I am keen to see the Minister today set out similar actions across the UK and how Scotland and the rest of the UK can learn from each other and share good practice in doing more to tackle obesity. Fundamentally and ultimately, however, the scourge of poverty is at the heart of tackling all inequalities. As in other ways, the covid crisis has thrown inequalities in our society into stark relief, and this debate has been worth while in underlining that.
When the covid crisis is behind us, as one day it will be—the sooner the better—I hope that across the UK we all, citizens and Governments alike, do not forget the lessons it has taught us about our society and the terrible and ongoing impact of poverty on our communities.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on introducing the debate and on the tone he set in doing so. The disparities between our nation and similar nations show that something different is going on in the UK, and that should, we hope, act as a call to action for all of us in seeking to do something about it.
The hon. Gentleman’s references to income and ethnicity equalities were important and well made. He was a little bashful in talking about the financial impact, but it is worth recalling that obesity is terrible for the individual and for the collective in its impact on our health service and economy. We have not only a moral but a vested interest in this.
Colleagues made excellent contributions. The hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Dr Davies) picked on the disparities in the impact of covid and outcomes for obese people, and in raising them the Prime Minister did a public service. The hon. Member for Strangford also mentioned social justice issues—a theme that the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) developed with characteristic force. We will all take away the statistic on processed food as it brought into sharp relief the difference between the UK and other countries. That should act as a wake-up call, and I hope this will be a kick-off for parliamentary debates on it.
I was glad that the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) referenced eating disorders. When we discuss obesity I prefer to refer to a range of healthy weight interventions. The obesity strategy might be better as a healthy weight strategy because it is only part of the picture. The hon. Lady made important points about how the different disorders are linked.
The phrase that I underlined from the speech of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) was that the public mood has changed in recent months. It has, and we must take this opportunity, but a delicate balance must be struck. You, Mr Davies, have spoken publicly about the need not to moralise, and you and I have had that conversation in the context of gambling. People switch off if we wag our finger and say that they should be as virtuous as we are. We do not, however, do our people a service if we are blind to the challenges that our environments and our lifestyles are creating for us. We must find the balance between not wagging our fingers and being assertive enough to say when things are not working and are not right. The time when the public mood is changing is a good moment to do so.
I liked the emphasis that the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) gave to wellbeing. I do not think that is too new age for us to latch on to. It would be a really good outcome of the covid settlement, as people have made this extraordinary national sacrifice, to have public services, an economy and a general environment that points towards wellbeing for all of us. We should all be interested in that.
In my community, in 1920, poverty manifested itself in malnutrition. We have all seen the pictures of rake-thin children. In 2020, it is the opposite. A third of our children leave school overweight or living with obesity. In the adult population, two thirds of us are above a healthy weight and half of those are living with obesity. That is a challenge of exceptional scale. It is a population-level public health challenge. That behoves us to act. We know that obesity is a risk factor for heart disease, type 2 diabetes, some cancers and covid-19, as hon. Members have said. This is a good moment to tackle a national crisis.
My party has had interest in this matter for some time. Members may recall that our former deputy leader, Tom Watson, who is no longer of this parish, took on this issue personally during the last Parliament. His journey was incredible and I know people have taken great interest in it. He is a great ambassador.
We are glad to see the obesity strategy. I am happy to say publicly, as I have said in the media, that we support the Government in their efforts. We want to see the strategy actually implemented, so we do not get bogged down in consultations for ever and things do not actually happen. Rather than pushing the Minister on the substance of the strategy, I will push her on making it happen. There are arguments to broaden it out to a healthy-weight strategy and bring in greater emphasis on mental health, but at the moment I will take what we have.
Yesterday, the Minister replied to my written parliamentary question on this issue. It is clear that there is no new money for this and it is within the public envelope. I will talk about public health cuts shortly. The reality is that there have been diminished resources for this over the past few years. The impact of covid-19 on public finances means that resources are likely to diminish further. We should question whether we are geared up to meet such a significant challenge.
One reason why it is expensive and hard to tackle obesity centres on the complexity of the issue. It is about not just food, but childhood experiences, education, income and mental health, as well as poverty, in which I have a direct interest as the representative of one of the poorest communities in the country. We know that in communities such as mine, children are twice as likely to be obese as children who live in better-off places. Those children are no different. It is not because our burgers are any bigger or our sugary drinks any more sugary in Nottingham. There is nothing in the waters. Those environmental factors in our community push children and young people towards obesity. It is fine and right to talk about personal choice, but we have to understand that there are structural, social and economic inequalities in our country that close down choices, limit opportunities and push very difficult life outcomes on to our young people.
This is a challenge for the Government. This Administration and previous Governments in the past decade have not taken a long view on this—an investment view, rather than a finances view. Short-term decision making will cause greater problems. Public health cuts are a shining example of that. The migration of public health to local authorities is a good thing and one of the few aspects of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 that is likely to remain much longer. However, cuts to local authorities have meant a diminution or repurposing of those services.
I know from three years of leading in Nottingham on our public health grant that once we have paid for drug and alcohol services and sexual health services, which are demand-led services, there is not a lot left for smoking cessation, which really works, or for early life-course interventions, which are spectacularly effective. Unhealthy weight barely gets a look in. Across the country, we have seen the complete loss of any supported cooking programmes or those sorts of things that pull down the myth that cooking and eating healthily is hard or time-consuming.
That is thing that frustrates me. If I could get one message across to my neighbours, it would be that with a little bit of planning, it could be cheaper for them to eat healthily and it could be better for them, too. We have lost that, because we have lost the support through the public health grant. Covid makes everything harder because all of our local authorities—I am talking about England specifically; I apologise to Scottish colleagues—are looking at their finances. The “don’t worry, we’ll meet all your covid expenses” promise will not be honoured—that is clear by now—so there will be in-year cuts, and they will come from the places that they came from in the past, because they cannot come from children’s or adult’s social care, but from things that are seen as discretionary That is bad for individuals and our communities, and it is dreadful for all of us collectively because it will create much greater expense further down the line.
I will reference briefly free school meals. When I wrote this speech at the weekend, events had not moved on. Again, that was a prime example of understanding the cost but not the value of something really significant. Research by the Nuffield Foundation found that the provision of free school meals leads to a fall in obesity rates. I have gone public on this: I have no more interest than you, Mr Davies, in moving to a point where the Government feed children routinely. However, we need to understand that it is partly a good thing. When we have children at school, it is good because we educate them, but we can do many other good things around health and exercise, and we should not miss those opportunities.
Before I finish I want to make a quick point about Public Health England. I still think it is a very odd thing—one of the oddest things that has happened in an exceptionally odd year—that during this pandemic the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care would want to abolish Public Health England. It is an important ring-holder body for our obesity efforts as a country. I understand the disease and infection control points, but the Secretary of State wants his organisation, so he will have it. To an extent, I will not contest that space but, for the remaining functions of Public Health England, which are vital whether it is around obesity, smoking or drugs and alcohol, I really hope the Minister will give us a sense of what the plan is. I have asked parliamentary questions, so I know the consultation is coming soon, but we do not have long if it is to be up and running by April. I hope we have a soft landing. I will commit publicly to making no political capital out of it. We will all be relieved and will move on and never mention it again. That would be in all of our interests.
The hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire said the real theme to take away from this is a combined national effort. I really like that. We can find a high level of political consensus on this really easily. As the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central said, there is a public interest. Industry is falling over itself at the moment to tell us about the good things that it is doing. That is great. We should welcome that and encourage it. If we come together, resource it properly and see the long-term benefits of it, we can make a significant difference. It will make the country much healthier, more robust in many ways, and we will all be better for it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)
What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. My first very pleasant duty is to thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this debate. It has been an hour and a half of people coming together. We know that we have a problem and we have tried to come up with solutions. As has come out from across the Chamber, we know it has taken us some time to get here, and we know that it will take more than one individual silver bullet to get to the place that we want to be. Although one is often pleased to be at the top of a list, being at the top of the list or second to Malta on the obesity statistics is nothing to be proud about. As many hon. Members have outlined, the concomitant of that results in links to poor outcomes from covid-19, whether it is the links to heart disease, diabetes, cancer or any one in a plethora of things. It is really about an individual’s ability to have a good quality of life for as long as possible, because we know that obesity affects it quite dramatically.
I thank all hon. Members for their considered and thoughtful contributions in what has become very much a theme of the moment. Much of the work that has been done—the House of Lords report and the national food strategy—has led to this debate and highlights much of the work that needs to be done. The obesity strategy is the pathway of the marathon that is needed to help change those behaviours, and to help drive us in a direction where we see results and—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) said—see them for a long time, because we want this work to produce results.
We have known for decades that living with obesity reduces life expectancy and increases the chances of disease, as I have said. The life of the hon. Member for Strangford, from being 17 stone and consuming Coke and Chinese food, has obviously now been totally turned around. However, as he said—indeed, it is the one thing that I want everyone to keep in mind—losing weight is not easy. It can be depicted in a Sunday magazine as something that can be achieved in four weeks, but actually it is incredibly hard. It is really, really hard to sustain weight loss. Given the way that we talk about this issue, I was really grateful that the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) and others spoke about the tone in which we talk about it, because it is really important.
Over the past few months, evidence has consistently shown that people who contract covid-19 who are overweight are—as my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Dr Davies) spoke about, both from the perspective of a doctor and as vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on obesity—will have poorer outcomes. We know that those outcomes get substantially poorer with age and with weight. We know that the one thing we cannot do in life is change our age, but we can modify our weight. Weight is the one modifiable factor that we have.
We have also heard from many hon. Members that the problem is more prevalent in black, Asian and minority ethnic populations and in those living in deprived areas, which was articulated by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon). People in those populations and in those areas are at greater risk of experiencing poorer health outcomes, not only from covid-19 but right across the health spectrum. And they have an elevated risk of being overweight or suffering from obesity.
Across all Departments, we are actively tackling obesity, because many different factors are involved and we need to make sure that we target them. Covid-19 has provided a laser focus on obesity, so it is crucial to support people in achieving a healthier weight, and to help families, because we know that there is also a common link between mothers and fathers who are overweight and their children’s weight; the likelihood is that their children will also be overweight, or obese.
So, in July we published the new strategy, “Tackling obesity: empowering adults and children to live healthier lives”, which sets out the overarching campaign to reduce obesity, including taking measures to get the nation fitter and healthier. I will look at some of those messages. This process is about building blocks and not about hectoring. As we all know, it is about helping people and having holistic policies. We know the statistics and we have heard them several times, so I will not repeat them. But it is right that our policy focuses on improving diet and reducing obesity.
Since we published the first chapter of the plan in 2016, we have seen important steps forward, and we have spoken to other nations. Just recently, I spoke to Joe FitzPatrick about calorie labelling on alcohol. I have also reached out to the other devolved nations, because, as has been said, it is important that we have such conversations.
We have also looked internationally. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) mentioned Amsterdam and the good work being done there, but I also had a very insightful conversation with Dr Jebb on Singapore, because it has done a great deal of work on how best to incentivise people on the journey to weight loss.
The soft drinks industry levy has been a huge success; the latest statistics show that the sugar content of soft drinks has dropped by 44%, which is a remarkable reduction. We know that sugar content in breakfast cereals, yoghurt and fromage frais has also dropped. However, we also know that calories have gone up in out-of-home desserts. So, we have a really mixed picture and that it is likely that further measures will be needed.
During the pandemic, we have seen people snacking more, with more snacks being purchased, as well as a reduction in levels of physical activity. The cessation of weight management and obesity services, as the NHS focused on covid-19, has not helped the situation, but we very much welcome local authorities’ efforts in adapting weight management, so that we have much greater results; there are many more remote and digital options available to us now.
I will now move on to consider the tangible things. First, the current advertising restrictions for products that are high in fat, salt or sugar are not protecting children. We are seeing significant levels of such advertising on TV and online, and we know that children are now viewing much more of their content online. The advertised diet in the UK does not reflect the healthy diet that so many hon. Members have spoken about. We have set out in the strategy that we want to ban those adverts on television before 9 pm, but we want to go further. This is a very auspicious day for the hon. Member for Strangford—it is almost as if he knew—as we launch the six-week consultation restricting advertising online. We have made it six weeks because we want it to be short and pithy and we want to get to a result, which is what so many hon. Members are keen for us to do.
We are taking decisive action on promotions. We spend more money on buy one, get one free promotions in this country than any other European country. We know they influence preferences and we want to shift the balance to help shoppers. As a further strand, we will legislate to stop the promotion of high fat, salt and sugar products by volume and prominent location— removing them from the gondola end. Those restrictions will apply online and in store and we will publish that result very shortly.
Food eaten out of the home—on-the-go food—which was mentioned by several Members, forms a growing part of people’s diet. That is part of the bigger narrative and bigger conversation about children’s learning to prepare food, eating as a family and all those other things that, if we had had more time, we would probably have discussed at more length. We are introducing legislation to require large out-of-home sector businesses with 250 or more employees to calorie label the food they sell. We will also encourage voluntary calorie labelling by smaller businesses, and we will look at the scope.
Many people mentioned weight management services, and the hon. Member for Strangford asked how we can evaluate them. We can see success through the child measurement programme, but we are very much aware that our bariatric referrals are much lower than across Europe, as is people’s ability to access weight loss programmes. There is some brilliant work going on in pockets and in some of the more deprived areas across the country, and there are great cook schemes. There is a brilliant weight loss project in Sheffield, and I met the people who run it. There is also a “dads and lads” project, helping dads and lads to cook, because it is not always a woman who needs to prepare the meal—says a mother of four, married to a man who does not cook very often. I will leave that there.
Our progress in work includes the NHS 12-week weight loss plan app, as we advertised in the summer, helping people with different levels of intervention to live better with obesity and hypertension and to get the support they need. We have accelerated the expansion of the NHS diabetes prevention programme and we hope to start to target some of the loss of limbs that my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire spoke about. That programme has already helped half a million people. The better health campaign aims to reach millions of people who need to lose weight and encourage them in that behaviour change. The app also provides direction to weight loss programmes at discounted prices from Slimming World and WW, formerly known as Weight Watchers.
I am aware that I have not had time to canter through everything. To respond to the hon. Member for Bath, we are very aware that we ensure that messages are attenuated in the right way for those people who are struggling with eating disorders. They are a serious disease, and we work hard to ensure that the language and policy efforts do not have an adverse effect; we do impact assessments and put those on gov.uk. I also talk to my colleague the Minister for Patient Safety, Mental Health and Suicide Prevention, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries), who holds the portfolio for mental health, so we are very much attuned to ensuring that these policies are aligned. However, we know we have to do more. It is not our intention that anyone should be harmed in our raising awareness of obesity, but we do need to tackle this matter and we need to tackle it full-on.
My hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent Central and for Vale of Clwyd spoke about levelling up. I am going to stop, although I have plenty more that I wish to say. It is a combined national effort—I could not have put it better—and I think we are all united in knowing that we must work hard to meet it.
Jim Shannon
I thank all hon. Members for their contribution. I thank the shadow spokesperson and I thank the Minister in particular. I love the statement of a combined national effort; I think we have all captured that as the message we want to send out. I very much support what the Minister has said in relation to advertising and further reductions, the consultation programme that is going on, preparing and cooking meals and child weight loss programmes. All those things are important, so I thank the Minister and I thank hon. Members.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Probate Registry Service
(4 years 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
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the effectiveness of the Probate Registry Service.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies; I think it is the first time I have done so. I am grateful for the opportunity to have this debate on the effectiveness of the Probate Registry. I put on record my declaration of interest, in that I am a practising solicitor and I am familiar with this area of practice.
This debate may appear rather niche—a minority interest in many respects—but probate and the administration of estates affect thousands of individuals and families up and down the country every year. This is not just something that is of interest to people such as myself, lawyers and accountants; as I say, it is of interest to families. We should also remember that there are around 500,000 deaths every year. I accept that not all estates will go to probate, but many of those 500,000 do, and therefore an awful lot of individuals and families get involved in the probate process and the administration of estates, whether directly themselves or through professionals such as lawyers and accountants.
There has been, I think, a degree of frustration and anger over the process in the last couple of years, and I am fortunate that I am in a position to bring this issue to a debate. I have been a solicitor for 30 years. For 28 of those years, I found the Probate Registry to be an excellent service. That is why today, in many respects, is such a great disappointment to me and why this is a debate that I would prefer not to be having.
Over those 28 years, the Probate Registry was always an efficient service. Probates were returned in a timely manner, consistent with the application timescale, and often within two to three weeks. Just as importantly, as practising lawyers, we had confidence that that would be the case—that the probates would be delivered in that timescale and therefore that we would be in a position to advise clients accordingly. If there was a problem, we always knew that it would be dealt with in a suitable timescale. If people had queries, the responses to those queries would always be dealt with constructively and efficiently by very helpful staff. Phone calls were answered and always in a reasonable timescale.
I would like today to give great praise to the Newcastle upon Tyne district probate registry, which has provided an excellent service to my firm and many others in the north of England over many years. I suspect that if other professionals were standing here today, they would cite similar experiences with other district probate registries up and down the country.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I have had contacts from solicitors in my constituency and I think it is important to illustrate how the current situation affects families. One family I heard of made an application in June, but probate was not received until late September—a wait of almost four months. During that time, they were required to spend £30,000 on repairs in relation to the deceased’s estate, and of course that was at a time when they did not have the funds to be able to afford that. That is not an isolated case. What I have been told by solicitors in my constituency is that when they made applications directly to Cardiff probate registry, they found that far more effective; they were very satisfied with that service. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that an unsatisfactory service is not good enough and needs to be addressed.
John Stevenson
I am grateful for the right hon. Lady’s intervention. I agree with what she said and will come to the point that she was making about the sale of properties and how it is very important to get probate. It is interesting that she has heard from her local professionals and constituents about this very issue, which does affect a lot of families up and down the country and certainly in her constituency.
To go back to my point about the experience that I had in those 28 years, I would have rated the probate service overall as first class—something that a public service organisation should be proud of. Sadly, that is not the case now. I say to the Minister that unfortunately, rightly or wrongly, you are the fourth Minister with responsibility for this service whom I have been dealing with in a little over two years. I am sure Members would agree that we could have a debate just about the movement, the appointment, of Ministers and the timescales for which they are in office. That does not allow them always to get control or get on top of the issues that there are.
I have therefore experienced frustration on this matter over the last two years. I do appreciate that this Minister has inherited these issues, but at the end of the day it is still his responsibility to try to resolve them and improve the service. Sadly, two of his predecessors, in my view, did not really want to know, had not really grasped the issue and in many respects may not have been that interested. One at least had the honesty to confirm that there were problems and that he and the Department were trying to resolve them—I emphasise that that was pre-covid. At that time, I was aware that pressure was being applied by the Minister to try to improve the service and remove the backlog of applications. Sadly, that has not been achieved, and I emphasise that covid is not and should not be in any way an excuse, as the problems predate covid-19.
I can give real examples of what I am talking about. A member of staff can spend 40 to 50 minutes on the telephone waiting for a response to a query—I emphasise “40 to 50 minutes”. Even when an issue is raised, it is quite often not dealt with as quickly as it should be. As for updates, I will read directly from the response that we get on the website from the Probate Registry:
“Due to COVID-19, we are currently experiencing an increased demand on our service.”
I emphasise that actually it was pre-covid-19 that this was happening. The response continues:
“We will take longer to answer your call and to respond to your e-mail. Unfortunately, we cannot provide updates on case progression over the phone, e-mail and webchat.”
That is such a transformation from what used to happen, when people could do such things. For any service, one would expect to have the ability to get an update on the progression of one’s case.
Another example concerns an actual application for probate, which was submitted on 22 June. Probate was finally issued only on 10 September. That is 12 weeks later. In relation to another two applications, one submitted on 16 June and one on 29 June, probate was received only at the end of October. That is 17 weeks later. I repeat that it was 17 weeks—over four months—before probate was granted.
As for the quality of probate, errors are now creeping in in a way that would have been unimaginable previously. For example, a probate came back with the solicitor as the executor, rather than the person who should have been named on the probate. I accept that mistakes happen, but traditionally, people always received a perfect probate from the probate registry. That can cause serious problems, because people then have to go back and get the probate changed, which takes forever. Overall, we are experiencing a poor level of service compared with previously. If there was an alternative service, I am sure everyone would be using it by now. Sadly, we are not in that position; we have a monopoly service.
Such experiences are real. I am aware that other law firms are having similar experiences, as indeed are individuals. The obvious question is why there has been such a deterioration. The Government must take some responsibility for it. In their wisdom, they wanted to put up the charges for probate applications by a significant margin without giving it serious and sensible thought. In many respects, it was seen by many people as a tax rather than a payment for a service, because it was aligned to the size of the estate rather than the service that was being provided. Not surprisingly, that created a surge in applications, and not unexpectedly, the service was unable to respond adequately. Of course, the Government then realised that the increase in charges was inappropriate and did not proceed with it. They created a problem unnecessarily; they could easily have continued with the service as it was.
There was then rationalisation, which was an attempt to streamline the service by centralising it. It could be argued that that was a sensible use of resources, but clearly it has not worked out. As I have already mentioned, the performance of the district probate registries has been very effective in the past. We are now centralising the service, but it is not necessarily bringing about an improvement.
Finally, we have digitalisation. Again, there is not necessarily anything wrong with that, but does it actually improve the service? The Minister has written to me suggesting that there has been an improvement, which is true to a certain extent: it has improved the service from a poor position to a better one, but it is still not as good as it once was. From 2 November, the Government made it compulsory for professionals to use the digital service. The Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners suggested that the roll-out of digital aspects should be delayed, but that advice was ignored. Yesterday, my law firm found that the portal did not work—I could not make that evidence up. The Government should have taken the advice of the Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners.
There are consequences to all this, such as family distress, as the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) mentioned. The administration of an estate can be a stressful and difficult time for families, especially when they have just lost loved ones. Gaining access to funds quickly is important, as not all families have money readily available, and they may need the probate to gain access to those funds. Then of course there is the sale of property and other assets, which can be lost or delayed. The sale or purchase of a property, as everybody knows, is already a very stressful experience. It may not be front-page news, but we must remember that this affects thousands of people and their families up and down the country in a real and meaningful way.
As I said, I have raised the matter with the Minister’s predecessors, and I wrote to the Minister on 23 September. I received a letter from his Department dated 27 October, which came by email on 5 November—nine days later. I suggest that he has a word with his Department about how to communicate with a Member of Parliament in a timely fashion. What is happening in the probate registry may be happening in the Minister’s Department as well.
In the letter, the Minister acknowledges that the service has a problem. He mentions that the timescale for digital cases has improved to between two and five weeks on average, which I accept is an improvement. I point out, however, that in the past paper applications were dealt more quickly. I am encouraged by his indication that additional resources are being allocated to reduce the backlog, but why was that not done a year and a half or two years ago? We were aware that there was an issue at that time. The Minister mentions the centralisation of the system, but to a certain extent I question the wisdom of that. I have also asked written questions.
The evidence is this: in 2018, it took an average of three weeks for a probate to be granted; it is now seven to eight weeks. In 2018, the probate registry had 156 staff; it now has 215. In 2018, the cost of the service was £5.7 million; it is now £7.5 million. Will the Minister explain how a service that now employs more people and costs more is delivering a poorer service? Will he explain how introducing new technology, which is meant to improve the service, has resulted in probates being issued in seven-plus weeks, rather than about three weeks under the old system? Does the Minister agree that that poor level of service is having an adverse effect on many individuals and families up and down the country, and that that is unacceptable?
Does the Minister accept that this is not a political issue—far from it—but an administrative issue, and that it is therefore incumbent on the Government to ensure that the service is provided properly for the people of this country? Will he confirm that he will seek the opinion of service users, either individuals or professionals, to get their views on the service and what improvements and changes can be made? Will he let the House know how he and his Department intend to improve the performance of the probate registry, and will he let Members know what he has done and what the expected improvements and the timescale are?
I was going to ask the Minister to take the Rory Stewart route—when he was Prisons Minister he made a commitment that if the service had not improved in the next 12 months, he would resign his office—but I think that would be grossly unfair to the Minister, because I appreciate that he has not been in office long. However, I ask him to make a commitment to the House that he will seek to improve the service significantly and quickly, because it affects an far more people up and down the country than we may think.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)
It is, as always, a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) for securing this debate on a topic that is extremely important for all the reasons that he has eloquently laid out. When families suffer bereavement, they expect the state to support them and act quickly as a matter of compassion. It is also a matter of practicality: as my hon. Friend said, there are often property matters that need to be dealt with quickly, and delays with probate make them more difficult.
I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend because, as he says, he has three decades’ experience of working in this area. Parliament is at its best when Members who have relevant direct experience—particularly current experience, as in his case—bring it to the House for the benefit of other Members and the whole country. I am grateful to him for bringing his experience to the House.
It is fair to say, as my hon. Friend laid out, that over the past two years there has been a significant change in the probate service, and there have been significant challenges and problems. This goes back to 2019, when two things happened that somewhat upset the probate applecart. The first was the very substantial fee increase, which was proposed and subsequently withdrawn. It caused a very substantial increase in the number of probate applications—I think they went up by 50%—as people tried to get them in quickly ahead of what they feared would be a very large fee increase. A year ago, the Government made it clear that that very large increase was not going to happen. None the less, it had a destabilising effect on the system when it was initially announced. Secondly, a new computer system was introduced a year and a half ago, and as is often the case, there were teething problems with it that led, particularly in 2019, to some very significant delays, which my hon. Friend referred to.
By the beginning of 2020, before the onset of the coronavirus, we had begun to recover and were offering better service. For example, in January and February this year, 44,113 grants were made, which was back to the 2018 level, before the various problems that I just described. Come January and February this year, we had got the probate system back to where it was before. Clearly, the coronavirus pandemic then struck and that disrupted operations, particularly in March, April and May. By July and August, we had got the output of the probate service back up—for example, in July, the average number of grants made each week, which is the key number we look at, was 5,400, which was around 9% above the five-year average. In August, we got it up to 5,700 a week, so we had gone up a little again to about 16% above the long-term five-year average. By the summer, therefore, the number of probate grants being issued had gone back up above the long-term average, which is an important milestone to reach. Consequently, waiting times have been getting better—not as good as my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle or I would like, but they have got better.
For digital cases, the average waiting time was generally between two and five weeks and for paper applications it was between five and seven weeks. Paper applications take longer because they are harder to handle with social distancing. Solicitors must now make applications online, but I strongly urge individuals making their own probate applications to use the online service because it is much faster—a two-to-five-week turnaround time—and it is less error-prone, both by the user and by the probate service on handling the application, because everybody is using a common format and typing in material directly to the system. I strongly urge people to use the online system.
I have heard some examples of much longer waiting times than two to five weeks for digital or five to seven weeks for paper, and I am happy to look into the specifics of those cases if the hon. Member would like me to. I get a number of probate delay cases coming up in correspondence from constituency MPs. In more than half of the cases, where there are long lead times of 10 or 12 weeks, often there has been a mistake in making the application in the first place, or there is an outstanding tax matter from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs or something like that. Using the digital system reduces those errors, so I repeat my previous plea to use that where possible.
In the last year or two, the system has been in transition to the new computer system and the new service centres that are supposed to provide a centre of excellence where things can be processed more quickly and efficiently. We are midway through that transition. Those have been established, but there is still some activity going on in the local registries, and the process of completing the transition has been effectively paused due to the pandemic. My hon. Friend asked about resources and observed that the number of people employed in the probate service has gone up from 156 at the end of 2018 to 215 in March this year, and the amount of money being spent has gone up from £5.7 million to £7.5 million. He asked, quite reasonably, why there are issues if extra money is being spent. The answer is that it is still a service in transition. My objective is to get through that transition as quickly as possible, first, to realise the savings that were originally promised but have not yet been realised because the transition has not been completed, and secondly, to deliver the faster and better service that was promised at the outset. I think we can all agree with those aims.
My hon. Friend asked for a commitment from me to work tirelessly to make the necessary improvements, and I am happy to give that categorical commitment this morning. I am grateful to him for not pressing me to make the Rory Stewart kamikaze pledge, but I do commit to doing everything possible to make the improvements. In that spirit, I was going to suggest, before my hon. Friend called the debate, that we meet officials to go through some of the points that he has raised and the work currently going on in the service. My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay) has a similar professional interest in this area, as an accountant, so I suggest that he join us to go through the issues in a little more detail. I would like to hear from Members with particular professional expertise, to make sure that I as the Minister, and the Ministry of Justice more generally, learn from the observations and experience of Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle.
Liz Saville Roberts
One concern that has been raised with me relates to Welsh language wills. Will the Minister assure me that the new provision will be able to deal appropriately, according to the Welsh Language Act 1993, with people’s right to present wills in the medium of Welsh, and that that will be dealt with effectively?
Chris Philp
I believe that that is the case, but in the interest of absolute clarity it would be safest if I were to write to the right hon. Lady confirming it. I believe it is, but I will double check and write to her formally giving her the confirmation that she has quite reasonably requested.
John Stevenson
I am grateful for the Minister’s comments about consulting other MPs and what he is trying to achieve for the probate registry. I just want to make a couple of points. First, I think people are quite happy to pay the probate registry fee if they get a good service. I and many other people thought the increase proposed in the past was like an increase in taxation, but if there were an increase in the fee so that effectively the service could just wash its face, I do not think anybody would have an issue with that—certainly professionals would not. The other thing I would say to the Minister is please listen to other bodies such as STEP. It suggested that there should have been a delay in the compulsory digitalisation and it proved correct on that score. I think sometimes that Governments should listen in a positive way to what is suggested to them.
Chris Philp
My hon. Friend is right on the question of the fee. The very large fee increase contemplated a year or two ago went far beyond cost recovery. The current fees, I believe, cover approximately two thirds, or perhaps three quarters—probably more like two thirds —of the cost of running the service. I am grateful for his observation that practitioners, the public and parliamentarians would consider modest fee increases that cover the cost of the service, but no more, to be justifiable.
As for the digital service, after my hon. Friend made the point about the problems yesterday, I checked with the Department about whether there was a general digital service outage, and I was told that there was not, so I would like to hear a bit more—perhaps when we meet—about the digital issue that his firm experienced yesterday, so that we can get to the bottom of exactly what happened there. However, the reason we have made digital applications compulsory is that they are faster—two to five weeks—which benefits the user. Also, the evidence we have gathered indicates that they are far less prone to error, both by the applicant, whether that is an individual, a solicitor’s firm or an accountant, and by the probate service itself. Those are considerable benefits that flow from the use of the digital service, but if there are teething problems or if my hon. Friend’s firm has experienced issues, I would definitely like to investigate the precise nature of those.
I hope that this morning I have acknowledged the problems that have certainly existed in the past. There have been considerable improvements over the course of this year, but there is more work to do to realise both the savings that were promised by the centralisation process and the service improvements that were promised. I will make achieving that a priority, but in doing so I will work with Members with expertise such as my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle, to make sure that we deliver on the promise, and deliver to constituents and their families, at a time of bereavement, the service that they are entitled to expect.
Question put and agreed to.
Support for SMEs: Covid-19
(4 years 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
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered support for SMEs during the covid-19 pandemic.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. At the request of the Petitions Committee, I would like to mention e-petition 305024, entitled “Extend grants immediately to small businesses outside of SBRR”, and e-petition 307959, entitled “Business Rate Relief to be extended to all small businesses in healthcare”.
Small and medium-sized enterprises account for the overwhelming majority of businesses in the UK. In Carshalton and Wallington, for example, nearly 90% of businesses are microbusinesses, having only zero to nine employees, and SMEs make up 99.8% of all businesses in my constituency. According to the Federation of Small Businesses, at the start of 2020 there were 5.94 million small businesses with zero to 49 employees, making up 99.9% of the business population overall. They account for three fifths of employment, employing 16.8 million people and with an annual turnover of £2.3 trillion, which is 52% of the annual turnover of the UK private sector. SMEs are the lifeblood of our local communities and are at the very heart of those communities. Not only are our local retailers loved by the communities we represent, and not only do they provide jobs for local people, but they are active and engaging members of our local communities.
That, I think, is why the impact of coronavirus on our SMEs has been so tragic and upsetting in many cases. We have been unable to visit our favourite local retailers and have watched many of them wrestle with the agonising choice of whether or not they have a future in our local communities at all. I think it demonstrates the strength of feeling in those communities that while preparing for this afternoon’s debate, my inbox has been inundated—I am sure the same is true of the inboxes of many colleagues present—with briefings and requests for meetings.
I am incredibly grateful to industry representatives for their help in preparing for this debate, and am glad to see so many right hon. and hon. Members present to take part in it. It is fair to say that during the pandemic, the Government have stepped up to provide an extensive package of support to business, which is very welcome and has helped to save millions of jobs that would otherwise have been lost. However, there are still concerns, which I will address throughout my speech, and I am sure other hon. Members will have concerns as well.
I am not going to go on for very long, because I know that the speaking list is quite full, but I would first like to turn to the coronavirus job retention scheme. The news that the Government have extended that scheme to March is very welcome, and I extend my thanks to the Government for doing so. By midnight on 18 October, approximately £41.5 billion had been claimed under that scheme. There are 1.2 million employers who have taken part in it, and nearly 10 million jobs have been furloughed since the scheme began, including 5,200 in my own constituency. Again, that extension is welcome, but the key question from the CBI is about the exit strategy from 2 December. Most businesses are assuming that we are going to go back into the tiered system, but the CBI and the industry are looking for further clarity from Government regarding the road map out of this second national lockdown, so that businesses have ample opportunity to prepare financially for what lies ahead.
May I also raise the issue of the cut-off date for the furlough scheme? A local business in my constituency, Energie Fitness in Wallington, recently took on a new staff member. However, due to the cut-off date for the furlough scheme, that person is not eligible to be furloughed, and sadly it now looks as if their job may be in jeopardy, so I would be grateful if the Government could take another look at this issue.
The job retention scheme has been backed up by a series of loan schemes, with four in total. Overall, as of 18 October, £62.7 billion worth of loans has been approved across those four schemes. In my own constituency, for example, £13.42 million worth of loans has been approved under the business interruption loan scheme, and £65 million worth has been approved under the bounce back loan scheme. Again, the top-up and extension of those schemes are very welcome, but the industry still has some concerns that I would like to put to Government.
Approximately 250,000 SMEs are believed to be locked out of the bounce back loan scheme simply because they do not bank with one of the 28 accredited lenders, according to estimates made by the all-party parliamentary group on fair business banking. The APPG chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), is here, so I will leave it to him to go into more detail later. I appreciate that the Treasury has been pushing back in recent weeks but, while stopping short of forcing banks to act differently, there really needs to be a greater focus on this issue, to ensure that businesses do not get locked out of that potential financial support.
The two key areas I want to focus on are the self-employed and grant funding. The first tranche of the self-employed income support scheme closed on 13 July. It received 2.7 million applications, and a total of £7.8 billion has been claimed, including £11.6 million in Carshalton and Wallington. The second tranche opened on 17 August and, as of 18 October, 2.3 million claims had been made, worth a total of £5.9 billion, £13 million of which was claimed in Carshalton and Wallington.
Once again, I welcome and greatly appreciate the Government extending that package, as well as the pledge of a £7.3 billion refresh package of support for the self-employed. However, there are still some real concerns. A study by the Centre for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics found that, in August—a month that saw the economy beginning to recover from the first lockdown—58% of the UK’s 5 million self-employed people had worked less than normal, and that one fifth of them anticipated quitting altogether, rising to 58% for those under the age of 25. Apparently, 1 million people in the UK are planning to give up being self-employed after seeing their earnings decimated by the covid-19 pandemic.
That situation was highlighted just this morning by the Federation of Small Businesses, which noted that 500,000 fewer people than last year—that figure was released today—are now registered as self-employed. I am sure that we will hear many examples of what has happened to the self-employed, especially freelancers and company directors, who have not been able to access financial support. I should declare an interest at this point as a participant in the all-party parliamentary group on ExcludedUK. The group emerged back in March, off the back of the first round of announcements of financial support, and it argues that much more needs to be done to help the recently self-employed, limited company directors and other groups that did not benefit from the self-employment income support scheme. That call was echoed by the FSB this morning, so I ask the Government to look at the eligibility criteria, to ensure that the self-employed can once again be the engine of economic recovery when we come out of lockdown.
I will also touch on business rates relief and grant funding. Again, I want to draw attention to the good work that has been done. Retail, hospitality and leisure businesses in England are receiving a 100% business rates holiday through the expanded retail relief. They will not pay business rates in 2021 and English local authorities estimate that just over 373,000 business premises were eligible for the expanded relief as of 5 July this year, and that those businesses will receive around £10.7 billion of relief. In my own constituency, 384 businesses have benefited from this support, at an estimated cost of £8.6 million.
However, there are still concerns. I will start with wholesalers, such as Bestway Wholesale in my constituency. Wholesalers play a really vital role in the supply chain, especially in the hospitality sector, but they have lost between 80% and 90% of their trade with the closure of the hospitality industry, and several are on the verge of collapse. These SMEs provide employment and skills, and are often the lifeblood of the local communities that they are part of. However, they are worried that without urgent financial support in the form of business rate relief, there will be significant job losses up and down the country.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to the small business grants fund, the retail, hospitality and leisure grant fund, and the local authority discretionary grants fund. In total, the first two of those funds were worth more than £12 billion, which was obviously expected to be distributed. As of 16 August, £11 billion had been paid out to nearly 900,000 business properties. I particularly thank the Government for the local authority discretionary grants fund. So far, grants of more than £239 million have been paid out to over 37,500 businesses. In Carshalton and Wallington, £6.6 million has been paid in small business grants, £4.4 million in retail, hospitality and leisure grants, and £510,000 in local authority discretionary grants.
I pay particular tribute to the Government for introducing the local authority discretionary grants. There were real concerns earlier this year from businesses that fell outside the original grant scheme, particularly those that did not pay business rates, predominantly due to a rental agreement—if they were a council tenant, for example—or because they were in shared offices. Park cafes are an example, including the Pavilion Café at Beddington park, Mellows Pavilion Café at Mellows park, Sassis in the Grove, Cheam Park Café, as well as the Sutton business park in Hackbridge. They are all, by every stretch of the imagination, a small business and would fit that description if they had a property of their own, but they were not eligible for the grants simply because of their rental agreements. I therefore thank the Government for making the move on that.
There are lingering concerns, however, when it comes to grants. This morning, the Federation of Small Businesses expressed concerns that the grants were not at the same level as grants in March 2020. It has asked what the difference is this time. Grants need to be greater than the £3,000 put forward, because SMEs are struggling with cashflow and that would really help. In addition, some businesses still fall outside the scope of the grants. An example from my own constituency is the Windsor Castle pub, which is having difficult conversations about the possibility of closing altogether. Its rateable value means that it is not eligible for financial support, and it has real concerns about coming out on the other side of the crisis.
One of the e-petitions I mentioned focuses on the grants, and its prayer states that cash grants are
“only for businesses in receipt of the Small Business Rates Relief or Rural Relief, or for particular sectors.”
It continues:
“Small businesses are dying by the day and jobs are being lost. We need fast, easy access to cash grants for small businesses enabling them to survive COVID-19.”
I hope, therefore, that the Government will review the scope and reach of each of these grants.
Given the time constraints, I will not go on to list everything the Government have provided or the sector’s concerns. I am sure we will hear a lot about those from other hon. Members present. I will just pick up on one anomaly and ask the Minister to take a look at it—namely, the 5% VAT cut on admissions. I hope the Minister will take a look at what seems to be a problem in the system: bowling alleys are not eligible for the 5% cut, even though trampolining and mini-golf businesses are eligible, as are cinemas. That seems to be a strange anomaly in the system. I would be grateful if the Minister could take a look at that.
I shall bring my remarks to a close and allow other Members to get in. I am grateful to the Government for the support they have provided to SMEs so far, but what businesses—and, indeed, all of us—need is a clear road map to reopening. The Government have been clear, and I agree, that repeated lockdowns are not the answer. We had some good news about a potential vaccine yesterday, but we know that the roll-out will not happen overnight and that going back to some semblance of normality is not going to happen any time soon. That is why, essentially, we need a plan for living with the virus in the longer term—one that does not shut down huge swathes of our economy and put jobs at further risk. On top of the financial support that I have already outlined and the need to address the sector’s concerns, I hope that we can get that road map and plan for what operating a business will look like after we get out of this second lockdown. Uncertainty is one of the worst things for a business, and it can be just as damaging to SMEs as poor cashflow. I hope that we can look at the SME support that the sector is calling for, get that road map to reopening, and give SMEs the confidence to start planning for the future.
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
We have quite a few speakers, but if everybody keeps to under five minutes, everybody can get in. Before speaking, can you look at the clock and make sure that you sit down within five minutes, however interesting your comments may be? Thank you.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I start by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) and thank him for securing this important debate. He made a series of important and detailed points that will certainly be welcome in Westminster Hall.
As the hon. Gentleman has said, SMEs come in all sorts of shapes and sizes. As we have already heard, they really are the powerhouses of industry in our regional economies. Prior to becoming an MP, I worked for an SME in export, trade and marketing, and it was seeing things like Business Link—for anyone who remembers that—axed in the so-called bonfire of the quangos back in 2011 that made me feel that, for all the talk of trading our way out of the recession, the Government at the time did not really understand the type of support that SMEs truly valued. I was keen to bring those experiences with me to Parliament. We will need to trade our way out of this again, so what do we need to do to lay the groundwork to build back better?
I want to focus my remarks on those businesses in my constituency that have faced particular hardships over the course of the crisis. Halifax has been in the equivalent of tier 2 restrictions since July. We entered restrictions over three months ago, when our infection rate was in the 30s per 100,000. At one stage, we got it down to around 14 or 15 per 100,000, but the restrictions were not lifted before the second wave we are currently seeing sweep across the country brought about another spike. My SMEs have been living with restrictions far longer than most, and it is really starting to take a toll.
Children’s soft play centres have been among those hardest hit, and I commend places such as the Mill Playcafé and Play Palace in Halifax for doing all they can to diversify and keep their doors open. However, they are the types of leisure facilities, much like bowling alleys, which were the last to be able to reopen under the national restrictions. They then faced further tier 2 delays. When they finally got the go-ahead, they had additional restrictions on how many children could use the play areas safely, meaning that takings have been down by around 80%, completely undermining their viability and business models.
The packages of support for SMEs do not reflect those differences and the fact that some businesses have inevitably faced more hardship than others under the restrictions. I am not here to suggest that it would be easy to tailor the support to the exact requirements, but I say to the Minister that it is necessary to take that approach. My colleagues on the Labour Front Bench have been asking for sector-specific support, so I hope the Minister can reflect on soft play centres specifically in his response.
One recurring message from local businesses is that November and December are usually their best months. Whether it is Saks salon or Carter’s market stall selling nightwear for the winter months, turnover across the year factors in an expectation that the business will do well in the run-up to Christmas, especially given the year that these businesses have had. The hope that the best months of the year were still to come was keeping lots of businesses going, but it will take a great deal to recover from the reality of missing out on trade at this key time.
I have spoken to lots of the market stall traders at the impressive Halifax borough market, one of the last indoor Victorian markets, and which first opened in 1896. The council is staring into a massive black hole in its finances for this year and did what it could to give stallholders a rent break at the start of the crisis, but its position is such that it needs to continue to charge rent, even when the footfall has been so low that takings for traders have been a fraction of what they would normally be.
Due to a variety of different business models and employment practices within the market, not all of those working in it have been able to access the various different schemes. With this in mind, I wrote to the Government to ask the Secretary of State for the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport if the money already announced for the recovery of culture and heritage could be used to support the borough market as a cultural destination and heritage building, as a means of supporting the businesses in it. I received a response on 1 October from the Minister, saying that it could not but that he urges market business owners to continue exploring all options and monitor any existing funding streams for further development. I would be grateful if the Minister could update us if there are any further funds my market stallholders could apply for, or, alternatively, what else we can do to support councils and the traders in our historic markets.
There is a great deal more I could add, but I will say in closing that Halifax had been punching well above its weight as a northern Pennine town before the virus, and I know that we will get there again. We have a real strength in depth across our SMEs, but we have faced a perfect storm of restrictions. I also add that we were recovering from the devastating floods of February before we almost immediately had to turn to face the virus, so we need to know that the Government are responsive to and understanding of our almost unique circumstances in Halifax.
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con)
It is a great pleasure, as always, to serve under your delightful chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for securing this important debate at a critical moment in our national story. It is also a great pleasure to follow my near neighbour, the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch). Her concern about having had to deal with Storm Ciara immediately prior to the pandemic is shared across west Yorkshire.
In the 2019 general election campaign, the Conservative party pledged to support SMEs across the country, whether that be seizing the opportunities that Brexit brings or helping support those who want to start their own company and realise their ambitions. Our manifesto pledge could not have foreseen the pandemic we presently endure. However, the support that Her Majesty’s Government continue to provide to SMEs is a continuation of the policies and values Conservatives stand for. The numerous support schemes, whether the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme, the coronavirus bounce back loan, retail hospitality and leisure grants or the furlough scheme, illustrate how great a priority the protection of SMEs and the livelihoods of all those who depend on their success is to this Government.
Through these interventions, businesses and livelihoods have been shielded as much as possible from the economic fallout of covid-19. Between the announcement of the schemes in March and August, 5,640 businesses in the Wakefield district eligible for the business grant received funds to support them—92% of all eligible businesses.
As we entered the second set of national restrictions, Her Majesty’s Government once again introduced support measures for businesses to shield them as best as possible. These measures cannot protect every business, or every job, but they are the right measures. The support that SMEs have received during this national emergency has been unprecedented, yet necessary to protect our economy.
A thriving economy requires a diverse private sector that is not shackled by regulation or high taxes. The Conservative party recognises the vitality of a dynamic free market, as well as a free economy, as the only route to economic growth and prosperity for all who live within it. While these measures intervene in the economy in a manner never seen before, and freedoms we cherish are curtailed to help to slow the spread of the virus, all these actions are temporary. Even so, I know the Prime Minister and the Chancellor did not take any of these decisions lightly or easily. Once we emerge from this crisis, as we shall, it is vital that we shift our approach from not only supporting SMEs where necessary, but unshackling them from the burdens of excessive regulations that limit their ability to operate effectively in the market.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) on securing this important debate. I want to focus my remarks on the coach industry, because its members feel badly let down. They tell me that that is partly because politicians do not understand their industry.
I will start by quoting Kevin Mayne, from Maynes Coaches, a family firm in Scotland, who says:
“We take children to school, grieving individuals to funerals, vulnerable people to disabled care facilities and turn up in high risk situations with shiny shoes to keep the nation moving. We are waiting at the station when the train stops and a rail replacement is called upon, we are behind the NHS when the country stops moving and we are truly at the heart of national transport.
The Coach Industry has always been there for the nation. When the train stops, you get a coach to take you where you need to go—whether it be a job interview, school play or a hospital appointment. When planes are grounded, it’s a coach and a driver who are sent out to keep the people moving forward to their next destination. If everything in the city grinds to a halt and there needs to be an evacuation—we help. Trust me, I have been there personally.”
The situation for coach companies is deeply worrying. They are all SMEs, the majority family-run businesses. Last week, I met Alan Acklam from Acklams Coaches, who spelt out the crisis the industry faces. These were all viable businesses, and they will be again, because after this pandemic people will want to go to concerts and on holiday and start enjoying life again. But right now, tens of thousands of jobs are at stake as a result of coach operators struggling to secure business as the coronavirus pandemic goes on. They have seen a 90% drop in income for 2020. In 2019, there were 23 million visits made by coach, but that number has fallen to virtually nothing.
There has been no sector-specific support for coach companies, unlike bus, rail and light rail operators. For some companies, the furlough scheme has been the only source of support until this point. The industry experts estimate that four companies in 10 could go bust and 27,000 jobs could be lost if no support is made available. Furlough has helped, but many coaches have fixed costs. One owner told me that
“fixed costs will kill the industry prior to the furlough ending”.
That is partly because coach companies have tried to do the right thing. Many have upgraded their fleets to improve air quality and reduce emissions, and have taken out finance agreements to do that. Now the coaches sit idle and the repayments are due.
One coach operator told me that the cost per day for his coaches was £220. The coaches are now in negative equity because the market is flooded as businesses try to sell them. Some firms have been able to negotiate finance payment holidays, but those are coming to an end and there is no sign of them being renewed. Only 20% of companies have been able to access coronavirus business interruption loans, and only 15% have been able to access small business support.
I was contacted by the owner of a family company in Dorset, who sent me a heartbreaking email about the problems he faces. I will quote from that, because it is better than anything I could say to the Minister. It says that the company was
“told yesterday that we’ve been refused a CBIL loan from our own business bank (Lloyds Bank). We have a BBL and it was going to be paid as part of the CBIL funds. We weren’t refused due to bad credit or not being a profitable company. It was because the banks don’t know when our industry will return to any form of normality, they’re classing us as maximum risk for any form of lending. They can’t see the industry recovering over the next 12 months, so won’t lend us any money. This is what I was told by them over the phone, and to be honest, I can’t believe it, I really can’t!
I felt very ill last night when my bank said they can’t see us returning soon. I didn’t realise they were experts in when things will return to some form of normality. Lloyds have also put a 5-year payment plan on the application. Rishi Sunak MP said he was extending payments up to 10 years to help us out. Lloyds said they hadn’t had that information and have to base it on 5 years. If it was for 10 years, the application may have gone through?
The coach operators appreciate the furlough, but as I said before that is for the employees’ benefit, not for the business itself. Furlough till March is great but the finance houses will not extend holidays for the coach payments. Once January comes I will need to find over £12,000 a month for coach finance payments with an income of absolutely nothing. My staff will be made redundant just after Christmas if funding does not arrive soon. Coach operators are completely left on their own at the moment and have been for 8 months.
I have £26,700 left to get me through to March. I’m applying to Iwoca loans, but the rates are higher than Lloyds and they are saying it is only over 5 years and not 10 years. I have a wife, a 5-year-old and a 9-year-old to support. Come early next year, we will be forced out of our home as the money will run out and the coach finance, like others, is secured against our family home. I haven’t been scared up until now, but I’m scared now.”
The only business that coaches have is school transport, but most companies subsidise that with other jobs. At the moment, that service is being operated at a loss. The industry needs help. I am grateful that the Chancellor told me that the relevant Minister will meet me and representatives from the industry, but I will be even more grateful when the relevant Minister actually puts a date in the diary for that meeting.
Will the Minister please comment on what sector-specific support coaches will get? Will the Department look at classifying coach operators as either tourism or essential travel so that they can access some of the grants that are already available? What conversations are being had by the Department with the high street banks about their criteria for lending coronavirus interruption loans to the industry? What support can the Government give the industry in securing extended finance payment holidays? Have the Government considered retrospective low-emission-based grants for coach companies that have made a large investment in greener travel? Has any consideration been given to topping up the costs of school transport during this time?
Coaches are not just for displaying dubious political slogans during referendums and elections. Our country needs them, and now the industry needs us. I look forward to working with the Government to get it the support it needs.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn), who gave a fantastic opening speech and really set the scene. So many of us agree with him. I pay tribute to the three Members who spoke before me, all from various parts of Yorkshire—God’s own county. When we hear representatives from Yorkshire calling for more money to be spent, we know that we are indeed in unusual times.
I will focus on my concerns for small and medium-sized enterprises in my constituency, what we can do to urge our constituents and residents from across the country to support them before Christmas, and what the Government can do to support them. It is fantastic to see the Minister in his place. I worked with him before my political fortunes changed. It is great that he is in post, which means we have continuity for him to help in the Treasury.
My concerns with small business lie in the demographics of my constituency. We do not have large business in Bexhill and Battle. Small businesses, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington said, are the lifeblood at the heart of our local communities. They certainly are in my Bexhill and Battle constituency. I also have one of the highest proportions of workers on the living wage. Without the small businesses, we would not have the jobs that are there, but even the jobs that we do have are very low paid indeed. I am very concerned that those small businesses will not survive. That is why, with regret, I have been unable to support the Government’s November restrictions. Those businesses had done their best and survived during the first lockdown, but I was concerned they were going to really struggle to survive through the second. On a more optimistic note, it is fantastic news that it looks as though the vaccine is within reach. Ultimately, what our small businesses need is the consumers who will drive business, and I hope this will bring optimism back to them.
Despite the restrictions, the bigger operatives such as supermarkets are able to open up to all while smaller businesses complain that they are unable to open, which is regrettable. Having said that, we saw what happened in Wales when supermarkets tried to close certain aisles—it simply does not work. I want to focus instead on what we can all do before Christmas, because all retail businesses are able to open online. I would like to see a national campaign focused on November, a crucial month for many small and medium-sized enterprises, so that we buy local. Ultimately, we need to discourage people from doing their Christmas shopping on Amazon. A good example is a bookshop in Battle, Rother Books. We can buy its books through an online organisation called Bookshop.org, whereby the local bookstore gets the profits that it would receive if someone had purchased in the shop. I urge hon. Members to look at that for their constituents. I am also really encouraged by my Alliance of Chambers in East Sussex, the chambers of commerce, which is appealing for people to buy local, buy later and buy local online. I very much hope that constituents will do that. Again, it is important that we all take the lead and show our residents and constituents how they can find those businesses, and it is important that businesses innovate so that they are able to open during what will be a difficult month.
What more can the Government do before Christmas? I should align myself with some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington. When I visited businesses in my constituency over the summer, they could not have been clearer that without the Government’s furlough and the discretionary grant process, they would have gone under, so the Government really have stood by smaller businesses. I know that the Government’s target of 33% of total procurement spend each year by 2022 should be on SMEs. Given that we have nationalised large parts of the economy, I challenge the Minister to see whether we can make that target perhaps a little earlier.
In the remaining 30 seconds, I want to point out three areas to the Government. On house building, we have lost our small builders, but we will need them if we want to build back. We lost them during the recession of 2008, and it is vital that we let small builders start building so that we get the homes we need. Secondly, wearing my Transport Committee Chair hat, travel agents have been particularly impacted, and I would like to see a suspension of the package travel regulations so that insurers pay out for cancelled holidays, rather than the travel agent. We should better align our regulations so that when airlines are still flying but passengers cannot realistically go to destinations, it is not the travel agents that pay out, but the airlines.
Lastly, on aviation—the Treasury has an interest here—it is vital that we get people flying again. There are so many small and medium-sized enterprises that rely on aviation either indirectly or through the number of passengers who come through. Can we please find a way to reduce the number of quarantine days so that there is an incentive to pay to have the test? People will then end their quarantine early and start flying again. That is all I have to say, Sir Edward. I hope I have not gone too far beyond your limit. I warmly welcome the motion and hope that the Government will continue to support small and medium-sized enterprises.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for calling this debate.
My constituency is home to more than 6,000 small and medium-sized businesses, ranging from independent shops around the ever-busy Clapham Common, including Minnow, Charlotte Cave and Clapham Books, to the row of street stalls and quirky businesses along the Lower Marsh in Waterloo, including Greensmiths and River Remedies, the numerous small pubs, cafes and restaurants along what many people refer to as Little Portugal—South Lambeth Road—and our vibrant lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities and venues, which draw so many people to Vauxhall from across the world, adding immeasurable culture to our part of south London.
The covid-19 pandemic has had a devastating impact on all those businesses, and I have personally visited them over the past few months to see at first hand the impact on the ground and how they have been adapting and coping with what we call the new normal.
I met one constituent in March who planned to open a new grocery store after three years of sheer dedication, hard work and money to get that off the ground. He was devastated just before the national lockdown not to be able to open as planned. He now faces unaffordable rents and his costs have to be paid even though he is not receiving any income.
Another small business owner I met told me about her 13-year-old daughter. She is worried about how the business will be kept running. If she is forced to self-isolate because one of her children catches the virus, the business will struggle and that will be the end of the business for her and her husband.
My constituent who runs the Prince of Wales in Clapham Old Town highlighted the dire consequences for the hospitality sector, with many landlords continuing to demand rent for closed premises. He also highlighted the fact that a number of his staff come from EU nations—I am proud to boast that I represent the top-voting Remain constituency in the country—but there are real consequences here for small and medium-sized businesses. It is important that we get a firm deal so that these businesses can continue to thrive.
At the beginning of the lockdown in March, the Government provided the coronavirus hospitality and leisure grant for properties with a rateable value of £51,000, but Vauxhall is a central London constituency with higher than average rateable values, so many of the businesses that I represent did not qualify for any support, yet saw an immediate drop in footfall.
As the lockdown lifted over the summer, many of the small and medium-sized businesses that support the vibrant cultural sector that I represent along the South Bank were not able to open their doors again. Those businesses rely on tourism, but—guess what—the tourists have not come back, and they will not be coming back for a while.
How do we help those small businesses? The Government’s one-size-fits-all approach is not helping small and medium-sized businesses, which in places such as Vauxhall are struggling. When we come out of lockdown, it is important that we do not look at any more business closures, because without those businesses our communities will not thrive. Will the Minister therefore reassure my constituents that the Government will not try to implement their one-size-fits-all approach, but will listen to small and medium-sized businesses and provide tailored support so that all of them can get back on their feet post-covid 19?
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
Order. I call another Yorkshire Member, Mr Hollinrake.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
And proudly so, Sir Edward.
I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi). My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) made a great speech and set the scene well for subsequent speeches.
I draw the attention of Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. This is my third recession as a businessman—once under a Conservative Government in 1992 and once under a Labour Government in 2008—but I have never seen the amount of support that we have received through this recession. That support has been on a different scale altogether. Having said that, the recession has been on a different scale altogether too. Previously, there was no job retention scheme, no business rate grant and no VAT discount. There were no free school meals in 2008, when millions of people lost their jobs. My business alone had to make two thirds of our workforce redundant. It is among the hardest moments of your life when you have to do that to 130 people you worked with for a long time. I had very little support during that time, but the Government are now doing a tremendous job in providing support for many SMEs.
The No.1 support that can be given to any business is to allow it to trade. The Government have tried to do that throughout, despite the calls—on many occasions from the Opposition—to close the economy, which would have meant more businesses destroyed or a greater burden on the taxpayer. I think the Government have done all they can to spread the benefits they have provided evenly, but that is almost impossible—in fact, it is impossible. If the economy is closed down, whatever the Government throw at it, some businesses will lose out, and some will be hit harder than others. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) was absolutely right in her plea for the coach sector, but it is so difficult for the Government to design a scheme that will suit all people equally. That is why we must try to keep the economy open at all costs; that is what we should be doing.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) said, when large swathes of the economy are shut down but some parts are left open, existing trends are accelerated. Amazon, of course, is doing very well through this recession and has eaten further into the market share of SMEs. The fact that supermarkets are allowed to open again chips away at the market share of SMEs and accelerates long-term trends. As a result, some businesses that might have got through this had it been done in a more progressive and gradual way will be destroyed forever.
Although we have done a lot already, the Minister will be familiar with the kind of asks I will make for the future. There has been a fair bit of support—a lot, in fact—in the form of business rates grants, the job retention scheme and the VAT discount. The hon. Member for Vauxhall said that her businesses have seen no support, but it is very rare that hospitality sector businesses have got no support.
There has been a lot of grant support, but inevitably the Government have also had to say to businesses that they have to take some of it as a loan. Bounce back loans have been a huge success, and what the Minister has done now in terms of top-ups to those loans is absolutely right, but he knows one of the problems we have is with non-bank lenders and their customers. We have persuaded businesses to try new competition, new fintechs, for their bank accounts, but, having done that, those businesses are now locked out of the Bank of England’s term funding scheme, which provides the funding for bounce back loans. Customers of non-bank lenders such as Tide are locked out of the bounce back loan scheme.
There is a number of ways to solve this: give non-bank lenders access to the term funding scheme—I know the Minister cannot do that himself—ask banks to lend to non-bank lenders, or ask banks to lend to the customers of non-bank lenders. The difficulty with the latter is that customers then migrate back to the big banks; also, they have a finite amount of money to lend, so it is flawed. We need a solution to this problem. What the Treasury could do is provide funding directly to non-bank lenders through the ENABLE guarantee scheme. That would solve the problem pretty much overnight, if the Government were willing to do that.
I have used up the time allocated to me, so although I have a few more things to say I will leave it there. I hope the Minister will respond to some of these points in his reply to the debate.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for securing this important debate.
As we all know too well, the coronavirus pandemic has hit our economy hard, and continues to do so. After the last lockdown, the Government economic guidelines were marked by last-minute scrambles to keep pace with steadily worsening events. This pattern culminated with last week’s announcement of the Government’s guidelines for small businesses mere days before the lockdown was to take effect. The uncertainty and the haste with which small businesses have been forced to adjust is a cause of honest concern.
In the last few months we have seen hundreds of companies going to the wall, tens of thousands of businesses shuttered, hundreds of thousands of redundancy notices handed out and millions more workers worried about whether they will still have a job in the future. None of this was inevitable. The failures of the Government to act early on the circuit breaker means that the economic pain of this lockdown will be greater, more far-reaching and indiscriminate. Now, with an estimated 23,000-plus weekly infections, 800 of which are in Coventry, we have abruptly found ourselves needing to go into a lockdown that was both foreseeable and preventable. Once again, the Government have waited until the last possible minute to act, causing huge anxiety for the people in my constituency and jobs to be lost across the country.
Although it is good that the Government have extended the job retention scheme and furlough scheme—we welcome that—and opened up a timeframe to apply for an emergency bounce back loan, more must be done to adequately address the practical issues this pandemic and lockdown present.
I fear that beyond those measures, the face and feel of our high streets are undergoing long-term change at a more rapid pace. When we leave lockdown for the second time, businesses will have to follow different norms of operation, such as being open at reduced capacity and altering their opening hours. The current financial discussions do not do enough to answer the question: what is the future of the British high street? The people in my constituency want to know the future of Burnaby Road and Holbrook Lane, as well as other centres of local shopping and community life. What will we tell my constituents in Coventry North West who have spent decades building family businesses and who are unable to plan against the uncertainty and seemingly short-sighted post-lockdown guidance? Equally, what will we tell the estimated 250,000 businesses without access to bounce back loans?
I call on the Minister to look beyond the current measures and consider what the Government must do to preserve high street businesses in the face of rapidly changing consumer culture. I recently spoke to the owner of The Loft dance studio in my constituency, who meticulously followed the Government’s social distance guidelines, spending hundreds of pounds to subsidise the presence of safety measures such as hand sanitisers and signage, often at the expense of money earmarked for his rent. This studio has been successful in providing a safe venue for students to train, but the owner feels that his business is suffering as a result of the latest lockdown. Importantly, the students who relied on the dance studio as a mental health resource, a place where they could engage in an activity from which they learned teambuilding and perseverance or gained a path to a career or higher education, are suffering as well.
My constituents have done everything asked of them, but many of them fear that the Government have not done their part. Small businesses and their patrons should not have to spend one single day more in lockdown than is -absolutely necessary. We cannot repeat the reactive, clumsy and confused approach to post-lockdown guidance. At the end of the day, those who suffer will be the hard-working, decent business people, who have spent years of their lives and their life savings on building up businesses that could go bust through no fault of theirs.
We have not only an economic obligation but a moral obligation to guide and support the people behind those businesses them. That is why I call on the Government to develop and publicise a flexible, long-term recovery plan for small businesses on our high streets. Small businesses rely on the certainty of advance Government guidelines to plan for their future. We must not let them down.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) on opening the debate so well. I echo all the concerns hon. Members have brought forward, particularly about those excluded from the self-employed income support scheme.
I had a discussion with a Treasury Minister about the exclusion of people who are sole directors of companies. My understanding from his comments was that there is a shortage of staff at HMRC to process information at Companies House, together with returns that can be produced to demonstrate that they are the sole shareholder. That case was brought back in the spring and several months have gone by, so I do not understand why the Government have not put more staff into HMRC to address that problem. It would be transformative for all those people who have yet to receive support. I ask the Minister to look at that.
I also echo the concerns raised around bounce back loans and the fact that the underwriting is by the Government, not the supply of resources for that. That is one reason why there are such challenges. I also want to raise a concern about the additional restriction grants. City of York Council is looking at £25,000 a month. That will not address the demand and we want to know how that gap will be closed. Although York is doing incredibly well at addressing the pandemic and getting on top of the virus, our economy is seriously struggling and we urgently need help. The claimant count has more than doubled in the city, the high street has been highlighted as having had the most closures anywhere in the country—55 retail outlets to date—and economically the future is looking even bleaker, so we need urgent support.
One concern my constituents have is about the behaviour of leaseholders, particularly during the pandemic. For them, the property they hold is a capital investment and a secure asset, and their interest is clearly in their wider financial investment portfolios born of high rental payments. The rentals are not necessarily the issue, but continuing to demand high rental payments from small businesses is having a huge effect, not least because, as other hon. Members have mentioned, the high rateable value of property in York means that many businesses cannot keep pace with average payments of £6,000 a month—some reach £1350,00 a year—despite Government support, so there is a significant shortfall in that provision.
Leaseholders are collecting their money, which in a sense goes directly into their pockets from the Government in the form of grants. The support that those large leasehold companies are getting almost seems like a way of getting around the state aid issue. Many of those properties are held in offshore portfolios, so this is not about reinvesting in the local economy; the money goes from the Government into offshore bank accounts, and no benefit is brought to small businesses. Will the Minister look at that, because we see it not only in retail and small businesses, but in the pub sector? A lot of pubs are failing, yet the pub companies are drawing on that money. An inequality is being built into the system and taxpayers’ money is supporting it, so it is really important that the issue is addressed.
Needless to say, another big issue in York—again, driven by leaseholders—is high rateable value: many businesses missed out on support because their rateable value was above £51,000. A false economy is being built up because leaseholders are pushing up their prices. We need to get on top of that issue as we come out of the lockdown, to help secure those businesses after the pandemic.
Finally, another subject that is important to us in York is that although a lot of work has gone into supporting the future growth of businesses, particularly for the green new deal and the BioYorkshire project, that work is currently being held up by the devolution deal. The Government support the deal, but it means waiting two and a half years before we can crack on with upskilling 25,000 people and creating 4,000 new jobs in our city. In the light of our economic circumstances, and because of the support that the Government are giving to that project, will the Minister look at bringing it forward so that we can get on with rebuilding our economy while we are in crisis as opposed to waiting another two and a half years, which really does not make sense for the people of my city, or for the economy and the economic benefit that that the project will bring.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
May I say what a pleasure it is to follow the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell)? She is a friend and we have been involved in many debates similar to this one. I congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) on securing the debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for selecting it.
As we have heard, SMEs are truly the backbone of our economy. During the initial lockdown, my office was inundated with more than 1,000 emails from SMEs that were at a loss as to how to deal with that dreadful scenario. It was an incredibly difficult times to be an elected representative: I had never felt so much pressure as I did at that time, with the number of people who came to see me and the real tragedies that they faced. The burden became quite onerous, but we were able to help those people, and I thank goodness for that. My promise to them then—as it is now—was that I would do all that I could to get them information and press for the help that they needed.
I could not attend Westminster Hall yesterday, when the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington led another debate—he is here almost as much as I am! I just want to let him know that I read Hansard—maybe it is just me—and I read what he says. The hon. Gentleman referred yesterday to the UK and that
“Northern Ireland operated socially distanced weddings since June”.—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 9 November 2020; Vol. 683, c. 272WH.]
I have that marked in Hansard. However, I want to refer to one wedding venue in the short time I have, as one industry I feel needs to be focused on is that of a wedding.
Within a wedding are so many SMEs. The industry mirrors exactly what is happening across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Venues for weddings, entertainment providers, the photographers, the make-up artists, the hairdressers, horse-drawn carriage providers, bridal boutiques and evening-entertainment providers, from florists to the small online businesses that make party favours—all have been precluded from working. Many are self-employed and none is looking optimistically at the future without massive changes and help.
As the Member for Strangford, I make this statement, which I know to be true although other Members may disagree. I represent Strangford, probably one of the most beautiful areas in the whole of the UK. I shall outline why shortly. I know that you, Sir Edward, might have a different opinion and others might as well, but that is just by the way. The wedding industry and the demand are strong in my constituency, and so too has been the adverse impact on the industry.
Just a mile or two from my home—I live on the edge of Strangford Lough on a farm—is one of the most beautiful venues you can imagine: the Orange Tree House. Since it opened, it has been a virtual hub for events, from weddings to birthdays to celebrations and business events. It is owned by Jan Hollinger and Simon Shaw—I name them because I am going to send them a copy of Hansard—and they have built that place up. I remember when it was just an old, abandoned building, and I have followed the whole process all the way. With just one look at this beautiful wee gem, we can see what the appeal is. Rain or shine, the views of the lough are incredible. However, one look today will show closed gates, closed doors and uncertainty.
As an SME, at one stage the owner had 37 staff on retention. When news of the new furlough scheme was released, she contacted me to say she was unable to pay the amounts that were the responsibility of the employer and was having to let 31 staff go—crippling news. I have watched this small business go from strength to strength, becoming not simply a viable but a thriving business. To put that into perspective, let me highlight the cancellations. I have the permission of the owner to say this, Sir Edward, because I asked her beforehand whether it would be okay. I want to give hon. Members the opportunity to hear what this means to one venue. There were 130 bookings 115 of them in the diary already by March: 75 of them were cancelled. The owner has kindly worked out the net loss to the local economy. The bed nights for the weddings, which are the main staple of local Airbnbs, have disappeared. The restaurants are not getting the usual visitors the days before and after the weddings. The suppliers of flowers and food and so on are getting no business. The effect of those cancellations from one business is £753,900 removed from the economy.
I know that every Member here could do the same thing for their businesses and the cost of the bed nights and food tabs. That is just one wedding venue and the owners need help. They need assurance they can take bookings, and the fact that there is so much uncertainty has led to people not feeling confident to rebook this year or in the year ahead. Venues and the local economy are losing income from that intricate web of service provision. I have wedding photographers whose business has been decimated, who cannot even do baby photos or other staples such as school photos. They need to get people in, but no one is allowed in at present. They need help and they need it now. Those who provide evening entertainment at weddings, whose job is their music and their art, are also finding that they have no hope for the future. To lose a sector of those artists is worrying for our future as a nation. We have asked the question many times, and we ask the Minister again to look at that.
Time has beaten me, but worse still, time is beating the wedding industry. We need to think out a better way of keeping people safe; this perpetual lockdown is not sustainable. I hope, as others have said, that when we look to the potential vaccine that the Health Minister referred to this morning on the news—I watched it in the hotel before I left this morning and it is good although it is early days—we can look at safety measures that allow people to celebrate a wedding and even safely allow people to gather after a funeral, which is another issue. I attended a personal funeral this last week and I understand what it means for the family not to be able to get together after a funeral, never mind a funeral service when we can only have 35 people there as well.
We have to offer support in the interim, but more than that, we have to futureproof the industry. Part of our task, as Members and Ministers, is to learn from what has happened and then look forward to the future, where we can make it better, and allow it to continue in any circumstance, in a safe and meaningful way. I am sorry if I have gone over my time, Sir Edward.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
Sir Edward, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I echo the congratulations to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for securing this debate, and also pay tribute to those petitioners who have contributed towards the petitions included in this.
After enduring so many months of hardship, it is good to be able to rise having heard some positive news yesterday about the possibility of a breakthrough in finding a vaccine. It is very early days, of course. If it meets its promises, it will still be a long time before the impact gives a much-needed shot in the arm to the beleaguered high streets around the country; to the shops, hotels, pubs, restaurants, warehouses, theatres, stadiums, offices and businesses of all shapes and sizes across the UK. The crisis drags on,and battle-weary SMEs that would normally be driving our economy have been almost driven into the ground, but at least we have this glimmer of light in the winter gloom; that there may be a solution on the horizon that will keep many of them from giving up the ghost altogether.
There are plenty of reasons for the Government not to give up on those businesses: the skilled and dedicated SMEs will turbocharge the UK’s recovery if we can get them through to the other side of the crisis. The first, crucial step was in extending the furlough scheme and the self-employment income support scheme for five months—albeit belatedly. That was certainly welcome. It would have been helpful if that announcement had not been made so late in the day, as it might have prevented some of the job losses that we have seen but, as with the Brexit negotiations, we have seen that the Government has a habit of sometimes leaving these things to last-minute chaos.
Prior to the announcement, the devolved Governments, and the local administrations in the north of England, had been crying out for the expansion of the levels of support that were so desperately needed to protect jobs. I still cannot understand why those calls fell on deaf ears, yet, when a lockdown was announced for the south of England, a far more generous 80% furlough package was suddenly made available again. I am sure that that was just a coincidence—I am absolutely sure of that—but while it is definitely better late than never, the Scottish Government’s public health policies should not have to be hindered in this way. While furlough extension is essential, the second wave will hit far harder than the first, and it is only a part of the solution. Many SMEs are so heavily reliant on this golden quarter to balance the books that lockdown is crippling cash flow, and that will be felt well into next year.
The need for tough pandemic restrictions is particularly devastating to the hospitality sector and its employers, as was so well outlined by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). It is necessary, but that does not make it any easier for those businesses. Prior to the second lockdown, Q2 GDP data showed a 20% decline in the UK economy; for the hospitality sector, this was around 85%. In September, only 7% of businesses surveyed by UKHospitality were feeling in any way confident about the next 12 months.
Many SMEs have had very few good trading days over the last eight months. In events, some businesses are operating at only 5% of turnover or less. SMEs have already used up their rainy-day resources and have built up debt from the Government-backed loans, where they could get one—and we have already heard some of the issues around that this afternoon. They are now worried about how to pay non-staff costs, and how much of the big-ticket grants announcements will actually reach them once they are spread out across all other businesses.
It was good to see the live events sector get a specific mention in the £1.1 billion additional support package allocated to councils in England to support businesses, and the Barnett consequentials associated with that for devolved Governments. However, it is a widely-shared pot, allocated at £20 per head, and the devil will be in the detail of its distribution.
I also welcome the £2.38 billion provided by the Scottish Government to support businesses, including the £48 million fund for employers and businesses impacted by recent restrictions; a monthly grant support coming back, with the ongoing five-level tier framework; and the £11 million contingency fund recently announced for businesses, including nightclubs and soft play areas, which had missed out on other supports. I realise that this will not make up for lost revenue at this time, but the Scottish Government lack the big economic levers and borrowing powers that they need, and are making the best of the resources at their disposal.
I look forward to the day when we do not need to have this debate any more—when bad karaoke is back in the pubs and live gatherings can get going again with all the disparate jobs that they support, from lighting technicians, musicians and planners to caterers and technology manufacturers. Events support about 1 million jobs. When able to run, they contribute billions of pounds to the economy every year. Perhaps because those jobs do not fit neatly into the existing characterisations, the sector has missed out on so much targeted support so far.
The #WeMakeEvents campaign has very helpfully suggested sector-specific measures to help the industry survive, such as a government-backed insurance scheme to ensure organisers can recover costs if lockdowns happen. During a previous debate I led on this topic, the Minister agreed that the UK Government were willing to engage with the campaign, although no meeting has yet been arranged. I invite the Minister again today to see what can be done to move that forward.
We also need to look at the replacements for the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme. We had a lengthy debate on that in the main Chamber last week. To avoid going over old ground again, I will not repeat too many of those points, but I think it is very clear that Members from all sides of the Chamber recognise the need to look in a level of detail at a number of issues associated with those loans. From my point of view, we would far rather see these as grants. Again, I suggest it would be far more sensible to write off these debts for struggling SMEs and look at more innovative grant and equity-based solutions to stimulate the economy as we go forward.
Kevin Hollinrake
We agree on a lot, but we differ on this point. How would it be fair to write off that kind of debt and make grants when some businesses have not taken a loan and other businesses will pay back those loans? How fair would it be to those businesses and to the taxpayers who have funded those loans?
Owen Thompson
I hear the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. We had an exchange on this on Thursday. We are in a situation where the current system is not fair for millions of people who get no support whatever. We need to do whatever we can to make sure that our high streets are not utterly decimated when we get to the end of this pandemic. I suggest that is one measure that could be taken that would absolutely guarantee the future of those businesses.
I turn to consider those running small businesses from their homes—swimming instructors or travel agents whose activities are not currently available to the extent that they were before, or those who rely on large gatherings. Here, I draw attention to the Showmen’s Guild, which has effectively been closed down for a year, but because their members operate from home, they have not qualified for any support so far. Vast numbers of individuals in households and businesses have seen their income falling perhaps by 100% in some situations. They are at risk of losing their homes and cannot get the support they need. Why are the Government not wrapping their arms around them? Why is their plight still ignored? It is an unedifying consequence of this virus that the privileged members of our Government can determine which businesses are viable, what cultural events are important to save, and who gets support through a crisis or who should simply retrain in cyber.
This is an emergency, and we need to make sure that a lifeline is available to all those who need it, not just those who fit the mould of support schemes that were created hastily. I look forward to the day when SMEs can just get on with it again and think of their business, rather than what support is available, but that is a long way off. As we focus our collective efforts on following guidance to drive down the virus, the Government must make sure the measures are in place to protect jobs and businesses while we all seek to save lives.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
Thank you for your chairmanship this afternoon, Sir Edward. I congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) on tabling this debate and thank all Members who have contributed to a thoughtful and varied debate. I will not mention everyone, but I was particularly struck by some of the points made, for example, by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) who raised the difficult issue of local markets; my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) who talked about family owned coach companies; the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) who talked about local shops; and my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) on the issue of high rateable value properties in central London. The indefatigable hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) quite rightly described this period as a great acceleration; we do not have time today to explore that idea fully, but it is a crucial feature of the experience that we are going through. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) talked about leaseholders and self-employed people. And of course our great friend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about the crucial wedding industry. I can tell him that in my part of the country—the Black Country—we have an enormous wedding industry, including an Asian wedding industry that is a huge business, and it has suffered all the knock-on effects that he talked about.
The covid pandemic has forced Governments around the world to make major and unprecedented interventions in the economy. In this country, those interventions have included some of the measures that we have heard about this afternoon: the furlough scheme; the grants to small businesses; state-guaranteed lending schemes; tax deferrals; and a lot more. These interventions have been large-scale; indeed, they have been on a larger scale than in previous recessions, because the experience is different to that of a normal recession. They have been necessary, although some people have been missed out by them, as we have heard.
To have stood back and simply let business and workers take the full hit from this pandemic would have caused economic carnage and long-term damage on a scale unseen in living memory: it simply would not have been a feasible option for the Government to choose. In many cases, the grants and other support for small businesses that have been provided have been the difference between survival and going under—there is no doubt about that. They have provided vital revenue to businesses when there has been none from normal trading, because there has simply been no possibility of conducting business.
Of course the interventions are costly, but stepping up in a once-in-a-century situation such as this is what government is for. I am old enough to remember the last time that we had real mass unemployment in this country, when I was growing up in the 1980s, and the social and economic consequences of that were felt for many years afterwards, in terms of the impact both on individual families and on areas such as the Black Country, part of which I represent, and many other parts of the country, too.
A lot of the interventions this time have enjoyed cross-party support. We called for the furlough scheme and we supported it. That was particularly true in the early days of the pandemic. But after that period, things have become both more disjointed and more contested, and there is a reason for that.
I think that we have had four different versions of an economic plan in the last six weeks, with different levels of business support, various percentages of support for self-employed people, and at one point the withdrawal and then the reinstatement of furlough over one weekend. Trying to keep track of all those changes reminded me of what was said about the legendary Celtic winger, Jimmy Johnstone, and his effect on defenders; it was said that he gave them “twisted blood”. It would give any small business person twisted blood trying to follow all the twists and turns of what has been announced in recent weeks, only for us to end up pretty much back where we started in March.
I make that point not to engage in a bit of political knockabout or to take a partisan swing; it is to make a more serious and deeper point, because I think the story of recent weeks betrays a deeper problem within the Government. We are led to believe that there has been a debate or a disagreement in Government between those who have championed public health on the one hand and those who have championed the opening up of the economy on the other. We might say it is a debate between hawks and doves, with the Chancellor portrayed in this debate as a hawk.
Any Chancellor will rightly be concerned with the state of the economy—that is their job—but the mistake in this situation, and the real point that I want to make today, is to regard it as a choice between getting the virus under control and getting the economy moving again. We should have learned by now that any economic plan that does not have at its forefront getting the virus under control will not work, because when infections, hospitalisations and death rates are increasing, by definition the economy cannot be opened up and cannot operate properly. It cannot simply be decided that we open up the economy, because it would by definition mean—when people cannot see their relatives and weddings and all sorts of gatherings cannot take place without resulting in a new outbreak of the virus after a few weeks—going into a period of opening up and lockdown, and opening up and lockdown, particularly when the testing and tracking system is not working properly.
Mr McFadden
With the time constraints, I apologise but I am going to keep going.
Yesterday’s announcement about a vaccine is potentially exciting news and an amazing triumph for science, if it works in the timescale, but of course we are not certain and we have to wait to see what happens. For the moment, we must manage the situation as it is. My point is that good virus control is good economics. They are not in competition with one another, and I believe that the view that they are has led to some of the missteps of recent weeks.
Now that we are many months in, questions have been raised about some of the schemes, in the light of experience. I will end by putting some of those questions to the Minister. The bounce back loans were meant for genuine small businesses—the people that we all want to help to stay on their feet. The issue of fraud in the process has been raised. What does the Minister estimate the degree of fraud in bounce back loans has been, and how will he work with lenders and regulators to combat that? Nothing will annoy genuine small business people more than people setting up fake companies, or whatever scams have been done to try to get the loans.
It is inevitable, even with the best efforts, that a proportion of the loans will falter, and it will not be possible to pay them back. I appreciate that the Government have extended the repayment period from six to 10 years, but that postpones the problem, it does not fully eliminate it. Of the various options that have been canvassed for dealing with the problem of default, what has been ruled in and what has been ruled out? Have the Government ruled out writing off a proportion of the loans? Have they ruled out turning any of that into longer-term tax liability for firms, or into equity stakes in firms, if it cannot be paid back?
As for payment or leasing holidays for coach companies and similar businesses that we heard about in the debate, can the Government do anything to extend the six-month grace period that, for many small businesses, has either been used up or is coming to an end soon?
I have talked about the light of experience, and my final question to the Minister is what the Government can do for those who have so far been excluded from any kind of support. A large number of people have for one reason or another fallen between the cracks of the different support schemes that have been announced. As the pandemic goes on—and, while we are hopeful about the vaccine, we know it will continue into next year—those people’s situation becomes ever more difficult. Is there anything that the Government can do at this stage to help them?
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
May I say what pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward? I join the other Members who have congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) on securing this important debate. I have listened extremely carefully to every speech, and we have had a wide-ranging discussion of a range of industries that have, obviously, been adversely affected by the experience of covid up and down the country, including the wedding industry and the retail sector in particular, with the impact on the high street. I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) said about the coach industry. I will seek to address as many points as I can. I thank colleagues for their insightful and constructive contributions.
Like everyone in the Chamber this afternoon I share the concerns that hon. Members have expressed for the financial wellbeing of the UK’s SMEs. It is difficult to overstate their place in and contribution to the UK economy. In 2019, the number of SMEs in the UK reached 1.4 million—a 31% increase in five years. As constituency MPs, we all know the contribution that SMEs make to our communities, and they now employ over half of the UK workforce. Given that, it is no wonder that helping them endure and adapt to these trying times has been a cornerstone of the Government’s response to the pandemic. They are at the front and centre of our thinking and, as hon. Members know, our strategy has been to protect jobs, crucially including those in small and medium-sized businesses. Much of the support we have provided has been with them in mind, including our generous wage support schemes; access to finance through millions of Government-backed loans and billions of pounds of grant funding; and targeted measures to help with fixed costs, such as statutory sick pay rebates and tax deferrals.
We have already helped keep millions of people in employment through the coronavirus job retention scheme. As of 18 October, we had helped 1.2 million employers furlough 9.6 million jobs, and paid £41.4 billion in grants. However, importantly, we understand that the economic effects of restrictions to tackle the pandemic outlast the restrictions themselves. That is why, last week, the Chancellor announced that he was extending the coronavirus job retention scheme until the end of March 2021. I respect the point that some have made about the changing nature of the support, but I suggest that is because of the changing nature of covid, which has driven the response of this Government. The Chancellor has moved very quickly when new health interventions have been made. This scheme will help protect millions of jobs in the coming months, and will allow smaller businesses to get back on their feet quicker when the time comes.
We have also supported workers through the self-employment income support scheme, one of the most comprehensive and generous support packages for self-employed people anywhere in the world. On top of the £13.7 billion already claimed by 2.7 million self-employed people through that scheme, a third grant will be available until January, covering 80% of trading profits. A fourth grant will be available from February to April next year, with further details to be provided in due course.
However, the practical issues that prevented us from including company owner-managers—namely, not being able to verify the source of their dividend income—without introducing unacceptable fraud risks still remain. Further, the issues around the newly self-employed in 2019-20—namely, that HMRC will not have access to their self-assessment returns in time to verify their eligible income—also remain. The latest year for which HMRC has tax returns is 2018-19, and the 2019-20 returns are not due until 31 January 2021. Of course, Government and the Treasury continue to look carefully at all the representations made on these matters to seek a way forward, but we have to be cognisant of those facts and how we would meaningfully deal with them. However, we have pulled out the stops to provide businesses with the credit they need at this difficult time.
I will now address some of the points that have been made about the bounce back loans and the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme. As of 20 September, SMEs and other businesses had applied for and received over £50 billion worth of CBILs and bounce back loans. As ever, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) is very well informed on these matters, and made a number of suggestions about the challenges that some businesses face when securing loans. We have 28 providers that are accredited for bounce back loans, and 100 that are accredited for CBILs, but in this situation, we have non-bank lenders who are seeking to be part of that scheme and are struggling to access the finance. As he well knows, access to the term funding from the Bank of England is a matter for the Bank of England, and we have tried to look at those matters and see if more can be done.
The bigger issue that we have to learn from during this experience is that we have differentiated regulation between different banks and different entities that are providing finance. It is a challenge both to provide consumer protection universally and to have the right level of capital requirements for different entities, and in extreme times, these are very challenging things to come up with a neat intervention on. However, I will continue to work with my hon. Friend and others across the House to seek ways forward.
The Opposition spokesman, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), asked about the fraud risk. There is a big distinction to be made between fraud in applications and default risk. When we designed those schemes, and the bounce back loans in particular, that self-certification form—where businesses were obliged to make estimates of their turnover and could access a percentage of that—was designed to be as accessible as possible. However, businesses also had to state clearly what the facts were around their situation. The Cabinet Office is leading a piece of work across Whitehall to look at fraud risk and even more collaboration between the banks, sharing data about duplicate applications, and we will continue to work very carefully on that. We are also allowing businesses who have borrowed less than their maximum to top up their bounce back loans and extend their repayment period.
I appreciate that it must sometimes feel as if Government statements in our response to the pandemic are just a long list of measures we have taken or are taking, but this is a consequence of the range of things we are doing. Forgive me, Sir Edward, but I will list a few more ways we are helping businesses, which my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington is right to be concerned about. They include £11.5 billion of grant funding to more than 900,000 business premises, with new grants to come through the winter months, and an additional £1.1 billion of discretionary grant funding for English councils—that is cash grants of up to £3,000 for every four weeks of closure for English businesses forced to close. Backdated grants provide up to £2,100 per month of support in arrears for eligible businesses that have suffered from reduced demand in recent months. Those schemes are available nationwide. As the Chancellor announced last week, the up-front guarantee of funding for the devolved Administrations is increasing from £14 billion to £16 billion.
John Glen
In the interests of time, I will not. It is for the devolved Administrations to decide how to use that guaranteed funding, irrespective of how the UK Government provide support. However, this uplift will support businesses across the United Kingdom. We are also protecting businesses with extensive tax breaks, deferrals, and repayment flexibility through the time-to-pay scheme. Further Government support mechanisms enjoyed by SMEs include the statutory sick pay rebates and eviction protection for commercial tenants until the end of this year.
I hope I have illustrated that SMEs are at the forefront of our minds through this crisis. Support measures available to those businesses represent a significant part of the £200 billion package of support that the Government have put forward. The IMF recently described the UK’s economic plan as “aggressive”, successful in “holding down unemployment” and business failures, and
“one of the best examples of coordinated action globally”.
However, I accept that it is never going to save every business and every job, and we will continue to engage with colleagues across the House. To the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson), I will look into the meeting that has not happened yet and ensure that it does. [Interruption.] I will also engage with the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle, but I must give my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington a few minutes to respond.
We will continue to listen carefully and we will maintain a flexible approach. As the Chancellor said in the House last week, things need to change when circumstances change. What that means for SME business owners up and down the country is simply this: where and when necessary, we will take swift action to provide the support they need. We will continue to do so as we work through this awful crisis that has befallen our country.
Elliot Colburn
In the interests of time, I sadly cannot go through every Member’s contribution. However, I thank all hon. Members and right hon. Members for attending this debate. We have done well to highlight the concerns of the sector and the two petitions that were brought forward to be debated today, so I reiterate my thanks to all colleagues. I also thank the SMEs and sectors that made representations to us all, which allowed us to come here and express their views. I thank the Minister for his reply. I absolutely welcome the Government’s support, and the extended Government support for SMEs through to the new year. I hope we can go away and look at the sector-specific support we have heard about because we need that road map to allow our SMEs not just to survive the pandemic, but be the engine of our recovery as we come out the other side.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered support for SMEs during the covid-19 pandemic.
Online Scams
(4 years 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
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of protecting people from online scams.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. We all know that access to the internet, whether for shopping, work or leisure, has absolutely been a boon for millions of people, but it has brought its own problems, not least in providing greater opportunities for fraudsters and scammers in an area where there is too little protection or redress for consumers who have been cheated out of their money.
Scams and fraud are the most prevalent types of crime in the UK. According to Action Fraud, 85% of that is what it describes as cyber-enabled—for technophobes like me, that means committed on the internet. The figure of 85% is for the year up to June 2020; it is bound to have grown since then because of the constraints imposed by covid-19, which have encouraged people to spend a lot more time online. The more time they spend online accessing websites and social media platforms, the more susceptible they are to becoming the victim of a scam. That is not because they are stupid or even naive, but because they underestimate how difficult it is to spot the online fakery and fraud and they often overestimate the vetting process undertaken by the established online marketplaces. The frauds are ever more sophisticated. The Association of British Insurers briefing says that even their staff struggle to spot the sites that are fake. If the staff of insurance companies themselves struggle, what hope is there for us as customers?
There are many money scams: investment scams, banking scams, insurance scams, pension scams, conveyancing scams, purchase scams, often involving non-existent products—the Cats Protection League has told me that non-existent cats are being sold online—romance scams, involving fake partners, and even scams targeting those seeking debt help. They all have one thing in common: they dupe people out of money, and it is often big money. Action Fraud shows that the value of losses from reported incidents—many people keep quiet about incidents because they feel stupid, but they are not—is £2.3 billion. Individual amounts are absolutely eye-watering: tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds—someone’s whole life savings gone or the proceeds of a house sale gone.
There are lots of ways in which scammers operate; they use different tricks. These include fake websites or adverts, particularly involving established brands; they sometimes feature fake celebrity endorsements. Fake reviews are a big problem on many of the biggest websites. Which? has consistently shown that. The consumer body has had evidence of fake and suspicious review activity on eBay, Facebook and Tripadvisor. And new research suggests that Amazon is struggling to spot and prevent sellers from using unscrupulous tactics. There is blatant evidence of sellers using free gifts and vouchers to incentivise shoppers to write positive reviews. Many are done in a suspiciously short time, with a suspiciously high number of review images. There was a more than 30% rise in the proportion of suspicious reviews on Amazon between March and August, following the first coronavirus lockdown. Black Friday is coming shortly, and this is particularly worrying for that.
That is important because everyone takes notice of online reviews. I look at the reviews to decide when I buy something. The Competition and Markets Authority estimates that consumer transactions worth £23 billion a year are influenced by online reviews. Many people think, “Well, they’re a good guide—they must be; this has a five-star review.” Amazon says it has clear policies that prohibit sellers from engaging in such activity, but Which? is concerned that the approach is not effective and that firmer action is needed to address the problems. I agree and I hope the Minister will, too.
The losses that people suffer from responding to fake or impersonator adverts are substantial. A Which? investigation highlighted one visitor who lost almost £100,000 after they clicked on an online investment featuring fake celebrity endorsement from Martin Lewis and Deborah Meaden. Another lost £160,000 by clicking on an Aviva ad. Criminals are now using social engineering and grooming techniques that target vulnerable consumers. Sometimes it is a follow-on from an initial contact made from accessing fake sites’ online adverts. The Association of British Insurers has told us about an increasing number of fake websites operating the authorised push payment scams. Some of its members are dealing with 32 fake websites at the same time. An APP scam occurs when somebody is tricked into authorising a transfer of money to an account that they think is a legitimate payee, but is in fact controlled by a scammer. They can be made online, on the phone or in person, and most take place instantly.
UK Finance said that £208 million was lost to APP scams in the first half of 2020. Most fraud took place on personal accounts with £164 million lost, and the non-personal and business loss was £44 million. Some victims have lost their entire life savings. They are often groomed into handing money over by staff at fake call centres. They do not do it instantly; they build a relationship with people now and often use the names of genuine financial services staff.
There have been advances. The contingent reimbursement model code is designed to give people the confidence that if they act appropriately they will be reimbursed, but, even between May 2019 and September 2020, only 40% to 45% of losses were repaid by the victim’s bank or repatriated—the money was recovered and credited—so people are still being left out of pocket. I have to give credit to the TSB, which is going further than the code, and it believes that it has not had more fraudulent claims because it is going further. Fraud is still taking place. Serious amounts of money are being lost. What solutions does the Minister propose for the APP scams?
I have mentioned grooming, and that word is appropriate here. We used to hear about paedophiles grooming. It is about building up trust over time, and that is what happens in many cases of scams.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving me the opportunity to speak on this timely subject. In the past few weeks in my constituency, I have had two cases of online scams brought to me. One gentleman thought he had purchased a car. He paid £9,000 and it was not there when he went to collect it. It was a Northern Ireland to Scotland transaction. Another gentleman has lost £260,000 in three separate investments in what he thought was a legitimate investment site. More needs to be done. We need to educate people and hold the platforms to account. We also need to ensure that the police have the legislative powers to deal with such cases, because in both of those instances, the police would not even investigate them. Through the hon. Lady today, I ask the Minister to really take this matter in hand and start to give the police the legislative powers to tackle the problem.
Yvonne Fovargue
I totally agree with the hon. Lady. We find that people build up a relationship with their scammers. Trust is key for push payments, as we have heard. I also want to talk quickly about romance scams, in which lonely victims are lured into pretend relationships over many months. They are tempted with fake photographs and back stories, and the scam is revealed only after thousands of pounds have been handed over, probably for non-existent medical treatment for a relation. I have a constituent who handed over thousands of pounds of Amazon vouchers to a fake USA army major. The photograph on his Facebook page had been used more than 50 times with different names to scam people. Surely Facebook should have an algorithm that spots that type of suspicious activity.
It is all too easy to say that people need to be more careful. Yes, they do need to be careful, but scams are ever more sophisticated, and even the most experienced people cannot always spot them. Scammers prey on vulnerable and lonely people, and under covid-19 people are becoming more isolated. They are possibly not able to discuss it with their friends and neighbours and say, “Is this real? Is it not?”.
What is more, people think at the outset that they are protected from this double-dealing. After all, they assume that adverts placed on a well-known platform are legitimate and that the product has been vetted or checked. That is the sort of protection that people are used to on the high street, but online platforms do not have a legal obligation to protect users against scams on their site. Surely that is wrong, given that they are taking revenue from the sellers. Why should the consumer have to shoulder the burden if things go wrong? Does the Minister agree that the burden of responsibly should be on the platforms and sites, which have the data and tools, and not on the consumer, who is at a clear disadvantage in this business?
The voluntary initiatives are not working; they are not sufficient to tackle the online scams. Only 30% of Facebook users are aware of the social media site’s scam advert reporting tool, and only 10% of people have used it. That is really not good enough. I am pleased that the Financial Conduct Authority is producing literature warning customers of possible online scams, but is it not ironic that the regulator is paying for an advert on Google, which is taking similar revenue for the fake adverts on its site? It is a bit of a double-whammy for the search engine—it is getting it twice.
I am obviously not against measures to raise public awareness of scams, and some very good work is being done. The Pension Wise guidance has had a real impact on people’s awareness of pension scams. Many organisations, including regulators, charities and advice agencies, have helpful advice about how to avoid scams, but scammers are extremely agile and good at what they do, and it is not enough to prevent serious fraud.
We need a strong regulatory framework. Online platforms should be given the responsibility for preventing scam content from appearing on their sites and more responsibility for removing it when it is reported. That would perhaps bring them a bit more into line with consumers’ expectations.
The online harms Bill seems the perfect opportunity to deliver that. By including financial harms, there is a greater responsibility on the search engines and social media platforms to identify and remove harmful content. I understand why the White Paper is limited in scope. Platforms and sites will be required to take reasonable steps to identify and prevent user-generated child sexual exploitation and abuse, and terrorist content. However, the tools that the scammers use to target their victims—social engineering and grooming—are similar to those used by criminals in financial fraud. The same requirement should be extended to cover the scam content defrauding people of their money and causing immense mental anguish and harm, let alone financial anguish.
There is also a strong case for ensuring that the Bill covers both paid-for advertising and user-generated content, because the scammers use both. As Which? points out, if we do not tackle the user-generated scam content, scammers will adapt. They will use that loophole and move from posting scam ads to organic user-generated scam content. There is support for that approach from Which?, UK Finance and the FCA.
I hope the Minister will commit to widening the scope of the online harms Bill. If he will not, will he introduce proposals for further legislative action to protect people from online scams effectively? The Government have said that their objective is for the UK to be the safest place in the world to go online. We have a chance now to make that a reality.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd? I thank the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) for securing a debate on this important topic. I pay tribute to her general competence and knowledge on consumer issues. I have engaged with her a number of times as a Minister, and I always appreciate the constructive way she approaches this topic. She has demonstrated again this afternoon her comprehensive awareness of the complexity of this subject, and how it impacts so many of our constituents.
I know very well how this issue matters to many colleagues across the House, because it has impacted so many across our constituencies. As a constituency MP, I have encountered the financial and mental impact, and the anguish it causes individuals in my surgery.
I assure Members that the Government are committed to tackling this complex problem. I will set out the context. There have been rapid changes to modern payments, which bring great benefits and opportunities to many, but with new opportunities come new risks, such as the type of scams the hon. Lady set out. More people and businesses are buying and selling online. People are using a range of innovative ways to make payments via card, mobile and electronic wallets. In 2019, over two-thirds of UK adults used online banking, half used mobile banking, and for the first time cards accounted for more than half of UK payments. Those new technologies and products have helped to make payments faster and cheaper, and provided exciting opportunities for UK businesses and consumers.
Alongside those innovations, as the hon. Lady rightly said, criminals are becoming increasingly devious and sophisticated, and are ruthlessly exploiting these new technologies and the digitisation of commerce to perpetrate scams. The truth is that there is no silver bullet. I wish there was. Success in the matter depends on quite sophisticated collaboration between Government, the regulators, banks and online platforms, and between customers and the services they use. The Government are committed to playing their part to facilitate that better collaboration.
Turning to the current situation and what is already being done, authorised push payment scams—APP scams—have become a major problem in recent years. Fraudsters use sophisticated techniques to trick people, often, as the hon. Lady said, by forming phony relationships and defrauding people into authorising payments to criminal-controlled accounts. According to UK Finance, £456 million was lost to these scams in 2019, up from £354 million the year before.
Last week, I met with the managing director of the Payment Systems Regulator and raised concerns like those we have heard today. We agreed that more needs to be done to ensure victims are protected. To that end, the Payment Systems Regulator and industry are working together to improve the level of protection provided to consumers through the existing voluntary code, known as the contingent reimbursement model code, which the hon. Lady referenced.
Banks that have signed up to that code have agreed to reimburse victims of APP scams, so long as they took a reasonable level of care when making the relevant payment. As the hon. Lady will know, the code has been operating since May 2019, and its effectiveness is currently being reviewed by the lending standards board, the body responsible for governing it. I look forward to the conclusions of that review. The hon. Lady cited statistics, which I recognise require thorough examination.
When it comes to fraud, prevention is just as important as any cure. That is why the authorities are taking steps to ensure that fewer people fall foul of the scams in the first place, notwithstanding the sophisticated nature of the interactions that lead to them. At the request of the Payment Systems Regulator, the six biggest UK banking groups have introduced a process known as confirmation of payee. Under that process, the bank account and sort code numbers are checked against account names, to ensure that payments are going to the intended recipients. It is early days, but we are confident that this innovation is an important step forward in preventing scams from succeeding in the first place.
The challenge is that for a number of those measures—we are probably all familiar with them from doing payments ourselves—it comes down to where culpability lies. The hon. Lady made observations about the sophisticated relationship and the conditioning that has sometimes taken place. That is what we are dealing with and what we have to get to grips with.
The financial services sector is just one part of the equation in combatting fraud. Other industries, including online platforms, which have been mentioned, have a role to play. The National Cyber Security Centre has been leading the way in ensuring that online scams are taken down as quickly as possible, and this year it launched a new suspicious email reporting service, making it easier for the public to highlight suspicious emails and websites. The service has already led to more than 3.6 million reports and more than 18,000 scams being removed, but I recognise that more needs to be done.
The Financial Conduct Authority’s ScamSmart website, which is not limited to online scams, also aims to help consumers protect themselves against investment scams. It does that by allowing users to search a warning list to check an investment opportunity and report scams or unauthorised firms. Anybody who falls victim to such scams should contact Action Fraud UK to help us catch the criminals. As the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) mentioned in her contribution, this is a universal problem, and I recognise her anxiety about the sufficiency of the measures. As I say, I am happy to continue the discussion about what more can be done.
The private sector has its own responsibility to protect customers online. We have been working with online platforms and industry to take down fraudulent materials and websites. The specialist Dedicated Card and Payment Crime Unit is a great example of that partnership at work: it is a proactive police unit and involves UK Finance, the City of London police, the Metropolitan police and the Home Office. It continues to develop new partnerships with social media companies to take down accounts being used for various fraudulent ends and to stop the recruitment of people as money mules.
As well as working to prevent scams, we need to look after those who fall victim to them. We need to consider the emotional, as well as financial, harm that victims experience. That is why we are working with national and local policing, including police and crime commissioners, to support the victims of these terrible crimes. Even where it is not possible to investigate a case further, the Action Fraud economic crime victim care unit supports victims by helping them to recover and better protect themselves in future. What about the next steps? A lot of good work is being done, but we cannot rest on our laurels. This is a sophisticated problem: just as the wider banking, online and commercial landscapes continue to evolve, so the methods used by criminals to defraud customers evolve. In June 2019, the Treasury announced a review of the payments landscape, and we recently held a call for evidence as the first stage. That call for evidence reflected on the success of the Faster Payments Service as a 24/7 real-time payments system, but it also noted that Faster Payments currently lacks scheme rules to resolve disputes and assign liability when payments go wrong, including—crucially—in the case of APP scams. The Government have concluded that a set of comprehensive rules in the Faster Payments Service could make a real difference to tackling that problem. We have sought views on the issue and will outline our next steps in due course.
Yvonne Fovargue
Will the Minister also look into the fact that many criminals, particularly in romance-type frauds, have moved on to asking for Amazon vouchers? What can be done in cases such as that of my constituent, who bought thousands of pounds-worth of Amazon vouchers and sent them abroad?
John Glen
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. Although I have not personally experienced that, through either my constituency or ministerial work, she makes a sensible point about the evolving nature of those frauds. In that particular example, it would be reasonable to expect the platform to observe the obvious unusual nature of such a purchase. This is not territory with which I am directly familiar, but I will take it back to my colleagues in Government, including at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport.
More of us are transacting online than ever before, opting for the speed and convenience of new forms of banking and payments, but sadly fraudsters are taking advantage and developing ever more sophisticated ways of scamming people. We cannot row back on digital innovation and, given the immense benefits, nor should we, but it is crucial that people have confidence in how they transact online.
Carla Lockhart
The Minister mentioned Action Fraud and the police. The problem is that Action Fraud does not seem to have the capacity to deal with the volume. It then passes cases to the London police, who cannot investigate them. Action Fraud needs to be bolstered—it needs support to investigate what is going on beneath the surface.
John Glen
I am grateful to the hon. Lady. The challenge is that there are multiple streams of activity because of the sophisticated nature of this problem. I certainly understand the risk of confusion about who to go to, but Action Fraud is the first port of call. I accept that there needs to be clarity over what happens subsequently.
Government regulators in a wide range of industries are already taking action to ensure that there is progress. For our part in the Treasury, along with other Whitehall partners, we will continue to actively explore what more can be done. I feel very uncomfortable with this situation not being resolved and I am not complacent in the least about it. I will continue to engage with industry partners on this and I am very grateful—sincerely—to the hon. Member for Makerfield for raising this matter.
Question put and agreed to.
Covid-19 Vaccine
(4 years 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
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered covid-19 vaccine.
Is locking down the nation the only way of combatting covid-19? Whatever suggestions emerge from this debate, we must continue to protect the vulnerable and at-risk individuals. I was briefed by three leading vaccine manufacturers to discuss their work in the fight against this disease. Following those calls, I wanted to have this debate to see what can be done to accelerate the licensing and deployment of vaccines, and the immediate extension of vaccine and therapeutic trials, and how we can ensure that people can take up these vaccines when they are approved.
According to the Department of Health and Social Care website, the Government’s preferred route to enable deployment of the vaccine remains through the usual licensing routes available. It goes on to say that temporary licensing can occur only in “exceptional circumstances.” The recent report of the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change has been helpful in bringing further attention to this issue. It highlights four ways to avoid further lockdowns, of which two are of interest: expanding the trial of therapeutic drugs and shortening the process for approving vaccines. The report is helpful, although it has its limits, and I believe that we can go further and do better, first, by seeking volunteers to extend trials on a larger scale and to those who are most at risk.
We do not really know what scientists and the pharmaceutical industry can accomplish, and there are ethical and responsibility issues that we need to address, but at the moment the risk/reward ratio is out of kilter and we need to do far more to address the possibilities. There are 258 candidate vaccines worldwide, around 50 of which are in clinical testing and 11 in the final regulatory approvals process. Between the three candidates that I mentioned, the Government have forward purchased a total of 190 million doses. The most publicised of these are the joint enterprises between, first, AstraZeneca and Oxford University, widely seen as the most advanced in the world, and secondly, Pfizer and BioNTech, also much publicised after their promising announcement yesterday. The third is Valneva. All three companies emphasise the support and help that the Government have given them. Let us not make another massive communications error by failing to remind the people that these decisions by the Government have helped provide stability and confidence, which have accelerated the whole testing process.
None of the vaccines is the same and all three are unique in their approach. AstraZeneca and Oxford are pursuing an active vaccine. That type of vaccine uses a weaker and smaller amount of the virus to create immunity in the body. Examples of active vaccines are those for MMR––measles, mumps and rubella––and yellow fever. The former provides immunity for the rest of an individual’s life, but it is not known whether that would be the case with covid-19. Valneva is pursuing an inactive vaccine, using a killed version of the germ that causes the disease. Such vaccines are less able than active vaccines to provide immunity for life; typical examples are the flu jab and the rabies injection. Pfizer and BioNTech are pioneering an mRNA vaccine. This is a relatively new type of vaccine that uses a short segment of genetic material to make a harmless version of a target protein or immunogen. This activates an immune response and generates antibodies that fight off the virus.
The development of vaccines is typically a long and drawn-out process, but in response to the pandemic, the Government have helped to speed it up. There are usually three phases. The first involves producing a small amount of vaccine for use in a controlled study with a small number of healthy adults. Tests are performed on participants, half of whom are given the vaccine, the other half a placebo. This ascertains whether the vaccine generates the expected immune response and if it is safe. This stage usually takes only one or two years, yet all that has been passed by all three vaccine candidates already. Scientists at this time will work to provide the data, and a deal will be made with manufacturers to produce whatever amount is required.
Phase 2 sees the data from phase 1 scrutinised to determine whether those who received the vaccine had any adverse reactions. Again, this phase can take up to two years, yet it has already been completed by all three candidates. A larger group of people—several hundred—will then be given the vaccine to broaden the data set. Until that phase is over, scientists and patients will not know who has received the vaccine and who has had the placebo. That prevents the data being deliberately altered and manipulated. At the same time, work will continue to define the manufacturing methods and ensure consistency in the process.
Phase 3, the final phase, will include tens of thousands of study participants who represent a similar demographic to the population, including important factors such as age and ethnicity. As is the case with other phases, the scientists, the patients and those collecting the samples or checking the results do not know who has received the vaccine and who has received the placebo. Getting to phase 3 demonstrates a confidence in the safety, efficiency and efficacy of the vaccine candidate.
During this accelerated process, independent regulators have continued to monitor the trials, as they would with any other vaccine. Safety and accountability have not been compromised or relaxed in any way. As I call for a further acceleration of this process, I do not wish to see those standards dropped. Instead, we need better and faster collaboration between Governments and regulators internationally, because at the end of phase 3 the regulator will investigate the data and decide whether the vaccine candidate is effective enough for mass production.
Several factors affect the effectiveness of a vaccine. For example, the higher the number of patients in the trial who test positive and require medical assistance, the more data manufacturers and regulators have to use. This is referred to as “an event” and it allows scientists and regulators to determine and prove the efficiency or efficacy of the vaccine—in other words, how likely it is to be effective. The more events that occur within the placebo patients, the more it helps scientists come to their final conclusions on how well the vaccine is working. In statistical figures, one hopes to achieve a p-value or confidence quantifier lower than 0.5. That would mean there is a lower than 5% chance that the figures in the test are wrong, giving the scientists 95% assuredness that the test results are reliable and the vaccine is effective. I hope that in a matter of weeks it will be announced that the phase 3 trials have been completed, and then the regulators will study the data before pronouncing whether the vaccine is fit for the public.
The problem is that different regulators around the world have different demands and requirements. This is plainly an area where we can assist the manufacturers, by ensuring that the process is accepted as safe globally and that the different demands, which delay the final outcome, can be agreed by the experts and the approvals process can become smoother.
The pandemic reminds us that we are all people with the same biological make-up, and to defeat the virus we need to unite rather than specialise. Of course, the sooner we can vaccinate those most at risk—the elderly, care workers and frontline staff—the sooner we can begin to rebuild the country and the economy. When the common flu or influenza arrived, it was very likely to result in death. Nowadays, we give those most vulnerable in our society a flu jab to ensure that they remain safe, and we can beat covid-19 in the same way. By reaching phase 3, these vaccines are deemed to be safe.
The question of how effective the vaccine is remains unanswered, but that should not deter us from getting on with vaccinating more people. For example, yesterday’s announcement by Pfizer was a promising step forward on this front. Normally, scientists strive for 70% to 80% efficiency, meaning the vaccine is 70% to 80% effective in reducing the likelihood of contracting the virus. Therefore, even if it was lower, say 40%, we should still look at beginning the roll-out, because 40% could be the difference between life and death for thousands of people. That is why the existing Human Medicines Regulations 2012 contain a provision, regulation 174, that enables the temporary authorisation of the supply of an unlicensed medicine in response to a public health emergency.
With over 200 vaccines in development worldwide and 50 clinical trials, 11 of which are in final phase 3 trials, the Government could look at incorporating as many of those candidates as possible into further trials. We could also have more of the public participating in trials, and not only healthy people but volunteers—they must be volunteers—who are vulnerable and at risk. The Pfizer and BioNTech candidate is already incredibly close to completion, with footage of its full-flowing production line shown in the media only a couple of weeks ago, and yesterday we had the announcement that the safety monitors had found no problems and that it was 90% effective. Now we have to wait for the final data, but the Government could apply the same parameters for therapeutics and their wider use.
Therapeutics are medicines that help people who already have the disease, treatments that are improving to help reduce the fatalities from covid-19, and we have learned a lot about them since March. They are typically used when someone has a disease for which they have been hospitalised. They can both relieve pain and fight back against the virus, reducing its effect on patients. For disease treatment, therapeutics are generally in the form of a drug, and there is substantial evidence to suggest that the use of therapeutics when administered can alter and halt the spread of the virus. Vaccines help prevent people from catching the virus, but therapeutics work for those who already have it. The fear of overwhelming the NHS with covid cases prompted our Prime Minister to lock us down again, but therapeutics can prevent the NHS from being overwhelmed and keep people off ventilators.
Therapeutics come in a variety of forms, and the type being trialled for covid-19 is antibody treatment, of which there are three types: single monoclonals; cocktails of monoclonals, which most covid-19 trials are using; and polyclonals, such as plasma. Only four have so far been approved worldwide, and the only one currently approved in the UK is dexamethasone. Eli Lilly, an American company, is proving to be close with two separate antibody treatments, LY-CoV016 and LY-CoV555, the latter of which is being tested in America as a preventative therapy for residents in care homes.
Another therapeutic is Regeneron, which President Trump famously claimed cured him of his own bout of covid-19, and AstraZeneca is in phase 3 trials for its candidate, AZD7442. The UK Government have agreed to an unspecified amount of the AZ candidate. Pfizer also has advanced therapeutic trials under way, being developed in Sandwich in Kent, and 50 of these trials are going on worldwide. I think the Government could reach out to manufacturers currently in trials and look to extend the trial in this country as soon as possible. Therapeutics could significantly reduce the number of deaths, and these trials could be extended to those who are on ventilators or on oxygen, working not only with regulators but with medical bodies to agree on the ethical stance of compassionate use.
Therapeutics have another huge advantage: their cost. A treatment course of dexamethasone can cost as little as £5. Those courses are largely available and work well with the rapid testing trials that are going on in Liverpool, bridging the gap until the vaccine is approved. I have written to the Prime Minister and the Health Secretary, urging them to extent trials of vaccines for those people who are at risk. During my call with AstraZeneca, I asked, “What more could we do to test safe medicines for people who fear for their lives, who at the moment can do nothing but hope?” I expected to be told that nothing more could be done, but instead AstraZeneca’s team suggested that we ask them for suggestions on what they think they could do. I have faithfully passed on that request, because I think that, for all of us, this stems from the need to save lives.
Of course, I understand that people are concerned about the new vaccines. However, despite the social media opportunities, less time should be spent on the anti-vaxxers and more on those who want to protect their parents and grandparents. Given the guidance from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, the current advice is that vaccines will be administered not to children but to adults, starting with the most elderly and working down to the over-50s.
Detractors and anti-vaxxers believe that vaccines can be unsafe, and it is true that vaccines can run the risk of causing side effects in some people, just like driving a car or riding a bike can pose risks—nothing in life comes without a degree of risk. Those people want to wait for the one-in-a-million or even the one-in-10-million event to occur before we deploy. Those arguing against rushing the vaccine cite examples such as the H1N1 swine flu vaccine. Those shots reportedly caused Guillain-Barre syndrome paralysis in 6.2 people per 10 million who received the vaccine. If we cast our minds back to that pandemic, 284,000 people died of swine flu globally. Undoubtedly, the vaccine did more to halt the spread of the virus as opposed to the damage it caused. Indeed, as outlined in a 2010 article in Neurology Reviews, GBS was associated with the seasonal flu shot at a rate of 10.6 cases per 10 million doses. That did not stop more than 14 million people from receiving a flu vaccine last year alone without incident.
There must be a balance in this argument between covid-19 and the risk to the 194 people who were killed by it in the UK yesterday—eight people every hour. This virus has killed over 49,000 people in this country alone. There is untold damage to people’s wellbeing, mental health, livelihoods and the economy. Unemployment is rising and small businesses are closing. Social isolation inflicts vast damage, particularly on the old and the poor, but if someone is vaccinated, the likelihood of their dying from this disease is significantly reduced. Vaccination could also prevent people from passing the disease on, often unknowingly, to those they love, such as parents or grandparents. The Government and the World Health Organisation should address not just how we vaccinate, and the therapeutic trials and approvals; in addition, lessons need to be learned and procedures changed.
The suffering and death of so many people can be reduced, with collaboration and a reduction in bureaucracy. There must be a balance, weighing up the positives against the risks. The World Economic Forum gauges that coronavirus has cost at least $8 trillion globally, and possibly as much as $16 trillion, and the cost is only increasing. There is a way out and I hope that the Government in this country and Governments abroad, the manufacturers, scientists, medical professionals and regulators will all work together to strive for a final resolution and a better way of addressing the threat of viruses in the future.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) on setting the scene so well. I am very supportive of his comments and recognise the need to get a covid vaccine in place.
The Health Secretary announced on TV this morning that, as was rumoured last night, a vaccine has been found, but at the same time he was cautious in his assessment, stating that we should welcome what is happening but remain ever mindful of the need for medical trials, which the hon. Gentleman also referred to. We watched that unfold and then later in the day we had an opportunity in the main Chamber to ask the Health Secretary questions—I think 60 right hon. and hon. Members did just that.
I welcome the fact that there might be 10 million doses of the vaccine available by the end of this year. I am particularly happy because it is a bit of good news at long last. I am always a “glass half full” person, but in the last six months it has been very difficult to try to be positive about where we are going, because the uncertainty was unreal. So today we have some good news. I know that we are not there yet, but we are moving in the right direction.
I am very pleased that Pfizer has achieved this breakthrough. However, I have some concerns at this stage that the vaccine will only be for adults—I will comment on children in a few minutes. The fact that AstraZeneca is also involved, as are many other companies around the world, shows the need to work together. I think that the Health Secretary said, in reply to one of the questions put to him today, that we need to work on an international basis, and he is right. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire also referred to that. It is really important that we realise that we are all in this together, the world over, so it is important that we get ourselves organised.
I am a diabetic—a type 2 diabetic. It is one of those chronic diseases that means I have to get the flu vaccine every year. I was fortunate enough to get the flu vaccine way back in September, I think, when I had occasion to be in the doctor’s surgery. I am not there very often, but I was down getting a check-up and they said, “Take your flu vaccine now.” I am glad that I did, because the fact of the matter is that they have run short of flu vaccines in my constituency, and in many other parts of the United Kingdom.
My question to the Health Secretary this afternoon was about the shortage of flu vaccines, and the importance of ensuring that the covid-19 vaccine, once trials are completed, is available to those who need it, so that we do not find ourselves in the same situation as many of my constituents—of a certain age, vulnerable, and who have come to me for assistance because they cannot get the vaccine. We also want to ensure that the flu vaccine that many are waiting for is available.
School teachers and care professionals—nurses, doctors and frontline workers—must be considered priorities for the vaccine once we know it is safe. If the vaccine is offered, I intend to take it, but some of my constituents have contacted me to say that they do not wish to do so. The Minister has previously said that there will be no compulsion, but my health is not just about me: it is about you, Mr Dowd, about the shadow Minister, about hon. Members and about every one of my constituents. My duty is to everyone else.
I am conscious of the time and I will not take much longer, but I want to make a plea for something that will be possible only with the support of the pharmaceutical companies and those who understand the science. I, like you, Mr Dowd, and other Members, regularly see children at my constituency surgeries with chronic asthma and other respiratory complaints. Their parents send them to school daily in fear. The young girl who drafts my speeches and does my research has a four-year-old with chronic asthma. She had to self-isolate at home from March until the beginning of August. Members might ask whether that is possible, but it is what the doctor told her to do with her child. I hope that the trials will come up with a covid-19 vaccine that children can access to.
I support the Education Minister and my own Education Minister back home in saying that children need to be at school, but they need to be safe at school. Only yesterday my grandchild was sent home because some of the pupils and teachers in the form above her showed covid-19 symptoms. They are all self-isolating for two weeks, but the fact is that we just do not know where we are with the virus. Ever mindful of the shortage with the flu vaccine, I hope we will ensure that the covid vaccine is available.
In this morning’s debate, which was also attended by the Minister, there was mention of the black, Asian and minority ethnic community and people with obesity, who are more liable, according to the stats, to have a covid-19 diagnosis. Again, when it comes to prioritising, I hope that we may include that issue.
I want to make a plea for ethnic groups across the world, as I did in the Chamber last Thursday in a debate about vaccines across the world opened by the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain). I have a personal interest in religious minorities and different ethnic groups, and I want them to have the opportunity to have the vaccine. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire mentioned that issue, and he was right. When it comes to handing out vaccines or covid-19 help and assistance, the people at the end of the queue every time are the Christians and small minority groups in countries across the world. The Health Secretary also mentioned that in passing today in the Chamber—I am referring to him quite often, and that is because I am taking note of the points that he made in the Chamber. I want to make sure that the vaccine is available not only for us, here, but for every person in the world. That comes back to the point about needing to deal with the matter internationally, and I hope that that is where we will be going.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd.
Yesterday the news was announced that Pfizer had a potential vaccine that was quite advanced. I do not know how it affected other hon. Members in the Chamber, but my heart skipped a beat. It was brilliant news, and it is not surprising that the attitude in the rest of the country has been exactly the same. It is also not surprising that the stock exchange has effectively gone wild in some areas. People are utterly depressed by the lockdown they are living in, and the news gave them hope that there is a real light at the end of the tunnel, towards which they could drive. Unlike the lights in most tunnels, it is not an oncoming train, but a real opportunity to get out of the situation we are in.
However, it was quite right of the Prime Minister to pull back a bit on that in his broadcast last night. A number of things need to be looked at and studied before we can really rejoice in what Pfizer has done. Most scientists, for example, anticipate that a vaccine will not be 100% effective. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) said, it is only—I use the term lightly—90% effective. However, no vaccine will be 100% effective. We need to ensure that any approved vaccines are as effective as possible, so that they can have the greatest impact on the pandemic.
We have also heard that there is a robust pipeline of potential vaccines in development and that some have already advanced to phase 3. However, we cannot be certain when a vaccine will become available. That is why we cannot rely on a future vaccine to fight the pandemic. We must use all the tools we already have at our disposal, such as testing, contact tracing, physical distancing and masks. I also recommend co-trimoxazole, a drug that is being trialled in Bangladesh and India and that has also been trialled to a certain extent in the UK, which stops the inflammation of the lungs that comes with this terrible virus.
It is too early to know whether covid-19 vaccines will provide long-term protection. Additional research is needed to answer that question. However, the thing that encourages me from the data on people who recover from covid-19—I believe my hon. Friend has recovered from it—is that they develop an immune response that provides at least some protection against reinfection, although we do not know how strong that protection is and how long it lasts. However, that data gives me encouragement that a vaccine can duplicate and pick up on that—if it was not there, I would be very worried that a vaccine was not going to work.
A number of people have mentioned the need to do things on an international basis, and that is a great concern of mine. I happened to meet and have discussions with Dr David Nabarro, who is the special envoy on covid for the World Health Organisation. The Council of Europe—this is one of the great things that comes out of the Council of Europe made a discussion available to members of the social affairs committee. We had a virtual session with Dr Nabarro, who is an engaging, absolutely brilliant man who answers questions forthrightly—he will never make a good politician, but what I got out of the session was absolutely brilliant. To think that, in 2017, we put him forward to be the director general of the World Health Organisation, a proposal that was lost in the politics of the WHO. What a shame. What a difference that man would have made to the World Health Organisation.
The World Health Organisation has a number of programmes. It has a value framework for the allocation and prioritisation of covid-19 vaccinations. It has a road map for prioritising population groups for vaccines foe covid-19. The fair allocation framework aims to ensure that successful vaccines and treatments are shared equitably across all countries. The framework advises that once a covid-19 vaccine is shown to be safe and effective and is authorised for use—there is an argument, which I fully accept, that we could do more to make sure that different regulatory authorities are brought into line on this—all countries should receive doses in proportion to their population size to immunise the highest priority groups. That is just the first phase, after which the vaccine will roll out. If the World Health Organisation can continue in its role—I hope the United States backs off from deserting it and allows it to continue—it will be one of the things that helps to get the vaccine to all countries.
Jim Shannon
I am sorry for intervening, but I am concerned that those who are in good health but who happen to have a fairly deep pocket financially may think they can access this vaccine. It is really important that the people who access the vaccine for covid-19 are those who need it right now and who perhaps do not have the finance to buy it, as others might. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?
John Howell
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The World Health Organisation’s group of experts has already provided recommendations to countries about which populations should be prioritised. They include frontline health and care workers at high risk of infection, older adults and those at high risk throughout the population—people who are suffering from conditions such as heart disease and diabetes. As the second phase rolls forward and more doses are produced, the vaccine should go to groups at less risk of being infected or suffering badly.
I will finish there. This is an exciting opportunity, which we should not let go of. We should keep on top of this. Let us all hope that maybe in a few months’ time we can all be here celebrating the distribution of at least one—and perhaps more than one—vaccine that will help us out of this situation.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) for securing this important and highly relevant debate. It is understandable that we may share a feeling of cautious optimism with the news that the candidate vaccines are showing not only promise but a high degree of efficacy based on the phase 1 and 2 data. I pay tribute to the scientists who have led this encouraging development, and I wish them every success as they move to take the vaccine through the necessary steps to ensure that it is clinically safe and as we begin to prepare for widespread deployment.
Those steps and others, such as continuing to manage the current outbreak through test, trace and isolate methods and protecting our frontline staff with the necessary personal protective equipment, are absolutely vital if we are to rebuild each nation’s economy and return to as normal a way of life as possible. While I may have some sympathy with those who desire less rigorous controls on our freedoms, the economy and clinical trials, the consequences of relaxing too soon are clear to see given the second wave we are living through and a second nationwide lockdown in England. While some have argued that that is a risk worth taking to protect the economy, the consequences will ultimately be further damage to that which they argue they are trying to protect.
That is, similarly, the situation regarding drug licensing, and I want to pick up on some of the points the hon. Member for North Herefordshire referred to. The desire to suspend usual licensing rules would have consequences. They have been developed for important reasons, and those consequences matter. Just as with the caution over announcing a lockdown, I would urge caution over taking any liberties with the phasing of clinical trials. That phasing really matters. It is exactly what is required, particularly if we want to give a clear, confident message to the population that any vaccine has been tested to ensure it is safe.
I would pick up on one example. This vaccine uses an angiotensin-converting enzyme II molecule as its entry receptor, and in situ and in vitro it has been demonstrated to have had a paradoxical effect, so it is not well understood. It has a key role to play in blood pressure and other cardiac regulation, so it is important that we pay attention to the short-term and particularly the late effects of any such treatment.
I also urge caution over the temptation to rush forward, in that we have serious issues to consider ahead of the deployment of any vaccine in a meaningful way across the nations of the UK.
Bill Wiggin
I hoped I had been clearer that I was not calling for a curtailment of any of the safety steps. However, with eight people dying every hour, delay has consequences too. What is not acceptable is that the standards for safety in the UK may be slightly different from the standards around the rest of the world. I was asking for a coming together so that we can have that agreed consensus on safety.
Neale Hanvey
I thank the hon. Member for that helpful clarification. I certainly hope that there would be a concordance of agreement to ensure not only that similar standards are followed, but that research can be worked on across all countries that have the capacity to do so.
I will make some progress. In our collective hope that there is indeed light at the end of the tunnel, the darkness of our shared journey through this pandemic must not be allowed to obscure our important public duty to act in good faith and with financial probity. That responsibility is not only of value in and of itself; we must do that out of respect for the many who did not make it through and who succumbed to covid-19, and in memory of those key workers who did so for the most selfless of reasons.
I want to refer to comments made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I agree with him that this has been a long, dark six months; it has been incredibly difficult. There is a need to feel optimistic, but it almost feels too good to be true. We hope that we will see this through, but again, I urge patience so that we can move forward collectively.
We must not emerge from this dark period with an “at any cost” attitude. We must ensure that the burden was shared equally and we acted together. In the spirit of co-operation alluded to by the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell), during Prime Minister’s questions on 18 March I asked a question about scientific support and I concluded:
“Does he agree that the prize on this occasion must be the victory and not patents and profits?”
In response the Prime Minister stated:
“I endorse completely the sentiment that the hon. Gentleman has just expressed about the need to do this collectively.”
And he concluded that
“everybody is working together on the very issues that the hon. Gentleman raised.”—[Official Report, 18 March 2020; Vol. 673, c. 1001.]
With regard to the spirit of togetherness, it is deeply concerning that we repeatedly hear of cronyism at the heart of this Government, particularly in relation to their less than rigorous approach to appointments and procurement. This morning on the BBC’s “Today” programme, the Secretary of State was challenged about the costs surrounding the vaccine taskforce’s work and its processes. Rightly or wrongly, the appointment of Kate Bingham has proven controversial, and there are no doubt questions to be asked about the absence of any clear recruitment process. However, when she appeared before the Health and Social Care Committee last week, I was very impressed by her performance. She has a very real command of the work that she has been leading, and the relevance and depth of her skillset were clearly in tune with the demands of such a position. However, that does not negate the Government’s or, indeed, any appointee’s responsibility to act ethically and in good faith and, most importantly, to transparently account for their actions.
Concerns about passing on company names that the Government favoured in the pursuit of a vaccine is not a matter for me to pass any judgment on, but they do need to be scrutinised fully. The most recent concerns, set out in The Guardian this morning, are also significant. In simple terms, how can a job be considered unpaid when the postholder holds a position of influence or control in the process of awarding a £49 million investment in a company that they remain a managing partner of? That Ms Bingham is married to a Treasury Minister should have set off the ethical alarm bells well in advance of the matter appearing in the media.
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
Order. Mr Hanvey, can you wind up your remarks, please?
Neale Hanvey
I am just about to finish, Mr Dowd; sorry.
Whether the sign-off of the £49 million award came from Nick Elliott or, as the Secretary of State claimed this morning, some civil servant, this matters. These allegations of cronyism, if investigated and found to be true, are sure to make the expenses scandal, the cash-for-honours scandal or the cash-for-influence scandal seem like child’s play. This is a day for cautious optimism indeed, but not at any price.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship for the first time, Mr Dowd. I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) for initiating today’s debate on this topic. Timing is everything in politics, and his is clearly spot-on. Similarly, a rare political skill is the ability to make the complex comprehendible, and he really did that in his setting out of the debate. I do not know who is watching, but I did plug this debate when I was on Sky News at lunchtime, so I hope a few people are, because that was the best explanation that I have heard, and certainly the best one that can be distilled into about 15 minutes, of just how rigorous the process is. I hope people will take from that explanation the reassurance that although we are keen for the vaccine to succeed, there is a rigorous process. It has not been retrofitted to fit the vaccination’s journey, so we should have some confidence in that.
To reflect on the two Back-Bench contributions, when the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) referred to it being bit of good news, = he was speaking for all of us. He mentioned the groups that will be prioritised, and I think there will be a high level of consensus on that. Hopefully, it is something that we will settle on very quickly. I was cheered by the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell), who talked about the Council of Europe and the World Health Organisation, because those are exactly the sorts of fora that we need to engage with to get an equitable distribution around the world. It is hard for all of us; this is why political consensus is so important. It is hard for us to tell our constituents why we feel there needs to be a global distribution when people are so desperate to get their lives back to normal, but we know there is both a moral and a pragmatic obligation to do that. The organisations that the hon. Gentleman talked about are exactly the places for those conversations.
On the politics of this, it is really important that we do not mess around or be mischievous with the idea of the vaccine. There is a big public conversation about this. Any look of doubt from us would be magnified significantly. As community leaders, we have a responsibility to say that we trust the process. The outcome is whatever the outcome is, but the process itself is a proper one that we trust. That is certainly what hon. Members will see from the Opposition.
Yesterday’s news on the progress and the efficacy of the vaccine will have cheered all of us. I know that the Government are on record with regard to doses from that particular provider, but when we add in the AstraZeneca-University of Oxford one and the Moderna one, might the Minister be able to tell us how many pre-orders have been put in place for the vaccinations? That would help us to gauge the scale. I know the Government have laid the pitch for the roll-out through the changes to the human medicines regulations, and significant changes were made, including giving the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency the powers to grant temporary authorisation pending the granting of a licence.
I was grateful for the time that the Minister gave me with her and the deputy chief medical officer to talk about those changes, but when will there be a parliamentary opportunity to do so? We need to demonstrate that we have scrutinised this properly because the public want to know that we are talking about these things to the fullest extent. That would also allow us to address the point about immunity from civil liberty that the manufacturers and healthcare professionals are seeking, which is not surprising, but there are important and significant qualifiers around that not extending to sufficiently serious breaches. Will the Minister explain what a sufficiently serious breach would look like, or when we might have an occasion to talk about that further?
On vaccine hesitancy, it seems there are distinct phases. We have the anti-vax movement, which is about the substance of vaccinations to an extent, but it also about a broad range of other things. As our constituency mailbags will reflect, there is also a group of people who are hesitant, which is entirely understandable. They want to know that any vaccination, whichever one it is, is a safe one, but it is telling that last year the WHO had vaccine hesitancy in its top 10 threats to global health—up there with a future pandemic. That is something that we need to be aware of. We know that such speculation and the stuff that moves online at an incredible pace can really damage the process. For example, in Denmark in 2013 there were false claims from a documentary about the HPV vaccine, which led to a decline in uptake among some of the cohorts from levels of around 90%. Similarly, between 2014 and 2017 in Ireland, vocal attacks on the HPV vaccine from the anti-vaccine lobby led to a drop in take-up from 70% to 50%. These things matter. One thing that best counters them is proactive, positive health promotion campaigns. I am keen to hear whether the Government plan to talk about these things to educate the population ahead of time, but, again, it something that we all need to buy into, share and push out on a cross-party basis.
An area where I think there might be a little more room for divergence is delivery. We do not know what the future holds for the vaccine or when things will pop up, but it is reasonable to say that we expect one, and we know the scale of our population, so we have no reason not to have significant plans. When the Health Secretary was pushed on it this afternoon, he said that there were plans, but he was less forthcoming on what they were. I am keen for more detail. Whether it was PPE at the early stage of the pandemic or test and trace, frankly, throughout it, such big-scale planning and logistical exercises have not gone flawlessly. Qualifications could be made when they were being done for the first time, but we cannot repeat those mistakes now that we are, I hope, learning from what has happened.
Again, the Health Secretary has talked quite a bit today in the media and the Chamber about the importance of general practice. As I understand it, the BMA’s GP committee, NHS Improvement and NHS England have agreed an enhanced service for general practice to lead this process. That is good. People will want to see this delivered through the NHS rather than a private company, whether because they believe in its efficiency, as I certainly do, or whether in general they think that will reflect best in the population. That is a wise thing to do.
I understand that it is optional for practices to sign up, so may I get more detail from the Minister on that? If take-up is not good enough, will an alteration be considered? I also want to understand what assessment has been made about GPs’ capacity and workload. As I understand it, the programme requires participants to deliver at least 975 vaccinations over a seven-day period from each designated site—that will require 12-hour days seven days a week, including bank holidays. GPs are already busy, so I am keen to know about what assessments have been made about prioritisation.
I do not have enough time to talk about this properly, but I turn finally to the point made clearly by the hon. Members for Henley and for North Herefordshire: we have to come to an equitable settlement globally, too, and to play a leading role in global organisations as we do so.
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
There will be multiple votes in the Chamber shortly. I call the Minister to speak.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)
Thank you, Mr Dowd. I will try to be concise. We have covered an awful lot of ground, and to give my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) his two minutes—
Jo Churchill
Right—bless you!
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire on securing this debate—and on such a timely day, as the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) said. It is almost as if my hon. Friend had planned it. I agree wholeheartedly with his comment that we must continue to protect the vulnerable as a priority. I also agree with much of what he said about making sure that we are moving at pace, while never sacrificing safety or efficacy, to drive forward and make sure, in therapeutics and particularly in vaccines, that we are delivering as fast as we can.
Many of those doing the work are involved not only in vaccine development but in vaccine manufacture. That means that they are ready to deploy once regulatory approval has been received. But the process has to be properly and ethically done, and people have to be secure in the knowledge that the vaccine is safe.
As everybody has mentioned, yesterday’s news excited us. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) mentioned, there is not a golden bullet. We need to carry on with the non-pharmaceutical interventions and with driving down the R number, as we are doing. But we have had good news, and we can all afford a little moderated optimism to give ourselves a little bit of cheer. It is promising progress that takes us one step closer to finding a vaccine and, as has been much mentioned in this debate, to helping protect millions of people across the world as well as in the UK.
We need to make the vaccine clinically safe. We know that it will not by itself bring the pandemic to an end, but an assured vaccine would be a huge step forward towards resuming a normal way of life. After clean water, vaccination is the single most effective public health intervention. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire said, the benefits are enormous. Working with the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and social media platforms, we are making sure that the message of vaccination hesitancy is worked on. We are doing that across Government and, more broadly, across companies. This is a national effort, and we have to work together to make sure that we give the right message that gives people confidence.
There is enormous collaboration across science, medicine, industry and government, here and internationally, to find a safe vaccine. Our aim of rapidly developing a mass-produced vaccine means that we are striving to do something that has never been done before. Progress is being made at an extraordinary pace.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire took me back to my degrees by mentioning p-numbers and statistical significance, and as he said, although access to the vaccine should be given as quickly as possible, we must ensure that it is safe. I congratulate the vaccine taskforce, which has been mentioned, on its hard work leading the UK’s effort to find and manufacture a vaccine. It has successfully secured early access to 350 million doses through agreements with six separate vaccine developers.
My hon. Friend spoke of several of the vaccines, but not all of them. We have four different types: the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, which is in phase 3 trials; the BioNTech-Pfizer mNRA vaccine, about which we had the excellent phase 3 trials news yesterday; and inactivated whole virus vaccines and protein adjuvant vaccines, which are all in phase 1, 2 or pre-clinical trials. The vaccine taskforce makes a call on those most likely to be effective, because we need a rational approach. The vaccine candidates are all in different stages, and extraordinary progress is being made with the phase 3 clinical trials underway in the UK, the USA, India, Brazil and South Africa. I reassure all hon. Members that the Government are prioritising developing, acquiring and deploying vaccines as soon as they are safely available.
The NHS covid-19 vaccine research registry has been developed in partnership with NHS Digital to help facilitate the rapid recruitment of large numbers of people into further trials over the coming months, so that an effective vaccine for coronavirus could potentially be found. It is important that we spread the net and encourage as many people of both genders and from as many different backgrounds as possible to take part, because we know that there is often a degree of over-representation in clinical trials in certain areas. I know that my hon. Friend is particularly interested in ensuring that we do not dismiss any potential vaccines, but he also said that he is very interested in seeing things sped up, so that bench to patient is much quicker. I could not agree more.
Experts from the NHS, academia and the private sector have worked closely with us to explore and establish human challenge trials in the UK, backed by more than £33 million-worth of investment. The studies offer a chance to accelerate the development of promising covid-19 vaccines in a safe and controlled environment. They are being considered by regulators and ethics committees and, if approved, would start in January with results expected by May 2021. Almost £20 million more is being made available to scale up capabilities to process blood samples from clinical trials.
We have invested significantly through UK Research and Innovation to provide unique capability for process, development and scale up. Once an effective vaccine is ready, we must be able to manufacture it at an unmatched and hitherto unseen speed. We will then move on to deployment. I am running out of time, but I am sure that the usual routes will give us a chance to talk about that deployment and other pertinent issues at another date.
The global co-operation was mentioned by several hon. Members. Globally accessible vaccines, treatments and tests are needed for all of us. No single country holds the key; it is a worldwide pandemic, and we are stronger when working together. The UK has taken a strong role in global leadership and in collaborating with other countries. Our commitment to international collaboration is clear, and we were proud to work through multilaterals—such as the G7 and G20, and with the WHO and other international partners, including industry —to agree collaborative approaches to supporting vaccine development, manufacturing scale-up and future distribution to meet domestic and international needs, including for the world’s poorest countries, which touches on points that were made earlier.
I thank scientists and clinicians around the world for their remarkable efforts in working at pace to develop covid-19 vaccines. I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. The vaccine will not be a silver bullet—we have to keep trying—but it will be one of the several tools that help our fight against the virus and allow us to have a more normal way of life.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered covid-19 vaccine.
Written Statements
Transparency of Intergovernmental Relations: Update
(4 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)
Today, the Government are announcing new measures to improve the transparency and accountability of relations between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations.
We are taking these steps because the Government recognise that effective transparency, accountability and parliamentary scrutiny of the Government’s participation in intergovernmental structures will support relationships between the Government and devolved Administrations so that we work together effectively on behalf of citizens across the UK.
A new dedicated www.gov.uk page for intergovernmental relations (IGR) has been created. On this website, all documents relating to IGR, including the memorandum of understanding on devolution, relevant documents and reports related to intergovernmental forums will be published at timely intervals. This includes uploading communiqués after each formal intergovernmental meeting containing information on the date, location, chair, participants and discussion points of meetings. This collection will grow and evolve as we revise and strengthen our intergovernmental structures and conclude the review of intergovernmental relations. However, we are launching the website today as we recognise the benefits of implementing new behaviours and good practice immediately to support parliamentary and public scrutiny of the UK Government’s participation in existing intergovernmental forums.
Our long-term strategy for strengthening transparency of IGR will involve publishing a quarterly report on this gov.uk page. This report will include a list of all engagements for each forum, any resolved disputes and their outcomes and associated third-party reports when relevant. The first report will be published in 2021.
On an annual basis, a report will be laid in both Houses of Parliament by Command Paper. This will collate the key information from the quarterly reports, as well as include any written or service-level agreements reached between Administrations over the reporting period, background information and a list of ministerial appearances before parliamentary committees. The Government also commit to making regular statements to Parliament on IGR, including appearances before relevant committees when requested.
The measures will not apply universally including where issues are commercially or market sensitive or matters of national security. They will not apply to the myriad regular official meetings or to informal bilateral discussions.
These measures apply to the participation of Ministers of the Crown in formal, intergovernmental structures and are intended to support Parliament’s capacity to scrutinise intergovernmental relations. The measures do not place any obligations on other Administrations to report to their legislatures, although they mirror the approaches taken by the Welsh and Scottish Governments.
In tandem, the joint review of intergovernmental relations continues to progress with the devolved Administrations and the UK Government remain committed to finalising a product at pace. These measures will complement any future structures at the outcome of the review.
[HCWS564]
Financial Services for the EEA: Ministerial Equivalence and Exemption Directions
(4 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
The Equivalence Determinations for Financial Services and Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment etc) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019/541) provides powers for the Treasury to make equivalence directions and exemption directions for the European Economic Area (“EEA”) states, including the member states of the European Union (“EU”), before the end of the transition period.
I have today laid before Parliament eight directions which exercise the powers across an extensive range of areas. The directions cover 16 equivalence decisions in total, which serve to maintain the stability and openness of the UK financial services sector beyond the end of the transition period.
For the decisions below, it is both the legally binding requirements, and the effectiveness of the regulation and supervision of adherence to these requirements in the EEA states, which have been deemed equivalent on an outcomes basis.
The European Market Infrastructure Regulation (Article 13) Equivalence Directions 2020 determine that, for the purposes of paragraphs 1 and 2(a) and (d), of article 3 of the European market infrastructure regulation (intragroup transactions), the legal, supervisory and enforcement arrangements of EEA states are equivalent to articles 4 and 11 of the European market infrastructure regulation, as it will form part of UK law at the end of the transition period (“EMIR”). This decision paves the way for UK firms to seek or apply an exemption from the requirement to clear through a CCP or meet margin requirements for transactions with an EEA entity in the same group. The granting of this decision means these exposures can qualify as intragroup exposures in the credit valuation adjustment (“CVA”) calculation, ensuring that UK firms will in many cases not have to capitalise CVA on over the counter (“OTC”) exposures to EEA affiliates.
The Capital Requirements Regulation Equivalence Directions 2020 determine that each EEA state (i) applies prudential, supervisory and regulatory requirements equivalent to those applied in the UK, for the purposes of article 107(3) and 391 of the capital requirements regulation as it will form part of UK law at the end of the transition period (“CRR”); and (ii) applies supervisory and regulatory arrangements equivalent to those applied in the UK, for the purposes of articles 114(7), 115(4), 116(5), 132(3) and 142(2) of CRR. For UK firms, equivalence here ensures they will not be subject to increased capital requirements as a result of their EEA exposures.
The Solvency 2 Regulation Equivalence Directions 2020 determine that for the purposes of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/35 (supplementing the solvency II directive on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of insurance and reinsurance): (i) the solvency regime of each EEA state that applies to certain reinsurance activities is equivalent to that laid down in the relevant UK law; (ii) the solo prudential regime of each EEA state is equivalent to that laid down in the relevant UK law; and (iii) the groups prudential regime of each EEA state is equivalent to that laid down in the relevant UK law. In doing so, The Solvency 2 Regulation Equivalence Directions 2020 cover all three solvency II equivalence decisions, i.e. articles 378, 379 and 380 of the solvency II regulation. Solvency II is an EU regime which will form part of retained EU law in the UK from 11pm on 31 December 2020 (in accordance with the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018) so that it continues to apply in the UK.
The European Market Infrastructure Regulation (Article 2A) Equivalence Directions 2020 determine that, for the purposes of article 2A of the EMIR, markets in each EEA state comply with legally binding requirements which are equivalent to the requirements laid down in UK law, and are subject to effective supervision and enforcement in each such EEA state. This will enable UK firms to continue to treat derivatives traded on EEA regulated markets as exchange traded derivatives rather than OTC derivatives. Facilitating this continuity for firms minimises the disruption they will experience following the end of the transition period.
The Central Securities Depositories Regulation Equivalence Directions 2020 determine that central securities depositories (“CSDs”) in each EEA state comply with legal requirements which are equivalent to the central securities depositories regulation as it will form part of UK law at the end of the transition period (“CSDR”) and are appropriately supervised in the relevant EEA state. With equivalence granted, the Bank of England can then assess CSDs in the EEA for recognition (subject to establishing co-operation arrangements with the relevant EEA authorities), allowing those CSDs, once recognised, to continue to service UK securities and to exit the transitional regime contained in onshored article 69 CSDR and part 5 of The Central Securities Depositories (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018.
The Benchmarks Regulation Equivalence Directions 2020 determine that benchmark administrators in each EEA state comply with legal requirements which are equivalent to the benchmarks regulation as it will apply in UK law at the end of the transition period (“BMR”), and are appropriately supervised in the relevant EEA state. This equivalence decision acts as a mechanism to enable such administrators to be added to the FCA’s benchmarks register, and to enable them to provide benchmarks to supervised entities in the UK.
The Credit Rating Agencies Regulation Equivalence Directions 2020 determine that, for the purposes of article 5 of the credit rating agencies regulation as it will form part of UK law at the end of the transition period (“CRAR”), the legal and supervisory framework of each EEA state ensures that credit rating agencies (“CRAs”) authorised or registered in each EEA state (i) comply with legally binding requirements which are equivalent to the requirements resulting from CRAR; and (ii) are subject to effective supervision and enforcement in each such EEA state. This means non-systemic credit rating agencies authorised or registered in the EEA can apply to be certified in the UK.
The Short Selling Regulation Equivalence Directions 2020 determine that EU markets are subject to the appropriate law and supervision for the purposes of article 17 the short selling regulation as it will form part of UK law at the end of the transition period (“SSR”). This means that EEA market makers will be eligible to make use of the exemption in article 17 of SSR (which disapplies certain short selling restrictions and reporting requirements) subject to complying with certain regulatory requirements.
Alongside the above directions, today I am also laying before Parliament The Central Counterparties (Equivalence) Regulations 2020 pursuant to regulation 14(1) of the Central Counterparties (Amendment, etc., and Transitional Provision) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018 (S.I. 2018/1184). The former statutory instrument specifies that the regulatory framework for central counterparties in EEA states is equivalent to the UK’s framework. After the end of the transition period, these regulations will have effect as if made under article 25(6) of EMIR. Therefore, subject to entry into an appropriate co-operation arrangement between the Bank of England and the relevant national competent authority in that EEA state, and a CCP-specific recognition determination by the Bank of England, after the end of the transition period UK firms will be able to continue using EEA CCPs and to exit the transitional regime contained in part 6 of The Central Counterparties (Amendment, etc., and Transitional Provision) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018 (S.I. 2018/1184).
The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy will be laying The Statutory Auditors and Third Country Auditors (Amendment) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 to grant audit equivalence to the EEA states and approve as adequate their audit competent authorities.
To provide clarity and stability to industry, we are announcing as many decisions as we can in favour of openness, and where it makes sense to do so. The granting of these equivalence decisions provides a broad range of benefits in terms of having open markets that are well regulated, facilitating firms’ ability to pool and manage risks effectively, and supporting UK and EU clients’ access to financial services and market liquidity.
[HCWS567]
Public Service Broadcasting and the Licence Fee Settlement
(4 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Oliver Dowden)
There is an increasing consensus that the UK’s system of public service broadcasting (PSB) needs to evolve if it is to transition successfully to the internet era. That is why today the Government are announcing a new advisory panel to provide independent expertise and advice on this important issue. The panel will bring together representatives from the worlds of broadcasting, production, journalism and technology; and, it will support the Government in responding to Ofcom’s forthcoming report on the future of public service broadcasting. The full terms of reference and membership of the panel are available from gov.uk.
One vital issue that will proceed separately is the negotiation with the BBC and S4C, the Welsh-language broadcaster, regarding the next television licence fee settlement. We are now formally beginning this process to agree the level of the licence fee from 2022. To aid in our assessment of the appropriate level and to ensure we come to a settlement which offers the best value for money for licence fee payers, I have formally requested the BBC and S4C to provide the Government with specific financial information, as required under the BBC’s royal charter.
It is also the first settlement where S4C will receive full funding from the licence fee. S4C will be following the same process as the BBC.
As I have set out previously, the BBC is a world-class broadcaster, trusted and recognised across the globe. However, to ensure its long-term sustainability in a rapidly changing digital world it must also continue to reform. The Government’s priority is a BBC that affordably delivers its mission and public purposes; that truly reflects the whole nation in its activities and content; and that guards its impartiality in all of its output.
To reflect the Government’s priorities, I am asking the BBC to set out its financial information as far as possible in line with its public purposes. I have asked the BBC to consider in particular how it can maximise its commercial revenues and continue to make savings. I have also asked the BBC to include in its submission an assessment of the impact of the licence fee for those on the lowest income, including details of any further plans to support those in vulnerable groups, including the elderly.
In the interest of transparency, alongside this statement we are publishing on gov.uk the formal commissioning letters to the BBC and S4C. We will also publish future correspondence where appropriate. I will ensure that Parliament is informed of the outcome of the discussions with the BBC and S4C, and expect to lay my determination before the House to allow time for parliamentary debate before the settlement takes effect in 2022.
[HCWS566]
Report of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse: Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales
(4 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
Today the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse has published its latest report, which can be found at www.iicsa.org.uk.
This report relates to its investigation into the extent of any institutional failures to protect children from sexual abuse within the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales. I pay tribute to the strength and courage of the victims and survivors who have shared their experiences to ensure the inquiry can deliver its vital work.
The Government will review this report and consider how to respond to its content in due course.
I would like to thank Professor Jay and her panel for their continued work to uncover the truth, identify what went wrong in the past and to learn the lessons for the future.
[HCWS565]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now begin. Some Members are here in person, respecting social distancing, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I must ask Members in the Room to wear a face covering except when seated at their desk, to speak sitting down, and to wipe down their desk, chair and any other touch points before and after use. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded, or any other safety requirements are breached, I will adjourn immediately. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes.
The microphone system for physical participants has changed. Your microphones will no longer be turned on at all times, in order to reduce the noise for remote participants. When it is your turn to speak, please press the button on the microphone stand. Once you have done that, wait for the green flashing light to turn red before you begin speaking. The process for unmuting and muting for remote participants remains exactly the same. So, let us begin. The time limit is one hour.
Communications Act (e-Commerce) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(4 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Barran
That the Grand Committee do consider the Communications Act (e-Commerce) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, these regulations were laid in both Houses on 24 September. They seek to end the direct effect of article 3 of the e-commerce directive, also known as the country of origin principle, on Sections 120 to 124 and 128 to 131 of the Communications Act 2003; otherwise, it would become retained EU law after the transition period. These sections refer to the regulation of premium-rate services and nuisance calls respectively. The country of origin principle is an EU internal market measure designed to facilitate digital trade among businesses in the European Economic Area. It would not be appropriate to retain this measure in UK legislation beyond the end of the transition period.
These regulations do not create new policy. Rather, they are a technical measure to fix failures of retained EU law arising from the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU. This intervention is essential to ensure that UK rules can be effectively enforced at the end of the year. The primary impact of these regulations is that they will allow a UK regulator, the Phone-paid Services Authority, to enforce its code of practice against online service providers based in the European Economic Area. Currently, article 3 of the e-commerce directive inhibits the exercising of its powers under Sections 120 to 124 of the Act against European Economic Area businesses. The regulations will also allow Ofcom to enforce rules under Sections 128 to 131 of the 2003 Act. Article 3 of the e-commerce directive currently inhibits it from enforcing these rules on the misuse of electronic communications and services against European Economic Area businesses. This change will ensure quicker regulatory action and more efficient user redress. UK regulators will be able to enforce UK laws for the protection of UK consumers.
I also bring to the attention of the Committee the reports of the European Statutory Instruments Committee in the House of Commons and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in the House of Lords, and thank them for their work. I would like to address the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s wish to discuss wider costs to UK business as a result of the UK becoming a third country in relation to the e-commerce directive. It is worth reiterating that these regulations have very limited bearing on UK businesses. UK businesses will be out of scope of the country of origin principle as a result of our leaving the European Union transition period at the end of December, not as a result of these regulations. Rather, these regulations ensure that European Economic Area businesses will come within the scope of UK rules, which they would not do unless we brought in these changes.
Of course, the loss of the country of origin principle as a result of leaving the EU also means that UK businesses will be newly in scope of certain European Economic Area laws from which they were previously exempt. We expect that the impact on UK business will be relatively low. The scope of the directive is narrow, and we do not expect regulatory regimes to be markedly different in the UK compared with other European Economic Area states. Depending on the nature of the online service, many UK businesses may already be compliant with relevant EEA laws and they will need to make little or no immediate changes to be compliant from 1 January 2021.
I will now give some further background on the proposals themselves and reiterate our reasons for intervening. The e-commerce directive seeks to contribute to the proper functioning of the European internal market by ensuring the free movement of online service providers within the European Economic Area. The e-commerce directive will no longer apply to the UK at the end of the transition period. This includes the country of origin principle set out in article 3 of the directive. The country of origin principle applies to online service providers based in any EEA state that operates across the European Economic Area. It means that the service provider has to follow certain rules only in the state in which it is established, rather than rules in each state where its service is received. If the state where the service is received wishes to enforce its laws against the online service provider, it can do so only where certain conditions set out in article 3 are met. That state must also follow a derogation procedure, notifying the European Commission and the relevant member state before enforcing its rules.
While the UK has been bound by the directive, this exemption has been reciprocal between the UK and EEA member states. UK-based online services have been exempt from relevant laws in EEA states as provided for by the country of origin principle. Equivalent businesses in EEA member states are exempt from those relevant laws in the UK. This country of origin principle is implemented in relevant pieces of national law.
Once the transition period ends, we will no longer be bound by the e-commerce directive, and UK-based online service providers will lose their exemption from relevant laws in European Economic Area states, as currently provided for by the country of origin principle. If we do not intervene to remove article 3’s effect on the Communications Act, online service providers in the EEA will continue to receive preferential market access beyond the end of the transition period while the same benefit will not be afforded to UK online service providers.
These regulations remove the direct effect of the country of origin principle from the Communications Act 2003. This removes the exemptions from rules under Sections 120 to 124 and 128 to 131 of the Act for businesses based in the EEA. The principle will be removed from all UK legislation in due course. This is to ensure that businesses in the EEA will be brought into scope of all UK laws from which they are currently exempt as a result of article 3.
As I have set out today, these regulations are a technical measure to fix failures of retained EU law to operate effectively, arising from the withdrawal of the UK from the EU. They will ensure that our regulators are able to effectively apply UK laws to online service providers based in the EEA, and ensure that UK consumers are protected. I beg to move.
Baroness Wheatcroft (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her clear introduction to this short debate. The reason for these regulations is straightforward: when the transition period ends—and that time is frighteningly near—UK businesses in the communications industry will no longer be able to trade in EEA countries, relying on the fact that they comply with UK regulations. These regulations do not change that. They determine that companies from the EEA will no longer be able to rely on their compliance regimes to give them access to UK customers. Instead, they will have to comply with UK regulations. This means that they will have to master the regulations that apply in one more regime. Unfortunately, UK businesses will potentially have to comply with many different regimes in order to carry on trading with the EEA countries.
The Minister assures us that the cost to UK businesses will be minimal. But I wonder whether she can reassure us as to how that conclusion was reached. I understand that there was no consultation about the regulations and no impact assessment was conducted. I know that time is short but, if we are being told that costs will be minimal, we need to know what that is based upon.
Last month, the Minister for Media and Data, John Whittingdale, said reassuringly that
“we do not expect the regulatory regimes to be markedly different in the UK in comparison with other EEA states.”—[Official Report, Commons Delegated Legislation Committee, 20/10/20; col. 4.]
My noble friend the Minister has just repeated this. Those who, like me, regret the decision not to retain membership of the single market would surely shake their head at this comment. Given the expectation of such regulatory alignment in a growing sector, why is this country so set against this principle? It would have allowed continued membership of our most important trading bloc.
The EEA countries may choose to diverge their regulations. While this would not place extra burdens on member states, it would add to the burden on UK companies trading in the EU. Can the Minister tell us how confident she is that this will not be the case and that the regulatory regimes will remain reasonably aligned?
Effective regulatory insight is crucial in this sector. The legislation covers premium-rate phone services. Given that more than 200,000 people a year suffer text message scams—indeed, I was on the receiving end of one only last week—it is important that the Phone-paid Services Authority is given the power it needs to ensure that all companies trading in this sector play by the rules. Ofcom appoints the authority. As the Minister explained, it also has the responsibility for regulating electronic communications networks and services.
As we are asked to approve these regulations, I have one further question for the Minister. Back in September, it was rumoured that the Government planned to install Paul Dacre as the new chairman of Ofcom, which is a very powerful body. The Daily Mail reported it in some depth. As Mr Dacre is editor-in-chief of DMG Media, one might assume that these stories were well founded. Given that the chairman of Ofcom is a public appointment, the news was met with some surprise. A government spokesman insisted that the normal appointment process would be followed and that it would begin shortly. Yet the post does not appear to have been advertised yet. This important individual will play a vital role in ensuring that these regulations are put into practice. Can the Minister enlighten us as to when this appointment process is likely to begin?
Lord Clement-Jones (LD) [V]
My Lords, the ending of the country of origin principle on access to the EEA digital internal market in e-commerce is, I am afraid, the inevitable consequence of our regrettable decision to leave the EU and not to seek to stay in the internal market.
I agree with everything the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, said. I also want to draw attention to paragraph 12 of the Explanatory Memorandum relating to impact. It says:
“A full Impact Assessment has not been prepared for this Statutory Instrument because there is a low level of impact per business. A De-Minimis Assessment showed that ... there were annual time-saving benefits to certain UK businesses”.
For businesses which offer services to the EEA but not the UK, the Government estimate an annual time-saving benefit of circa £0.5 million. This is pretty breath-taking stuff, as I hope to demonstrate. The Government say that this is because they will no longer have to comply with UK legislation, as well as with the domestic legislation of the EEA state where the service is received. This is looking at it very much from the wrong end of the telescope. The Explanatory Memorandum goes on to say that for all businesses in scope:
“This will result in a small annual net direct cost to business of £0.6m over 10 years. Transition costs refer to the cost incurred by businesses when adjusting to new legislation, in this case the time that organisations will have to take to familiarise themselves with this new legislation.”
In their guidance on the e-commerce directive after the transition period, the Government say:
“The eCommerce Directive applies to ‘information society services’. These are defined as any service that is normally provided: for payment, including indirect payment such as advertising revenue … ‘at a distance’ (where customers can use the service without the provider being present) … by electronic means, and … at the individual request of a recipient of the service. This covers the vast majority of online service providers, for example online retailers, video sharing sites, search tools, social media platforms and internet service providers.”
As commentators have said, after the end of the EU transition period, service providers with a place of establishment within the UK will lose the article 3 protection and will need to comply with the relevant legal requirements within the “co-ordinated fields” of the directive in each EEA country in which they operate. UK online service providers may also become subject to “prior authorisation” schemes, such as licensing requirements, in EEA countries where they operate.
What assessment has been made of the amount of digital trade which will suffer from cost penalties as a result of the withdrawal of country of origin protection? The impact on online services could be immense. The loss of these protections will mean that cloud service providers based in the UK and providing services to customers across the EEA will need to consider and take steps to comply with the national rules applicable to their cloud services in each EEA country where they are available. Online advertising, online retail and online contracts as a whole will suffer. This SI was inevitable but it is not without severe consequences. Should there not have been a full impact assessment of the regulations? Has a profound impact assessment of any kind been done?
This is a grossly inadequate debate, without any understanding by the Government of the real impact of this SI on all those businesses engaged in the digital market. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, about Ofcom. I look forward to the Minister’s answer to this and to the impact question.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her very full introduction to this SI, which is much appreciated, and I thank her and her staff for offering the chance to talk over some of the issues the SI raises in a meeting earlier this week.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, picked up on a number of points, which I will not repeat, but I want to draw out a little further the question of the asymmetry of this SI. As she says, the main beneficiary appears to be Ofcom, and it is a pretty marginal benefit in the sense that it will no longer have to clear, in-country, issues raised by UK companies which have concerns about the way services brought into the UK are being regulated under the country of origin principle. As she pointed out, this seems a rather mixed blessing in some ways. It may well have been freed from the obligation, but the companies themselves will have to do the tracking around and chasing if they have an issue they want to raise in, as has been pointed out, any of the 27 countries with which they used to be able to deal on a relatively simple basis. The Explanatory Memorandum is a bit coy about this but the position is fairly clear, given the very wide range of organisations and companies—online retailers, video sharing sites, search tools, social media platforms and internet service providers—that will be caught by the provision.
Secondly, the main users of the process provided for under this SI are charities. The figures suggest that a number of charities, such as Red Nose Day, rely heavily on people phoning in their donations. Regarding the impact assessment, I cannot believe that some adjustment will not need to be made by bodies that are reliant on such forms of generating income. If the Phone-paid Services Authority does not have the necessary authority to deal with this issue, how on earth will such bodies cope if things go wrong? We have also heard about scams. I am anxious that the Minister deals with this issue when she responds.
Thirdly, although scams account for much of the downside of what happens in this world, as we have heard, there are also concerns about vulnerable people being drawn into conversations or receiving information they would not wish to receive. Effectively, this is another example of the online harms issue. Can the Minister confirm where we are with the forthcoming online harms legislation, and that the consumer and customer issues that this SI raises will be dealt with in it?
Both the previous speakers made a point about the wider context of this SI. I mean no disrespect, but it makes a very minor change. There are a number of discrepancies between how the UK and the EU, our nearest neighbour and largest market for our services, will regulate in this area post Brexit. When the Minister responds, can she give us a better sense of what is happening with roaming, an issue of great concern for many consumers? Will they be able to use their equipment in other countries and if so, under the current arrangements, or will costs be involved?
Spectrum management is an issue on which we need, and indeed have always had, the co-operation of many other players, mainly in the EU but obviously worldwide. As a sole player, we are in a much weaker position to negotiate the sort of spectrum we want. Using additional spectrum, spectrum that is not efficient or spectrum that is not as appropriate to the task will be more costly for British business. Do the Government have any plans to resolve this issue, and how will it be deployed in future?
On the wider question of net neutrality, which we were concerned about a few years ago, and on which we had many friends in the EU, how is that being managed as we go forward?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who spoke for their contributions on these regulations. I will start with some points that I will respond to in writing. I do not have with me information on the exact timing of the recruitment process for the chair of Ofcom, but I will find that out and share it with your Lordships. I will also write on some of the broader issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, such as spectrum management, roaming and net neutrality. He may also have raised one or two other points, but I will make sure that I address those ones in full.
All noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, questioned the impact of the SI and the Government’s assessment of it. A number of elements lead us to be confident in our assessment. First, the figures we have received from the primary regulator, the Phone-paid Services Authority, on derogation requests it receives from EEA states that wish to enforce their legislation against UK-based companies are very low. Double figures have not been reached in any given year, which suggests limited situations where a UK-based business has not complied with requirements similar to those in the 2003 Act when operating within the EEA.
Secondly—this perhaps touches on some of the issues raised by the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson—because the scope of this directive is narrow, the current exemptions to which UK businesses have access apply to very few rules governing online activities. They do not apply to areas such as tax, certain gambling activities, personal data covered by GDPR, or legal requirements relating to goods. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, is absolutely right about the use made by charities of premium phone lines. However, the overall scope is very restricted. We also believe that there is unlikely to be marked divergence in regulatory regimes in the UK compared to the EEA in the coming years.
On the number of businesses that these regulations might impact, we estimate that approximately 75,000 UK businesses that provide services to one or multiple EEA-area states have the potential to fall within their scope. The figure for premium-priced phone services is 12,000, which is within that 75,000 estimate. I stress that no exact data exists, but these are the best estimates the Government have. I hope that goes some way to addressing the valid points that your Lordships raised.
On the online harms legislation, our position remains unchanged. We expect to publish the full government response by the end of the year and introduce the legislation early next year.
As I hope I have outlined, these regulations are a necessary technical measure to fix what would become a failure of retained EU law. Our intervention will empower UK regulators to enforce UK laws for UK consumers.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
The Grand Committee stands adjourned until a convenient point after 3.45 pm. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the room.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now resume. Some Members are here in person, respecting social distancing, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I must ask Members in the Room to wear a face covering except when seated at their desk, to speak sitting down, and to wipe down their desk, chair and any other touch points before and after use. The time limit is one hour.
Electronic Communications and Wireless Telegraphy (Amendment) (European Electronic Communications Code and EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(4 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Barran
That the Grand Committee do consider the Electronic Communications and Wireless Telegraphy (Amendment) (European Electronic Communications Code and EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, these draft regulations are being introduced to transpose the EU Electronic Communications Code directive into domestic law, as we are committed to do under the European withdrawal agreement. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, the Parliamentary Business and Legislation Committee and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee have all considered the instrument and did not raise any issues. The draft regulations are being introduced under powers set out in Section 2(2) of the European Union Communities Act 1972 as repurposed for the transition period by the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020.
The draft regulations make corrections to legal deficiencies arising from the UK’s exit from the European Union. The corrections being made under the powers set out in Section 8 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 are mostly minor and technical, including references to EU law that are no longer applicable to the UK as a result of EU exit. These regulations are a crucial milestone towards the delivery of our digital ambitions and will play a significant role in aiding the delivery of our manifesto commitments, ensuring a future-proofed telecommunications regulatory regime. These changes will facilitate competition and a pro-investment regulatory environment, supporting gigabit-capable rollout across the country. UK consumers will benefit from better information to make informed decisions, have stronger contract rights and be able to switch their services much more easily than before, which will help support competition. The regulations will also ensure that universal services remain affordable for consumers with low incomes or other specific needs.
The measures sit alongside those being implemented by Ofcom under its existing powers. Ofcom is implementing new rules on information requirements for contracts, contract duration and termination rules, along with broadband switching rules. This includes rules banning providers from selling locked devices, ensuring that a customer’s new provider leads any switch, stronger contract exit rights and short summaries of main contract terms to help customers make more informed decisions. We recognise that the industry will need to make changes as it responds to Covid-19 so Ofcom will allow providers a further year to put these measures into place during this exceptional period.
A small number of measures in the directive are not being implemented via these draft regulations. Some measures are being implemented through other legislation, while others have already been put in place, including those that relate to car radios via the Road Vehicles (Approval) Regulations 2020. A limited number of the measures are applicable to “over the top” services, including instant messaging and email communications, which we are considering further how to take forward. We have given Ofcom powers to gather information on these services in the draft regulations. This will help us to better understand and assess this market and to continue to develop any future measures.
The draft regulations introduce measures to drive investment into future-proof networks and communications services through sustainable competition, supporting the efficient and effective use of radio spectrum and providing a high level of consumer protection. While we are required to implement these changes, they are legislative changes that we would want to make in any case. The UK played a key role in the negotiations and indeed shaped the wider regulatory framework for telecoms that the directive builds on.
A number of the provisions promote competition and are pro investment. Ofcom will be able to impose conditions to ensure connectivity and choice for consumers where it is challenging for competition to emerge in an area that already has a network. The instrument also provides Ofcom the power to ensure that another provider can access a dominant provider’s physical infrastructure assets—the ducts and poles that house the network—to ensure choice and competition irrespective of the market scope. We will enable Ofcom to impose longer-term pro-investment regulation, such as implementing longer market review periods that focus on promoting higher capacity networks. We will support the availability of build plan information to industry and to the Government in order to better inform any rollout plans. We will also enable co-operation between network providers, which should support these primarily rural deployments. These measures are essential if we are to create the right environment to encourage investment and ensure that Ofcom has the necessary powers to promote competition and protect consumers.
The draft regulations include measures that will enhance consumer protections. The Government, alongside Ofcom, are implementing measures to help ensure that UK consumers will benefit from better information to make informed decisions, stronger contract rights and the ability to switch services much more easily than before. The regulations will support the efficient and effective use of radio spectrum, promoting competition and the timely rollout of 5G services and the widespread availability of mobile connectivity. There are also measures that relate to the universal service obligation that will ensure that a range of telecoms services remain affordable for consumers with low incomes or other specific needs, giving them a safety net to ensure full participation in both society and the economy.
The instrument also includes powers for the Secretary of State to establish a mobile universal service obligation in the future if that is deemed necessary, and ensures that people who use legacy universal service obligation services, such as payphones, telephone directories, fax and particular methods of billing, will continue to be able to do so. Additionally, the instrument introduces measures to update the regime for social tariffs for telephony and broadband, should they be required. These will ensure that consumers with low incomes or other specific social needs are able to access universal services at affordable prices where the market does not provide these commercially or on a voluntary basis.
The importance of electronic communications has been underlined during the Covid-19 pandemic. Telecoms are now more critical than ever for the country, with a large proportion of the population working from home. Combined with future expectations around new technologies and services, including 5G, building future-proof networks will be essential to our future economy. The changes that we are introducing represent a significant step forward in helping to achieve these ambitions. I look forward to hearing noble Lords’ reflections on this instrument and I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD) [V]
I thank the Minister for her introduction. I should declare an interest as chair of Ombudsman Services, which deals with customer complaints regarding telecommunications.
I was delighted to hear the noble Baroness extol the virtues of an EU directive, which I think was a bit of a novelty, coming from a Minister. It is sad that we have only three speakers on such an important SI. After all, it encompasses a whole Bill’s-worth of changes to our communications laws. When I first looked at it, I thought, “Well, all I can do is to try to stop the ship sailing on regardless and stick an oar in here and there”, because quite a few substantive issues are involved.
The Government response to the consultation on implementing the European electronics code states:
“a ‘copy out’ approach to the Directive”
is being taken
“where we consider change is needed in UK legislation”,
but in line with
“our overarching approach of a minimal transposition”.
I am not quite sure that we can have it both ways. I am going to kick the tyres on the “minimal transposition” aspect, because the Minister seemed to be quite positive about the impact the directive will have on investment and rollout of our 1 gig capability.
The response also says:
“In some cases, we will adopt an alternative approach to transposition to certain provisions in a way that is tailored to UK markets. We take this approach where there is sufficient justification and evidence for doing so, for example, where it would contribute to the government’s ambitions for digital connectivity.”
We heard some of the positive approach, but I am not quite sure whether we fully heard the more minimal approach. We have heard about further aspects—I think the Minister said that there are two categories they are considering—but we did not hear in the interim about where a minimal approach had been taken.
The Government set out three categories in the response:
“Articles which we consulted on given their potential to support the UK’s digital ambitions”—
fine;
“Incremental changes to the existing framework which we intend to transpose in a minimal way”—
again, there is the use of the word “minimal”; and
“Deprioritised from 21 December 2020 deadline”.
The problem is that there is a rather inadequate approach to this issue in both the Explanatory Notes and the response to the consultation. There is no easy breakout of what changes fall within the three categories. You have to rather laboriously cross-refer when you get to the table which glosses annexe A of the response. I therefore hope that the Minister will forgive me if I go through a few aspects of the statutory instrument and ask a few questions.
The fundamental flaw is where the consumer comes in all this. The list of respondents to the consultation consists solely of telecoms companies. As we go through certain areas, can we be sure that the way the Government have transposed the directive is acting in the best interests of consumers?
The Government say that the transposition of the code
“recasts the objectives and regulatory tools of the current”
European framework on electronic communications
“to place a stronger emphasis on incentivising investment”.
They say that:
“The Regulations support the government’s digital ambitions and plans to deliver nationwide gigabit-capable connectivity ... This will enable Ofcom to support deployment and investments in gigabit-capable networks … These include ensuring that Ofcom’s use of specific market regulatory tools promotes very high capacity networks. Ofcom are also required to promote measures that facilitate a competitive retail market for consumers.”
It would be useful if the Minister could unpack some of those statements. Are they going to speed up rollout? Are they going to make up for the fact that Covid-19 seems to have delayed that 1 gigabit capability rollout?
I can see the benefit of transposing Article 22 in terms of survey information and designation of areas where there is no planned coverage, but what are the other benefits? For instance, what substantive difference will these changes make to rollout of 1 gigabit capacity? Why only the minimum transposition of Articles 76 and 79? The Explanatory Memorandum states:
“There are specific conditions known as significant market power … conditions, which can only be imposed on providers with market dominance. Ofcom must analyse markets on a regular basis in what is known as a market review.”
The Government seem simply to have decided to swallow Article 61 whole and extend the market review to five years, increasing the maximum time between market reviews from three years to five. In a sense, they are therefore making the situation worse from the competitive point of view. Of course businesses that were consulted prefer this, but what about consumers? Does that not precisely show up the problems with the original consultation?
Surely when major developments occur with great speed, as with a consolidation of digital assets—for instance, specialised mast companies such as Phoenix Tower with its significant market shares, or the joint venture between Liberty Global’s Virgin Media and Telefonica’s O2—these kinds of reviews are required at very regular intervals. There are some aspects which I unreservedly welcome, such as the new protection for certain end-users who purchase a bundle of services. There are the social affordability aspects, too.
When we come to the universal service obligation, we see a certain amount of changes. There is no change to the inclusion of affordability requirements, but it should be said in passing that the 10 megabits per second universal service obligation is still miserably unambitious. We have made that point many times before on these Benches and it was, of course, criticised by one of our own Select Committees. I hope that the Minister will give an indication of when it might change. It seems extraordinary that we have this ambition for 1 gigabit capacity, yet we are still hobbling along on 10 megabits per second as a universal service obligation.
What about the impact assessment? If all these provisions are to be so beneficial, as I hope they will be, why do the Explanatory Notes say that there will be an impact of less than £5 million on the economy? Surely the idea is to incentivise investment. Were we doing absolutely fine before we adopted this directive or was the Minister engaging in a bit of hyperbole? Where do we stand on the impact of these new regulations and what are the substantial changes? Will it mean faster rollout and, if so, in what respect?
It is interesting that the Minister’s colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, wrote a very percipient piece in the Telegraph in July. I think the headline was “It’s high time we fixed Britain’s patchy mobile networks”. How will all this contribute to that, or are the Government really just making a virtue out of necessity?
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her very good introduction to this SI. It is a long and complicated one, but she came across the issues quickly and with great clarity. I also thank her for arranging a meeting where I was able to ask direct questions of the officials responsible for this work.
It is, on first glance, a rather strange document—almost hybrid, if that is not a pun too far. It introduces most elements of a European directive positively and helpfully, but it also uses the EU exit regulations to discount a few things that might have got in its way. I say that to position myself on my first point: rather like the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, it seems to me that this is almost primary legislation being achieved through secondary legislation because of the changes that are being made that will have an impact not only for consumers and companies but, more responsibly, for the regulator. This document is so large that one would almost want to go through it line by line and ask questions by having a due process that allowed more than this important but rather short exchange as a result of it being a statutory instrument.
I asked that question of officials. In a slightly unguarded moment, perhaps, the impression I gained—I will not quote them—was that Ministers presumably could have chosen either to seek a legislative opportunity to put forward primary legislation that might not have been time-efficient, as it certainly would not get us past the deadline of 21 December 2020, which is not far away, or to take the slightly unusual step of doing it through secondary legislation. These are my words, not theirs. For good reason or bad, the decision was taken to do it this way. I am not going to carry on with this point, because it was not picked up by any of our standing committees that looked at the legislation or by the Commons. However, it is quite interesting, and there must be a break point.
I will make one other point about it. One of the things that is looked at in deciding whether something should be primary or secondary legislation is the impact it has on consumers: for example, in criminal penalties or taxes. I do not think there is any such provision in here, but I wonder about the approach to the special subsidy. There is a phrase in the notes which gives the sense that it is not just a question of whether those who are vulnerable or have low incomes can get treated under the special subsidy system; it is also possible for Ofcom to look at whether others should make a contribution.
That point about “others” comes on page 8 of the Explanatory Memorandum in point 7.24, which says:
“If the burden is unfair, Ofcom may determine that contributions should be made by other providers to help meet the burden”.
I wondered whether that was heading towards taxation. I will leave my point in that area.
I want to make only two other points, because the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has made a substantial contribution to this debate. One is that, as he said, one of the key guiding principles, which we went over at length in earlier legislation and presumably will meet again as we go forward on this journey, is the attempt to get the country to have a gigabit-capable infrastructure. I welcome a lot of the measures here which will point us in that way, but I want to ask about two of them.
First, there is the question of whether the ability to share equipment, which is one of the powers that Ofcom has taken or will be given under these regulations, will be sufficient to ensure that the number of not-spots is reduced across the country. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said in citing the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, it seems that we still have patches of the country, sometimes in major conurbations and many times in London, where the quality of reception is so bad that it is unbelievable that we are even thinking about getting to a USO of 10 megabits per second, rather than to this nirvana that we hope to have of one gigabit.
There are two measures that I thought might help with that. One is the need for a power to make providers share equipment where it is important. In the regulations, that appears to be limited to whether there is unfair competition. Is that right or is it more focused, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, was saying, on this question of getting the whole country to a higher level of capability?
The second is the way in which spectrum is allocated, because that has such a major burden on the 5G capability of the country, and who knows what 6G or other Gs would do when they came along? One complaint that we were aware of 18 months or so ago, when we were doing the primary legislation in this area, was that the regulations relating to spectrum sales did not give sufficient fine-tuning of the arrangements under which Ofcom offered it to ensure that the quality of the spectrum available to those bidding for it was being met satisfactorily, given the needs that they identified.
I am probably at the limit of my technical knowledge at this point and will therefore not continue this line. But I am sure that the Minister is fully briefed on it today, and if she is not, perhaps she could write to me. Do the measures in this statutory instrument unblock that problem? When allocating spectrum, it is important to recognise that the bandwidth within it is as important as the amount available under certain measures, particularly 5G, because of its capability in ensuring that local areas are properly linked up so that those who live in blocks of flats, for instance, are not blocked simply because the walls are too thick or the material used in the building is obstructive to travel.
These are the two things we were left with after we went through this the last time around when we were talking about telecommunications development, the partnership that is necessary with the internet service providers and the problems faced by those in rural areas and in the centres of towns. They need to be assured that these regulations will bring this forward.
Finally, like the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I welcome the new consumer rights that have been brought in. They will be helpful, and I am glad to see them in place at last.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their questions and the constructive tone of their contributions. I am pleased that in principle the regulations command support from all sides of the Committee, and that we share the ambition that this country should be able to benefit from gigabit-speed connectivity and that consumers should benefit from greater protections. I will try to address the points raised but in a couple of cases I will need to follow up with a letter to your Lordships.
In answer to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, about the respondents to the consultation, a number of organisations representing consumers responded; these included Citizens Advice, the Communications Consumer Panel and the Clarion Housing Group, to give just three examples. I hope that that reassures him that a balance of views was sought.
Both noble Lords questioned—perhaps I can express it as—our enthusiasm for implementing this legislation. As I mentioned, the UK was heavily involved in negotiating the final text of the directive to make sure that it would be truly positive for the UK telecommunications market, and we played a really leading role in the negotiations.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, questioned whether we were going above and beyond some of the minimum requirements in the directive. There are more than 100 measures in the directive and in six of them we have gone further, where it has been clearly in the UK’s interest to do so. That relates to Ofcom’s ability to collect information regularly about gigabit-capable network future build plans; its ability to penalise BT or KCOM if either reneges on voluntary commitments; and the additional powers to promote retail competition in buildings where there is not room for more than network deployment. I think that addresses that point.
In relation to speeding up, questions were raised about the impact of the directive. The £5 million cited in the memorandum relates to the direct impact but we expect the indirect impact to be very substantial in terms of opening up and speeding up the implementation of high-capacity networks. We believe that this will support our plans to incentivise investment in gigabit-capable networks by promoting both competition and commercial investment wherever possible; allowing Ofcom to have longer market reviews, which gives industry greater planning time; and, as I mentioned, supporting the availability of build plan information to industry and government, which supports our rollout plans. There are other examples that I will happily share with your Lordships in a letter.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, is testing my technical knowledge of the impact of the statutory instrument on our spectrum policy framework. If I may, I will include further answers on that in my letter. The statutory instrument does introduce a requirement for Ofcom to consider whether specified level of use conditions would promote efficient use of the spectrum when designing competitive awards, but that does not address the noble Lord’s point about the quality of the spectrum, so, if I may, I will include that in my letter.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked about not-spots in both rural areas and some urban areas. As he will be aware, we have committed £5 billion to support the rollout of gigabit-capable broadband in the hardest-to-reach 20% of the country. We are sticking with our target of 2025. We acknowledge that it is a very ambitious target, but we are driving forward with it as hard as we can.
To recap, transposing these changes into UK law will allow us to drive investment in future-proofed networks and communications services through sustainable competition. It will support efficient and effective use of the radio spectrum and provide a high level of consumer protection. It will also ensure that Ofcom’s powers remain operable and reflect recent technological innovation. Some of the measures are being transposed through alternative legislation, such as the requirements for the security of networks and services.
With thanks to both noble Lords for their questions, I beg to move.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now resume. Some Members are here in person, respecting social distancing, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I must ask Members in the Room to wear a face covering except when seated at their desk, to speak sitting down, and to wipe down their desk, chair and any other touch points before and after use. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes.
Common Rules for Exports (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(4 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel
That the Grand Committee do consider the Common Rules for Exports (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
Relevant document: 29th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Department for International Trade (Lord Grimstone of Boscobel) (Con)
My Lords, I hope that the Committee may be unanimous in support of these regulations and their objective. The regulations were laid before the House on 21 September and were approved by a Committee of the House of Commons on 14 October. They are made under powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which I will refer to as “the Act” from now on. The Committee will be aware that, given the context, these powers are limited. All that they allow is the correction of technical deficiencies in existing EU legislation that, by the operation of the Act, is to be retained in United Kingdom domestic law following withdrawal from the European Union. The amendments made by these regulations correct those deficiencies by, for example, replacing references to the European Union, its institutions and legislation with the appropriate United Kingdom references.
The retained EU regulation, as amended by these regulations, lays down the basic principle that exports from Great Britain will not be subject to quantitative restrictions unless the restrictions are applied in conformity with the retained EU regulation. The new legal regime makes it clear what the purpose of any export restriction should be. In general, export restrictions may be used only where there is a risk of a critical situation arising on account of a shortage of essential products or to remedy such a situation, or where such a measure is needed to fulfil international undertakings entered into by the United Kingdom.
I start by drawing the Committee’s attention to the fact that these regulations amend the retained EU regulation only as it applies in respect of Great Britain. This is consistent with the Northern Ireland protocol, which preserves the ability of the European Commission to exercise these powers in Northern Ireland. However, as is also set out in Article 6 of the Northern Ireland protocol, nothing may fetter the movement of goods from Northern Ireland to Great Britain, other than to fulfil an international obligation. The EU regulation is not used to fulfil international obligations and so does not fetter the movement of goods within the United Kingdom.
Through the course of the year, we have seen the use of export restrictions on medical goods grow around the world in response to shortages arising during the fight against Covid-19. Indeed, the European Commission used the EU regulation in March in response to shortages of personal protective equipment—PPE. Under this EU regulation, the United Kingdom was required to temporarily authorise any exports of PPE, following a review of licence applications from exporters. In the vast majority of cases, the United Kingdom authorised these exports.
While export restrictions can be appropriate in dealing with critical situations in the short term, the restrictions we have seen build up around the world have disrupted the normal flow of trade and exacerbated the efforts of many countries to combat the global pandemic.
The Government have been clear that countries should limit their use of export restrictions as far as possible. In May, the United Kingdom joined calls for the use of export restrictions to be restricted and to be applied only where deemed completely necessary and in a targeted, proportionate, transparent and time-limited way. By applying strict conditions to the use of any export restriction, this legal regime sends a clear signal to our trade partners around the world that, despite the pandemic, the United Kingdom remains open for business.
I underline for the benefit of the Committee that the Government do not need to implement export restrictions pursuant to the United Kingdom’s international obligations by making regulations under the retained EU regulation as amended by this SI. Other, more specific legislation provides the appropriate powers with which to do this. For example, restrictions that apply to the export of arms are provided for under the well-established statutory regime under the Export Control Act 2002. In addition, Article 10 of the retained EU regulation does not preclude the use of export restrictions where this is required for the purposes of public policy.
I also point to the role that Parliament will play in overseeing any measures that are put into effect under the retained EU regulation as amended by these regulations. This is clearly set out in Article 7A. It explains that any such measures must be contained within a statutory instrument and describes the nature of parliamentary involvement, where Parliament can annul measures in some circumstances and can vote on the regulations in others.
This statutory instrument is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure because it transfers to the Secretary of State a power to legislate that currently sits with the European Commission. That is a power to put export restrictions into effect in Great Britain in certain circumstances. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Lord Liddle (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I do not believe that I have yet spoken in a debate being replied to on behalf of the Government by the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone. I welcome him to his role—although he has been there for some time. I see him as a very capable and grown-up figure. I wish that could be said of the rest of the Government in which he serves.
I am speaking in this debate because I am a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and this measure came before us a couple of weeks ago. In terms of Great Britain, it seems a perfectly sensible amendment of retained EU law. There is however some uncertainty, which is why I am speaking today, about its implications for Northern Ireland.
Perhaps I may quote from the 29th report of your Lordships’ Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Paragraph 7 states:
“While we note the Department’s explanation that the Commission could impose export controls or restrictions on Northern Ireland only in very limited circumstances, such as in relation to the movement of endangered species, it is not clear what other circumstances may allow the Commission to exercise its powers. These are issues that the House may wish to explore further, given the sensitivities around future trade between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK.”
That is why we drew the regulations to the special attention of the House.
We have already had a rather shameful episode, in my view, where the Government signed up to the Northern Ireland protocol and then, when they considered it in more detail, decided that they did not like its terms. As a result, they attempted something which, as we saw in the Divisions last night, this House regarded as a gross breach of international law to change provisions of the protocol which they did not like. What I am seeking today is an assurance as to what exactly are the circumstances in which this bit of EU law will apply in Northern Ireland, and whether the Government will give an absolute undertaking that they will not seek in any future piece of legislation to override these provisions. Given what we have seen in the last year, I think that is a perfectly reasonable request.
The Minister rightly drew our attention to article 6 of the protocol—I have it open in front of me. He quoted point 1 of article 6, which says:
“Nothing … shall prevent the UK from ensuring unfettered market access for goods moving from Northern Ireland to other parts of the United Kingdom’s internal market.”
It goes on to say that any measures which
“restrict the exportation of goods shall only be applied to trade between Northern Ireland and other parts of the United Kingdom to the extent strictly required by any international obligations”—
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord but the time limit for speeches in this debate is three minutes.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
That is even given the very few speakers in the debate, which I do not understand. I will sum up in a moment. So, the protocol speaks of
“the extent strictly required by any international obligations of the Union”,
but it goes on to say that, despite Northern Ireland’s integral place in the United Kingdom, the applicable EU legislation would apply in Northern Ireland. What would that mean?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord once again but we are very tight on time. I am afraid the noble Lord will have to conclude his remarks.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
I conclude my remarks, but I hope that we do not get into legal problems similar to those we have seen already.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD) [V]
My Lords, after hearing Conservatives and Ukippers preach year after year about the unnecessary bureaucracy of European regulations, it is sad that we now have a Government hurrying to transpose European regulations into domestic law as necessary and useful elements in diverse aspects of government and in managing our economy. That is a sad irony.
My first question to the Minister is to ask whether he can tell us yet how many more SIs are still to come before the House from his department before transposition and replacement are complete. We will be very busy between now and the new year with continuing legislation to clarify our future external trade policy and our relations with the EU and others. How many more SIs are still to come? Secondly, has preparation for this transposition been accompanied by any contingency planning in Whitehall about products not easily available in Britain that could be critical in an emergency?
I understand that constraints on exports of specific foodstuffs might be rational and necessary in an emergency. I am aware that the UK produces a range of pharmaceuticals to which this SI might apply. However, we have learned during the current Covid-19 emergency that there are a number of medicines that we do not produce in quantity, and a wide range of other medical supplies of which we have lacked domestic stocks—and which the Government had failed to ensure were available in usable forms in stockpiles.
Now that the UK is abandoning its guaranteed access to its largest market from which to source many essential products, have the Government embarked on any discussions with the EU and its member Governments about future co-operation in any shared or global emergency? Do they have plans to increase domestic production or expand domestic stockpiles?
I shall leave the Irish dimension to others, beyond noting that the growing prosperity of the Irish economy means that Ireland has also become a significant source of medical and related products used within the UK. Instead, I wish to inquire what the officials who gave evidence to our Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee meant when they said that our pursuit of national priorities and constraint of exports would be limited by the need “to meet international obligations”. What international obligations would limit government sovereignty under such circumstances? Which states or international organisations could impose such obligations on us?
I understood from the Brexiteers that the UK was asserting its sovereignty from international obligations by leaving the EU. Were those officials saying that there are nevertheless unavoidable limits on UK sovereignty? Are they saying that it is not only the European Union that cramps our freedom, but that, even after we have escaped from European domination, we will be held down by other foreign commands?
Lastly, is there any prospect of being able to use the powers set out in this SI in early 2021? The NAO report, published last week, put it bluntly, saying that
“preparations to manage the border at the end of the transition period remain very challenging”.
Does this SI set out an aspiration, rather than a deliverable set of proposals?
Lord Loomba (CB) [V]
My Lords, I will make two points about these regulations. As I have said before, a multitude of retained EU law is coming through Parliament. Some legislation may better serve its purpose if, instead of amending existing EU law with multiple statutory instruments—meaning the original instrument has to be consulted as well—we had one completely new instrument. It would make the law much less complex and possibly less confusing, especially with regard to this instrument and its implications for the Northern Ireland protocol.
Secondly, the pandemic has thrown a light on the difficulties that can be faced in accessing goods from other countries, when goods are in high demand and stocks are low, such as with PPE. Even Brexit itself and the end of the transition period may cause some shortages, especially if there is no deal. What if there were a shortage of some vital product and the UK Government put quantitative restrictions on it to ensure adequate supplies within the UK? There is no fetter on the movement of goods between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, as per Article 6 of the Northern Ireland protocol. Those goods are sent across to Northern Ireland where they are needed.
In this situation, the EU does not have any quantitative restrictions on goods, as it does not have a problem with supplies. In such a scenario, can the Minister tell us what precautions are in place to stop a company selling their goods on to the EU without having to follow the same restrictions as in the rest of the UK, and thus gaining a competitive edge over other companies within the UK?
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, these regulations are presented to the Grand Committee as no more than a correction of technical deficiencies in existing EU law that are to be retained on 1 January, irrespective of the outcome of current negotiations. Specifically, as the Minister confirmed, the regulations address the basic principle that exports from Great Britain will not be subject to any quantitative restrictions unless the restrictions are applied in conformity with the retained EU regulation.
It is to the first point made by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, and the work of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee to whom we should be grateful for the level of interest shown in these Committee proceedings. As has been noted, the purpose of these regulations is specifically focused on the retention of retained EU law on common rules for exports to operate effectively in Great Britain after the end of the implementation period. This provides the Secretary of State with the powers to impose export control or restrictions where this is necessary to prevent a critical situation arising due to a shortage of essential products or to meet international obligations. Vaccines would fall into the former, CITES into the latter. However, these are the only two examples which have been given to Parliament, although I note in the EC note of 17 August that cultural goods are mentioned in this context.
Clearly, under the precise wording of these regulations, their potential application could be wider, and the wider they are, the greater the potential divide between Great Britain and Northern Ireland in trade. Therefore, I ask the Minister to clarify the breadth of their application and the circumstances surrounding it.
One issue of concern is that it is unclear whether proposed export restrictions are specifically to be used where there is a critical situation arising on account of a shortage of essential products. For example, on the definition given by the Minister today, and picking up comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Loomba, is it envisaged that the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine will be subject to these regulations? If so—assuming that that vaccine will come into use after 1 January— will the only recourse Parliament would have to the recommendations of government be to negate the regulations placed before the House, possibly after the date of their implementation, if the Covid-19 regulations are a suitable precedent?
What is lacking is clarity over exactly the circumstances in which the Government could invoke these regulations and, equally important, what reciprocal action could be taken by the EU in the context of export controls or restrictions as applicable to Northern Ireland as opposed to the rest of Great Britain. How broad is the definition of public policy, since Article 10 of the retained EU regulation does not preclude the use of export restrictions where that is required for the purposes of “public policy”?
Greater clarity on these powers, an understanding of under what circumstances they can be undertaken and clarity on their true scope would be helpful. I regret very much that we do not have the opportunity to debate this critically important subject, particularly in the context of the debate on the Floor of the House yesterday.
Lord Empey (UUP) [V]
My Lords, in his opening address to the Committee, the Minister said that the European Commission will “exercise these powers in Northern Ireland”. Will the Minister explain to the Committee how it is possible for the status of Northern Ireland not to be changed after 1 January if a foreign power, which the EU Commission will become on that date, exercises power within what is supposed to be an integral part of the United Kingdom? How are the two things consistent? If it came to a dispute in so far as products coming from Northern Ireland to Great Britain were deemed by the European Union to be better retained within the EU rather than sent to Great Britain, who would pull the lever and take a decision on that matter?
There has been a consistent refusal by the Government to accept the realities of their proposals to the European Commission, dated 2 October last year, in which they put forward an alternative to the then withdrawal proposals. They have created a border in the Irish Sea but consistently denied it. I ask the Minister again: how is it consistent with the integrity of the United Kingdom if a foreign power has the ability to exercise powers within a part of the kingdom, even though the people living there will have no say whatever in the decisions that the Commission might make? The Minister owes the Committee an explanation for that.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, and other committee members who have looked at this. It is interesting that everyone who has spoken so far has zeroed in on this issue. The inconsistency is so obvious. How can you take back control if, where I live, those who I had the pleasure and privilege to represent for many years are effectively abandoned to a foreign power? Does the Minister not realise the implications of this? I hope that, when he comes to sum up, he will be able to give the Committee an explanation.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, the Minister has helpfully explained the purpose of the regulations, and I understand why it is necessary to amend them to replace references to European institutions with references to British ones. It is also welcome that there has been some simplification of the procedure contained in the new legislation. There is no longer a requirement to provide market trends and statistical analysis to the EU and its member states before deciding whether to act on a product shortage. That power now lies with the UK Government, which should lead to swifter intervention when the UK’s interests are affected by product shortages. Could the Minister tell the Committee whether the nature of the market trends and statistical analysis which the Government will require before deciding whether to act will be the same or simpler than that presently required by the Commission?
I understand that export restrictions were placed on PPE exports in spring this year, when shortages first appeared. Could the Minister confirm that the introduction of those restrictions in respect of the UK was triggered by the Commission rather than by the British Government? Could they alternatively have been triggered by a member state Government? Could he also tell us how many times this regulation has been used in respect of British exports since its adoption in 2015?
In researching this measure, I wondered whether my understanding is correct that this SI amends EU regulation 2015/479, which is itself also retained in UK law. The Explanatory Memorandum says that the SI makes “technical amendments” to the retained UK version of the EU regulation. However, the Lexology website states that the SI will “replace” the EU regulation. The two statements are not the same, and I would be grateful if the Minister could say which is correct. I am sure that the same question applies to very many transpositions of EU regulations into UK law, as the noble Lord, Lord Loomba, already referred to.
Of course, the new measures apply only to Great Britain, as the EU regulation will continue to apply in Northern Ireland. Could the Minister confirm that that will be the case whether we enter into a free trade agreement with the EU or not? It is inevitable that UK law and EU law will diverge; if we were to slavishly follow and replicate every change in EU law, there would be no point in our leaving the EU. That is, of course, a wider question, but could the Minister tell the Committee how exports from England which are partly or wholly composed of products manufactured in Northern Ireland will be treated? Can he confirm that the new measures, as they will apply in all parts of the UK, are compatible with the common frameworks proposals? The noble Lord, Lord Empey, has already referred to this subject, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply.
Lord Blencathra (Con) [V]
My Lords, I support these regulations in their entirety. They are eminently sensible at any time, whether or not there is Chinese coronavirus on the go. However, I have two queries for my noble friend the Minister.
First, why are the SIs under Article 5 negative but those under Article 6 affirmative? Secondly, and of more substance to me, can my noble friend update the Committee on Project Defend? We have discussed previously the Henry Jackson Society’s report on the vital and strategic infrastructure goods and services for which we are far too heavily reliant on China. Now that China has emerged as a major threat to world peace and security, how is Project Defend getting on?
I see that the International Trade Committee, in a report published in July, cites evidence given by the Trade Secretary, Liz Truss, suggesting that onshoring supply chains “is not being proposed” as part of the scheme. Why ever not? I accept that it is vital to have diverse supply chains and the height of folly, as we have just seen with PPE, to have everything coming from one country, whether a ruthless regime such as communist China or a democracy such as Germany or Taiwan, but surely making more things at home has a part to play. I am not suggesting that we try to manufacture everything vital that we get from China at the moment, nor even half of it in the short term, but if my right honourable friend the Trade Secretary says that some onshoring is not being proposed, then she is utterly wrong and naive. It is contrary to what the British people want. We will lose millions of jobs because of this Chinese disease and our people will not forgive us if we continue to export more jobs to China.
We must not accept the greedy demands of big business that so long as we can get vital supplies from, say, three or four different countries in the world, then we should not worry our pretty little heads about reshoring things back to the UK where it is possible to do so. I hope that my noble friend the Minister can give me some reassurance on Project Defend.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of these regulations. I see a direct read-across to the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, even if it was unintentional. My interest lies in the fact that these regulations are made under Section 8C(1) of the withdrawal Act to implement the protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland to the EU withdrawal agreement. In that respect, I have some questions for the Minister to build on what the noble Lord, Lord Empey, said.
I recognise that the protocol is required to prevent a hard border on the island of Ireland and to protect the Belfast agreement. However, there is a problem with the border that will be created in the Irish Sea, a border which the Government insisted for quite some time would not exist. The bottom line is that we in Northern Ireland do not want borders anywhere, whether on the island of Ireland or in the Irish Sea, because both types of border would act as impediments to business development.
Therefore, I ask the Minister: what steps will be taken to ensure that there will be unfettered access between Britain and Northern Ireland in respect of goods? We know that the First Minister and Deputy First Minister have written to the European Commission about the need for checks and controls on food products entering Northern Ireland from Great Britain and how that might impact on the supply of food to supermarket chains. They are concerned about material price increases or reduced supply lines, because that would not be good for Northern Ireland. That issue has already been raised in recent weeks by the Northern Ireland Retail Consortium. What solutions have been considered by the joint committee to resolve this issue? Businesses need clarity.
The Minister will recall that I and the noble Lord, Lord Hain, were signatories to an amendment to the Trade Bill, tabled in Committee, on the trader support service that is to be set up to facilitate GB-NI trade. We need it to be permanent, not just for two years, and that should be put in the Bill. Will the Government bring forward amendments on Report, and what steps will be taken to ensure that Northern Ireland goods that are produced in accordance with EU rules under the Northern Ireland protocol will not be discriminated against in the operation of the UK internal market? In my view, the regulations before us today are intertwined with the Trade Bill, the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill and the Northern Ireland protocol. On behalf of all those operating businesses in Northern Ireland and wider consumers, we need answers to these vital questions.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and I echo many of the points that she and other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Empey, have made. The fact is that after 1 January 2021 there will, effectively, be a border in the Irish Sea, and these regulations reflects the consequences of that. Two separate regimes will apply, one to Great Britain and one to Northern Ireland. It is an indisputable fact and I regret that.
I want to take this opportunity to thank my noble friend the Minister for bringing forward these regulations and giving us a chance to put questions. In that regard, can he clarify paragraph (2) of the regulations, which refers to fulfilling international obligations relating to “primary products” that are defined, for greater clarity, to
“include unprocessed agricultural products and raw materials”?
The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, referred to the implications for agri-food. It is extremely important to have a degree of certainty before we reach the end of the transition period. Will my noble friend take this opportunity to further clarify the position?
Equally, can the Minister comment on the questions arising and the conclusions reached from the evidence given by his department for the 29th report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee? On pages 3 and 4, it states:
“‘we will ensure that the necessary procedures apply only to very minimal volumes of relevant trade necessary to comply with those obligations. For goods affected, the processes put in place in these very specific cases will have negligible implications for trade as a whole.’”
Surely, the issue here is that that is for the EU Commission to decide, not the Westminster Government. I am sure the Minister will wish to clarify that he and other Ministers of the Crown in Westminster have no control over that whatsoever.
Like other noble Lords speaking in this debate, I would like a number of clarifications. Certain circumstances are as yet unclear. May I ask my noble friend directly: under what circumstances will the Commission be allowed to exercise this power? Can we have further clarification and a better understanding of the implications? These regulations prove that there are going to be enormously difficult issues, particularly agri-foods going into and out of Northern Ireland and Great Britain after 1 January.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, this short debate has flagged up a number of critical areas. I have a degree of sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, said about the time that we have; nevertheless, within this short period, all noble Lords have raised appropriate questions and issues.
I want to use most of the time that I have to address points that have already been raised by noble Lords, but I want to close on the wider issue of border preparedness, because we are now a matter of weeks and days from operating an international border outside the European Union and it is valid to raise more recent concerns.
On the valid points already raised, it seems that a lot of the consideration has been about how the UK and the European Union will agree or come to a working relationship on how international obligations are defined for exports from Northern Ireland to GB.
We support this measure as the corrective that it is meant to be, but the concerns that have been raised about the impact on Northern Ireland are valid. Let me ask first about notification. We are replicating a cascading process under the original European regulation whereby the Commission was notified of potential areas of market concern about the shortage of certain goods. That notification would then go to the Council and the European Parliament. As has been asked in this debate, what is the equivalent of notification to Parliament under these elements? Why is there a difference in Regulations 5 and 6 so far as the procedures are concerned?
Given that we are replicating the potential acknowledgement that certain geographical areas could have shortages compared to others, there is nothing in this measure which would allow for consultation of devolved Administrations. The Government have used the example of medical equipment for PPE because it is the most recent, but it could be very broad so far as the potentials are concerned; for example, raw agricultural products or, as the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, mentioned, components as part of intermediate trade. That can have a differential effect, whether it is in the north-east of Scotland or the south-west of Wales, but there is no element of consultation. Before the Government bring forward orders, can the Minister commit that there would be consultation with devolved Administrations, because certain areas may need certain protections?
This brings me on to the position of the Government with regard to the continuing authority of the European Commission in Northern Ireland. It was very interesting before coming to this Committee to read the report of the European Scrutiny Committee in the House of Commons and that of the European Union Committee in this House. The latter was interesting in that it highlighted the Government’s view—repeated by the Minister—that the continuing authority of the Commission to bring Northern Ireland under the existing EU regulation is strictly limited to a number of procedures relating to specific international obligations binding on the UK and the EU under the Northern Ireland protocol. Can the Minister state where these are outlined? The committee rightly asked for further information about how the Government define these “limited number of procedures”. It cited CITES and those regarding endangered species, but this is not necessarily the position of the European Union. As referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, the European Union’s position as set out in its technical note is that
“all goods leaving Northern Ireland to either a third country or Great Britain are subject to prohibitions and restrictions applicable to exports under relevant Union law, without prejudice to Article 6(1) of the Protocol”.
The definition that the European Union is using is different from that used by the UK, which could bring about certain interesting tensions and is likely to be very difficult.
The House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee report asked for further clarification with regards to ongoing regulations and Northern Ireland. Not only do we have the successor regulations; the House of Commons committee report asked the Government for further information about “ongoing” changes that the European Union would make in regard to the specific regulation that we are inheriting. There is nothing in the mechanism that indicates that there should be an ongoing working relationship if the European Union changes its definitions. Under one interpretation, the European Union could consider its obligations under the WTO in that light.
In the final few seconds, I will refer to the National Audit Office report. It is a sobering independent analysis of the major problems that businesses will face on 1 January. I hope that the Minister can provide greater reassurance that the issues raised in that NAO report will be considerably addressed. They have not been, so far. The clock is ticking. Businesses are waiting for clarity. So far, they have not got it and they desperately need it.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, these regulations transfer from the EU to the Secretary of State the power to impose export controls or restrictions after the end of the transition period, as noble Lords have observed. In Northern Ireland, as has been seen, the relevant EU regulations will continue to apply directly under the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and the Northern Ireland protocol. We should be grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for drawing attention to this SI, because we require more clarity. Throughout this year, we have seen export controls being used to help deal with the pandemic and shortages in medicines, paracetamol and PPE, around the world. The use of export controls should not be exercised lightly, as they have serious consequences and, as we know, can invite retaliation, if not prompt other countries to take a view of us that is not in our interests.
The UK Trade Policy Observatory said that it is important that we acknowledge the role of reciprocal trade in our own fortunes, and acknowledged how important it is that we have strong bilateral arrangements and relationships. Therefore, it would be helpful to hear from the Minister today about what the Secretary of State will take into consideration when they decide to use their powers. Will there be consultation, and with whom? What assessment will be made? Will it be published? Will there be proper parliamentary scrutiny? How much warning will be given before controls are introduced?
After the votes yesterday on the removal of Part 5 of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, I was intrigued to see the Government’s response to the SLSC on trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. The Government said that, despite the EU regulations still applying in Northern Ireland, Article 6.1 of the protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland makes clear that
“Nothing in this Protocol shall prevent”
Northern Ireland businesses from enjoying
“unfettered market access for goods moving … to other parts of the United Kingdom’s internal market.”
To me, this demonstrates not only the lack of cross-government understanding of the protocol, but how Clauses 42 to 47 of the internal market Bill were not needed to, as the Government said, stop any EU blockade.
I hope the Government do not try to reinstate these clauses. The committee said that
“the Commission could impose export controls or restrictions on Northern Ireland only in very limited circumstances, such as in relation to the movement of endangered species”.
Does the Minister recognise this limited power and will he now clarify, as noble Lords from all sides asked in Grand Committee, exactly when these regulations will be used? It is not clear to us how and when they will be operable and in what circumstances they will become effective.
The Minister has done a good job trying to explain the regulations, but he also said that they represent a small technical change. We are not convinced that is the case. I think that we, in this Committee, see that such changes could have profound implications and consequences on implementation. I am grateful to the Minister for his observations and I am sure other Members of the Committee are too, but we need greater clarity if we are to better understand how to operate these regulations in the post-transition period.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, I thank Members for their contributions and will respond as fully as I can in the time available. I am conscious that I will not be able to do full justice to the many points that have been raised which, as always, show the great expertise of your Lordships. If I may, I will write to those noble Lords whose questions I am not able to do justice to during my closing statement.
As I have set out in my opening remarks, the SI makes technical amendments to the retained domestic version of the EU common rules for exports regulations. This will ensure that the retained EU regulation can apply effectively at the end of the implementation period. Many of the complexities to which noble Lords have referred are not as a consequence of this SI, which in a sense has quite a simple purpose; they relate to the complexity of the underlying regulations of the EU. I repeat that the purpose of this SI is to make technical changes to those regulations to bring them into line with our leaving the European Union.
This is a debate about the application of the retained EU regulation as amended in relation to Great Britain. I completely understand the many and varied points that noble Lords have made about Northern Ireland, but for those who want additional information about Northern Ireland, I direct colleagues to the Government’s Command Paper, The UK’s Approach to the Northern Ireland Protocol. This sets out that any procedures that are necessary to comply with any international obligations provided for under Article 6(1) will apply only to—and I stress this—minimal volumes of relevant trade. I take this opportunity to make absolutely clear that any such processes put in place in these very specific cases will have negligible implications for trade as a whole. An important point is that they will be administered by UK authorities, which will, of course, retain operational responsibility. I assure noble Lords that these authorities are able to, and will, exercise their discretion as appropriate.
To make it clear to noble Lords, I repeat that, as I set out in my opening remarks, Article 6(1) of the Northern Ireland protocol makes it clear that nothing—I repeat, nothing—shall fetter the movement of goods from Northern Ireland to Great Britain, except in order to fulfil an international obligation. The EU regulation is not used to fulfil international obligations, and therefore will not fetter the movement of goods from Northern Ireland to Great Britain. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, asked where on earth these international obligations come from. They come about if the UK agrees to enter into any such international obligation and agrees to be bound by them.
Since the regime in Northern Ireland will be unchanged after the end of the implementation period, the United Kingdom Government will still be able to implement export restrictions in Northern Ireland in circumstances permitted by Article 10 of the EU regulation; that is where they are required on grounds of public policy, or for the protection of health and life for humans. These restrictions under Article 10 are very specific in this effect, and noble Lords can see those in the original regulation.
I ought to again make it clear that this SI is compatible with the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill. The objective of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill is to protect the highly integrated market across the United Kingdom, guaranteeing that, as EU law falls away at the end of the year, companies will be able to continue to trade unhindered in every part of the United Kingdom. This SI will ensure that the retained EU regulations on the common rules for exports will operate effectively in Great Britain from the end of the implementation period. As I have described, in no way will trade be fettered between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, except in circumstances not covered by these regulations, and therefore perhaps not appropriate for us to debate in great detail today.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Purvis of Tweed, asked how the role of Parliament operates and, in particular, about the differences between Articles 5 and 6. As I said earlier, the role of Parliament is as set out in Article 7A in the regulations. The difference between why that article is subject to the negative resolution procedures and Article 6 is subject to the affirmative procedure relates directly to the urgency of the situation in front of us.
Let me explain further. If the Secretary of State implements a measure under Article 5 of the retained EU-authorised regulation as amended, that export authorisation can only be implemented for up to six weeks to prevent a critical situation arising on account of a shortage of essential products or to remedy such a situation. That seems appropriate if the urgency is such that this has to be brought forward quickly and last for only six weeks. A negative resolution SI, which can be annulled in either House of Parliament, is therefore appropriate. If the Secretary of State implements measures under Article 6 of the retained EU regulation as amended, they can take a wider range of forms and are not time-limited. In those circumstances, because of the greater scan, scope and longevity of such regulations, they would be set out in a “made affirmative” SI, which must be voted on within 40 days of being made.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, asked about the information that would be available at that time and drew a contrast with the Commission report under the EU regulation. In both cases, further information would be provided to the Houses of Parliament as part of an Explanatory Memorandum. I can assure noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that in coming to their conclusions about the necessity for the use of regulations, the Government would take account of the whole UK and, if necessary, any views expressed by the devolved Administrations.
I should stress that we are not rushing or looking to find ways in which to use these powers. The Government have been clear throughout the Covid-19 pandemic that the use of export restrictions around the world should as far as possible be limited. No one would be happier than us if we found that we never had the need to use these powers. The Prime Minister underlined that view recently in a speech to the United Nations, in which he urged countries to lift export controls on Covid-critical products wherever possible. The Government have no plans at present to bring forward further export restrictions under this retained UK regulation.
The Government do not apply any restrictions on medicines under these regulations and do not intend to do so. I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, on those points. The UK applies certain limited restrictions on the export of medicines designed for UK patients on the UK market where there is a risk of a shortage in the UK, but those restrictions are made pursuant to the Human Medicines Regulations 2012, which require wholesalers to ensure, as far as possible, that the needs of patients in the UK are met.
In conclusion, my noble friend Lord Blencathra asked about Project Defend, as it is commonly known. The coronavirus pandemic has demonstrated the importance of resilient supply chains to ensure the continued flow of critical goods and to keep global trade moving. We are working closely across the Government to analyse UK supply chains for a range of critical goods, excluding food, and to help define strategies to ensure that the UK has resilient and diverse critical supply chains.
My noble friend Lord Trenchard asked about how this SI would technically operate in conjunction with the retained EU regulation. It amends the retained EU regulation, which then passes into UK law in this amended form if noble Lords agree to these regulations today.
I have my eye on the clock and am conscious that I have not done full justice to the detailed points raised by noble Lords. As I said at the beginning of my wind-up, I will write to them and place a copy of my reply in the Library. On that basis, I commend these regulations to the Committee.
Motion agreed.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
The Grand Committee stands adjourned until 6.15 pm. I remind noble Lords to sanitise their desks and chairs when leaving the Room.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now resume. Some Members are here in person, respecting social distancing, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I must ask Members in the Room to wear a face covering except when seated at their desk, to speak sitting down, and to wipe down their desk, chair and any other touch points before and after use. If the capacity of the Committee Room is exceeded, or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes.
Prevention of Trade Diversion (Key Medicines) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(4 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel
That the Grand Committee do consider the Prevention of Trade Diversion (Key Medicines) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
Relevant document: 26th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Department for International Trade (Lord Grimstone of Boscobel) (Con)
My Lords, I hope that the Committee will be unanimous in support of these regulations and their objective. I have no reservation in saying that these regulations perform a laudable function. They ensure that pharmaceutical companies in Great Britain can continue to produce and sell certain medicines to developing countries at a low cost to help fight key diseases such as HIV and malaria without the potential drawback of these medicines being reimported into Great Britain for sale at a price lower than the domestic market price.
As noble Lords will recognise, many of the poorest developing countries are in urgent need of access to affordable essential medicines for the treatment of communicable diseases. These countries are heavily dependent on imports of medicines because local manufacturing may be limited. Price segmentation between developing and developed countries is necessary to ensure that the poorest developing countries have access to essential pharmaceutical products at heavily reduced prices, while also ensuring that fair market prices in wealthier markets incentivise drug development and investment.
Pharmaceutical manufacturers will produce large volumes of pharmaceutical products at reduced prices for the developing world only if they are assured that these products will not find a way into developed countries’ markets. These regulations correct deficiencies in legislation to establish a procedure that identifies the products, countries and diseases covered and prevents the reimport of such products through seizing and disposing in accordance with national legislation.
These regulations were laid in draft before this House on 2 September. They are made under powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2020. The Committee knows that, given the context, those powers are limited. All that they allow is the correction of technical deficiencies in existing EU law that, by the operation of the Act, were retained in UK law following withdrawal. These regulations correct such deficiencies by, for example, replacing references to the European Union, its institutions and legislation with the appropriate UK references.
This statutory instrument follows the affirmative procedure because it transfers to the Secretary of State a power that currently sits with the European Commission. That is a power to amend the list of pharmaceutical products under the regulations and the criteria for products to remain on that list. This statutory instrument also replaces the requirement that pharmaceutical products, packaging and connected documents should be affixed with an EU logo with a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations providing for marking, labelling or other identification requirements. This relates to a logo more appropriate for the UK now that we have left the European Union. I beg to move.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I thank noble Lords for the opportunity to participate in this brief debate on these regulations. I do not dissent from anything that my noble friend Lord Grimstone of Boscobel has said about the regulations, although I have one or two questions about the manner in which we are proposing to adopt them and incorporate them into UK practice.
I particularly wanted to come to say a word about the regulations themselves. Tiered-price products—which is, I think, in a sense what we are talking about here —or the concept that developing countries can have greater access to medicines in circumstances where the price can be lowered is a very important objective. Indeed, it is in the EU regulation, in these terms:
“to encourage pharmaceutical manufacturers to make pharmaceutical products available at heavily reduced prices in significantly increased volumes by ensuring through this Regulation that such products remain on the … markets.”
That is an entirely laudable objective, as my noble friend rightly said.
Of course, this regulation was established with, I think, initially three principal disease groups in mind. One was HIV, the second was TB and the third was malaria. Of course, where TB and malaria were concerned, there were relatively few requirements for those drugs in the most developed countries, so, in fact, the scope for diversion was relatively modest. However, the scope for diversion in relation to HIV products was potentially much greater.
I want first to say that my noble friend did not offer a view about the long-term future of the regulation but, of course, back in 2015 the European Commission undertook an independent evaluation of the regulation. At that time, the evaluation took the view that trade diversion from poor countries into high-income countries was still largely theoretical. It did not find that much evidence of it. The question is, why did it not? On the face of it, you would find low-price products. Partly it was because of the disease groups it was looking at, but it is also because, notwithstanding the regulation, there are mechanisms by which many pharmaceutical companies are able to segment their markets.
They do so by way of second brands, different branding in different markets, different packaging and often different formulations, which make it very difficult for people to try to divert product. Of course, product traceability is an essential part of pharmaceutical marketing, so one hopes it makes it increasingly difficult for these products to be diverted. Of course, some of these products can be counterfeited or falsified, and those who want to make illegal profits are perhaps more likely to go down that route than simply through diversion. Indeed, many of the supply chains we are talking about are becoming more secure; organisations such as the Global Fund and Gavi are making supply chains more secure over time.
So, the evaluation of the regulation back in 2015 did not arrive at the conclusion that the regulation had achieved much. However, it arrived at the view that the regulation was itself an important signal in relation to tiered pricing and the desirability of securing additional lower-cost, higher-volume pharmaceutical presence in developing country markets. It was also a backstop power. If there were not to be many of these other pharmaceutical industry initiatives that would enable these products to be available in those markets, this would create a mechanism by which that could be achieved. On the basis of that, the Commission renewed the regulation, and I think we are due to see the Commission come back to this, after a five-year period, in the latter part of 2021. So the first question is: will we review the regulation, or is our intention for the time being simply to carry on and wait and see whether the Commission proceeds with it?
I will make a general point. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has done research and published its views, with which I very much agree. I take the view that value-based pricing is important for this country—I talked about this in our discussions on the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill. Actually, value-based tiered pricing in different markets across the world is an extremely important objective. It enables the expectation to be that pharmaceuticals are priced at different levels in different markets according, substantially, to the capacity to pay in those markets.
In the absence of that, we are at risk of what is called reference pricing, where everybody thinks that they should pay no more than other people. Very often, what they say is that they should not pay any more than the average; in fact, they all aim to be below the average. We know where such a policy leads us: to a downward spiral in pricing. The significance is that the present United States Administration have pursued the concept of reference pricing themselves, which creates perhaps the largest single threat to the long-term capacity of the pharmaceutical industry to undertake innovation and drug development. As such, as an objective, value-based tiered pricing is really important.
Finally, will my noble friend explain why it would not be simplest, from the industry’s point of view, to retain the EU logo? In this particular context—the one in Annexe V—this is not particularly indicative of the European Union; it is a winged staff with a set of stars around it. It would not hurt us too much to accept the same logo. To be clear: from the point of view of the desirability of making it possible for pharmaceutical companies to produce, the more we add cost and inconvenience, the less likely they are to use this regulation. Many do not do so as it is because of the additional bureaucracy involved, which is not great. We need to minimise the bureaucracy on this regulation.
Additionally, however, I was rather pleased to see that the Government will not try to reproduce the European Commission’s biannual reports. It is reasonable for them simply to review the products that have been put forward. Presumably, it will be the Government’s intention—I hope the Minister can confirm this—that the bureaucracy involved in putting a product into our regulation in parallel with the European Commission’s regulation will be kept to an absolute minimum because the benefits of having products in this regulation to the pharmaceutical companies can sometimes be quite modest. With that, I hope I have explained why I think that there is an interesting issue here, but I do not think it is completely obvious that we would keep this regulation for ever.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Minister has said that these regulations will ensure that the tiered priced product system for certain medicines can operate effectively after the end of the implementation period. I am sure that we are all grateful for that because it is a very important regulation, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has said. It is important because it aims to ensure that the poorest developing countries have access to affordable essential medicines for the treatment of communicable diseases, focused, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said, on HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria.
Access to medicines for developing countries remains of critical importance for all nations across the world: it is in all our interests. While there has been huge success over the last 20 years in bringing down the numbers infected with HIV and dying of AIDS, we need to recognise that there are still just under 1 million deaths a year from both. We must continue with programmes like this.
Developing countries need to ensure that their citizens have access to the medicines produced by the pharmaceutical giants. The prices these medicines typically retail at in developed countries would put them out of reach for many if prices were not adjusted. Tiered pricing, which is used to make these drugs affordable to the poorest and most vulnerable, was a significant step when it was agreed, and it continues to be an important practice in pharmaceutical markets.
Without the regulations, Britain could also suddenly become a very attractive market for those wanting to exploit Brexit to export drugs meant for the world’s poorest to the UK at a higher price. For all these reasons, we recognise the importance of these regulations.
I too have one or two questions about the SI for the Minister. First, how many staff members does the Department for International Trade have who are specialists in access to medicines in developing countries or in medicines? What is the process for consultation between the FCDO and the Department of Health and Social Care, which has expertise in those areas?
We are in negotiations with Ghana, Kenya, Cameroon and Côte d’Ivoire to try to roll over trade agreements but those have not yet been completed. Is there any reason to be concerned that the export of drugs to those four countries, which could reasonably be sold into neighbouring and even poorer countries, might be affected if those crucial trade agreements cannot be rolled over?
At the moment, the pharmaceutical companies which are exporters have to apply to the Secretary of State to have a product listed under the EU regulation. What consultation, if any, has there been with developing countries or experts on access to medicines to encourage pharmaceutical companies to seek listing under these regulations? What are the processes for encouraging pharmaceutical companies to provide drugs for the treatment of other diseases, such as cancers? Rates in developing countries are rising fast in these diseases, so this becomes more important.
Finally, what arrangements are being developed for tiered pricing of Covid vaccines? As the Covid pandemic spins out, access to those treatments and vaccines that will become available in the marketplace will clearly be important. We must do all that we can to ensure developing nations have access to the medicines they need at affordable prices, and all that we can to help protect millions of people to avoid illnesses that are eminently avoidable, right across the world. We therefore support these regulations.
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lansley and the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, for their contributions to this debate. I am pleased to acknowledge that they also support the reasoning behind the existence of regulations such as these; as I said, I completely concur with that. Let me respond briefly to some of the important questions that were raised directly by the noble Lords.
My noble friend Lord Lansley asked about the logo. Indeed, it is a rather fine logo; for those who have not seen it—I hope noble Lords with a classical education will not mind if I no doubt mispronounce this—it is the winged staff of Aesculapius, with a coiled serpent in the centre of a circle formed by 12 stars. Obviously, there is a relationship between this and other EU logos but it may be important in future, more so than just a sense of “Why can’t we have our own logo?”, to distinguish drugs that have come from the European Union and are subject to its regulations. Who knows, those may over time move differently from our regulations. We therefore need a logo of our own.
That is why the SI contains a power for the Secretary of State to make regulations providing for the marking, labelling or other identification requirements for tiered-price products as the Secretary of State considers appropriate. Obviously we would do this only in consultation with the manufacturers, and new labelling or other identifications will be provided for in future regulations after consultations with stakeholders.
It is perhaps a shame, given the benefit of these regulations, that only one pharmaceutical company takes advantage of them at the moment. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, asked whether the Government should be more evangelical about the regulations. I suppose my answer is that in a sense the regulations are neutral. They are there for a pharmaceutical company to take advantage of when it makes an application. I am not sure it is the role of the Government to proselytise and evangelise about the regulations, but maybe the mere existence of this debate today will encourage others to raise these points and ask the valid question, “Why are these regulations not made more use of?”
The need for member states to report to the Commission is not relevant to the United Kingdom after withdrawal. This instrument provides for the Secretary of State to review from time to time whether a product listed as a tiered-price product fulfils the requirements of the retained regulation. How that will work is that information on imports and Border Force activity will be collected, reviewed and, where appropriate, made public by the Government as part of standard procedure. We will remain accountable to Parliament in relation to this in the usual way.
As I said, manufacturers or exporters of pharmaceutical products who wish their product to be added to the list have to submit an application to that effect. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, quite properly, and with a great deal of perception, asked what expertise there is in my department, the Department for International Trade, to handle applications in this area. I am happy to reassure the noble Lord that, although DIT has the role of approving these applications, we will work very closely with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, the MHRA, which of course has the required expertise to assess any medicinal information provided by manufacturers or exporters, to ensure that all considerations are given appropriate weight.
My noble friend Lord Lansley asked about reporting under these regulations. As he noted—having, as always, done his homework very carefully—the last report was published in October 2015 by the European Union. As my noble friend said, the report said that although the net benefits of the scheme are small, what you might call the signalling impact of these regulations is very large, and it came to the conclusion that there was an economic justification for maintaining the regulation. My understanding is that the next report by the EU will be published towards the end of 2020. We await that to see whether it comes to a similar judgment.
The regulations set a requirement for the Secretary of State to publish a report before the end of the period of five years, beginning with the date on which this instrument comes into force. Because we are about to get a report from the European Union, I believe we will not be rushing to do a report of our own under these regulations. We will allow time to pass to assess how these regulations are used, and then we will bring a report forward in due course within the required timescale.
I hope that I have managed to answer all noble Lords’ questions in relation to this short debate, but of course if either of the noble Lords who spoke today wishes to approach me subsequently for any further information or clarification of the points that I have made, as always I will be delighted to do so. On that basis, I commend these regulations to the Committee.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
That completes the business before the Grand Committee this afternoon. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
House of Lords
Arrangement of Business
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber, respecting social distancing, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally.
Personal Statement
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I wish to make a personal statement. Following the repeat on Wednesday 4 November of an Urgent Question in the House of Commons on economic support during the Covid-19 lockdown, I asked the Minister a question about delays in the Coronavirus Business Interruption Loan Scheme caused by banks. In doing so, I declared my interest as chairman of the Cumbria Local Enterprise Partnership but failed to declare that I myself was applying for one of these loans. The reason I did not make such a declaration was that, at that point, I thought that an application had already been approved, but it turns out that it is still in progress. I apologise to the House for this inadvertent oversight. I have also written to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Agnew of Oulton, to apologise.
Arrangement of Business
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, Oral Questions will now commence. Please can those asking supplementary questions keep them short and confined to two points—and I ask, obviously, that Ministers do the same?
Gender-based Violence
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what are their plans (1) to participate in, and (2) to promote, the United Nations’ 16 Days of Activism against Gender-Based Violence campaign between 25 November and 10 December.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Sugg) (Con) [V]
My Lords, 16 Days of Activism is more important than ever this year, as during the Covid-19 crisis we have seen a disturbing increase in gender-based violence. The Government have a broad range of activities and plans to participate in and promote 16 Days. Among other events, I shall be meeting girl-led and women’s rights organisations to discuss their priorities for tackling gender-based violence, and colleagues across the FCDO’s network are also planning activities to raise ambition and galvanise action.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, according to the UN, Covid-19 has unmasked a shadow pandemic of violence against women and girls. What are the Government doing to prioritise the rights of women and girls, in particular across the FCDO, by mainstreaming DfID’s valuable work, the Strategic Vision for Gender Equality, including through diplomatic missions and humanitarian work?
Baroness Sugg (Con) [V]
My Lords, there is indeed a shadow pandemic of violence caused by the health pandemic of Covid-19, and ensuring that we are tackling this is a key priority as part of our Covid-19 response. My noble friend highlights the Strategic Vision for Gender Equality, which was DfID’s former guiding document on gender equality. In the FCDO we continue to be committed to this vision, but we will refresh it and reflect the merger as we develop new approaches. The challenges of tackling gender-based violence and, indeed, promoting gender equality are more important now than when we published the strategy in 2018.
Baroness Blower (Lab) [V]
I note my interest, as declared in the register. Does the Minister agree with me that, in the same way that casual racism and microaggressions can lead to the denial of rights to black communities and, ultimately, become institutional, casual sexism, if left unaddressed, can lead to violence against women? Does she further agree with me that the work done by organisations such as UK Feminista and the National Education Union to ensure that sexism is challenged in our classrooms and staff rooms, should be recognised and promulgated across our education system?
Baroness Sugg (Con) [V]
I agree with the noble Baroness that it is important that we challenge sexism wherever we see it. We have invested heavily in understanding what works to prevent gender-based violence. One of those things is to ensure that we work with men and boys at all ages to ensure that we address the root causes of gender-based violence. I would absolutely encourage this discussion to be had in schools and with school-age children.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, there have been recent protests in Nigeria, Kenya, Namibia and South Africa against gender-based violence. As DfID cuts its spending, are we maintaining the same level of support for researchers and civil society organisations in Africa that seek to combat gender-based violence?
Baroness Sugg (Con) [V]
My Lords, this year, as the noble Baroness said, we have had to reduce our spending due to the contraction in the economy and the impact that that has had on the 0.7%. However, we are absolutely determined to continue to support the important work of civil society and women’s rights organisations to help to tackle the scourge of gender-based violence.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
My Lords, one of the best ways for young women to avoid the “most vulnerable forms of informal work”—this year’s 16 Days focus—is through education. What are the Government doing through their education programmes to help safeguard young girls in places such as Afghanistan, Pakistan and Africa, where very small numbers of girls remain in school due to coronavirus, and harms such as FGM are increasing?
Baroness Sugg (Con) [V]
My Lords, I fully agree with my noble friend on the vital importance of education; it is one of the most transformational investments we can make, and educated girls are less at risk of violence. We have, as my noble friend says, seen schools close down around the world. We are pivoting our bilateral programmes and working to ensure that girls can return to school as soon as possible. My noble friend also mentioned FGM. The Government are proud to support the Africa-led movement to end FGM; sadly, we have seen a greater prevalence of that since the pandemic, but we will continue to support the communities that are working to end FGM.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, Resolution 1325 has just marked its 20th anniversary. If more women were involved in peacekeeping and post-conflict reconstruction, there might be an end to the disgraceful levels of impunity for those responsible for gender- based violence. What practical steps will Her Majesty’s Government take to promote more effective compliance with Resolution 1325 and bring an end to the culture of impunity?
Baroness Sugg (Con) [V]
My Lords, as the noble Baroness highlights, when women participate meaningfully in peace processes, we see agreements that are less likely to fail and more likely to last, and it is of course important that we continue to support women’s involvement here. We held many events to mark the anniversary of 1325. The noble Baroness asked about practical steps. In response to the global rise in reprisals against women peace builders, we have funded the International Civil Society Action Network to help develop a protection framework for women peace builders.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, earlier this year I asked a Written Question on how the Government were best utilising their role as co-lead of the Action Coalition on Gender-Based Violence to highlight older women’s experience of gender-based violence. Age International had previously called on the Government to better collect data about violence against older women in low and middle-income countries. What steps have the Government taken to improve such reporting?
Baroness Sugg (Con) [V]
I agree with the noble Lord that we must use the fact that we are chairing the Action Coalition on Gender-Based Violence to make progress on this issue. I also agree that, in order to ensure that we are properly reflecting the needs of older women, we must invest more in data, and that is what we are doing: we have invested £6 million to support the UN women-led flagship programme initiative on gendered data, Making Every Woman and Girl Count, and we must ensure that we understand what is happening so that we can properly address it.
Baroness Sheehan (LD) [V]
My Lords, one of the tragic consequences of Covid-19 is the massively increased incidence of gender-based violence in developing countries—and indeed, everywhere in the world. Surveys by Plan International show that adolescent girls are particularly vulnerable to increased sexual exploitation and violence, for want of basic items such as food and sanitary products. Will the Minister put these particularly vulnerable girls at the heart of the FCDO’s action to tackle gender-based violence?
Baroness Sugg (Con) [V]
I agree that we must have a focus on adolescent girls who, sadly, are at risk of exploitation and other forms of violence. We will do so as part of our co-chairing of the Action Coalition on Gender-Based Violence and we are also working hard to ensure that we are putting them at the centre of our response to Covid-19. We are funding UNFPA in order to make sure that it is addressing the supply shortages we have seen and we are pivoting our existing programmes to make sure that women and girls can continue to access support during the lockdowns we are seeing.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester [V]
As has already been noted, if we are serious about eliminating gender violence worldwide, we have to address the root causes. What plans do the Government have to follow Australia’s lead and develop a national primary prevention framework to change the attitudes, behaviours and structures that underpin violence against women and girls?
Baroness Sugg (Con) [V]
I am afraid that I will have to get back to the right reverend Prelate in writing on that issue, as I will need to follow it up with the relevant department, but I will ensure that I provide her with a full answer.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I have been able to send the Minister details of a case involving a young girl called Arzoo Raja, 13 years of age, whose parents I spoke to at some length last week. She was abducted, forcibly converted and forcibly married in Pakistan, in a case similar to that of Leah Sharibu in Nigeria. What are the Government able to do to build up legal capacity in such countries, so that these cases can be challenged in the courts, and what are we doing to promote the Declaration of Humanity, in which the department has been involved?
Baroness Sugg (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am afraid that I have not seen the case the noble Lord refers to, but I will ensure that I look into the detail of it. Of course, it is important that we support freedom of religion and belief in all countries around the world, and we will ensure that we continue to do so.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, I refer to my interests as declared in the register. Recently, the mass graves of women who were too old to be taken to be sex slaves for Daesh—so-called Islamic State—in Iraq were dug up as part of the evidence gathering to ensure more prosecutions of former fighters and their allies in Iraq. The Yazidi women and girls deserve justice. Will the UK Government continue to press the Iraqi Government to ensure not just that those former fighters and their allies are prosecuted for their terrorism offences but that the victims of their sexual and gender-based violence have their day in court and they are also prosecuted for the violence they inflicted on these women and girls?
Baroness Sugg (Con) [V]
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that we must do all we can to ensure that these desperate victims see justice. We are firmly committed to protecting members of the religious minorities in Iraq and providing assistance to them, and also to galvanising international efforts to ensure that Daesh members are brought to justice. That included leadership in ensuring that the UNSC unanimously adopted Resolution 2379 on Daesh accountability. We have established an investigative team to help collect, preserve and store evidence of Daesh’s crimes, beginning in Iraq, so that we can do everything we can to ensure that these women see justice.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked. We now come to the second Oral Question.
Covid-19: Dental Services
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Walmsley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what measures they are taking to ensure the continued provision of dental services during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, the challenge presented to the dental profession by Covid is severe. We are grateful for the hard work of 10,000 NHS and private practices in introducing PPE and infection-control arrangements to keep patients and staff safe, and to the 600 urgent care centres that are providing services for the most severe cases. However, the impact on the nation’s health remains something that we are working hard to mitigate.
Baroness Walmsley (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but 60% of dentists can now see only a quarter of their usual number of patients, particularly because of the measures needed for carrying out aerosol-generating procedures. There is a backlog of 15 million treatments, and many dentists are in danger of going out of business. They cannot afford ventilation equipment, which would enable them to see more patients in a day. Will the Government provide funding for this, so that the backlog of patients can be cleared?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I completely acknowledge the challenge that the noble Baroness has described. Many dentists can see only 20% of their normal cases, and around half can see about 50%. The backlog is, as she describes it, severe, and the impact, particularly on private dentists, has been very hurtful for their businesses. I cannot make a commitment to fund ventilation arrangements, but we acknowledge the scale of this challenge and are looking at ways to mitigate it, including bringing in testing, which we hope would help provide a safe environment for both staff and patients.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lord, the Minister will be aware that people with learning disabilities and autism have suffered disproportionately in not receiving care and services. Will he undertake to ensure that they are not equally suffering by not receiving dental services, especially specialist dental provisions? I declare that I have a 41 year-old son with a learning disability and autism. I have spoken to a number of organisations that said that the pandemic exacerbated the difficulties in the process of receiving important and urgent care.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness refers to the prioritisation of patients in the constrained appointment flow of dentists. She is entirely right that those who have vulnerabilities, disabilities or other disadvantages should be prioritised: that is the objective of the prioritisation process. She makes the point extremely well and I am happy to take on board any points on where she thinks the system is not working as well as it might do.
Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]
My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister tell us what lessons have been learned from the initial response to the Covid pandemic and the blanket closure of dental practices? Does he have any estimates of the number of cancers of the head and neck that might not have been detected because people have not had regular dental check-ups?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend is right to allude to the confusion around the closure of dental practices. We have made it crystal clear that in the second lockdown all dental practices—both NHS and private—should remain open; that is part of our commitment to try to clear the backlog. I also acknowledge her concerns about the diagnosis of cancers. I do not have the figures for which she asked, but we certainly appreciate the role that the dental sector plays in detecting many cancers, including oral cancers. Dental services are open to those seeking urgent care and we hope that those urgent care clinics to which I referred earlier can provide some diagnostic analysis in urgent cases.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V.]
My Lords, I declare my role as chair of the National Mental Capacity Forum. Following on from the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, will the Minister say how the urgent care pathway is being evaluated, particularly for children and young people with learning difficulties who might need a general anaesthetic for dental work? They are at a particularly high risk of sepsis from dental abscess, which can be avoided by preventive dentistry, yet they are often part of the increasing backlog and have difficulty registering with a dentist locally because they need even more time for their care than other patients and will therefore decrease the number of other patients whom the dentist can see.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the concern about children is particularly acute. We are especially keen to encourage parents, to ensure that they are still bringing children forward. That is why we have the Help Us to Help You campaign to encourage public access to NHS services. She is entirely right that acute situations—involving, for instance, some form of anaesthetic—provide a particular challenge. We have a prioritisation process in place, and I understand that that is working well to ensure that those who have the greatest need are put at the front of the queue. However, as I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, I would welcome any feedback from those who think that the system is not working well enough.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as president of the British Fluoridation Society. Just on that last point, in a number of parts of the country, no elective surgeries, except for those that might be totally prioritised, are being done at the moment. The prospect is of a few more months with a virtual lockdown of elective surgery. As far as children are concerned, will the Minister look into this matter urgently? Will the Government prioritise preventive schemes as we come out of the pandemic, such as fluoridation, supervised tooth-brushing programmes in schools and public service ads?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I completely agree with the noble Lord that prevention is the key. In our document on the matter, Advancing Our Health: Prevention in the 2020s, we have committed to the consulting on and rolling out of supervised tooth-brushing schemes in more preschool and primary school settings in England. We have also set out our support for expanding water fluoridation, and we intend to announce further details of our water fluoridation plans shortly.
Lord Strasburger (LD) [V]
My Lords, as rapid coronavirus testing becomes more available, can the Minister assure the House that dentists and their staff will not be left behind? Will they also be included with health and care staff near the top of the priority list when new vaccines are being distributed?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Lord asked for a general commitment on dentists and their staff. I reassure him that we value the dentist profession and their staff, and the Covid pandemic has only emphasised the importance of dentists in the community and to the nation’s health. He asked me a specific question about where they stand in the vaccine prioritisation list and whether they are on the healthcare list. I will write to him with a precise answer to that question.
Lord Flight (Con) [V]
My Lords, there are three big factors that are causing these problems. First, there is the potential patient’s caution and the worry of contracting Covid-19, which leads them to put off treatment and save the money until normal times return. Secondly, dental sessions are taking much longer, partly because of the fall in the number of patients per session and lower throughput. The principal barrier to resuming services is the issue of the fallow time required following aerosol-generating procedures. The solution is greater ventilation. The key need is to increase the patient throughput and to reduce—
Lord Flight (Con) [V]
Will the Government be willing to put up any funding to deal with the issue of fallow time between treatments?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord’s analysis, but it is too early to make commitments on funding.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
I make the point that I say at the beginning of every Question Time that two points are the maximum that should be made.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
In my view, the Government have offered little support to dentist practices: not exempting them from business rates, even though book- makers and vape shops are exempted, and not offering them key worker status, which has caused problems with childcare. Can the Minister commit to early access to Covid-19 vaccines for all high-street dentists who are NHS contractors, rather than employees? Can the Minister give them key worker status?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, one area where the Government have made a big commitment to dentists is in PPE. As of Wednesday 4 November, over 5,000 dental and orthodontic providers in England had registered with the PPE portal and over 36 million items of PPE had been delivered. In terms of the commitment to workers, I will have to come back to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. Reduced clinical capacity not only impacts on patients but massively disrupts the education of dental students, who typically treat over 400,000 volunteer patients each year as part of training. Since March, many schools have been unable to provide any patient-facing education at all. Will the Government respond to requests from dental schools and hospitals to invest in high-quality simulation facilities, to mitigate the impact of this reduced clinical experience and ensure that students can graduate and provide the workforce of the future?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the bottleneck around the training of new dentists, an incredibly important priority for the nation’s teeth, is one that the CDO is extremely concerned about. The question of simulation machines is not one that I was aware of but I will be happy to look into it and reply to the noble Baroness on how we can make progress.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed.
Waste Prevention Programme
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Parminter
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they plan to publish their revised Waste Prevention Programme for England.
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con) [V]
My Lords, we published our review of the waste prevention programme 2013 this summer and hope to publish our revised draft waste prevention programme for consultation in the next few months. It will build on our resources and waste strategy, published in 2018, which sets out our plans to move away from the inefficient linear economic model of “take, make, use, throw” to a more circular economy.
Baroness Parminter (LD) [V]
My Lords, the climate crisis demands urgent action to reduce carbon emissions from waste and to keep resources in use for as long as possible. In their delayed waste prevention programme, will the Government introduce an explicit target for waste prevention by 2050, as the Welsh Government already have?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
The International Resource Panel estimates that resource extraction and processing of materials contributes to about 30% of global particulate matter emissions, 50% of total global greenhouse gas emissions and 90% of biodiversity loss and water stress. Industrial emissions from manufacturing are responsible for approximately 21% of UK domestic emissions. The Environment Bill will include a target relating to resources and waste. As I speak, that target is being assessed with a view to being introduced .
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Water companies in England discharged raw sewage into rivers over 2,000 times last year. The chair of the Commons Environmental Audit Committee, Philip Dunne, has a Private Member’s Bill and an amendment to the Environment Bill seeking to place a duty on water companies to end that filthy practice. Can the Minister explain why the Government are not supporting his efforts and whether he believes this should be included in the revised waste prevention programme?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
My Lords, the Government strongly believe that the water companies need to take full responsibility for their contribution to pollution in our water systems. Those duties are there, and it is a matter for the water companies to adhere to and honour them. My colleagues at Defra have established a new working group between officials and business representatives to understand better what more the Government can do to ensure that the water companies step up. That work will be concluding shortly and the Government will take action on the back of its results.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]
My Lords, if all the new incinerators that have planning permission are built in the next few years, incinerator capacity will double just when we are trying to reduce our waste. So what are the Government going to do? Are they going to encourage us to actually increase our waste, or will they import waste from abroad so that we can burn it?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
My Lords, the Government are very committed to minimising waste across all sectors. We have seen significant progress. We have consulted on major reforms to the way that waste is managed, including deposit return schemes, extended producer responsibility and consistent recycling collections. We have set up pilot schemes to reduce food waste. We have published proposals for targets in the Environment Bill. We have announced that the carrier bag charge will be extended to all retailers and increased to a minimum of 10p from April next year. We have introduced a ban on plastic straws, stirrers and cotton buds. We have provided funding for the development of recycling facilities for hard-to-recycle products, particularly plastics. We have published a call for evidence on the development of standards for biodegradable and compostable plastics. Of course there is more to do but I do not think there is any doubting the Government’s commitment to minimising our environmental impact by reducing waste.
Lord Sarfraz (Con)
My Lords, will the Minister advise the House if our strategy will include playing a leading role in cleaning up the global waste trade, perhaps by introducing mandatory standards, traceability and certifications for the ultimate recipients of waste originating from the UK?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
On one level, of course, waste is a commodity. There is a legitimate global market in secondary materials and there is a system of international rules on shipments that must be followed when exporting waste for recycling, which of course we always encourage importing nations to enforce. In addition, those involved in the shipments of waste from the UK are required to take all necessary steps to ensure that it is managed in an environmentally sound manner. Recognising the problem highlighted by my noble friend—the problem of waste mountains in some countries that cannot or do not manage their waste properly—we have committed to banning the export of plastic waste to countries that are not members of the OECD and therefore are likely not capable of managing the waste that we send them.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]
My Lords, a waste prevention programme needs to be a dynamic document, moving with advances in science and technology. At the other end of the process, the public need to play their part in minimising waste. To prevent the nation from being subsumed in unnecessary waste, will the revised waste prevention programme have measures that tackle both ends of the spectrum?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
I can absolutely provide that assurance. The Government are seeking powers through the Environment Bill that will enable us to set standards across the board. That means resource efficiency requirements, including spare-part provision, recycled content, durability or the potential to disassemble and repair. We are addressing the waste stream—it is not so much a spectrum but all the way round the circle—of the waste ecosystem in which we live. The first product group that we will be looking at and regulating will be textiles, furniture or construction products, but we plan to expand far beyond that in the near future.
The Earl of Caithness (Con) [V]
My Lords, while I thank my noble friend for his encouraging Answer, what plans does he have to raise awareness among the general public about the problems of food waste, given the enormous impact that it has on climate change, ahead of COP 26 next year?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
My noble friend makes an important point. The UK is absolutely committed to meeting UN sustainable development goal target 12.3, which seeks to halve global food waste at consumer and retail levels by 2030. Our resource and waste strategy included policies such as better redistributing food to those in need before it goes to waste, for which we have provided £15 million of new funding; a consultation on the annual reporting of food surplus and waste by food businesses; and publishing a food surplus and waste hierarchy to support businesses in preventing waste. In response to the Covid-19 emergency we announced £3.25 million of additional funding to enable redistributors, big and small, to get more food to those in need, and that has been supplemented by further funding from DCMS. This is a priority issue and we have seen progress, but of course there is more to do.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
I would like to follow up on the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, about food waste. Food waste has been the low-hanging fruit because everyone agrees that it is a terrible thing. The retailers have cleverly managed to reduce their own food waste, which is now down to 3%, whereas household food waste is now up to 70%. One of the main reasons for this is that supermarkets do not want to be left with old food, so they package large units of things such as mushrooms and fruit in a lot of plastic for lower-income people and, as a result, some of it goes to waste. Which part of the Government’s strategy will start to encourage supermarkets—which unnecessarily use a fifth of all plastics to wrap up fruit and vegetables—to offer loose selections so that people can go into the store and buy exactly what they need and not what the supermarket wants to give them? That will help to save money and cut down on waste and stop the situation where the poorest households throw away more food.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
There is no doubt that what we often refer to as consumer waste is nothing of the sort: it is producer waste. Very few people go into a supermarket wanting to buy a sprig of parsley encased in a brick of plastic. We are very keen to reduce the amount of packaging used and to ensure that the packaging that is used is properly and meaningfully recyclable. One of the measures that we will be using, and which I believe will deliver the most change to packaging, is extended producer responsibility, which is at the heart of our Environment Bill. That is a shift in emphasis from consumer to producer responsibility, requiring producers to take responsibility for the full lifetime costs of the products subjected to the regime of extended producer responsibility—of which packaging will, of course, be one.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My noble friend may not be aware of it but I have been pressing his predecessor on reducing plastic waste since before the Attenborough revelations, and I welcome some of the changes that my noble friend has described. However, how will sustainability initiatives be ramped up to deal with other negatives from Covid? We have seen a resurgence of disposable cups, discarded masks everywhere, and, in Wandsworth—which is one of my favourite councils—very long delays in the delivery of the special bags that households need to recycle their waste. These small things matter a lot.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con) [V]
Undoubtedly, there has been a huge increase in the amount of plastic waste generated as a consequence of the pandemic. I think that probably, to be fair, that was both unavoidable and inevitable. However, on the litter component, laws are in place to address littering. Whether it is a face mask or a packet of chewing gum, the law is the same. We of course strongly encourage local authorities to use the powers they have to ensure that those who engage in littering are penalised. On plastic waste generally, we have a whole suite of measures in relation to reducing the use of plastic, reconciling different types of plastic so that the recycling stream is not undermined, and ensuring, as I said, that the responsibility for the full lifetime cost of dealing with plastic rests with the producer and not the consumer. I think that that will shift the market.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We now come to the fourth Oral Question.
Covid-19: Football League
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Clark of Windermere
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to provide financial support to English Football League teams whilst restrictions are in place to address the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, our football clubs are the bedrock of their local communities and it is vital that they are protected. Many have benefitted from the unprecedented multibillion-pound package of support that we have provided to all businesses across the UK, which the Chancellor has announced has been extended. The Minister for Sport met both the Premier League and the English Football League last week to reiterate the need for them to reach an agreement on a support package in the interest of fans.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab) [V]
I declare an interest as a director of Carlisle United Football Club. The Government have stopped fans from attending football matches, thus they have some responsibility; so will they now commit finance and to working formally with the football authorities to ensure that Football League clubs, and especially those in Leagues One and Two, can survive? Secondly, in view of football’s proven low Covid-19 risk, when this current lockdown ends on 2 December, will the Government commit to making a priority of reopening grounds when feel-good factors and economic activity can be encouraged?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I think the noble Lord knows that we regretted enormously having to press pause on our plans to reopen stadia for fans. I can reassure him that every consideration is being given to making that a priority when the pandemic and the virus are brought under control. However, our view has been clear that professional football has the resources and the means to support itself. There is £50 million on the table for Leagues One and Two, which we feel is a good start.
Lord Triesman (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as a former chairman of the Football Association and a board member of Wembley National Stadium Ltd. Not all clubs are fabulously wealthy even in the Premiership, and although they can certainly contribute to the survival of the pyramid, the national importance of football in our culture, to which the Minister referred, surely entitles clubs to look for more government help. The Government could, for example, provide more help in the deferment of taxation payments. Will the Government consider whether that could be done and, in agreement with the clubs, consider appointing a commissioner to regulate football, with a binding undertaking from clubs in all sections of the leagues that they will be treated equally rather than to the benefit of only six clubs at the very top of the football pyramid? Will the Minister talk about the progress that could be made now given the current circumstances, which are forcing a new look at the whole problem?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Government absolutely agree with the noble Lord on the national importance of football and recognise that many community clubs have gone above and beyond during the pandemic to support people living in their communities. We have also, for example, moved and worked closely to broker a £10 million deal with the National Lottery so that the 66 clubs in the top two levels of the National League can continue to play behind closed doors. Some of the wider issues that the noble Lord raises may form part of our wider fan-led review of football governance.
Lord Woolf (CB) [V]
I disclose an interest as a fond grandfather of seven grandchildren, who like to play sport. Is it not important to single out not one sport but all sports for the help provided by the Government so that all children, like my grandchildren, can enjoy sports to the full?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Lord is not alone in having grandchildren who enjoy sport, and children’s sport is vital. That is one reason we have ensured that it can carry on in school even during the current lockdown.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, is the Minister now able to explain to the House what the Government have done to ensure that those 20 or so EFL clubs facing financial collapse can continue to trade and play for fans, which is important, in the future? What hope can she gives to fans wanting to return to watching lower-league games, and can she commit to ensuring that clubs in the rest of the football pyramid can function viably across the rest of the season in these rather depressing times? Will she give us a timetable for the fan-led review that the Government say they are fully committed to? If she cannot do so, when will she?
Baroness Barran (Con)
On the support needed across the English Football League, as I have said a couple of times, we have been very clear that those with the broadest shoulders within the football family and at the top of the pyramid need to bear that cost. We have been reassured by the Premier League that it has no intention of letting any club go bust because of the pandemic. Work continues on returning fans to stadia, including with the Sports Technology and Innovation Group, looking at every possible means to return fans as quickly as possible.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, will the Minister take this opportunity to reassure the football family that the Government like our structure of promotion and relegation, which is very important to the structure of our football and the nature of its community basis, and that any clubs at the top whose ownership may come from a culture where you have a franchise and a guaranteed fixture list know that this is something that they will not get away with here—at least, not with government blessing?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Lord raises something fundamental to the way our game is organised in this country, and I believe the Government see it as critical going forward.
Lord Taylor of Warwick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a founding member of the original Independent Football Commission. In America, the National Football League shares its television revenue with all teams equally, regardless of status or performance. Is this a model that should be at least looked at in English football? Secondly, if the Premier League does not reach agreement with the EFL, will the Government consider a levy on football TV revenue?
Baroness Barran (Con)
With regard to the noble Lord’s second point, I am not aware that any consideration is being given to a levy such as he describes. Obviously, our goal is to get fans back in stadia, and we have worked very hard to try to broker exceptional access to games as they have operated behind closed doors. The nature of agreements between the broadcasters and the various leagues are for commercial arrangements between them and not for government.
Lord McNally (LD) [V]
My Lords, is it not time that the Government stopped pussyfooting with the Premier League and made sure that it makes a proper contribution? The Minister said that they have not looked at this, but they should look at a levy on the money coming out of television and make sure that money quickly gets to both the English Football League and the National League, which make a far better contribution to our communities than the Premiership.
Baroness Barran (Con)
To be clear, I said I was not aware of whether the Government were looking at this; I did not say that they were not. They have been incredibly active in supporting sports clubs across all the major sports that are really suffering from the lack of income from fans. They are working closely with the Treasury to resolve this as quickly as possible.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab) [V]
My Lords, may I press the Minister on my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton’s question about the timetable for the establishment of the fan-led review into football governance? When she has answered that, can she also say whether it will take account of the excellent report Saving the Beautiful Game: Manifesto for Change, published last month by the distinguished group chaired by the former FA chair David Bernstein? In particular, will it take account of its central recommendation:
“External involvement in the form of a regulator supported by statutory powers is required to reform the way our national game is governed”?
Baroness Barran (Con)
With regard to the timing of the review, this is a manifesto commitment and we are keen to get started with it as soon as time allows, but all noble Lords will understand the pressure that our officials and Ministers are under at the moment. The scope of the fan-led review has not been determined, and anticipating the answers before we have set this might be premature.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed, and this brings Question Time to an end.
Covid-19: Vaccine Taskforce
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of (1) the appointment process of the chair of the United Kingdom’s Vaccine Taskforce, (2) the code of conduct setting out the framework within which this postholder works, and (3) the budget for the Vaccine Taskforce.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
The UK has worked at unprecedented pace and scale to ensure public access to a safe, effective vaccine as soon as one becomes available. Kate Bingham was appointed by the Prime Minister and is subject to all the usual principles and codes of conduct for board members of public bodies. She is very well qualified for the role of chair, having worked in the biotech and life sciences sector for 30 years.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab) [V]
Indeed, Boris Johnson has just showered praise on Kate Bingham, but I am surprised the Minister says she had to sign a code of conduct regarding confidentiality, since she seems to have given certain things away to a private seminar, or conflict of interests, since we read in the Times that she may benefit financially from a vaccine development. She has also charged more than £500,000 for eight press officers. Who is the accounting officer who signed off this expenditure?
Lord Callanan (Con)
There are a number of questions there, but the presentation she did focused on publicly available information and said little that expert delegates at the conference could not have deduced for themselves. Her attendance at that conference was approved and sanctioned by officials. The presentation was put together by officials. The noble Baroness should be aware she is unpaid for her role, and the recruitment process for the consultants she referred to was contracted by the Vaccine Taskforce for a time-limited period in line with existing public sector recruitment practices and frameworks. The details of all that will be published in due course.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab) [V]
My Lords, where in the code that covers the appointment of the vaccine tsar it is made acceptable to brief companies that stand to profit from information before ensuring Parliament is told?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I think I just answered that point in my previous answer, but the presentation focused on publicly available information and said little that expert delegates at the conference could not have deduced for themselves. Her attendance at this seminar was approved by officials, and the presentation was signed off by officials.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, Kate Bingham asked for Admiral Associates to be brought in. Angus Collingwood- Cameron, the director of Admiral Associates, is also a director of Dominic Cummings’ in-laws’ country estate and runs a caviar company which he says he is
“happy to advise on indulgence.”
If this is not gross indulgence, to give a single source tender of £650,000 for PR work, when his own department has more than 100 people working in communications, what specific tasks and messaging has been provided by Admiral Associates that his own team of communication professionals does not have the skills or knowledge to deliver?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord is making baseless accusations there. The first thing to point out is that Dominic Cummings had no role whatever in any of these procurement processes or appointments. The specialist communications support was contracted by the Vaccine Taskforce. Details of all arrangements and all firms and contract labour used by the task force will be published in due course with the usual transparency arrangements.
Lord Bilimoria (CB) [V]
My Lords, the whole world is delighted with the news of the Pfizer BioNTech vaccine announced yesterday. Does the Minister agree that credit needs to go to Kate Bingham and the Vaccine Taskforce for operating at such speed to procure, at scale, a range of vaccines in development around the world, including the Pfizer BioNTech vaccine? Does he also agree that business should have a prominent and critical role in rolling out and distributing the vaccines across the UK in the months to come?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I agree with the noble Lord; I think the Vaccine Taskforce has done a great job, and I think the announcement this morning is testament to that. Let me reiterate that she has taken on this role of chair in an unpaid capacity in the true spirit of public service. It has invested in something like six vaccines— 350 million doses have been secured—to try to pick one of the vaccines that will be effective. The task force is doing a great job, and we will see that in due course.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, we are not being told the full story. The bottom line is quite simple: what was the real reason Kate Bingham was picked to do this job when she clearly had a conflict of interests, as has already been stated by my noble friend Lady Armstrong? Why did she give the contract to Admiral Associates? There is something we are not being told. Are there undisclosed relationships at play here, which are subsequently going to be revealed when the Minister makes the Statement he has twice promised us during this Question Time?
Lord Callanan (Con)
She has declared all her relevant conflicts of interest in line with normal public sector appointments, and they have all been managed and agreed with officials in my department. She was not responsible for appointing Admiral PR; it was done under normal civil service procurement procedures by officials.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Minister has mentioned the task force several times. Who is on the task force? Why do we not know their names? Who appointed the task force? I have seen a reference to a vice-chair, but I understand that, when someone asked about this under freedom of information, all they got was a list of redacted sheets of paper. It is quite important to know who is on the task force to see their expertise, how they were appointed, why they were chosen and what interests they have. The Minister said more than once that Kate Bingham is unpaid; she can afford to be unpaid because, as he made quite clear, she is still working in the sector that she is currently governing. That is quite a serious issue. Is the Minister not somewhat uneasy that not a single Conservative Peer has come forward today to ask a question that supports the Government? I have never known such a case in my experience. He can answer what he chooses, or choose not to answer.
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, was supportive, and he is not a Conservative Peer but an independent Cross-Bencher. The task force consists of a number of specialists in their fields from the Civil Service, the military and private sector organisations, all attempting to get the UK a vaccine that will solve the Covid problem. I would have thought the noble Lord would welcome that.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked.
Blood Safety and Quality (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 8 October be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 2 November.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Bethell, and with the leave of the House, I beg to move the four Motions standing in his name on the Order Paper en bloc.
Environment and Wildlife (Miscellaneous Amendments etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 8 and 12 October be approved.
Relevant documents: 31st and 32nd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 3 November.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park, and with the leave of the House, I beg to move the three Motions standing in his name on the Order Paper en bloc.
Covid-19 Regulations: Assisted Deaths Abroad
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I think it is to be welcomed that the response to the Urgent Question last week was that travelling for the purposes of an assisted death would be exempt from lockdown travel restrictions. However, there are concerns that this Statement did not go into detail about whether family members could accompany people. Legal constraints mean that it is not clear whether the exemption applies to them. Presumably, they would have to demonstrate their reasons for travel and might, in the course of doing so, incriminate themselves for assisting a suicide. So can the Minister clarify that family members accompanying someone travelling for an assisted death will not be vulnerable in this way? If the Minister does not know the answer in detail to this important question, please would he seek to find out from the Ministry of Justice, write to me, and put the letter in the Library?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
The noble Baroness is entirely right on the question of travelling abroad for the purpose of assisted dying. It would be regarded as a reasonable excuse, and therefore anyone who did would not be breaking the law. In answer to the noble Baroness’s question, under Section 2(1) of the Suicide Act 1961, a person does commit an offence if he or she
“does an act capable of encouraging or assisting the suicide or attempted suicide of another person”
and that act
“was intended to encourage or assist suicide or an attempt at suicide.”
The 1961 Act provides no exceptions to the prohibition on assisting suicide. The maximum penalty, as noble Lords may know, is 14 years, and there is nothing in the Coronavirus Act or any recent legislation that in any way changes that.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, whilst the 1961 Act provides no exemptions, as the Minister said, the Director of Public Prosecutions has issued guidance with regard to the avoidance of prosecution in this area. Will the Government ask for that guidance to be looked at again, in the context of the sensitive words of the Secretary of State for Health, to avoid the very situation that has happened in the past where public authorities sought injunctions against family members who supported those who took the very difficult decision to travel abroad? I live in Scotland, where the Suicide Act 1961 has never applied. Will the Government work with the Scottish Government to start collecting data? It was welcome that the Health Secretary indicated the openness of the Government to do that, so we can get a proper understanding of how many people are making the very difficult decision to travel abroad.
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Lord is entirely correct; the Director of Public Prosecutions’ policy for prosecutors in respect of cases of encouraging or assisting suicide sets out factors which prosecutors in England and Wales will consider, in addition to those already outlined in the code for Crown Prosecutors when deciding whether it is in the public interest to prosecute in cases of encouraging or assisting suicide. Among the public interest factors tending against prosecution are that the victim had reached a voluntary, clear, settled and informed decision to commit suicide and that the suspect was “wholly motivated by compassion”. I completely take on board the noble Lord’s encouragement of this review. There is no review planned, but we all acknowledge the changing tone of this debate and I will take his suggestion back to the department. On the point about Scotland and data, I acknowledge different circumstances in Scotland and the remarks on the importance of collecting data from my noble friend in the other place. That is indeed our intention.
Baroness Hayman (CB) [V]
My Lords, the Minister’s response to the second question today was more reassuring than his response to the first. I am sure he would agree that these are desperately difficult situations for families, and to have the uncertainty about whether someone would have to undertake alone a journey that should never be undertaken alone because of a wish to protect their relatives from prosecution is frankly unthinkable. On the wider point, could he assure the House that some urgency will be given to this issue of collecting data and seeing in the round the problems that are being caused? We have had piecemeal changes such as the changes from the DPP, but we need to understand more comprehensively the exact implications of what is going on.
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Baroness is entirely right; Covid has, in a very sad way, thrown a spotlight on the circumstances of those dying alone. That is one of the harshest and most heart-breaking dimensions of this awful pandemic. It throws a spotlight in particular on the way in which the law is applied in this country. The collection of data is a very important component of our review of this important area and I will definitely ensure that the indication given by my right honourable friend in the other place is picked up back at the department.
Baroness Jay of Paddington (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am generally encouraged and relieved by the Government’s responses on this Statement, particularly the point made in the Commons by the Secretary of State that assisted dying must be considered in the general discussion of good end of life care. I hear the Minister say that a formal review is not planned, but when the Government come to look at the concerns about death and dying that have been thrown up by the pandemic, will they ensure that the questions of proper personal choice at the end of life will be both included and emphasised?
Lord Bethell (Con)
Well, this is an extremely complex issue. As the noble Baroness alluded to, there is a wide variety of issues at stake, including values issues, questions of faith and, as she rightly said, questions of personal choice. There are the components here for an important national debate. I acknowledge the comments of several noble Lords already that we are approaching the moment when that debate seems more relevant than it has ever done. When that debate takes place, certainly personal choice will be an important part of it.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB) [V]
What advice did the Secretary of State, Matt Hancock, have from the Director of Public Prosecutions in relation to the official guidance? The response on travelling to Dignitas suggests assisting suicide is an urgent act and encourages the suicide of those with disabling conditions. Some 25 years on from the Disability Discrimination Act, and with the rise in post-Covid mental health problems, this is particularly inappropriate, as data from other countries shows that the major driver for seeking assisted suicide is the fear of being a burden, and other social factors.
Lord Bethell (Con)
In direct answer to the noble Baroness’s question, I am not sure whether any advice was given by the DPP, because there has been no change in the law. Nothing we have done here changes in any way either the 1961 Act or the advice of the DPP. So, from that point of view, the consultation is not necessary. What we have sought to do is clarify travel guidance in a way that does not change the application of the law in the country.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con) [V]
My Lords, the Secretary of State said in the other place that this conversation on assisted dying must happen
“in an evidence-based, sensible and compassionate way.”—[Official Report, Commons, 5/11/20; col. 480.]
What efforts will the Government be making to ensure that we as a House have all the evidence available to us when this important debate next reaches the Chamber?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the debate has not been scheduled, but evidence that would be of interest includes evidence from clinicians themselves, many of whom have seen some movement in their attitudes on this subject. There is also an enormous amount of values-based and faith-based evidence from those who have a particular view on this subject. There is also the evidence of the personal choices of those approaching death themselves. There are extremely moving testimonies by individuals faced with very daunting and challenging circumstances. All of these views have relevance and value, and they should all be part of this important and delicate debate.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (Non-Afl)
My Lords, in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, the Minister stressed that this was travel advice, but surely it goes further than just travel advice. At a time of Covid, when many people in care homes would seek the companionship of members of their families but forgo it in the wider community interest, is it really the right decision to create a presumption that people at the end of life only have the option to travel abroad and to facilitate that? Surely more palliative care and more focus on helping people to a good death are more important during this Covid crisis than facilitating people to travel abroad.
Lord Bethell (Con)
I entirely agree with the noble Baroness that the contribution of hospices and the role of those involved in palliative care has been an incredibly important part of the Covid crisis, and it has given huge succour, compassion and care for those at the end of their life. We have sought to help with the financing of the hospice community with a substantial £150 million payment in the first wave, and there are currently talks in place on funding for hospice care through the second wave. Hospices’ work is enormously valued, and anything in this debate does nothing to underplay the value of the role that they play at the end of people’s lives.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed, so I move to the next item of business.
Jonathan Taylor: SBM Offshore
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I listened carefully to the debate yesterday on this Urgent Question. One thing that I hope the noble Baroness will be able to respond on today is the assessment—or whether any assessment has been made by the department—of the evidence presented to Wendy Morton by my right honourable friend Margaret Hodge that both links the case of Mr Taylor’s actions as a whistleblower and shows that due process has not been followed. In light of this evidence, what on earth is preventing the Government making strong representations to the Government of Monaco?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Sugg) (Con) [V]
My Lords, at this time we have no evidence that this arrest is linked to Mr Taylor’s whistleblowing on corruption. However, Mr Taylor has alleged that the arrest is linked to the whistleblowing. We will continue to provide consular support and are in regular contact with Mr Taylor. If we receive evidence that Mr Taylor’s arrest is linked to his whistleblowing activities, or that due process is not being followed, we will of course consider what further steps we should take.
Baroness Kramer (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am shocked by the line in the Government’s response that says we have no evidence that this arrest is linked to Mr Taylor’s whistleblowing on corruption. Employers retaliate against whistleblowers, not on the grounds of their whistleblowing, but by asserting spurious, contrived and false accusations. By the time the whistleblowers are exonerated—in the UK, often in an employment tribunal dragged out over years—they have been financially ruined, their families scarred and sometimes their mental health compromised. That is how employers and hostile Governments punish whistleblowers and persuade others to keep silent about wrongdoing. I hope the Minister will meet the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Whistleblowing, because we have to change the whole regime to provide genuine protection. Will the Government recognise that this behaviour, captured by this UQ, is classic retaliation against a whistleblower, and will they protect Jonathan Taylor now?
Baroness Sugg (Con) [V]
My Lords, of course we must do what we can to protect whistleblowers, and we have done so through the Employment Rights Act and, indeed, the improvements we have made to protect whistleblowers over recent years. I am afraid that in this case in particular, as I said, we have not received specific evidence of this arrest being linked to whistle- blowing, but we will continue to monitor the case very closely and consider any evidence that we receive.
Lord Wills (Lab) [V]
My Lords, on the face of it, as we have heard, this is a troubling case. A British citizen has exposed corruption and wrongdoing on a global scale and has taken considerable personal risk to do so. As I understand it, he is still helping regulatory authorities in this country in pursuit of further wrong- doing, yet the British Government are doing nothing to protect him from what appears to be an abuse of Interpol procedures. Will the Minister agree to meet me and colleagues to discuss this case as soon as possible, along with one of her ministerial colleagues from the Home Office, who, I understand, also has an interest in this case?
Baroness Sugg (Con) [V]
I would push back on the assertation that the Government are doing nothing. As I said, we are providing regular support to Mr Taylor: we are in regular contact with him, his family and his legal team. Mr Taylor has appealed against his extradition. We have also approached the Monégasque prosecutor’s office to request more information about the charges against Jonathan Taylor. We will continue to closely monitor this case and take appropriate action.
Baroness Blackstone (Ind Lab)
My Lords, the Government claim that they cannot interfere in the legal proceedings of another country, which is surprising, since there are recent examples where they have done so—so why in those cases and not this one? Moreover, it is surprising that the Government have not made high-level diplomatic representations to halt the extradition process, given that Mr Taylor has worked with the SFO and other prosecutors around the world, exposing a corruption and bribery scandal at a Monaco-based company, leading to fines amounting to over $800 million. He is continuing to work with the SFO in corruption investigations. Can the Minister tell the House why the Government are refusing to take action to restore Mr Taylor’s human rights, so he can come home, and are thereby failing to support the work of whistleblowers in the global fight against corruption?
Baroness Sugg (Con) [V]
[Inaudible]—we will continue to support whistleblowers. On this specific case, we need to consider each case on an individual basis and, as set out in the Vienna convention on consular relations, we cannot interfere in the internal affairs of other countries, just as we would not expect similar interference here. However, we will continue to monitor this case closely. The Minister for the European Neighbourhood recently met the co-chairs of the APPG on Anti-Corruption and Responsible Tax. We will continue to stay in contact with Mr Taylor and his legal team, to ensure that we are doing everything we can to help in this case.
UK Terrorism Threat Level
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
We extend our condolences to the families of the victims of the recent horrific attacks in France and Austria and our sympathy and hopes for a recovery to those who were injured. It is these attacks that have prompted the decision by the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre to raise the threat level for terrorism to “severe”—the second highest level—indicating an attack is highly likely. This is a decision we support since we have a shared responsibility to keep this country, our people and our communities safe. We extend our appreciation to our security services and those involved in counterterrorism policing for the vital work they do to keep us safe.
Could the Minister say what impact raising the threat level from substantial to severe will have as far as the daily lives of our citizens are concerned, both while we are in lockdown and when we come out of lockdown? Does the raising of the threat level require greater use of resources by our security services and counterterrorism policing? If so, were those additional resources already available or have they now been made available? Does the raising of the threat level apply across the United Kingdom? Is there uniformity of approach and practice across the United Kingdom in moving to the higher threat level? If not, what are the differences and where? Where do we now stand in relation to the independent review of the Prevent strategy? The raising of the threat level makes this more not less important.
The raising of the threat level from international terrorism reminds us of the importance of international co-operation. Do the Government accept that agreements must be concluded to ensure continued co-operation with the EU in combating terrorism after the end of the transition period?
In the Commons last week, the Minister said that he and the Home Secretary had
“asked officials to review with partners existing and proposed powers in the light of the horrific attacks in France and Austria to consider what more, if anything, might be needed.”—[Official Report, Commons, 5/11/20; col. 529.]
When is that review likely to be completed? I would like to know what kind of things come under the description of
“what more, if anything, might be needed.”—[Official Report, Commons, 5/11/20; col. 529.]
I conclude by reiterating our support for the decision to raise the threat level, and stress the need for our citizens to remain vigilant and steadfast. Combating terrorism and international terrorism is not, as some would like to suggest, a fight between different faiths, or people of different faiths. Our enemies are terrorists. It is a fight, as the Austrian chancellor said, “between civilisation and barbarity”.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, I want to start by paying tribute to Lords Sacks—Rabbi Jonathan Sacks. He may no longer be able to speak to us directly, but what he said lives on. In 2013, he wrote an article for the Spectator entitled “Atheism has failed. Only religion can defeat the new barbarians”—by whom he meant those who threaten western freedom by religious fundamentalism, combining hatred of the other, the pursuit of power and contempt for human rights. He was in effect saying that moderate religion is the answer to religious fundamentalism, not anti-religious campaigning.
There is no justification for violence. The horrific terrorist attacks we have seen on mainland Europe and here in the UK in recent years I condemn unequivocally. My thoughts are with all those affected.
Can the Minister set out the UK Government’s position on free speech? Is free speech to be at any cost, no matter what the impacts on others? Because we condemn violence, no matter that it is unjustified, that does not mean we should not try to understand why people are drawn into it. Terrorism cannot be condoned under any circumstances, but if we are to counter it effectively we need to understand what motivates it. To that end, can the Minster say what research has been conducted into the impact of lockdown on the spread of extremism, particularly using the internet? What is the likely impact on vulnerable individuals—with no moderating interaction from others—and on their mental health? What are the Government doing to encourage, promote and ensure access to a moderate religious counternarrative to violent extremism allegedly based on religion?
The Home Secretary’s Statement talks about the increased threat level being used by the police to determine the level of their overall protective security activity. This includes additional police officers deployed to “certain places”. Can the Minister explain which places or what type of places these additional police officers are being deployed to?
The police are already stretched because of the Covid pandemic. It is at times like these that the importance of resilience in the police service is brought into sharp focus. Not only are the police having to enforce lockdown restrictions, police demonstrations against Covid regulations and deal with an enhanced UK threat level; they also have to do the day job of fighting crime and responding to calls for assistance. Many of these calls have nothing to do with crime, and include having to help increasing numbers in mental health crisis. This Government continued to reduce police numbers long after police leaders told them the cuts had gone far enough. Can the Minister explain where the additional police officers the Home Secretary refers to in her Statement will come from?
No doubt the Minister will be keen to tell the House about the additional police officers currently being recruited and the progress towards the government target of recruiting an additional 20,000 police officers, but can the Minister say what is the net increase, if any, in the number of police officers has been since the initiative was announced? What is the total number of police officers now compared with the 143,800 full-time equivalent officers in England and Wales police forces in 2010?
An essential part of combating terrorism, particularly the forms of terrorism we have seen in recent years, is community intelligence, intelligence built on trust and confidence created by police community support officers and local community police officers. What is the current number of police community support officers compared with 2010, and what proportion of police officers are currently employed as local community officers?
I have the utmost respect for our police and security services, and I am confident they do all that they possibly can to counter terrorism within the resource restraints they have been forced to operate under. I pay tribute to their skill and dedication. It is not, as the Home Secretary maintains, just about passing legislation. It is about properly resourcing the police and security services to give them the resilience they need to be able to respond to crises such as these.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their comments and questions. I join them in expressing solidarity with France and Vienna in the tough times they have had, as well our sympathies with the families affected. I echo the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, in paying tribute to Rabbi Sacks, who was a great asset to this House and who always spoke with such wisdom on these matters.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked how the raised threat level would affect daily life. This matter is under continuous operational review by JTAC. Deployments of police in certain areas of our daily lives will be changed according to threats. In terms of the resources needed, my predecessor—way back when—the right honourable Sajid Javid recognised the changing demand on the police. Under his successor, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, the 20,000 police officer uplift was made; it was, in fact, a manifesto commitment. I understand that we are almost at the 6,000 level. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked about the number of PCSOs. I do not know exactly how many we have in this country. That is a matter for local forces and chief constables, in collaboration with their PCCs. The number is decided according to the needs of the local area. However, I will try and get that number, if it is available. He asked for some other details, which I shall also try to get for him.
Both noble Lords asked where the additional resources would come from when the threat level went up. Deployment will be a matter for operational decision. Of course we recognise that additional police demand is there. Both noble Lords mentioned crisis. Police grant can be applied for and, no matter what it is for, it will be given if the case is made.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked if the threat was UK-wide. Yes, it is. There is separate consideration for Northern Ireland in relation to threats within it. He asked about the Prevent review. We are in the final stages of interviewing for our independent reviewer of Prevent and it is anticipated that the review will be done promptly. I deliberately did not give a timescale because we did not want to be where were last time, with the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, having to step away. We did not want to create too much time pressure.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, also talked about international co-operation and what more we can do. He and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, will know that, particularly in relation to the EU, we remain absolutely committed to that co-operation on law enforcement.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, outlined the necessity for free speech but with limits, of course. If it impinges on the threat to the individual, it crosses the line. He talked about terrorist and extremists’ use of the internet. I could not agree with him more. I hope that the online harms White Paper will become a Bill very soon and deal with some of those issues, particularly the duty on internet providers to their users. He also asked which places had benefited from protective security. He will know that I cannot talk about that, for the benefit of those places. He mentioned the police having to do their day job and police numbers. I hope that I went through that in sufficient detail but I will top it up with additional information for him.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, we now come to the 20 minutes allocated for Back-Bench questions. I ask that questions and answers be brief so that I can call the maximum number of speakers.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB) [V]
My Lords, the Statement stresses that religion should not be used to justify murder, yet religious texts make frequent allusions to God-sanctioned rights to kill disbelievers. Does the Minister agree that religious leaders should take the lead in saying that references to long-forgotten enmities that provide the warped rationale for religious extremists have no place in today’s different times?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The noble Lord and I can be absolutely consistent on that. I always agree with him when he makes that point. Religion should not be used as a tool either for extremism or for terrorism. It is interesting to note that religion often does not start out as an argument for terrorism but soon becomes that arguing point. He has always made the point about leadership in this country being important.
The Lord Bishop of Durham [V]
Places of worship have been included as targets of recent European attacks and there is a history of lone individuals targeting locations such as synagogues, mosques and churches. Considering that, what guidance and support is being given by the Government to faith communities and places of worship as they seek to balance being places of welcome and safety, open to all, without fortifying themselves unhelpfully?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The right reverend Prelate is right to say that places of worship should be not only places of sanctuary but places where people are not attacked because of their religion. We have funding for places of worship through the protective security grant. As to guidance, we work very closely with the police. He brought to my mind the “punish a Muslim” day, and the way in which the police gave comfort and reassurance to communities was exemplary. In fact, I visited various places of worship in Greater Manchester, where the police calmed a very nervous community.
Baroness Warsi (Con) [V]
My Lords, I add my thoughts and prayers to those of colleagues for those who have lost loved ones during the recent terrorist attacks in France, Austria and, more recently, Kabul University in Afghanistan, where, tragically, 22 people lost their lives. Terrorism is a violent manifestation of extremism, so how do the Government define extremism? Are any forms of extremism specifically defined? In light of the “nasty mix” of threats recently identified by the head of MI5, Ken McCallum, does the definition cover the wide and diverse threats that we now face?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, our definition of extremism, as I know my noble friend knows, is
“vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs.”
I think my noble friend was asking whether there are any specific forms of extremism that are not covered. We have a government definition but not a legal definition of extremism, as she knows. However, in broad-brush terms, it covers a working definition of extremism.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
I join noble Lords in expressing sympathy for the victims of the recent terrorist atrocities and pay tribute to the resilience, bravery and courage of our security forces, intelligence services and those involved in counterterrorism.
The Intelligence and Security Committee’s recent report on Northern Ireland-related terrorism said that the threat from that quarter
“remains resilient, despite significant … pressure from MI5”
and the PSNI. Of course, the alert level for Northern Ireland-related terrorism in Northern Ireland remains at “severe”. One of the key challenges identified by that report was poor criminal justice outcomes. Will the Minister work with the devolved Government in Northern Ireland to ensure that the criminal justice system is fit for purpose and sends the right deterrent? Can she confirm that every possible resource will be made available as necessary to combat threats both from abroad and domestically?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that question. He will agree that we have consistently provided the PSNI with additional resources to tackle the terrorism threat. In addition to funding for the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland, the UK Government have invested significantly in the PSNI, with more than £160 million invested in the 2015 Parliament.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, I too express my sympathy for the families grieving in France, Austria and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, reminded us, Kabul. This is a global struggle.
I want to press the Minister a little more on the question of resources. In my view, JTAC was correct to raise the threat level. It was precautionary, of course, but in view of what we have seen on the continent it was wise and prudent to do so. Obviously, this requires an additional operational dimension. The Minister said that there are 6,000 more police officers, although that is 14,000 short of where we were when her previous boss, Theresa May, was Home Secretary.
No doubt the Minister will also say that it is a question of operational deployment. Is it possible for the envelope of resources to be increased, either automatically or on request, commensurate with the increase in the threat level? If not, should it not be automatic that when the threat level increases, the resources to deal with it increase?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I hope that I outlined clearly the police’s ability to request police grants. The purpose of the grants is not particularly prescriptive, but they can be sought for unexpected pressures. In a crisis, it has not been unusual for the police to request additional grants. I have talked about redeployment, so I will not talk about it again. The noble Lord knows about that.
This is in the context of the recognition that it is not just the demand on the police that has changed over the past few years in relation to the number of additional police officers; the type of threat that we face now is entirely different from the type of threat that we faced, say, 20 years ago. Now, we see cyber threats and other types of threat.
Viscount Waverley (CB) [V]
My Lords, I recognise the complexities of doing so, but as part of the process of keeping our country safe, can I request in no uncertain terms that the Government consider all acts and forms of ill expression—covering, but not limited to, religion, ethnicity and gender—which are alien and reprehensible to our values and must never overstep the mark? Will they also review all appropriate laws to ensure that they match the concerns, and challenge the oft-used façade of freedom of speech beyond the Minister’s reference to—I quote—threat to an individual so that the single word “respect” remains synonymous with what we stand for as a united nation?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The noble Lord makes an interesting point about the balance between freedom of speech and individuals’ responsibility not to threaten others with what they say. People are perfectly at liberty to insult, even offend, but there is a fine line where freedom of speech ends.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I extend my sympathies to the family of Rabbi Sacks, the late Lord Sacks. It was a privilege to work with him on interfaith issues for many years, including in the early years of his journey. I also extend my thoughts and prayers to the families of all those who were so brutally murdered in Paris, Austria and Kabul. We stand together in their sorrow.
This House will agree that we must not fall prey to the language of hate and divisiveness being normalised in our discourse on terrorism and violent extremism, whoever the source. I am aghast at the hateful incitement and utterances from French leaders in denigrating faiths and communities, which will cause an insurmountable rise in Islamophobia, including Islamophobic attacks on Muslim communities in France and elsewhere.
Will the Minister continue with her commitment to working across faith communities, including women-led organisations, to ensure that their security remains paramount? Does she agree that demonising religion in combating the plague of terrorism is likely to disfranchise societies and, in doing so, demean our best endeavours as a society committed to upholding respect for the values of freedom, liberty, justice and equality?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
It is important that we as a country lead by example. Clearly, we stand in solidarity with France and the French. I do not want to be drawn into discussing the comments that other leaders may have made, but we remain, as an international family, in solidarity with those people and against terrorism.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My thoughts too are with those who have suffered in France and Austria. I have two brief questions. The Minister did not answer the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, about police officers. He asked what was the net increase. Is the Minister saying that the 6,000 figure is a net increase? Clarity on that would be useful.
The Statement towards the end pays tribute to the police who put themselves in harm’s way every day to defend the public. During lockdown the police are far more exposed than they ordinarily are to the nutcases out to cause trouble. Who is watching out for the police? What extra precautions are being taken? The police are now more vulnerable because of the exposure than in normal times. I think this factor must weigh heavily with policymakers and those holding the resource bag.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I think the noble Lord will have heard my right honourable friend the Home Secretary talk about her revulsion at people who seek to attack the police while they are trying to maintain the policing by consent that we hold so dear in this country. In terms of who is protecting the police, they certainly have our support and we will do anything that we can to ensure that they are safe, notwithstanding some tragedies that we have seen recently. In terms of the increase in police numbers, I think I was quite clear in saying that we are approaching the 6,000 figure; we are certainly not at it yet, but we are not far off. I have elected to provide the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, with more detail. It is not a net increase; it is a gross increase number. I will provide a breakdown rather than trying to make it up on the hop.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, in the light of the evidence so far given to the public inquiry into the Manchester Arena bombing, is the Minister satisfied that private security officers on the front line of such events are properly briefed by the police and, perhaps more importantly, that they are professionally trained to a national standard, perhaps approved by the police?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
As a former policeman, the noble Lord will understand that making a running commentary on an ongoing inquiry is something that I really would not want to do. He makes an important point about training and ensuring that those who are on the front line are sufficiently trained in the jobs that they do.
Organic Products (Production and Control) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 13 October be approved.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, I declare my farming interests, as set out in the register. I also much look forward to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Mendoza. I hope it would be useful to your Lordships if I speak to both the Organic Products (Production and Control) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 and the Genetically Modified Organisms (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, given the connection between the two instruments.
There are no changes to our policy on either organic products or genetically modified organisms. Amendments are required primarily as a result of the Northern Ireland protocol and to ensure that existing legislation continues to operate as intended. As established in the protocol, EU legislation will continue to apply to Northern Ireland. The existing EU exit legislation needs minor technical amendments to reflect the fact that retained EU law, whether on organics or GMOs, will be substantively applicable only in Great Britain. The changes do no more than is necessary to meet our legal obligations under the Northern Ireland protocol and ensure a workable legislative regime in Great Britain.
The first instrument makes minor amendments to the UK’s organics legislation to ensure that the regulatory regime is operable at the end of the transition period, in line with the Northern Ireland protocol. References to United Kingdom have been changed to Great Britain in the Organic Production and Control (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, and the Organic Products (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
The instrument also amends retained EU legislation to allow organic producers to continue to use 5% of non-organic protein feed for organic porcine and poultry, until the end of 2022. The EU has taken the same decision to extend the derogation. No new policy is introduced by the instrument and the UK’s world-class standards are maintained. The Government are strongly supportive of organic standards, many of which were developed in the UK and adopted by the EU.
Under the protocol, EU law on organics will continue to have effect in Northern Ireland. Retained EU law will apply substantively only to Great Britain. This means that the Northern Irish organics market will remain the same, and we are working closely with Northern Irish colleagues to prepare for the end of the transition period, including setting up a Northern Ireland competent authority on organics. We remain committed to ensuring trade between GB and Northern Ireland continues. We are going to recognise the EU as an equivalent organic regime to the UK until 2022, providing certainty on imports for the immediate future. We hope that the EU will reciprocate very soon.
There are 6,000, predominantly small and medium-sized, UK organics operators, which contribute over £2.5 billion to the UK economy, including exports worth over £250 million. The statutory instrument relates to devolved matters and the respective devolved Administrations have consented to it.
The second instrument concerns existing EU exit legislation on GMOs. As I explained earlier, this instrument has the primary purpose of making technical amendments to the existing EU exit legislation, which are required in consequence of the protocol. I stress that we have not made any change to our policy on GMOs.
Detailed EU legislation currently provides a robust framework for the approval of GMOs and related matters to protect the environment and human health. Our existing exit legislation is intended to maintain this regime after the end of the transition period. It was prepared on the basis that those arrangements would be needed throughout the United Kingdom.
As a result of the protocol, the EU legislation on GMOs will continue to apply in Northern Ireland. We must amend EU retained law to ensure that it is operable in Great Britain. The amendments are to change references to the United Kingdom or institutions in the United Kingdom to Great Britain or institutions in Great Britain. This instrument also revokes amendments to Northern Irish legislation that are no longer required because of the protocol.
In addition to the provisions already described, this instrument makes a further amendment to retained direct EU legislation relating to traceability and labelling of GMOs. This additional amendment revokes a legislation-making power currently conferred on the Commission, as it will have no practical application in Great Britain after the end of the transition period.
Failure to adopt the instrument would mean that the retained EU law on GMOs would, by continuing to refer to the United Kingdom and UK institutions, be defective for Great Britain. It is also potentially confusing for Northern Ireland, as it suggests that the retained EU law applies there, when this is not the case. It will also mean that amendments to Northern Ireland legislation, which are not needed in light of the protocol, would take effect.
GMO policy is a devolved matter and will remain so. The devolved Administrations were closely engaged in the development of this instrument and gave their consent for it to be laid. The amendments contained in these instruments are required due to our exit from the European Union and to ensure that the Northern Ireland protocol can operate as intended. I beg to move.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that clear exposition of the regulations. Like him, I feel we are privileged today to have the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Mendoza. I look forward to hearing it shortly, as I am sure all noble Lords do.
I support these regulations. Clearly, the regulation of organic products and genetically modified organisms is a vital concern for our country—indeed, for all parts of our country, as these are devolved matters. I realise that the primary purpose of these regulations is to provide for the laws governing these areas to operate in accordance with the Northern Ireland protocol after the end of the transition period. In many areas, we are providing similarly. Just recently, we provided similarly for organs for transplant and blood products, where Northern Ireland is to be treated as a member state, with Great Britain as a third party.
That is consistent with the withdrawal agreement signed by the United Kingdom and is topical in your Lordships’ House in the light of the votes last night. I wonder if my noble friend can comment on whether those votes will result in Great Britain being treated as a third party, for customs purposes, and Northern Ireland being treated as a continuing member state, in accordance with the withdrawal agreement. I feel sure that my noble friend will modestly say that that is above his pay grade, but also that he will have some insights in this area.
More specifically, I ask my noble friend to comment on the production, processing, labelling and importing of organic products and our inspection systems. I note what he said about there being no immediate intention to diverge from the European rules and standards, and my noble friend touched on these matters during discussions on the Agriculture Bill. But I wonder, looking forward, whether there is any intention to diverge from EU standards and rules, other than de minimis. Similarly, I wonder whether we are intending to diverge from EU rules and standards, in any way other than de minimis, on controls for the production, movement, traceability, labelling and marketing of GMOs. With those specific questions, I am content to give these regulations my total support. They make a lot of sense.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I refer to my farming interests, as listed in the register.
I, too, support the Government in their efforts to retain continuity of regulation in these important areas. The move towards ever more organic food and farming methods can only be a good thing for health and the environment, but are the Government confident that the paperwork that will be required from producers, especially regarding Northern Ireland, is in place?
When we discussed pesticides last week in your Lordships’ House, I was pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park, say that, as we left the CAP, his Government would be strenuously moving to an ethos of sustainability. I am sure that the Minister would understand that small farms find it very hard economically to make the transition to organic. Here in mid-Wales, I have seen several of them falter on the way. I hope this is an area which he and his department might look at sympathetically in the future.
On genetically modified organisms, the checks and balances are, of course, essential, and we must ensure that no loosening of the reins can occur. Having said that, research here in this country has very real benefits in areas such as Africa, where conditions require special crops that can withstand drought, blight and insect predators. These are of huge significance to feeding an ever-growing and often starving population, and, of course, there are knock-on effects in domestic agriculture.
One of the great virtues of your Lordships’ House, in my humble opinion, is the sheer diversity of expertise on offer, so it is a very real pleasure to precede and welcome my noble friend Lord Mendoza. His knowledge of publishing, churches, painting and culture suggest that he will make valuable contributions to your Lordships’ deliberations. I am very much looking forward to his maiden speech.
Lord Mendoza (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, I had imagined that joining your Lordships’ House might prove intimidating, but the welcome I have had from everyone has been extremely friendly. I thank in particular the police officers, the security staff and the doorkeepers. Black Rod, the Clerk of the Parliaments and officials here have all helped me to begin the process of fathoming how this place works. The embrace of the Government Whips’ Office has been a particular delight. I also thank the Prime Minister for nominating me, and my noble friend Lady Finn and the noble Lord, Lord Trevethin and Oaksey, for acting as my supporters.
I hope that your Lordships will indulge me in speaking on a subject that has occupied a large part of my life since March. I have the honour to serve as the Government’s Commissioner for Cultural Recovery and Renewal. Your Lordships will know that this is a hard and perilous time for organisations and people in the cultural sector. Cruelly, often the more independent the organisation, the most commercial it is and the least reliant it has been on government grant, and the harder it has been as audiences and visitors have been kept away.
Since March, I have played a part in conceiving, developing and overseeing the necessary £1.57 billion Culture Recovery Fund. I am proud of what has been achieved to date through so many working together. It has relied on ministerial leadership and joined-up working by brilliant officials across DCMS, the Treasury and No. 10. It has brought together great arm’s-length bodies, such as Arts Council England, Historic England, the National Lottery Heritage Fund and the British Film Institute. There have been regular working groups covering museums, entertainment, tourism and heritage, bringing in knowledgeable sector expertise.
Over the last weeks, thousands of grants, large and small, have been announced for places up and down the country—for churches and cathedrals, heritage sites, steam railways, museums and galleries, dance, theatre, orchestras, music venues, festivals, arts centres and independent cinemas. Many have never had or needed public funding before. The process will carry on over the coming weeks. It will not end the crisis for culture, but it will help. We continue to work to get places open, with fuller audiences and visitors where we can, so that they can continue to bring joy and happiness, promote economic growth, help society and add vibrancy to local communities, villages, towns and cities. Culture will return.
Turning to the SIs, as the Minister clearly explained, the Government are not altering regulatory policy at the moment. The SIs are keeping in place existing regimes that come over from retained EU law. At the risk of repeating what the Minister said, they amend the 2019 regulations to refer to Great Britain rather than to the UK in order to help the legislation operate in line with the Northern Ireland protocol.
As provost of Oriel College at the University of Oxford, I witnessed the wonderful range of academic endeavour from arts to sciences. I am privileged to be able to discuss the work of students, researchers and academics in, for example, biochemistry, biomedicine and medicine. Powerful gene-editing technologies such as CRISPR-Cas9 are now ubiquitous. They are used to develop GMOs and potential therapies and cures for a range of diseases, such as some forms of blindness and cancer. This country leads in much of that research. I support legislation that allows this progress to flourish.
Lord Robathan (Con)
I congratulate my noble friend on his excellent speech. We have more in common than he may realise. We were both brought up in the suburbs of north London, we went to private day schools on the edge of London, and then, as he knows, we both went to Oriel College, Oxford. What he may not know is that we both applied to be provost of Oriel College. There the similarities end. He became provost. I was not considered. I know why, because I have good intelligence; it was because I was too old. As it happens, that is pretty sensible, because I am too old, but the 2010 Equalities Act might have had something to say about that.
I had a rather undistinguished military career and then became a Member of Parliament because I needed a job. He has had a stellar career, which we heard only a little about in his speech. With great enterprise, he founded Forward Publishing, with Will Sieghart. With even greater enterprise, and I suspect some financial benefit, he sold it 15 years later to WPP. Since then, he has made a name in the cultural field and in the arts charities’ fields. There is too much to list, but he was chairman of the Prince’s Foundation for Children and the Arts, he is chairman of the Landmark Trust, he was a commissioner of Historic England, and this year, as we have heard, he was appointed the Government’s Commissioner for Cultural Recovery and Renewal—et cetera, et cetera. As we can tell from his speech, he has a huge amount to offer this House, and we look forward to further contributions, when Oriel College can spare him.
Oriel, our college, was the very fortunate recipient, about a century ago, of a large donation from Cecil Rhodes, which built undergraduate accommodation—the Rhodes building—where there is a statue of him. I regret that some woke members of the governing body, possibly ones rather ignorant of history or with a different interpretation of history than some of us, wish to rewrite history. Rhodes was a very controversial, unpopular figure in his time, who was much criticised. He fought the Boers and his nadir was the Jameson raid against the Transvaal. However, the descendants of the Boers he fought founded apartheid half a century later. His rather uninteresting and usually unregarded statute is part of history and part of the historic built environment of Oxford. I particularly regret that there are pusillanimous dons trying to curry favour with left-wing students by trying to bring the statue down.
My noble friend Lord Mendoza has been outed as a Tory. I fear that he may find himself in a minority on the governing body; the only Tory in the village, we might say. However, I hope that he will bring some balance and common sense to Oxford University, which remains an institution that is admired around the world. In welcoming him, I should tell him that we have one last shared interest, which I only discovered yesterday when he gave me some political betting tips. I am also a political gambler, so I am very grateful for his tips.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]
My Lords, I, too, welcome the noble Lord, Lord Mendoza. His excellent maiden speech was probably indicative of the amount of effort that he will put into the House of Lords, despite all his work outside, and I hope that he will find time to educate all of us on these Benches.
I shall deal with the organic products statutory instrument first. The organic food sector is worth about £2.3 billion a year. It would obviously be good if we had even more organic growers and farmers, but part of the problem is the transition. Therefore, is there going to be any sort of government plan not to reduce the transition time of three years but perhaps to enable growers to use the label “transition”, so that people know that they are on their way and that their products cannot be called “organic” but they are trying to get there?
Perhaps the Minister can also tell me whether the Government have any plans to diverge from EU standards. This has been raised before. If they do, how will that affect Northern Ireland?
On the GMO amendment regulations, the Government say that the Administrations of Wales and Scotland will be able to make their own decisions about whether, and in what circumstances, to authorise GMOs. How does that fit with the internal markets Bill? If the UK Government decided to authorise certain GMOs in England, would Wales and Scotland then be forced to accept those GMO products under the internal market rules? I hope that the Minister can give me an answer to those questions.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, first, I add my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Mendoza on an excellent maiden speech. I am confident that he will bring a lot of his expertise to this House. He shares Oriel College with my noble friend Lord Robathan. I shared my school days with my noble friend Lord Robathan, and that just goes to show what diversity we have both at school and in universities. I congratulate my noble friend on a typically uncontroversial speech.
I should also like to say to my noble friend Lord Mendoza that I am sure that those in the Government Whips’ Office are very grateful for the thanks that he gave them. They do not often get thanks but, if there is any place where you can find cultural recovery and renewal, it will be in that office. They are not having a very easy time of it—not helped by my recent voting record—so I offer them my support.
I thank my noble friend Lord Gardiner for his clear explanation of the need for these regulations, and I support them. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, that I too am a supporter of organic products, but I think that sometimes we have made a mistake. Other countries—France, in particular—call them “bioproducts”, which might be a little more appetising to the public.
On the other hand, I have always had somewhat conflicted views on GM organisms. In 1999, as a relatively newly elected MP, together with two other MPs on a cross-party basis, I took the Government to the High Court over the regulation of GM seeds. However, this is not the moment to debate the merits or otherwise of GM organisms. As this is a devolved matter, presumably it is possible to end up with different regimes throughout the UK. I am not sure that that is a good thing but, in other ways, I fully support these measures.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
I am delighted to warmly welcome my noble friend Lord Mendoza. I hope that he will not be led too far astray by my noble friend Lord Randall so early in his parliamentary career.
I also take this opportunity to thank my noble friend Lord Gardiner for introducing these regulations. I shall limit my remarks to the Organic Products (Production and Control) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations. In particular, I note, as explained in paragraph 7 of the Explanatory Memorandum, the importance to the United Kingdom as a whole of the organic sector. It is worth some £2.3 billion a year to the UK economy and growth, and its exports are worth around £250 million to the UK economy.
What is the relationship between these regulations and EU directive 2018/848? I understand that the directive defers the date of the application when the EU organics regime comes into effect and applies to Northern Ireland by virtue of the Northern Ireland protocol. The EU Environment Sub-Committee has had cause to write to our honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Victoria Prentis, on this point. I do not know whether my noble friend has had a chance to see that yet, but I would welcome his views on it. We stated that this matter is of some significance and concern to organic producers in Northern Ireland and across the United Kingdom generally, particularly as regards the ability of Great Britain’s organic producers to continue exporting to the EU and Northern Ireland after the transition period. Also, the Government’s guidance on trading from 1 January 2021 confirms that an EU-UK equivalence agreement needs to be in place for the EU to recognise the UK’s control bodies, such as, in our case, the Soil Association.
Therefore, will my noble friend confirm that we will be in a position to guarantee the ability of Great Britain’s organic producers to continue exporting their products, marketed as organic, to the EU and Northern Ireland after 1 January? Can he also take this opportunity to give us an update on the negotiations over an EU-UK organics equivalence agreement? As I understand it, the lack of such an agreement could result in our not being listed in the relevant EU regulation annexe.
With those few remarks, I commend the regulations but I hope that my noble friend will share my concerns in this regard.
Baroness Parminter (LD) [V]
My Lords, like fellow colleagues in the House, I commend the noble Lord, Lord Mendoza, for his passionate maiden speech today and for the breadth of cultural experience that he brings to the House. We might not always agree as Members in this Chamber, but that is one of the great things about having such a breadth of expertise. However, we try to hold each other in respect, and I look forward to debating with him in the future—probably sooner rather than later, if the Government get their way—on the regulatory framework that controls the gene-editing technology to which he so eloquently referred.
As other noble Lords have noted, the two SIs are not contentious. When the primary legislation was discussed in, I think, the 2008 Session, they were not debated in either House. As others have said, they ensure that the Northern Ireland protocol is implemented.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, I would like to ask a question about the potential in the future for divergence relating to GMOs. As the noble Lord, Lord Randall, said, now is not the time to debate the ins and outs of the merits or demerits of making a policy move to genetically modified organisms. However, given that that seems likely following what the Minister said during debate on the Agriculture Bill about the Government introducing a consultation on gene editing this autumn, there is a fundamental question that I would like to ask him. If the Government consider making changes to the policies around GMOs in the future, will they give a commitment that they will not do so in advance of laying before Parliament the policy statement on environmental principles, which is promised in the Environment Bill and which would make clear how environmental principles, such as the precautionary principles, are to be interpreted?
Turning to the regulations on organics, like other noble Lords I fully support the organic farmers and small and medium-sized enterprises in our country, who do so much for animal welfare and the environment, and indeed give consumers the choice on food standards that they need and demand. It is important that we approve this legislation today so that there are rules and regulations to enable them to keep trading.
I have two issues, the first of which is around paperwork and checks. As others have alluded to, producers will need to fill in new paperwork and have new checks, and there will be physical inspections on Northern Ireland land. Last week, the National Audit Office put a report out in which it made clear that there were serious concerns about how those checks will work in Northern Ireland and trader readiness to implement these new requirements upon them. It said quite clearly that DAERA was
“severely hampered by … the lack of clarity”
on the measures required. Of course, this will apply to organic farmers.
DAERA has concluded that it is not possible to complete the necessary work or the systems and infrastructure by 1 January. It also does not have sufficient time to mobilise its trader support services. I ask the Minister to update the House on how those measures to introduce the new checks and physical inspections are moving forward. I also ask the Minister to say a bit more, perhaps, about the contingency operations that DAERA has now admitted it will have to invest in because it is convinced that it will not have those checks and inspections in place in time. As I say, this will directly impact on the 6,000 organic farmers and, indeed, other traders in the future.
Those concerns were echoed last week by Sainsbury’s, which said that the supply of dairy, meat and fish products, which would of course include organic products such as sausages, could be seriously affected from January. There are 13 Sainsbury’s stores in Northern Ireland, and other traders will also be affected. It is important that we hear from the Minister today about the state of readiness in relation to implementing these checks and balances.
Finally, I will follow up on the point so well made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. There are concerns about organic farmers’ ability to continue to export. Of course, we are all desperately hoping for a deal between the EU and UK, which would mean that there would be that equivalence for the control bodies for organic farming. However, if there is not one, then all the organic bodies will need to be recognised by the EU for any trade to continue. My understanding is that, currently, there are six of those bodies. Therefore, like the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, I would like the Government to say a bit more about the discussions they have had with the European Union about equivalence and, if not, what the state of play is with regard to those organic bodies being recognised by the EU for trade to be able to continue.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these SIs this afternoon and for organising the very helpful briefing beforehand. I also welcome the noble Lord, Lord Mendoza, and congratulate him on his excellent maiden speech. I welcome the informed contributions of your Lordships and will concentrate specifically on the instruments themselves. As we have heard, neither instrument introduces substantive policy change, although I understand that the reassignment of certain functions from the European Commission to UK bodies can occasionally mean a slight difference in how those functions will be carried out.
First, I come to the Genetically Modified Organisms (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020; I have some areas where I will ask the Minister for clarification. Paragraph 2.7 of the Explanatory Memorandum notes:
“Marketing consents granted at the EU level do not require further, national-level authorisations.”
Clearly, this situation will change going forward. Further information is set out in Paragraph 2.12, which states:
“existing processes … will continue as now.”
Can the Minister confirm that this means no change to the criteria being applied on 1 January? Does the department intend to review the criteria going forward? If that is the case, when would that work take place, and would it be carried out alongside the devolved Administrations?
As a de facto member of the EU single market, Northern Ireland will continue to adhere to a portion of the EU’s body of law. These obligations relate to many of these areas, including genetically modified organisms. Divergence has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords, so does the Minister envisage any practical difficulties arising from the different regulatory regimes in Great Britain and Northern Ireland? For example, if the UK were to grant a GMO authorisation to a product that did not enjoy similar accreditation at the EU level, would there be any implications for the UK’s internal market? Will the Government maintain equivalent regulations to the EU on GMOs? If not, how will that affect our ability to export agricultural products to the EU, not to mention any possible effects on the environment?
I now turn to the SI on organic products. On these Benches, we wish to see a smooth transfer into UK law and welcome this SI, which is essential for the continuity of trade in organic products. We particularly welcome the commitment in paragraph 2.11 of the Explanatory Memorandum that:
“The current organic standards will be maintained at the end of the Transition Period.”
The organic sector may still be considered a fairly small one, but it is important, leading the way on sustainability in agriculture—recognising, for example, the value of soils and issues around pesticides. As such, it is good to see that paragraphs 7.2 and 7.3 in the Explanatory Memorandum—and the Minister, in his introduction—recognise its value to the UK economy. The continuation of this trade is hugely important.
I also welcome the fact that the 6,000 organic operators are mentioned and that many of these are small and medium-sized businesses, which would be particularly vulnerable if the retained EU organic legislation were not updated.
There is one particular area where I ask the Minister for further clarification. He referenced Part 2 of the regulations and that it extends an existing derogation for porcine and poultry feed into 2021 and 2022. However, there is no mention of what will happen after this date. Could the Minister clarify the Government’s intentions beyond 2022? For example, will the provision just continually roll over, or will the matter be put under review?
Finally, I stress how important it is for the UK to achieve equivalence with the EU. This has been mentioned by the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh of Pickering and Lady Parminter. Can the Minister assure us that future access to the EU market for our UK organic exporters is a priority? If we end up in a no-deal scenario and do not have mutual recognition of one another’s organic standards, the EU market will likely be closed to UK organic-certified produce. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, and I particularly highlight the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Mendoza. I note his wide range of experience and am sure we all look forward to his contributions and him playing his part in the affairs of your Lordships’ House. I know he would expect me to note his vital work as the Commissioner for Cultural Recovery and Renewal, so I hope I am forgiven if I say, as the Rural Affairs Minister: in the spirit of rural-proofing, please do not forget the rural context.
I also express my warm welcome to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, as this is the first time we have debated Defra matters from our respective Front Benches. I very much look forward to working with her. A range of questions were put forward in this debate, and I will do my best to address them. If there are any further details, I will of course write to all noble Lords contributing to this debate, as well as placing a copy in the House of Lords Library.
I turn to questions on organics, and I particularly want to flag up what the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Hayman, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, asked about mutual recognition by the EU of our regulatory regime at the end of the transition period. This will allow us to continue to export our organic products to the EU and Northern Ireland. Currently, organics have an annexe in the free trade agreement being negotiated with the EU, but, as a mitigation, all six control bodies—the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, raised this, and I can confirm it—have individually applied for recognition. We remain confident that the EU Commission will grant this.
The applications for recognition are independent of the Government’s negotiations with the EU and not covered by any potential deal. Recognition gives individual control bodies the ability to certify to an equivalent EU standard, and their operators can export to the EU and Northern Ireland. We remain committed to negotiating a trade agreement that will remove barriers to trade and promote trade in organic products between the UK, Northern Ireland and the EU.
The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, also asked a number of questions about trade between Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland and Great Britain—and, indeed, clearly we wish this to continue. I can confirm that we are working with DAERA and other important stakeholders, including the ports of Larne, Belfast and Warrenpoint, in readiness for 1 January. Port health authorities in Northern Ireland have increased staffing levels sevenfold, and they are working to improve significantly their facilities. My noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering asked about this, too. We are exploring ways in which to reduce the burden on industry and the ports to ensure minimal disruption to business. We have shared the new process for importing products into GB from the European Union and third countries with stakeholders, and continue to discuss access to the EU’s Trade Control and Expert System New Technology—TRACES NT—for imports into Northern Ireland with the European Commission. I should say to my noble friend Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth that Northern Ireland has unfettered access so will be able to export organic products to Great Britain.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, also asked whether the derogation to allow farmers to feed organic porcine and poultry up to 5% non-organic protein feed would continue beyond the end of 2022. Any extension will be carefully considered by the end of 2022 and we will consult the devolved Administrations and stakeholders to ensure that the changes are in the best interests of UK farmers. We continue to work closely with all UK control bodies to support them to prepare for the end of the transition period. I take the opportunity to reiterate our commitment to growing the UK’s world-class organics sector.
In that regard, I was most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, in referring to the importance of organics. We have just finished debating the Agriculture Bill. Many noble Lords will recall our discussions on how that Bill is going to advance food production of high and healthy quality food as well as the environment. I believe that organic farmers will be well placed to benefit from the new system, with the provision of environmental benefits and services, such as increased biodiversity and habitats.
I can say to my noble friend Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth that we are committed to the highest organic standards and will use new powers provided by the Agriculture Bill to maintain this regime. Also on the reference to transition from three years, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, asked about farmers converting to producing organic products, who can benefit from higher premiums when selling into conversion products. As I said, we recognise the potential for the organics sector as we move forward.
I move to questions on GMOs. The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, asked about this, and it came up in my noble friend Lord Mendoza’s speech, too. This is about the future of GM food policy. During debate on the Agriculture Bill, we considered as a House the elements of gene editing; we will issue a consultation relating to gene editing in England and will gather preliminary evidence on whether or not to reform our GMO legislation more broadly. I assure all noble Lords, on whatever side of the argument they may be, that we will consider the responses and evidence received from the consultation very carefully indeed, because there is great potential but it is very important that we get this right. When I read of the need for us to feed the world and have less applications to help the environment, I think that the science could help us enormously. But it is really important to get this right and, in getting it right, for the public to understand the bona fides of this, rather than getting worried about hyperbole and the potential that there may be concern. I think there is great potential here, but we need to do this properly and thoroughly.
My noble friend Lord Bourne and the noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Hayman, asked about divergence between GB policy and the policy in Northern Ireland and the European Union for GMOs. That point was made by other noble Lords as well. At the moment, there is no divergence between GB and Northern Ireland as our retained law reflects EU law, and Northern Ireland is subject to EU rules and will have to comply with decisions made at an EU level. As I made clear in debate on the Agriculture Bill, any changes to our GMO policy will be subject to consultation and a change in primary legislation, which would mean that there would be very full scrutiny from your Lordships’ House and the other place—and, I have no doubt, some public debate as well. If we change our policy following the consultation, we will clearly work closely with Northern Irish authorities to minimise any impact on trade in GM products. I emphasise, as I did before—I hope that this reassures the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb—that GM policy is a devolved area. That is why I said that the consultation was about England, because it is the responsibility of the UK Government. But with this SI, we have worked extremely closely with devolved Administrations to develop it and, obviously, we need to go forward in a spirit of collaboration and understanding of these matters.
I also say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, that the processes and powers to legislate in GB will remain in parallel with those in the EU and Northern Ireland, so they will remain familiar to stakeholders. In Northern Ireland, existing EU legislation will continue to be directly applicable after the end of the transition period. I have no doubt that on that matter we will have more work to do.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, asked about further changes, and I have looked into that matter. I think that she referred to paragraph 2.7 of the Explanatory Memorandum, whereas I wonder whether it might relate to paragraph 2.9, which explains that further changes to exit legislation were needed to give effect to annexe 2 of the Northern Ireland protocol. This SI makes these further changes as explained in paragraph 2.9. In reply to the noble Baroness, I should therefore say that no other changes are needed to give effect to the protocol. I apologise if the memorandum did not make that entirely clear.
I shall look at Hansard to see whether there were any further points, because there was a range of questions. I am grateful for the support that noble Lords have given to the principle of the two instruments.
Genetically Modified Organisms (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 12 October be approved.
Construction Products (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greenhalgh
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 15 October be approved.
The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before both Houses on 15 October 2020. They are part of the Government’s programme to update EU exit legislation to ensure that there continues to be a functioning legislative and regulatory regime at the end of the transition period. The regulations are made using powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to amend the Construction Products Regulations in the UK. They ensure that the EU construction products regulation continues to apply in Northern Ireland in accordance with the Northern Ireland protocol to the EU withdrawal agreement. They amend the remainder of the UK regime so that it applies in Great Britain only.
I start by providing some context and background to the regulations. The EU construction products regulation, or CPR, is an EU regulation that is directly applicable in all EU member states. It seeks to remove technical barriers to the trade of construction products in the European single market, and currently applies across the UK. The CPR harmonises the methods of assessment and testing, the means of declaration of product performance and the system of conformity assessment of construction products. It does not harmonise national building regulations. Individual member states remain responsible for safety, environmental, energy and other requirements applicable to construction works.
When an EU harmonised standard exists for a product, the CPR places obligations on manufacturers, distributors and importers of that product when it is placed on the market. This includes a stipulation that the product must have been accompanied by a declaration of performance and have been affixed with a “Conformité Européenne” or CE mark. At the end of the transition period, the CPR becomes retained EU law and will form part of the UK’s legal system. The construction products regulations 2019—the 2019 regulations—ensure that its provisions will have practical application in the UK. They introduced UK-wide provisions, such as the UK conformity assessment, or UKCA mark and UK designated standards, in preparation for a no-deal Brexit.
We have now left the EU, with the withdrawal agreement and an Ireland/Northern Ireland protocol. Without the amendments made by this instrument, the amendments in the 2019 regulations would apply in the whole United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, which would not be compliant with the protocol. Regulators would lack powers to enforce the EU regulations in Northern Ireland, and manufacturers would not be able to test their product in the UK and affix the UKNI indication to place the product on the market in Northern Ireland. The general policy is to keep the same requirements set out in the 2019 regulations in Great Britain, but to introduce a Northern Ireland-compliant regime. These regulations do not change the key CPR requirements currently in place. The same standards will apply in Great Britain and Northern Ireland immediately after 31 December as they did before the end of the transition period, and products that meet Northern Ireland requirements will have unfettered access to the GB market.
The effects of these regulations can be considered in three parts. First, they will amend the 2019 regulations so that the current UK-wide provisions such as the UKCA marking and UK designated standards will become GB provisions at the end of the transition period. This will ensure that EU construction products law will apply in Northern Ireland, including CE marking and EU harmonised standards, in line with the Ireland/Northern Ireland protocol to the withdrawal agreement. Immediately following the end of the transition period, UK designated standards will be identical to those under the EU regime, so there will be no change for businesses on standards that must be met.
Secondly, these regulations make provisions for conformity assessment bodies established in the UK. They enable UK-approved bodies to continue testing against EU harmonised standards for the Northern Ireland market and introduce a UKNI indication, as required under the protocol. Where a UK-approved body undertakes the third-party conformity assessment required under the relevant EU standard, the manufacturer must affix the CE marking together with the new UKNI indication. These construction products will be recognised on the Northern Ireland market from the end of the transition period. The details of the UKNI indication will be established under a separate instrument led by BEIS. Further information on this will follow very shortly.
Thirdly, these regulations restate the enforcement provisions for Northern Ireland in relation to the EU construction products regulation and amend existing UK-wide enforcement provisions so that they apply in Great Britain. These enforcement provisions will work in a very similar way to the Construction Products Regulations 2013. They will ensure clear enforcement rules for economic operators and regulators in Great Britain and Northern Ireland where non-compliant goods are placed on either market.
In relation to Great Britain, the regulations amend the construction products enforcement rules set out in the Construction Products Regulations 2013, as amended by the 2019 regulations. This includes amendments to reflect that the CE marking, together with the UKNI indication, will be recognised in Great Britain. On Northern Ireland, the regulations provide an enforcement regime in relation to EU construction products law. This will allow the existing regime to continue largely unchanged once the transition period has ended and is necessary to allow for reference to the new UKNI indication.
Finally, these regulations also make a number of technical changes to correct deficiencies in the 2019 regulations arising from leaving the EU with the withdrawal agreement and the Ireland/Northern Ireland protocol.
Our overall approach to these amendments is entirely concurrent with the policy and legal intent of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and enacts the policy that the Government set out in guidance to industry in September. These regulations serve a very specific purpose: to amend the 2019 regulations to ensure a functioning legislative and regulatory regime in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This is necessary in response to the withdrawal agreement and the Ireland/Northern Ireland protocol that the UK and the EU agreed to in January 2020.
This instrument is necessary to ensure that construction products legislation continues to function appropriately in Great Britain and Northern Ireland after the end of the transition period. I hope that colleagues will join me in supporting the draft regulations. I commend them to the Chamber.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, when two or three are gathered together you can guarantee there will be consensus. The atmosphere today is very different from that of yesterday when this House again considered the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill. I commend the Minister on reading beautifully the brief—and it was brief, and I shall be even briefer.
I decided that I would speak briefly this afternoon because I was intrigued. I thought to myself, “Not many noble Lords will seek to speak on these regulations; they are somewhat obscure and do not appear to have any great relevance to the wider debates we’ve been having”, but then I thought to myself, “I’ll go along and just test the water a bit regarding enforcement”. The Minister referred to enforcement; he said there will be no change in enforcement. He also referred to the importance of harmonisation. He reflected on the fact that this would have no impact on Great Britain even though EU regulations will continue to apply in Northern Ireland because of that harmonisation. I began to think to myself, “I might just turn up on Tuesday afternoon and test the water a bit with the Minister about what is all this fuss about? If we can do this on the CPR and recognise that harmonisation makes sense, if the enforcement regime remains the same, if we can have something that is operable through the EU regulation in Northern Ireland and its relationship to the border, and if we can still have the same transport and regulatory framework in terms of the relationship of Northern Ireland to the new Great Britain regulatory framework, which remains the same as the old, then what is the fuss about?” So I have just three questions, really.
First, why cannot we do this more broadly? Secondly, did the Prime Minister spot this one when he signed the protocol, given that he clearly did not spot one or two others? Thirdly, what about this enforcement regime? I genuinely would like to know a little bit more about it. Thank you very much.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I think that I will be equally brief in my remarks to the House today. First, I draw the House’s attention to my relevant registered interests as the chairman of the Heart of Medway Housing Association and a non-executive director of MHS Homes Ltd.
On looking at these regulations one might be forgiven for thinking that they are very technical and will ensure we are ready for the next phase of our relationship with the European Union, and so they will. They are very important not only for our future relationship with the EU but for how the products they regulate will be used both here in Great Britain and in Northern Ireland. It is important that these products are properly assessed, approved and licensed and properly used as well. Like my noble friend Lord Blunkett I would be very interested to hear more about the enforcement regime. We need to ensure that, whatever licences and approvals are given, the products are used properly. Problems can arise when they are not used properly, sometimes with tragic consequences. We therefore need to hear about the enforcement regime. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, we have had a fascinating and lengthy debate that has raised a number of points. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Blunkett, for pointing out that there is a lot to be learned from this example of how we can leave the EU and maintain the consistency that our builders and other users of construction products require. I want to provide a little further detail.
The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, said that we could perhaps deal with other regulations as we have dealt with the CPR. At the end of this year we will have full control over our own laws, but while we are in the transition period we have obligations under the withdrawal agreement to transpose new EU regulations. I am sure that there are many other regulations that will need to be transposed in due course. We are committed to implementing our obligations under the withdrawal agreement and published a Command Paper in May that sets out the approach we will take. This instrument is one of many that will help to ensure a functioning statute book at the end of the transition period.
Regarding the questions posed about the enforcement regime, the new enforcement regime will allow the existing regime to continue largely unchanged. I would therefore think that the current enforcement regime will be in force in the future. However, I am happy to write to both noble Lords with the specifics of that as I do not pretend to be an absolute expert on the current regime. The point, however, is that we will be harmonised with the EU as we leave it and how far we diverge will be a choice for future Governments. It is fair to say that there are sometimes opportunities in diverging, and in other areas there is opportunity in maintaining convergence. That is an important policy choice for this Government and successive Governments.
The Government believe that the regulations are needed to ensure that the construction products legislation continues to function in Great Britain and Northern Ireland after the end of the transition period. I have tried to answer all the questions—or at least the single pertinent question—but if not, I will write in more detail with more information. I hope that noble Lords will join me in supporting these regulations, which I commend to the House.
Bank Recovery and Resolution (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
Baroness Penn
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 15 October be approved.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the second bank recovery and resolution directive updates the EU’s bank resolution regime, which provides financial authorities with the powers to manage the failure of financial institutions in an orderly way. This protects depositors and maintains financial stability while limiting risks to public funds. Under the terms of the withdrawal agreement, the UK has a legal obligation to transpose the directive by 28 December 2020. This instrument fulfils that obligation.
In transposing the directive, the Government have been guided by the commitment to maintain prudential soundness, alongside other important regulatory outcomes such as consumer protection and proportionality, when leaving the EU. We have also considered concerns raised by industry on elements of the directive that could pose risks to financial stability and to consumers, to tailor the approach for the UK market. As a result, we are not transposing the provisions in the directive that do not need to be complied with by firms until after the end of the transition period—in particular, an article that revises the framework for a minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities, referred to hereafter as MREL, across the EU. The UK already has in place an MREL framework in line with international standards.
We are also sunsetting certain provisions so that they cease to have effect in the UK after the end of the transition period, as well as including provisions to ensure that the elements that remain in effect after the end of the transition period continue to operate effectively. The sunsetted provisions will cease to have effect in the UK from 11 pm on 31 December. In doing so, we have taken an approach that meets our legal obligations but also ensures that the UK’s resolution regime remains robust and is in line with international standards. We have engaged with industry and stakeholders to help explain exactly what this means for them.
I turn to the draft Securities Financing Transactions, Securitisation and Miscellaneous Amendments (EU Exit) Regulations 2020. This instrument, along with the approximately 60 other financial services instruments that the Treasury has introduced under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, is vital in ensuring that the UK has a fully effective legal and regulatory financial services regime at the end of the transition period. It achieves this by amending and revoking aspects of retained EU law and related UK domestic law, making a small number of necessary clarifications and a minor correction to earlier financial services EU exit instruments, and providing sufficient supervisory powers for the financial services regulators to effectively supervise firms during and after the end of the transition period.
I turn to the draft Financial Holding Companies (Approval etc.) and Capital Requirements (Capital Buffers and Macro-prudential Measures) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020. The fifth capital requirements directive, known as CRD5, continues the EU’s implementation of the internationally agreed Basel standards. These standards strengthen and develop international prudential regulation, which helps ensure the safety and soundness of financial institutions. This SI will transpose that directive into UK law, as required under the terms of the withdrawal agreement. It will also ensure that the legislation transposing it continues to operate effectively in the UK after the end of the transition period.
As with previous capital requirements directives, the Government will delegate most of the responsibility for implementation to the independent Prudential Regulation Authority—the PRA—which has the requisite technical knowledge and skills to ensure effective and proportionate implementation. This instrument includes only provisions legislatively necessary to ensure that the PRA can implement CRD5. This instrument is in line with requirements of article 21a of CRD5 for holding companies in scope to apply for supervisory approval. The framework and scope of the approvals regime will be administered by the PRA, and the instrument gives the regulator appropriate tools to ensure compliance with it.
The instrument also makes changes to the macro- prudential toolkit, preserving the current level of macroprudential flexibility. The most important of these is enabling the PRA to apply an other systemically important institutions buffer and a systemic risk buffer to certain institutions to address particular financial stability risks.
Although the capital requirements directives were created with banks in mind, they also apply to investment firms. However, the risks faced by investment firms are different from those faced by banks. Therefore, this instrument excludes non-systemic investment firms from the scope of CRD5. Investment firms will remain subject to the existing prudential framework until the Financial Conduct Authority introduces the prudential regime for investment firms, following Royal Assent of the Financial Services Bill.
Finally, I turn to the Bearer Certificates (Collective Investment Schemes) Regulations 2020. The UK has been at the forefront of international changes that are transforming tax authorities’ ability to work across borders to tackle emergency international tax risks. Bearer shares or certificates are anonymous, infinitely transferable and an easy means of facilitating illicit activity such as tax evasion or money laundering. This is why UK companies have been prohibited from issuing them since 2015. The OECD’s global forum noted in its 2018 peer review report that, although the UK had “mostly addressed” its 2013 recommendations concerning the prohibition of bearer shares,
“a small cohort of entities and arrangements … are still able to issue bearer shares or equivalent instruments.”
The report went on to recommend that the UK abolish bearer shares. This instrument implements that recommendation and prohibits the remaining entities capable of issuing bearer shares or certificates—which include certain types of collective investment schemes—from doing so. It also makes arrangements for the conversion or cancellation of any existing bearer shares. This brings those remaining collective investment schemes, including open-ended investment companies formed before 26 June 2017 and all unit trusts not authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority, in line with companies formed under the Companies Act 2006, which are prohibited from issuing bearer shares by the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015. Complying with the global forum’s recommendation will help make sure the UK maintains its position at the forefront of the international community, continuing to set standards that help improve offshore tax compliance and fund our vital public services.
In summary, the Government believe that these instruments are necessary and vital for the UK’s financial services regulatory architecture, and I hope noble Lords will join me in supporting the regulations. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Mann.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I do not think there is any controversy in agreeing with these statutory instruments, but it gives us the opportunity to ask a few questions of the Minister in relation to them. Perhaps I could start by reiterating how I am never surprised, but always rather disappointed, that politicians, including those in this House, like those in the other one, are always keen on anything to do with the physical movement of goods. In discussions on the European Union—on leaving the European Union—everything to do with the physical movement of goods gets a huge and popular airing at all times.
I have never particularly worried about issues relating to the physical movement of goods. There will be winners and losers: the more coherent and the more seamless any transition is, the better, but that is better for short-term stability; it is in the interests of the country, so I have a view in relation to it. But I certainly do not have a strong view on whether it is important that we have, for example, a trade deal with the United States. It seems to be one of the issues that is going to dominate Chambers, including this one, in the foreseeable future; but, frankly, on whether there is a trade deal in physical goods, I say that there will be winners and losers either way, with any deal, by definition. That kind of trade will continue regardless.
Indeed, I am more in favour of doing what the Americans historically did, which is protecting not our old industries but our new ones. I have always thought it was a mistake to be overly protecting dying industries and technologies. In the late 1970s and the early 1980s, the United States put a ring of steel around Silicon Valley to ensure that it would have the ability to grow, whereas we paddled our way in the so-called free-trade world without any such subsidy, we lost our competitive advantage and we paid a very heavy price. It was, in a sense, an invisible price, because we were never able to grow those industries even though, in the early 1980s, we were leading the United States in many of those technologies.
When it comes to invisibles and the financial sector in particular, I actually have far more concerns that we get it right. The potential for major instability in the economy and then in the country from getting wrong any transition from one system to another with financial services is huge. The margins of danger are much smaller and the impact on them far greater. The Minister’s statement in this Chamber should perhaps be put in lights in Piccadilly Circus: that the Government are delegating the powers of implementation to the PRA. Well, hallelujah to that. Far be it from politicians to attempt to micromanage, because one of the great successes that we have seen in the last two years is the way in which the Bank of England and civil servants in the Treasury have handled all the negotiations in relation to exiting the European Union. If it is seamless, we do not know, so seamless is the way in which they have managed to do so, but it is undoubtedly the case that we retain greater expertise than perhaps anywhere else in the world, and certainly in Europe, in relation to the regulation of financial services.
I pay tribute—and this House should pay a huge tribute—to Mark Carney, who has now departed, to Andrew Bailey and to all the other key figures who have done this work and had it in the bag well before the politicians were voting in both Houses on how we did or did not leave the European Union, and in what way. In reality, the accord and understanding on financial services was already in the bag. That demonstrates to me that we are in a very strong position here.
The danger now would be if at any stage politicians suddenly got a wild idea that restructuring in this way or that way could have some ideological advantage. The key one I would highlight is the danger of challenger banks. The concept of challenger banks is one that politicians on all sides have welcomed. I have been more critical than most of the establishment banks, the culture within them, the price that we paid, particularly after 2008 in relation to that culture, and the way in which they treated their own institutions and mismanaged them.
However, challenger banks have a different kind of risk—a risk of the unknown. The beauty of the detail of what we are agreeing today is that it provides a well-constructed safeguard around our financial institutions. It is vital that those who have been doing it in precisely the way that I was delighted to hear the Minister outline are allowed to continue to do so. In layman’s terms, no bank must be too big to be able to fail, which is what we had in 2008, but no financial institution must fail in a way that hits the stability of the whole economy. However good the service you might sell or the product you might make and attempt to sell, if that instability is there, the economy will nosedive.
The key challenge is to maintain our strengths and maintain our stability there. Our biggest challenge is not going to be the European Union; it is going to be the emerging economies, particularly the approach of China and the Central Bank of China, and the growing strength of India in financial services and in terms of how the financial world will be operating. Asia has the risks for us and therefore, looking beyond the specifics of the EU, how we ensure financial stability here is critical to all our futures.
My final question to the Minister—in fact my only question—is about derivatives and whether there is any impact on the derivatives market. All the way through, that has been seen to be perhaps the riskiest element of any change—on both sides, us and the EU. Are there any implications from today in relation to that market?
Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]
I thank my noble friend the Minister for her excellent exposition of these important, though very technical, SIs. Clearly, as we leave the EU and leave the transition period, we must have in place our own regulations to ensure the safety and security of our financial institutions and the protection of consumers within our financial system.
I welcome these SIs. I do not think that they are particularly contentious, and I do not believe that any of our scrutiny committees have raised particular concerns. Like the noble Lord, Lord Mann, I would like to raise a few issues and ask my noble friend a number of questions, particularly on the issue of capital buffers. Who is in charge of assessing the buffers? What ongoing analysis is undertaken to ensure that the buffers that have been put in place are of the standard that they were expected to be when they were introduced, and how timely is that analysis? For example, has any new analysis been conducted in light of the Covid situation, and what might we perhaps expect in that regard?
In addition, what scenario analysis is undertaken in light of potential market distortions resulting from the ongoing quantitative easing programme of the Bank of England, and the potential interference in capital market valuations that may result from the extraordinary monetary measures which at the moment are focusing on driving down long-term interest rates and driving up asset prices in order to encourage growth or protect downside risk to growth?
On those measures, I express my significant concern at the rise in the levels of debt across our economy, and the almost exclusive focus on interest rates on debt being a measure of security of assets. In particular, there is the idea that government bonds—sovereign debt—are the lowest-risk asset which underpins all our capital asset pricing models and will drive the assessment of the capital buffers backing our financial institutions, and the question of whether we believe that this is wholly reliable in the current circumstances.
I certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mann, that no bank or financial institution should have been—or should be in the future—too big to fail but, in reality, surprises happen in markets. I wonder whether the new financial services regime that we will have after we leave the EU transition next year will consider potential nationalisation, in circumstances where the Government and taxpayers would otherwise have to bail out shareholders—and indeed bondholders—because of the risk of failure of the assets that they invested in and the potential damage to wider society should that failure actually occur.
What assessment is made of the property markets and other asset markets when assessing capital buffers? In particular, there is a question mark as we pull out of the MREL regime—as my noble friend has described—and focus more on the TLAC US regime, which has a different range of assets as its capital measure. Is that expected to continue to be a trend we will follow?
I welcome the emphasis on gender equality in our new regulatory system, in terms of pay. That is most welcome in the financial services sector, as in all other sectors.
Finally, I ask my noble friend how the Government, the Bank of England and the PRA, and other regulators perhaps, see the position of our major pension funds, which are enormous relative to the size of the economy in some ways. Certainly they are much larger than many financial institutions regulated under these instruments. How are those pension funds seen in terms of security, capital buffers and importance of delivery and security? If she has not got the answers, of course she is welcome to write to me.
Baroness Kramer (LD) [V]
My Lords, I recognise that this group of SIs largely deals with transposition, technical and in-flight issues, and therefore we do not intend to oppose them. I have questions, however, particular on the first SI on banking recovery and resolution. I am going to try to avoid the tangle of using the terms MREL—minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities, used in the EU—versus TLAC, which is total loss-absorbing capital, used internationally and essentially US- driven. As the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, made clear, they are not absolutely identical, but we can all recognise that they are essentially the same thing. My concerns are frankly more fundamental.
In response to the financial crisis of 2008, the Financial Stability Board set up by the G20 is requiring systemically significant banks by 2022 to raise the equivalent of 18% of their risk-weighted assets in loss-absorbing capital. I have no problem with that, but much of this in the UK has been in the form of bail-in bonds. How well is this programme working for the large systemically significant entities? I will come to smaller banks later.
There has been real concern about the capacity of the market to absorb the volume of bonds required, especially as recent revisions have required them to be more deeply subordinated. Covid-19 may have made these bonds temporarily more appealing because there are now so few ways to invest money and get any kind of return, but if this strategy of bail-in bonds is going to have problems because the market is stubbornly small, we need to know it now.
I want to probe the Minister on where we are going with medium and small banks, which are not systemically significant. The UK has gone well beyond the Basel requirements—and those of the 27 EU countries, even when we were a member of the EU—by stipulating that small and medium-sized banks that are not systemic should bear the same loss-absorbing capital burden as big banks. The Bank of England has the power to set this threshold without any scrutiny or approval required. This being the UK, it has decided that small and medium-sized banks—in effect, the challengers—did not deserve a more proportionate regime.
In reality, small and medium-sized banks can tap the bail-in bond market—if at all—only by offering huge coupons. They also lack the size to spread the cost of such high capital requirements over a diverse asset portfolio. I know that a review is going on, but can the Minister commit now to the concept of proportionality? The burden, as currently shaped, is making it near impossible for smaller banks to grow as they should. In turn, that undermines support for the recovery from Covid, never mind adding significant obstacles to the whole levelling-up agenda.
I have one more comment, on the final SI concerning bearer bonds. These unregistered instruments really are the backbone of money laundering. The sooner they are gone, the better.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, to this exclusive club that hacks through Treasury statutory instruments. I am sure she has been briefed that this is but a formality—the Labour Party will never support a fatal Motion against an affirmative statutory instrument, and the instruments are not amendable so what we do here has no real impact. To some extent, this influences the quality of some of the material that we work with.
With the complexity of these instruments, there is a requirement, frankly, for the Explanatory Memorandums to be of very high quality. In fact, I do not find them so. I find them difficult to comprehend. It is true that the Liberals have an unfair advantage over us by having people such as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, who actually know what they are talking about, but the object of the exercise should be that ordinary politicians should be able to understand what we are looking at. I note that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury signed a statement at the end of the instrument saying that
“this Explanatory Memorandum meets the required standard.”
For me, it does not.
What are the four SIs trying to do? Are they trying to make the minimal necessary changes or do they seek to introduce new policy? The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 was created on the basis that its output would be the minimum necessary to cover the transition out of Europe. The other Act prayed in aid in these SIs is the European Communities Act 1972, which of course had draconian powers, but for a specified reason. I am largely convinced that the objective of these SIs is a new policy objective. I have three points to bring out.
It seems that new policy is being introduced in the first SI, the bank resolution one, by the significant sunsetting of the major points set out in section 7.12 of the Explanatory Memorandum. They relate to the distribution of funds, moratorium powers, insolvency priorities and bail-in. I am not clear under which Act this is done, but I cannot see why it is necessary in this SI. These things have an important impact on the balance between the interests of customers and consumers compared with owners. Surely regulation is all about getting that balance right, and surely something that changes policy should be debated more formally. While the Minister referred to stakeholders in her introduction, in practice the stakeholders were all in either the regulation business or the bank business. At no point, as far as I can see, was there any process by which the consumer was represented in those discussions.
I got lost in section 2.10 of the Explanatory Memorandum to the next SI and would value the Minister helping me through it. There is a concept that, after the transition period ends, we will have some reference to EU law, which may be changed from “time to time”. That does not seem to be in line with the concept of sovereignty, which Brexit is supposed to be all about.
Finally, as far as I can see, the financial holding companies SI does nothing more than the minimum necessary for the transition. In studying it, I came across section 7.15 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which is about the removal of members from management boards. That seems quite draconian to me. It allows the PRA to remove individuals from the managing body of institutions,
“if they are found no longer to be of sufficiently good repute, no longer have the right skills, knowledge, experience, honesty or integrity, or are unable to commit sufficient time for the role.”
I have nothing against powerful rules that control bankers, but so much power over individuals, with no apparent mechanism for how judgments will be brought about and with no apparent appeal, does not meet a sense of natural justice.
Finally, I entirely agree with the sentiments set out in section 2.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum to the bearer certificates SI that bearer certificates are a bad thing. We are at one with the Government in seeking their complete elimination.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions to this debate, including the words of welcome from the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for what may be many debates on such issues. I shall take the points raised in turn.
The noble Lord, Lord Mann, is right about the importance of a smooth transition for our financial services sector. He is also right to pay tribute to the excellent work done by officials and regulators to ensure this. He asked about derivatives. These SIs do not address that issue directly, but I reassure him that the UK has already put measures in place to avoid disruption to cleared derivatives markets. The Chancellor announced yesterday that we will be granting CCP equivalence to the EU and EEA/EFTA states. This, together with our temporary recognition regime, means that UK firms will be able to continue using EEA CCPs after the end of the transition period. The EU has also granted the UK temporary CCP equivalence for a period of 18 months after the end of the transition period and has recognised all three UK CCPs. This allows UK CCPs to continue to provide services into the EU.
My noble friend Lady Altmann asked who is in charge of assessing the buffers and what analysis is undertaken to do so. In the case of the other systemically important institution buffer, the Financial Policy Committee is responsible for setting a framework for the buffer, while the Prudential Regulatory Authority applies that buffer to individual institutions. The FPC is required to review the buffer framework every two years and will benefit from PRA and Bank of England analysis of whether the buffers are still achieving their objectives. The PRA will be responsible for setting the CRDV systemic risk buffer, which again includes a requirement to review any buffer rate set periodically. The Bank of England’s Financial Policy Committee is tasked with considering systemic financial stability risks, including those that might flow from higher levels of debt or changes in capital markets. The latest remit for the Financial Policy Committee asks that the FPC and the Monetary Policy Committee should continue to have regard to each other’s actions to enhance co-ordination between monetary and macroprudential policy. This co-ordination has enhanced the strength and resilience of the UK’s macroeconomic framework.
These buffers are an important means of maintaining financial stability. For instance, the other systemically important institutions buffer will help ensure that ring-fenced banks are resilient against potential risks. This instrument seeks to preserve the current level of macroprudential policy flexibility. The actual setting of buffers is largely left to the independent regulators, subject to certain provisions in the regulation. My noble friend also asked about nationalisation. Temporary public ownership is one of the resolution tools available, but it would be used only as a last resort. Progress on gender equality in the financial services sector is essential, and the Government too welcome the provisions in CRDV, which are in line with existing requirements on gender equality in the UK.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, is right to note that the Bank of England is committed to reviewing its framework on the MREL framework—I am sorry to use the acronym—by the end of 2020, but the outcome of that review cannot be prejudged. The Government take a proportionate approach. Indeed, in not implementing the EU’s new MREL requirements as part of these SIs, one of the considerations was that we think the new requirements could impose a disproportionate impact on some medium-sized building societies. That is a reflection of the fact that the Government wish to take a proportionate approach.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked about the power to remove board members. This stems directly from the EU directive. I reassure him that the regulator will exercise a power of removal only where a person is no longer of sufficiently good repute to perform their duties, no longer possesses sufficient knowledge, skills, experience, honesty, integrity or independence of mind to perform their duties, or is no longer able to commit sufficient time to perform their duties. The individual in question will have the right to refer their case to the Upper Tribunal if they are aggrieved with the actions of the regulator in this respect.
I also confirm to the noble Lord that he is absolutely correct that this SI forms part of the programme of statutory instruments made under the EU withdrawal Act 2018. The purpose of most of these SIs, apart from the final one, is to ensure there is a fully functioning financial services, legal and regulatory regime at the end of the transition period. The approach taken in this instrument aligns with the general approach established by the EU withdrawal Act 2018, providing continuity by retaining existing legislation at the end of the transition period but amending, where necessary, to ensure effectiveness in a UK-only context.
The noble Lord asked specifically whether the approach to sunsetting certain provisions within the first SI is consistent with that approach. The UK has considered very carefully which provisions would not be suitable for the UK resolution regime after leaving the EU, while still maintaining prudential soundness and other regulatory outcomes, such as consumer protection and proportionality. He mentioned consultation—we have consulted the UK financial regulators and taken into account concerns raised in consultation responses on the potential risks to financial stability and consumers. It is with those in mind that we have taken the approach that we have on sunsetting.
To give him a couple of examples, one of the provisions we have sunsetted is the introduction of a pre-resolution moratoria power and the extension of a moratoria power to eligible deposits. We were concerned that that could create potential risks to financial stability, as it could both increase the risk of runs on the particular banks affected and further trigger runs on unaffected banks, and therefore we have sunsetted that provision.
Another example is the changes to priority of debts and insolvency. These are sunsetted due to concerns around the potential impact that this could have on investor expectations and the market, including pricing. Given the difficulties in predicting where and to what degree the impacts on firms and investors will be felt, it was thought that it was in the interests of prudential regulation to sunset that provision.
The sunsetting of these provisions does not remove obligations, given that the existing UK resolution regime already provides powers for the resolution authority to exercise moratoria powers as part of the resolution. The Prudential Regulation Authority can also impose restrictions on distributions if firms are in breach of their buffer requirements, and it requires firms to include contractual recognition clauses in contracts governed by third-country law and provides for non-inclusion on the basis of impracticability. In many of the areas where we have sunsetted the provisions, there is already existing regulatory provision to take action where needed.
I also acknowledge the noble Lord’s comments on the Explanatory Memorandum; I too find some of these issues complex to get my head around. They are technical SIs, and every effort is made to ensure that the Explanatory Memorandums are as understandable as possible. We will bear in mind the noble Lord’s points in future.
With that, I hope noble Lords have found the debate informative and will join me in supporting these regulations.
Securities Financing Transactions, Securitisation and Miscellaneous Amendments (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
Baroness Penn
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 15 October be approved.
Financial Holding Companies (Approval etc.) and Capital Requirements (Capital Buffers and Macro-prudential Measures) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
Baroness Penn
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 15 October be approved.
Bearer Certificates (Collective Investment Schemes) Regulations 2020
Baroness Penn
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 28 September be approved.
Economy Update
(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for presenting this Statement. It is the latest in a series of announcements and, while there are aspects that we very much welcome, it is a tremendous shame that it has taken so long and required so much frustration and anxiety among businesses and working people. The Labour Party has called for clarity on job support for months. In that time, rather than providing certainty, the Chancellor proceeded with winding down the furlough scheme. That decision was taken despite its apparent success at keeping people employed and warnings of the impact of a perceived cliff edge in support.
Instead of protecting as many jobs as possible, Mr Sunak was honest about the fact that he had decided to focus on so-called viable jobs instead. The replacement scheme was announced with little accompanying detail and, when the information finally emerged, it became apparent that the Job Support Scheme—JSS—would not do, even in the revised form announced mere days before its planned commencement. We now find ourselves with the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme—the CJRS —extended to March, with a review of the proportions paid by the Treasury and businesses themselves to be carried out in January. This finally provides a degree of certainty to businesses, and we are pleased that they can now plan accordingly. However, not for the first time, the decision came much too late.
This entire process raises several important questions, which I hope the Minister will address. I appreciate that our time is restricted, so I would welcome a letter with any detail he is unable to set out today. What evidence base did the Chancellor draw on when announcing the planned shift from the CJRS to the JSS? Did that modelling predict that jobs may be lost in the short and medium term as a result? If so, how many? How does this match up to the reality reflected in recent figures? Does the Treasury anticipate any of these job losses being reversed and, if so, how many?
I now turn to the continued issues with the Self-employment Income Support Scheme. In last week’s response to an Urgent Question, the Minister cited the number of claims made under the SEISS and assured noble Lords:
“We keep under review the whole issue of trying to protect those who have fallen through the cracks.”—[Official Report, 4/11/20; col. 708.]
I accept the point he made in relation to certain changes to universal credit, which marginally improve the situation for some of those excluded from the SEISS. However, this ignores the key issue, which is that so many people remain beyond the scope of the Government’s core coronavirus economic support and are, instead, forced to rely on an inadequate social security system.
How can Ministers and their officials not have found a solution to this in the past six months? Is the problem that the Minister and the department do not believe there is one, or is there a lack of political will to bring one forward? What would he say to those who, by the end of the current package, will have been outside the scope of government support for a full calendar year?
Finally, I was grateful for the promise of correspondence on self-isolation payments and the technicalities of that system. I have some further points on this. A study by Independent SAGE suggested that only approximately 20% of people in England who experience Covid-19 symptoms go on to follow fully the Government’s self-isolation guidance. Now that we find ourselves subject to a new lockdown, what steps are the Government taking to address this worrying trend, so that there is higher compliance when the current restrictions are eased?
I touched last week on people being ineligible for self-isolation payments if they receive notification via the mobile app rather than an NHS contact tracer. There are many other issues with eligibility, meaning that only one in eight workers is covered by it. In the gig economy, the situation is potentially even worse. Those workers do not enjoy statutory protections and often cannot afford to miss even a day’s work. While some digital platforms have put in place their own measures, this relies on good will and discretion rather than providing guarantees to those in need. What, if anything, do the Government have planned in this area? How soon are we likely to see the details?
Baroness Kramer (LD) [V]
My Lords, last week the Minister was not a bit keen on my call for an extension of the 80% furlough scheme to June. Now it looks as though I will get that until at least April, unless there is a poison pill in the January review—though I suspect, quite frankly, that the Government would not dare. I also called on the Government to feed the kids. What a difference a week makes. I am glad they have finally faced up to the realities and have U-turned on quite a range of issues.
They should still do more for the self-employed, whose income support grant ends at the close of December. They cannot be left out in the cold at the turn of the new year. Again, not a thing has been done for the 3 million excluded. The clue is in the name: excluded. There is no point in the Minister quoting programmes that these people cannot access and use. Letting them down is unacceptable.
On the same day the Chancellor made the furlough announcement, the Bank of England announced another £150 billion of QE, which will bring its holding of government debt to over £900 billion. There is a widespread market sentiment that this policy has come to the end of the road. Will the Government comment on that and the implications of negative interest rates, which are now being explored by the Bank? Are we really saying that savings are worth nothing, and that ordinary people need to take increased financial risk in a time of such uncertainty, created by not just Covid but an imminent economic Brexit?
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office and the Treasury (Lord Agnew of Oulton) (Con)
I thank both noble Lords for their comments. I will first address the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe.
The Government have always made it clear that economic support would continue past the end of October and had announced the Job Support Scheme to do just that. Extending the CJRS, or furlough, responds to the latest economic conditions and the national lockdown in England and similar restrictions in the devolved Administrations. The Government have acknowledged that they have not been able to support everyone in the exact way they would want, but they have been proactive in addressing gaps in the scheme where possible. This partially addresses the points of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer; for example, under the second SEISS grant, self-employed traders facing reduced demand or who are temporarily unable to trade due to Covid were made eligible. It has not been practically possible to include certain groups without introducing unacceptable fraud risks.
The vast majority of the British public has come together, followed the law and helped to prevent the spread of the virus. We are confident that communities will rise to the next challenge and play their part as we come together to fight the second wave this winter. The noble Lord asked about compliance. To ensure that people can continue complying, we have introduced a comprehensive package of support, including extended SSP to employees when they are asked to self-isolate, and for workers on low incomes a one-off payment of £500 under the self-isolation support payment scheme.
Individuals who are asked to self-isolate by NHS Test and Trace because they have tested positive for coronavirus, or been identified as a contact, may be eligible for the test and trace support payment provided that they meet the other criteria. If individuals are identified as a contact by the NHS Covid-19 app but they have not been contacted by NHS Test and Trace, they cannot currently apply for the scheme. App users are anonymous, which means that the local authorities that administer the payment scheme cannot confirm that they have been asked to self-isolate. Further work is ongoing to determine if the scheme can be extended to individuals who have been identified as a contact only through the app, while adhering to data privacy requirements.
We have legislated to prevent employers from requiring workers, including agency workers, subject to the duty to self-isolate to attend work. Employers who breach this are subject to a £1,000 fine, rising to £10,000 for repeat offences.
The noble Baroness asked about the potential for negative interest rates. I cannot predict the future, but the noble Baroness will know that we are very against that at the moment. I hope that it can be avoided. I share her concern that negative interest rates put pressure on savers beyond that which has existed over the last 10 years of very low interest rates. It is illustrative of the balancing act that the Government must take between support for people during this crisis and the long-term impact on the Government.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)
My Lords, we now come to the 30 minutes allocated for Back-Bench questions. I ask that questions and answers be brief so that I can call the maximum number of speakers.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, last week a Cabinet Minister said that there had been no impact analysis done on the effect on the economy of the various rate restrictions, the previous lockdown and the current lockdown, which is a pity, because I would have thought that was rather important. I will not ask the Minister to give me an impact analysis today, because that would be rather unfair, but can he tell me whether the Government have worked out how long it will take for our children to repay the humungous debt that we are running up? Will it be one decade, two decades, three decades or longer?
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
I share my noble friend’s concern about the huge impact of indebtedness that has gone on to the country’s balance sheets over the last few months. He is entirely right that the burden of this will be borne by the next generation, not by those of us sitting in this Chamber. That is why we are so anxious to do everything possible to avoid these national lockdowns, which have the huge costs of supporting people and which throttle economic growth. We are seeing the largest fall in economic activity in my lifetime certainly—and maybe even longer. We must come together to regrow the economy as quickly as possible, because only growth will pay down this debt.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth [V]
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s desire to protect jobs and livelihoods, but can the Minister confirm that the extension of the furlough scheme until March—a full five months—is based on the assumption and expectation that those jobs, or at least the vast majority of them, will be ready to return to unchanged? That is a bold assumption. If it is not the case, what strategy do the Government have now for addressing the transitional challenges for those whose jobs will disappear? This Statement was made late, in haste. Tackling the jobs issue in March is tackling it too late.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
I share the concerns of the right reverend Prelate about jobs. The honest answer is that we do not have enough visibility on the impact to the economy beyond March. Coming out of lockdown, we saw a steady reduction in the number of people using the furlough scheme. It dropped every month from July to August to September. I do not have all the information yet, but hopefully it will be published shortly. The key is whether we can avoid extending this awful lockdown beyond 2 December. I am confident that if we can avoid that, we will see a rapid pick up of the economy, which will hopefully reduce the number of job losses that the right reverend Prelate is so concerned about.
Viscount Waverley (CB) [V]
My Lords, could the Minister set out the vision from the perspective of his department as to how the various help initiatives, including the job retention and self-isolation schemes, can impact UK trade in delivering a sustainable economy at national and international level, given that our economy is in the eye of a perfect storm of incomplete Brexit-related negotiations, a changing of the guard in the US, direct and indirect consequences of Covid, including supply chain complications, and a worsening employment situation?
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
I agree with the noble Viscount that we face an unprecedented storm of events, and I share his concern. On the role of the Treasury and, indeed, my other department, the Cabinet Office, we are doing a great deal to try to ameliorate some of this. For example, project speed, on which I deputise for the Chancellor, has brought together a number of initiatives to pump prime the economy—and we have published our first initiatives on that. We have a further possible 80 projects, which will be used to pump prime the economy, dealing with blockages to infrastructure, speeding up infrastructure, the commitment to building additional schools and accelerating the building of 40-odd hospitals. We have announced through the IPA some £37 billion of infrastructure, and I hope that we will announce around the time of the spending review the national infrastructure strategy, which will show further the investment that the Government are making.
Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the extension of the economic and job support schemes and congratulate the Chancellor on his willingness to adopt flexibility and have the courage to change tack when the economy and public health winds changed. However, I have to say that I regret that a new lockdown was deemed necessary and believe that the damage caused to public health and the economy as a result needs to be much more thoroughly analysed.
Does my noble friend agree that the job support measures that have been introduced have been facilitated by the Bank of England’s quantitative easing policy? In combination with the job support measures, it is rather like helicopter money or people’s QE. What impact do Her Majesty’s Government expect it to have on UK defined benefit pension schemes? Would not it be better for the economy to encourage companies and pension schemes to invest directly in the economy to boost growth rather than encouraging them to buy more fixed income, as interest rates continually fall?
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
The noble Baroness is right that QE is providing a level of financing for the interventions that the Government are taking at the moment. I think that she will understand that those interventions are having to be made extremely quickly to protect lives and livelihoods across the whole country. Long term, I absolutely agree with her that we need to get businesses to invest more in the economy. One initiative that I am exploring is to try to encourage local government pension funds to allocate a greater proportion of their investments to infrastructure; at the moment, it is a very low figure. I am sure that there is more we can do to loosen the rules without, of course, putting those pension assets at undue risk.
Lord Bird (CB)
I declare my interest as a founder of a social business, which is on the register. From where I am sitting, I am very impressed with this Government, who have pushed aside all the austerity measures that we were expecting. I think most of us expected that we would return to a Cameron-type, Clegg-type austerity. That involved laying the stones, filling up our hospitals and cutting social support to such an extent that, when we arrived at Covid-19, 85% of our hospitals were full of people who were troubled, poor and broken, largely because of the effects of austerity.
I am a self-appointed historian. I was born in 1946 and I stopped paying for the Second World War in 2007, when Mr Blair signed a cheque for the last time. Did your Lordships know that in 1832 we raised £30 million to pay off the people who had to give up their slaves? We only finished paying that off last February. This generation is paying for previous generations, and those generations paid for generations before them. If this generation turns its back on its responsibility and does not do as the IMF said—spend, spend, spend, and keep the receipts—then we will have no economy and no society, and we will have an enormous amount of problems.
I am really blessed. I am grateful for the bounce-back loan and for the chance of having the furloughs so that I can look after my staff and still help those people who I have appointed myself to help on the streets of the cities of Great Britain.
I shall end on another problem. I know many self-employed people, including my brother, who cannot find their way through the intricacies of what is being offered by the Government; some 3 million to 5 million people are falling outside it. I suggest that we need to fine-tune ways of how we can help those people. News came through yesterday that 1 million people, the backbone of Britain, doing all their self-employed jobs, are now giving up on self-employment and trying to find jobs. That is because they are not getting the support that the Government are offering.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his supportive comments. I completely agree with him that intergenerational solidarity is vital as we come through this crisis. I worry about the cliff edge of debt that we are generating, but I accept his point that we need to be here today for all those very vulnerable people who we have tried to help over the past six months. I hear what the noble Lord says about the complexity of eligibility. I am pleased to confirm to him that we are working to make clearer eligibility criteria. They have been introduced for the third SEISS grant, and we have committed to there being a fourth grant early next year.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and the noble Lord, Lord Bird, in focusing on the self-employed, particularly those who are missing out on help altogether. In figures out this morning, the LSE Centre for Economic Performance found that one-fifth of self-employed people anticipate quitting altogether, rising to 58% of those under the age of 25. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth referred to the conditions of uncertainty that we are going to see in the new year. What will the Government do to enable the self-employed to rebuild their careers and their lives and to give them security as a foundation to do that? An unconditional payment, such as universal basic income, could be such a foundation. Will the Government consider it?
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
The noble Baroness knows that this Government certainly do not support a universal basic income, but we are very aware of the vulnerability of many self-employed people. We have tried to close as many of the gaps as we can. As I mentioned in my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Bird, we have clarified the criteria in the latest round. The noble Baroness will know that we have made the entitlement more generous and extended it not just to November through until January.
Baroness Warsi (Con) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s decision to provide clarity and stability by extending the furlough scheme to March. I also draw the House’s attention to my entry in the register of interests. Can my noble friend provide some clarity for those businesses that took out coronavirus business interruption loans and bounce-back loans, many of which were taken out around April this year and therefore will be coming up to the anniversary in April next year? Has any thinking been done in government about what will happen to those loans, such as when repayments will start, what rates of interest are likely to be incurred and whether there will be an extension of the interest-free period to enable businesses to stabilise before those payments start?
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
No firm decisions on that have been made, other than what was announced a few weeks ago, which was to extend the payment period of the bounce-back loans to 10 years and to confirm that those businesses that took out less than their 25% eligibility up to the £50,000 cap could return to top up to the full amount. We will of course keep under close review how the economy reacts as we come out of this pandemic, as we hope, and how quickly businesses are able to recover from it.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the new economic measures announced by the Chancellor last Thursday in another place, but, like other noble Lords, I continually hear of cases of thousands of fellow citizens who, not because of fecklessness or negligence, are falling between the cracks—photographers, event organisers, dividend earners and the like, who have taken risks and built high-earning businesses, who are now prevented from earning a living or paying their debts and are being driven to despair through no fault of their own. In the light of the new quantitative easing measures, will the Government please have another look at support for these innocent victims of this pandemic?
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
I share the noble Lord’s concern for those who have fallen through the cracks. We have issued a number of initiatives over the last few weeks and months to try to close the gap. For example, for the arts sector, there is some £1.5 billion of support, some of which will be available to vulnerable groups which have not been able to be part of the traditional self-employed schemes. We have also made funding available to local authorities, which are able to use discretion in the allocation of some of that money for vulnerable self-employed people.
Lord Bilimoria (CB) [V]
[Inaudible]—will be crucial. The news of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine is very welcome. Does the Minister agree with the recommendation of the CBI, of which I am president, about the creation of an economic recovery commission, uniting government, business and unions? It would be a vital step, as would the urgent rollout of affordable, regular mass antigen testing—with the Liverpool pilot, thankfully, having been started and now in full swing—along with investment in job-creating projects, with a focus on digital skills and green jobs. To reinforce what the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said, what can the Government do to help the 3 million excluded from the huge amount of government support that has been made available so far, for which we are all grateful?
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, the Government are in constant contact with the business community. They absolutely accept that the wealth creation engine of our economy is vital for us to recover from this pandemic. I share the noble Lord’s optimism about the vaccine. Of course, we need to be careful—we are not through the last hurdle yet—but it is certainly nice to have a little bit of good news occasionally. I have answered the point about the self-employed, raised by several other noble Lords. It is perhaps worth reminding the noble Lord that we have improved the universal credit system to try to provide a little more protection at that end of the system. We have also confirmed that those on mortgage holidays can extend to six months without any impact on their credit file.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Non-Afl) [V]
Three weeks ago, the Minister agreed with my remark—first made by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, I believe—that we have to integrate our employment assistance policy in relation to jobs that are affected by Covid-19 and jobs that are affected by Brexit. This task is becoming increasingly urgent. Looking forward, we will be in another crisis in which we are behind the curve. Will the Government commit to following up the Minister’s reply when I last raised this point and agree that there should be at least a White Paper or a Green Paper arising from the important talks in which, as the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, said, the TUC and the CBI agreed with the Government? Would it not be a good tripartite agenda for them to examine why there has been so much difference in how jobs have been affected by Covid-19 and how jobs have been affected by Brexit? The situation will be dreadful by the time we next have a Statement, as it is likely that Dover-Calais will shut down for many hours if we do not get a settlement, which is unlikely at this stage.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
The noble Lord raises a number of questions. Perhaps I may reassure him that the Government are in constant dialogue with business at all levels. He is right that we face some uncertainty on 1 January with the emerging exit from the transition period. It will certainly be helpful if we can get some kind of clarity within the next couple of weeks. However, he should also understand that, whether we get a deal or not, we are leaving on 1 January and we will be out of the customs union. The only real difference for businesses will be the tariff structures that exist and their preparedness for that. We are doing an enormous amount of work to support businesses in being ready for that, including work at the ports and inland sites to ensure that the disruption that the noble Lord is concerned about is minimised.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con) [V]
My Lords, are my noble friend Lord Robathan and I alone in worrying about the accumulated national debt? How much will this furlough scheme cost if it lasts until the end of March? By how much will the national debt increase as a percentage of GDP, and at what stage does the national debt as a percentage of GDP become unsustainable? Let us face it, this lockdown may not even be necessary, based as it was on bogus statistics, and imposed at a time when the incidence of coronavirus was decreasing both in hospitals and in the numbers of people being infected.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My noble friend asks about the cost of this current extension of furlough. I am not able to give him the answer to that yet simply because we do not know how many firms and employees will take advantage of it over the next few months. During the last lockdown we saw a very dramatic reduction in the numbers claiming each month as the economy opened up again. We have built in the flexibilities that we did not include initially in the first lockdown so that employees and employers can work as flexibly as possible to protect both businesses and their employees. I share my noble friend’s concern about the overall costs of this and the risk to our balance sheet.