House of Commons
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Simon Hart)
I am quite surprised by the hon. Lady’s question, as the Government have extended the coronavirus job retention scheme to the end of March. It continues to protect millions of employees across the United Kingdom and has supported over 400,000 jobs in Wales, and in fact 700,000 in Scotland, too.
Christine Jardine
I did welcome and continue to welcome the fact that the job retention scheme has been extended until March, but in fact we would ask that it is extended until June 2021, as that would give businesses sufficient time to plan and to be able to build, considering that we will also come to the end of the transition period. Does the Secretary of State also recognise the need to extend furlough and support to those small companies that so far have had nothing and the self-employed who have been excluded from all support?
Simon Hart
We have to be serious about this, and it seems to me odd that each time we extend the scheme, we are asked to extend it even further. I think that if we extended it to 2050, the hon. Lady would be saying that 2051 would be a more appropriate date. The fact is that the Chancellor has attempted to be as flexible, versatile and dynamic as possible, and hundreds of thousands of people’s jobs have been saved as a result of that flexibility.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Simon Hart)
I have regular discussions with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on our economic response to covid-19. We have directly provided over £500 million to the self-employed in Wales on top of the £5 billion additional funding guarantee given to the Welsh Government.
Chris Elmore
The pandemic, as the Secretary of State will know, is putting huge financial pressure on constituents right across Wales. Families and communities are hugely impacted, and none more so than those who have been impacted by flooding and by living underneath what are arguably unsafe coal tips. Can the Secretary of State tell us what representations he has made to the Chancellor to make true the Prime Minister’s promise that additional funding will come to Wales to help those families who have been impacted by flooding and to secure the coal tips, including the ones in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant).
Simon Hart
As I hope the hon. Gentleman knows, there has been significant movement on the guarantee for the initial important works around Tylorstown. The rest of the funding that has been requested by the Welsh Government is the subject of a national reserve, and that has to be part of the normal estimates process. We have asked the Welsh Government to come forward with their numbers, and a decision on that will be made in due course. However, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has already indicated that he will look favourably on an application provided it meets the necessary criteria.
Geraint Davies [V]
The lockdown in England of course came after the firebreak in Wales, so will the Secretary of State ensure that Wales gets its full equivalent of the England lockdown through the Barnett consequential formula, so that we get our fair share of funding that can be best deployed by the Welsh Government?
Simon Hart
The sums of money that have been already made available to the Welsh Government under the Barnett scheme are substantial. As the hon. Member knows, at least £5 billion has formed the major bulk of that. What I should also say is that, as far as the additional sums are concerned and the point he makes, the significance of doing this on a UK-wide basis is to minimise the complications and the divergences in policy between the UK Government and the Welsh Government, because that makes that even spread so much more difficult. However, the Chancellor has made available substantial sums of money in advance of the normal Barnett formula, and £1.8 billion is still being sat on by the Welsh Government and is available to spend.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Sadly, this week we have seen the Prime Minister’s utter contempt for devolution, yet it is only because of the devolved powers that the Welsh Labour Government were able to heed the scientists’ advice and actually go into the firebreak at the time it could be most effective. As the Secretary of State knows, the Welsh Government called on the Chancellor to extend furlough to support businesses from day one of the firebreak, so why was it that the Secretary of State failed to secure that support for workers in Wales and why was it only made available after England belatedly followed Wales’s lead into lockdown?
Simon Hart
Again, it is a strange question to be levelling at the UK Government, given the level of support that has been provided. I should remind the hon. Lady that the infection rates per 100,000 in Wales are actually higher than they are in England and testing rates per 100,000 in Wales are lower than they are in England, so this notion that she is attempting to put forward that somehow it has all gone swimmingly well in Wales and not so swimmingly well in England is completely untrue. What it demonstrates is that actually a competition between the two Governments is not the answer; the answer is working together more collaboratively. As far as the Chancellor’s statement is concerned, he made it very clear in a phone call to the First Minister exactly what was possible and what was not, yet for some reason the First Minister decided to press ahead with plans that he knew could not be met by the Treasury in the timescale available.
Nia Griffith
It is strange, and the question is about making such support available for Wales when it needed it. After this Conservative Government’s dither and delay led to a crisis-point lockdown in England, the Chancellor suddenly made the 80% furlough available, but it was not backdated to 23 October for Welsh businesses, whose closure at that point helped to turn the tide on covid numbers in Wales. That is of no help to workers who have been made redundant because of the Government’s refusal to extend furlough, up until the very last day. What will the Secretary of State do to get that furlough backdated and give Welsh businesses and workers the support they deserve?
Simon Hart
The hon. Lady has clearly not had the conversations with Welsh businesses that I have had. I will not go into too much detail on this issue, because we would be going all day, but I have pages of numbers on the contributions that the UK Government have made to Welsh businesses and employees: £1.6 billion of direct support to businesses; 401,000 people protected by furlough, accounting for one in three jobs; £1.47 billion in bounce-back loans; and £530 million in support for the self-employed. The hon. Lady should be getting to her feet and saying, “This is why the Union is important. The UK Government have come to the rescue of so many people and businesses in Wales and the rest of the UK, and that is why they should be collaborated with, assisted and, indeed, thanked for some of the work they have done.”
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
On top of the economic hardship inflicted by the pandemic, there are only 43 days until the end of the transition period, yet the replacement of key EU funding in Wales remains shrouded in mystery. The shared prosperity fund will reveal where the Government’s principal interests lie. Does the Secretary of State respect Welsh devolution, and if so, will he guarantee that funding decisions will be fully devolved? Anything else will stink of political expediency.
Simon Hart
For the first time in a while, I am rather grateful for the right hon. Lady’s question, because it enables me to point out that of course I thoroughly support devolution, but that does not mean simply transferring power from Westminster to Cardiff. Devolution means getting decision making done at the closest possible level to where it matters, which is across Wales. That is why I have had conversations with local authorities and the Welsh Local Government Association about the shared prosperity fund, as well as with others, including the Welsh Government. They should be playing a much more active part in the decision making and prioritisation of SPF spending than they have done so far.
Liz Saville Roberts
Through all those words I will take that as a “no” for devolution in Wales. The Prime Minister and the self-monikered Minister for the Union has said that devolution is a “disaster”, yet a YouGov poll found that 72% of Welsh people do not trust Westminster to look after their best interests. With support for independence gaining speed and traction across Wales, how can the frippery of a Union taskforce overcome the disastrous realities of Westminster’s track record in Wales?
Simon Hart
Devolution is only a disaster when it is hijacked by separatists and when people who expect devolution to deliver jobs and livelihoods discover that all it delivers is a pet project of nationalists to try to break off one part of the UK from another part. If the right hon. Lady wants to talk about polling, I might remind her that the last barometer poll showed that support for Plaid Cymru had dropped by 4% and that support for independence in Wales had dropped by 2%. She should not get too excited about the direction of travel.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)
The UK Government work closely with the devolved Administrations to ensure a broad UK-wide approach in our response to covid-19. There is consistency across the United Kingdom in the restrictions implemented to tackle the virus, with some divergence to reflect differing rates of transmission.
Aaron Bell
I thank the Minister for his answer. We will get through this pandemic only with a measure of trust between the public, the Government and the Welsh Government. Does he agree that the Welsh Government were wrong to introduce their nanny-state ban on supermarkets selling non-essential items during their lockdown?
David T. C. Davies
My hon. Friend makes a very useful point. Any policy that allows members of the public to buy vodka but not baby food is patently devoid of common sense. By needlessly testing the public’s patience and sowing confusion, the Welsh Government have undermined this Government’s efforts to tackle the virus across the United Kingdom.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
Following the Welsh Labour Government’s decision to introduce a firebreak lockdown in Wales, coronavirus cases have begun to fall across the board. At the time, the leader of the Welsh Conservatives described the 17-day lockdown as “unnecessary” and “disproportionate”, yet just days later, the Minister and his Welsh Conservative colleagues voted for a lockdown in England that is at least a fortnight longer and may last longer still. Will the Minister finally join me in welcoming the Welsh Government’s decision? Is it not time for him and his Welsh Conservative colleagues to put party politics to one side and support responsible actions to combat the pandemic that are in the interests of the people of Wales?
David T. C. Davies
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is the UK Government who have been trying to put party politics to one side. That is why we have invited Ministers from the Welsh Government and the Scottish Government to come to the many meetings that we have been holding in order to develop ways to tackle this virus. The fact of the matter remains, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already pointed out, that cases are higher in Wales and testing is lower than that it is in England, so I urge the hon. Gentleman to do whatever he can to encourage the Welsh Government to work more collaboratively with the UK Government to tackle this virus.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
As my hon. Friend will know, the border between England and north Wales is densely populated, with many thousands of people travelling across it in both directions every day for work, social and business purposes, and many other purposes too. However, the Welsh Government have sought to close that border, causing considerable inconvenience and disruption to those people. What future arrangements can be put in place to ensure that there is no repetition of this disruption?
David T. C. Davies
My right hon. Friend is certainly right that these closures have caused a certain amount of confusion for people living along the border—confusion about whether or not people can travel to and from work, confusion about where they can go to do their shopping, confusion about what sort of shopping they can buy, and confusion about whether or not those who are in a household bubble can go on holiday with each other. The fact of the matter remains that the Welsh Government’s actions have been legal, but I am not sure that they have been sensible.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)
This Government have taken a broad set of measures to protect jobs in Wales and right across the UK during the covid-19 outbreak. We have shown flexibility, most recently by extending the furlough scheme until the end of March.
Sally-Ann Hart
To what extent have jobs and livelihoods in Wales been protected by the Government’s financial support through the Chancellor’s furlough and self-employed schemes and business grants and loans? Are there other ways that the Welsh Senedd has been supported by the UK Government?
David T. C. Davies
The short answer is that they have been protected to an enormous extent as a result of measures brought forward by the UK Government. Over 400,000 people in Wales have benefited from the furlough scheme, £2 billion-worth of financial support has been provided through the UK Government’s self-employment income support scheme, and £5 billion extra has been given to the Welsh Government. Not all that money has yet been spent, so there is plenty more that the Welsh Government could be doing to support businesses and jobs in Wales.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)
The Secretary of State for Wales and I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues and Welsh Ministers on a range of issues, including EU trade negotiations. The Joint Ministerial Committee on EU negotiations meets regularly, and my ministerial colleagues frequently discuss the EU trade negotiations with Ministers from all the devolved Administrations.
Deidre Brock
The comments by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on Sunday that sheep farmers should just switch over to beef in the face of higher tariffs have been widely ridiculed in Wales and, indeed, in Scotland—quite a “let them eat cake” moment. Lamb exports are vital not only to farmers but to wider rural communities. What confidence can hill farmers have that the British Government have their interests at heart when it comes to EU trade negotiations after such a ministerial blunder?
David T. C. Davies
First of all, I assure the hon. Lady that this Government are working very hard indeed to ensure that we get a full trade deal with the European Union. The second point to remember is that her party has voted against or abstained on every single trade deal that has been put forward for the last 15 years. The third point that I put to her is that the UK Government have already shown over and again how much support they will give to any industry that gets into any kind of trouble as a result of covid, or indeed, as a result of anything else. She can rest assured that we are doing everything possible, and if she is worried, perhaps she would like to explain to her constituents why she and her party voted against a deal that would have kept us inside a customs union and a single market. I voted for it; she and her party rejected it.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
I know that the Minister is a strong supporter of devolution and he will acknowledge that the UK Government’s conduct of reserved matters such as trade will have significant implications for devolved competences such as agriculture. With that in mind, what concrete steps are the Government taking to develop the capacity of the Joint Ministerial Committee so that it fosters greater trust and transparency among the four nations?
David T. C. Davies
The hon. Gentleman is being quite kind to me, because I was on a slightly different side of the argument in 1999, but I have reformed. I am a changed man. I recognise that the people of Wales voted twice for devolution in referendums and I believe that when the people of Wales vote for something in a referendum, that choice needs to be respected. I respect and will support devolution and I welcome his suggestion of closer co-operation between the UK and Welsh Governments over important issues such as agriculture.
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Simon Hart)
I have had constructive discussions with representative bodies, including Welsh Rugby Union and the Football Association of Wales. These discussions will prove instrumental in allowing teams to get back on the pitch.
Rob Roberts [V]
On a recent trip to Flint Town United in my constituency, who were successfully promoted to the Welsh premier league last year, the chairman was telling me that they need only 15% to 20% of their ground capacity to be allowed in to watch matches in order to cover costs and keep their heads above water. They have done a lot to enable a small number of supporters to return in a covid-secure way. Does my right hon. Friend agree that getting supporters back into grounds in a safe and secure way is the best way to make sure that we do not lose clubs in Wales, which provide vital recreation services for all ages and act as a focal point for the local community?
Simon Hart
My hon. Friend makes a very good point and I absolutely agree with him. This is also a good moment to congratulate, I think, Ryan Reynolds and Rob McElhenney on their recent purchase of Wrexham football club. What an exciting future they have, no doubt. My hon. Friend’s point is a good one. Of course we want to see a successful vaccination programme and a successful testing programme—that will help in his ambitions—but some funding from the National Lottery and from the Welsh Government will also ease the way to returns to stadiums, and complete capacity stadiums, of the sort that he wishes.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
On 10 November, the difficult decision was taken to cancel the remaining games of the women’s rugby Six Nations 2020, due to the impact of coronavirus. While we live in unprecedented times, what assurances can the Secretary of State give that international women’s sport will be given the same priority as men’s, and what message does he think the decision gives to women’s and girls’ sport in Wales?
Simon Hart
The hon. Lady is probably the only person in the Chamber who has represented a sport at national and international level, so I take her question very seriously in that regard. Of course, there should be no disparity between the sports that she refers to. I am absolutely with her and link arms with her in our determination to make sure that that is the case and that we get back to sport of all different sorts as soon as possible, as safely as possible. We will work with her and others to make sure that that is the case.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
Although football matches are being played again, it is behind closed doors and with no associated matchday income. Will my right hon. Friend encourage Sport Wales and the Football Association of Wales to work together to ensure that clubs such as Rhyl in my constituency receive the support that they need at this really difficult time?
Simon Hart
It would be remiss of me not to give a substantial name-check to Rhyl, having given one to Wrexham—that would seem unfair. I agree with my hon. Friend’s position and the basis of his question. National league funding in England has come up with significant funds, which should be replicated in Wales. We will certainly do anything we can to get money channelled into the sport to see it through this difficult time.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Simon Hart)
On top of the £5 billion guarantee given to the Welsh Government, we have provided an additional £1.96 billion in direct support to businesses in Wales and protected over 400,000 Welsh jobs. We have also extended the £1 million annual investment allowance to stimulate investment in UK manufacturing.
Margaret Greenwood [V]
Several of my constituents work at the Airbus plant in Broughton in north Wales. In July, it was announced that more than 1,400 jobs would be cut there and earlier this month we heard that there could be more than 400 compulsory redundancies. This is a time of immense uncertainty for the aerospace sector, so what action is the Secretary of State taking to work with the Welsh Government and the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to ensure that my constituents’ jobs are secure?
Simon Hart
The hon. Lady appropriately points out the cross-border implication of the effect of coronavirus on Airbus, and I am very aware of that. That is why we are working together with the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the Welsh Government, other stakeholders and, in particular, with Airbus, which has been incredibly co-operative, forward-looking and—I would like to think—grateful for the support already given by the Chancellor to it in particular and to the industry. The plan is to ensure that there is a future for Airbus at Broughton not only for the next few months but for the next few years. All the planning is about having a sustainable business over a long period of time in addition to seeing people through this immediate period with the most limited amount of hardship that we can achieve.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Simon Hart)
The UK Government have been working closely with the Welsh Government and indeed all three devolved Administrations to tackle covid-19. We have had numerous meetings—in fact, we stopped counting at 200, because it seemed they were becoming so numerous as to be impossible to record. The co-operation has therefore been substantial.
Andrew Rosindell [V]
The Secretary of State will agree it is essential that any new coronavirus vaccine is both safe and effective and rolled out as quickly as possible in Wales and across the UK so that we can put an end to these disastrous lockdown policies and get back to normal. Therefore, what discussions will he have with Welsh Ministers on co-ordinating national vaccine supply chains and the UK-wide vaccination roll-out strategy?
Simon Hart
As my hon. Friend knows, an equitable spread of vaccination across the UK is absolutely essential. That is why we are having regular, daily meetings at official and ministerial level with the Welsh Government and others to ensure that that is achieved. In addition, the testing regime announced today for the county of Merthyr Tydfil, which involves, I think, 165 military personnel provided by the UK Government, is in indication of how we are determined to act collaboratively in dealing with this disease.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)
I know how committed the hon. Gentleman is to steelmaking from our time on the Welsh Affairs Committee. I reassure him that the UK Government are similarly committed to a long-term sustainable future for steelmaking in Wales. We have already met Tata and the Welsh Government, and BEIS will continue to work with the company as it shapes its business strategy in the future.
Stephen Kinnock
The Minister will be concerned by the recent news that Tata Steel is selling its Dutch operations to a Swedish company. The steel industry is helping so much in the current crisis, and it is the basis of our entire manufacturing sector, so can the Minister please give us a bit more detail about what discussions are taking place with the Government and with Tata Steel, and when we can hear some positive good news, because we need our steel industry?
David T. C. Davies
I agree with the basis of the hon. Gentleman’s question. I cannot go into great detail about what discussions are taking place, but I can reassure him that discussions have taken place with Tata and with BEIS, and the UK Government stand ready to work with all to ensure that we have that steelmaking future in Wales. If the hon. Gentleman has any doubt at all, he only needs to look at the work that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did to ensure that Celsa received a £30 million loan—a loan that has saved 800 jobs in Wales and demonstrates firmly our commitment to the Welsh steelmaking industry.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson) [V]
Mr Speaker, I know that you have been updated by my officials on Privy Council terms on the leak investigation that you also referred to in the House on 2 November. As you know, Mr Speaker, I take this matter extremely seriously and I commit to returning to update the House in due course.
This morning, I had virtual meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my virtual duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Anna McMorrin
This pandemic has shown how interconnected we are and how vulnerable we are to global challenges. When we are still grappling with covid, the climate emergency and growing hunger, why are this Government reported to be breaking their own manifesto commitment and cutting the aid budget, which saves lives and builds resilience? Will the Prime Minister stop this retreat from the global stage and take this opportunity to rule that out, here and now?
The Prime Minister
I can tell the hon. Lady that everybody in this country can be immensely proud of the massive commitments that this country has made, and will continue to make, to tackling poverty and deprivation around the world. I think they can be even prouder of the commitment that we are now making, leading the world to tackle the threat of climate change. The investment we are making, whether through official development assistance or other means, in tackling that problem is second to none across the world. It is the UK that is leading the world in tackling one of the greatest problems that this planet faces.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con) [V]
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that it is the current Labour Mayor of London who blew TfL’s finances, which were left in remarkably good condition by the previous Mayor of London, even before the pandemic struck. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Department for Transport will be working with TfL to see what we can do to resolve the problem at Gallows Corner that he mentions, and we will update him in due course.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
May I start by sending my best wishes to the Prime Minister and all those across the country who are doing the right thing by following the rules and self-isolating?
Devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is one of the proudest achievements of the last Labour Government. Until now, whatever our disagreements, there has been a very broad consensus about devolution, so why did the Prime Minister tell his MPs this week that Scottish devolution is, in his words, “a disaster”?
The Prime Minister
I think what has unquestionably been a disaster is the way in which the Scottish nationalist party has taken and used devolution as a means not to improve the lives of its constituents, not to address their health concerns or to improve education in Scotland, but—I know this point of view is shared by the right hon. and learned Gentleman—constantly to campaign for the break-up of our country and to turn devolution, otherwise a sound policy from which I myself personally benefited when I was running London, into a mission to break up the UK. That, in my view, would be a disaster. If he does not think that would be a disaster, perhaps he could say so now.
Mr Speaker
Can I just say that it is the Scottish National party, not the nationalist party; otherwise, the phones will be ringing long and hard.
The Prime Minister
Mr Speaker, I am so sorry. They are national but not nationalist; I see. Right.
Keir Starmer
The single biggest threat to the future of the United Kingdom is the Prime Minister, every time he opens his mouth almost. When the Prime Minister said he wanted to take back control, nobody thought he meant from the Scottish people, but his quote is very clear. He said
“devolution has been a disaster north of the border”.
This is not an isolated incident. Whether it is the internal market Bill or the way the Prime Minister has sidelined the devolved Parliaments over the covid response, he is seriously undermining the fabric of the United Kingdom. Instead of talking down devolution, does he agree that we need far greater devolution of powers and resources across the United Kingdom?
The Prime Minister
Tony Blair himself, the former Labour leader, has conceded that he did not foresee the rise of a separatist party in Scotland and that he did not foresee the collapse of Scottish Labour. I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right: there can be great advantages in devolution, and I was very proud, when I was running a devolved administration in London, to do things in which I passionately believed, such as improving public transport, fighting crime and improving housing for my constituents, and we had a great deal of success. What disappoints me is that the Scottish National party—by your ruling on its correct name, Mr Speaker —is not engaging in that basic work. Instead, it is campaigning to break up the Union, an objective that I hope the Leader of the Opposition will repudiate. Will he say so now—that he opposes the break-up of the United Kingdom?
Keir Starmer
Of course I do not want the break-up of the United Kingdom, but if anything is fuelling that break-up, it is the Prime Minister.
Turning now to the Prime Minister’s handling of the pandemic, the Prime Minister is doing the right thing by self-isolating after being notified by track and trace, but does he think he would have been able to do so if, like so many other people across the country, all he had to rely on for the next 14 days was either statutory sick pay, which is £95 a week—that is £13 a day—or a one- off payment of £500, which works out at £35 a day?
The Prime Minister
It is good finally to hear something from the right hon. and learned Gentleman in praise of NHS Test and Trace. I think it has secured at least one of his objectives, which is to keep me away from answering his questions in person. I believe that the package that we have in place to protect people and support people throughout this crisis has been outstanding and exceptional. The UK has puts its arms, as I have said many times, around the people of this country—a £200 billion package of support; increasing the living wage by record amounts; uplifting universal credit; many, many loans and grants to businesses of all kinds, and £500 of support for people who are self-isolating in addition to all the other benefits and support that we give. I think it is a reasonable package. I know it is tough for people who have to self-isolate, and I am glad that after a long time in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman simply attacked NHS Test and Trace, he seems now to be coming round and supporting it.
Keir Starmer
I am not going to take lectures on support—the lockdown measures were passed the other week with Labour votes. Thirty-two of the Prime Minister’s own MPs broke a three-line Whip, and I hear that about 50 of them have joined a WhatsApp group to work out how they are going to oppose him next time around. He should be thanking us for our support, not criticising.
As the Prime Minister well knows, so far as the £500 scheme is concerned, only one in eight workers qualify for that scheme. The Prime Minister always does this: he talks about the number of people he is helping but ignores the huge numbers falling through the gap.
Members here may be able to afford to self-isolate, but that is not the case for many people across the country who send us here. It is estimated that only about 11% of people self-isolate when they are asked to do so—11%. That is not because they do not want to; it is because many do not feel that they can afford to do so. For example, if someone is a self-employed plumber, a construction worker or a photographer and they do not qualify for social security benefits, or if they run a small business and cannot work from home, they are likely to see a significant cut to their income if they have to self-isolate. This is affecting many families across the country. Does the Prime Minister recognise that if we want to increase the number of people who isolate, we need to make it easier and affordable for people to do so?
The Prime Minister
Again, I think it is extraordinary that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is now coming out in favour of NHS Test and Trace when he has continuously attacked it. In fact, the numbers that he gives for the success rate of the NHS self-isolation programme are, according to my information, way too low. We continue to encourage people to do the right thing—it does break the chain of transmission of the disease. As for the self-employed groups that he mentions, we have given £13.5 billion so far in support for self-employed people and have uplifted universal credit in the way that I described.
What we want to do is to get the virus under control, get the R down below 1, which is the purpose of these current measures, encourage people to self-isolate in the way that I am, and thereby stop the disease from spreading so that the firms, professions and businesses that the right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about can get back to something as close to normality as soon as possible. In the meantime, we are giving them every possible support.
Keir Starmer
The Prime Minister must understand that there is a huge gap in the system, because if someone cannot afford to isolate, there is little point in their being tested or traced.
While the Prime Minister and the Chancellor will not pay people enough to isolate properly, we learned this week that they can find £21 million of taxpayers’ money to pay a go-between to deliver lucrative contracts with the Department of Health and Social Care—£21 million. I remind the Prime Minister that a few weeks ago he could not find that amount of money for free school meals for kids over half-term. Does the Prime Minister think that £21 million to a middleman was an acceptable use of taxpayers’ money?
The Prime Minister
When this crisis began, we were urged by the right hon. and learned Gentleman to remove the blockages in our procurement process to get personal protective equipment. As he will remember, we faced a very difficult situation where around the world there were not adequate supplies of PPE. Nobody had enough PPE. We shifted heaven and earth to get 32 billion items of PPE into this country. I am very proud of what has been achieved: 70% of PPE is now made, or capable of being made, in this country, when it was only 1% at the beginning of the pandemic. It is entirely typical of Captain Hindsight that he now attacks our efforts to procure PPE. He said then that we were not going fast enough but now says we went too fast. He should make his mind up.
Keir Starmer
The Prime Minister talks about hindsight; I say catch up. I called for a circuit breaker; the Prime Minister stood there at the Dispatch Box and said it would be a disaster and he was not going to do it. Then he caught up and did exactly that just a few weeks later. We now have a longer, harder lockdown as a result of his delay, so I will not take that from him.
Last week, the Prime Minister could not explain how his Government ended up paying £150 million on contracts that did not deliver a single piece of usable PPE; this week, he is effectively defending the paying of £21 million on a contract with no oversight. This morning, the independent National Audit Office concluded that the Government’s approach was, in its words, “diminished public transparency”. It reported that more than half of all contracts relating to the pandemic, which, Mr Speaker, totalled £10.5 billion, were handed out without competitive tender and that suppliers with political connections were 10 times more likely to be awarded contracts.
We are eight months into this crisis and the Government are still making the same mistakes. Can the Prime Minister give a cast-iron assurance that from now on all Government contracts will be subject to proper process with full transparency and accountability?
The Prime Minister
All Government contracts are of course going to be published in the due way and they are already being published. Again, I must say that it is extraordinary that the right hon. Gentleman now attacks the Government for securing personal protective equipment in huge quantities. I want to thank again all the people who were involved in that effort: Lord Deighton and literally thousands of others who built up a mountain of PPE against any further crisis.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about transparency and moving too fast to secure contracts. He should know that the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), wrote to the Government, attacking us for failing to approach various companies, including a football agent who was apparently offering to supply ventilators and a historical clothing manufacturing company that offered to make 175 gowns per week and whose current range includes 16th century silk bodices. Again, at the time, he bashed the Government for not moving fast enough. It is absolutely absurd that Captain Hindsight is now once again trying to score political points by attacking us for moving too fast. I am proud of what we did to secure huge quantities of PPE during a pandemic. Any Government would do the same.
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con) [V]
The Prime Minister
I can tell my hon. Friend that we do not want any football team to go out of business as a result of this pandemic and that we are doing everything we can. I understand the frustration of fans, and we want to get crowds back into the ground as soon as possible. As for his invitation to come and watch the Imps, I will do whatever I can to oblige as soon as possible. I will bear his invitation in mind.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
May I wish the Prime Minister and all those who are self-isolating well? Over the past 20 years, Westminster has imposed an extreme Brexit, an illegal war in Iraq, £9,000 tuition fees, the Windrush scandal, the rape clause and the bedroom tax, and a decade of Tory austerity cuts which have pushed millions into poverty. At the same time, the Scottish Parliament has delivered free prescriptions, free tuition fees, free personal care, free bus travel, the baby box, the Scottish child payment, and world-leading climate action, all of which make Scotland a fairer and more equal place in which to live. Does the Prime Minister understand why the people in Scotland think it is he and his Parliament that are the real disaster?
The Prime Minister
I respectfully refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the Leader of the Opposition. I do think that his policies of wanting to break up the Union are a disaster and I wish that he and his party would focus on the real priorities of the people of Scotland—on education, on health, on tackling crime, on housing, and on the issues that matter to all our people. That is what a devolved Government should do. I was very proud to run a devolved administration and that is what we focused on. We did not endlessly go on about constitutional change and the break-up of the UK.
Ian Blackford
My goodness, I am not sure if the Prime Minister was listening, because I just charted some of the achievements of the Scottish Government delivering on behalf of the people of Scotland. We have seen no apology and no regrets from this Prime Minister. His attack on devolution was not just a slip of the tongue; it was a slip of the Tory mask. The chasm between Westminster and the Scottish people has never been bigger. We know that these were not just flippant remarks, when Scotland faces the biggest threat to devolution with the Tory power grab Bill.
The fact is that Scotland has been completely ignored by Westminster. We now face an extreme Brexit, a power grab and another round of Tory cuts, all being imposed against our will by a Tory Government that we did not vote for. Is it not the case that the real disaster facing the people of Scotland is another 20 years of Westminster Government? Is it not clearer than ever that the only way to protect Scotland’s interests, our Parliament and our place in Europe is for Scotland to become an independent country?
The Prime Minister
I could not disagree more with the right hon. Gentleman; he is totally wrong. What the UK does as a whole is far bigger, better and more important than what we can do as individual nations and regions. Let us look at the way in which the UK has pulled together during the pandemic: the way in which the armed services have worked to get testing throughout the whole UK; the way in which the furlough scheme has been deployed across the UK; and the billions and billions of pounds that have been found to help people across the whole UK, and businesses in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England. The UK has shown its value and will continue to show its value.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about wanting to take Scotland back into the European Union. That seemed to be what he was saying just now. What he and the people of Scotland should understand is that that is a massive surrender of power by the people of Scotland straight back to Brussels, just as this country and the people of Scotland have taken it back again. That is power not just over many aspects of their lives and regulations, but, of course, to control Scottish fisheries as well. All that would be lost under his programme, and I do not believe that it will commend itself to the Scottish people. That programme was decisively rejected in 2014. I believe that it is something that they would almost certainly reject again, but, as he said before—
Sir Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)
The Prime Minister
We are certainly working very fast to see whether we can replace the current quarantine arrangements for every category of self-isolation. Whether it will come fast enough for me, I do not know, but I will keep my hon. Friend informed of developments. We certainly want to help the airline industry.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
The people of Northern Ireland will today see again the benefits of the Union, with £165 million invested in rural broadband across Northern Ireland—the result of our agreement with the Government during the last Parliament. Following on from the current population testing initiative in Liverpool, does the Prime Minister agree that Northern Ireland’s 1.8 million population, which is spread across 11 local government districts, would prove ideal for the next phase of the Government’s ongoing programme of work on large-scale covid testing?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his excellent proposal. He is right that mass testing of that kind is a very powerful weapon in the fight against covid. We will certainly be talking to the Northern Ireland Executive about how to proceed.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I have deep sympathies with people who face this problem. It is not right or fair because if your building is under 18 metres you do not need one of these EWS1 forms, and you would hope that lenders would understand that. But we are working as fast as we can to make sure that all the buildings in question are identified and that we remove cladding wherever it is necessary and give assurance and security wherever that is necessary too.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
That is exactly what we announced only a few weeks ago with the lifetime skills guarantee. The purpose of the lifetime skills guarantee is this: if you are over 23, you are not currently eligible for support from the Government in getting a new skill or a new qualification, but we will now pay you for that skill—we will support you. Particularly in the context of this pandemic, we want to help to train and retrain people throughout their lives so that they can adjust to our changing economy. The hon. Lady makes a very good point.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he is doing to campaign for Grantham and Stamford and for Lincolnshire. I can tell him that we are putting another £125 million into Greater Lincolnshire through the growth deals and another £25 million through the Getting Building fund. We will be bringing forward further measures—I take his point on board very sincerely—to boost investment in UK infrastructure in due course.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
The Prime Minister
This is a global pandemic and one in which the UK has, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, been badly affected, and we mourn every life that has been lost. Of course we are supporting businesses with all the firepower of the UK economy. But I have absolutely no doubt that we will get through this strongly by next spring, as the scientific advisers and the medical officers have said. We have the tools to do it and we have the scientific weaponry to do it. That is why we are engaged in the current restrictions to get the R down to suppress the virus now and to try to get the economy moving in a way that I am sure he would like.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes and the feeling of unfairness that he describes. What we are trying to do with the business rates holiday and all the other measures we have announced is to help all retailers. The best thing we can do is to get through this tough period as well as we possibly can and allow all retailers to reopen and give them our support with our custom. That is what we are aiming for.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind) [V]
The Prime Minister
I understand that the case is now under urgent review and a decision will be made shortly.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Yes. I am very pleased that Facebook, Twitter and Google have committed that no company should profit from or promote vaccine disinformation and that companies should respond to that kind of content very quickly. We are going to publish our response shortly to the online harms White Paper consultation and will be setting out our plans for legislation.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady is right in what she says about the impact of child poverty, and that is why this Government have worked so hard to combat child poverty. That is why we did indeed uprate universal credit, which is right for the exceptional circumstances we are in. That was £1,000 a household, and we will continue to support people throughout the country, but the most important thing we can do is to ensure that we get people into work and support families to get the jobs they need. It is the record of this country in creating jobs, and new jobs in particular, that has meant that 400,000 children have been lifted out of poverty in the past 10 years. That is progress. It is not enough, but it is progress.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
More than 1 million fellow citizens have recovered after testing positive for covid-19. On 2 November, The BMJ reported that all those people will have protection from their T cells, which will ensure that they cannot be reinfected for at least six months. In light of that, will my right hon. Friend follow the example of Sweden and exempt from all the covid regulations those who have tested positive within the past six months and thereby show that he is following the science and also common sense?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his very well meant suggestion. It is very kind, but there is evidence both ways on that. What everybody would expect is that everybody who gets pinged and gets contacted by NHS Test and Trace should follow the rules.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab) [V]
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the question and for his campaigning on behalf of the disabled but I must reject what he says. We have done everything we can to reach out to disabled and vulnerable groups of all kinds, to give them all the advice that we think is necessary and all the support that we possibly can throughout the pandemic. I know that this has been very tough for people, and I thank them for the way that they have pulled together and followed the guidance. It has been particularly tough, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, for disabled people. That is why we have given huge quantities in support, as I said before, to the NHS and to vulnerable groups of all kinds. The way forward now is to keep the virus under control, to come out of the current measures on 2 December, to allow our economy to start moving again, and to use testing and the prospect of a vaccination next year, ready to get the disease under control.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
The Prime Minister is aware of the success we have seen across Scotland through city region and growth deals. Moray is set to benefit from both the Scottish and the UK Governments’ working together on our local deal. However, will my right hon. Friend agree that the benefit to Moray could be even greater if the UK Government’s contribution was spread over a shorter period than the current 15 years—say, 10 or less? Will he agree that that would be very worthwhile, beneficial and welcomed by everyone involved in the Moray growth deal?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for this campaign. He has raised the idea with me before. What I can say is that while we will certainly look at what he says, I am very glad that we have signed the heads of terms on the Moray growth deal, delivering over £30 million of investment. I thank him for the lobbying that he has been doing.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab) [V]
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue of food poverty and of poverty generally. That is why, in answer to the previous question from the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), I made the point that we have actually been successful, as we have been championing work and employment, in getting large numbers of families out of poverty. That is what we are going to do. As he knows, we are putting up £170 million to support local councils throughout the winter, so that no child goes hungry this Christmas or over the winter season through any inattention of this Government. I am grateful to him for raising the issue with me.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
As the Prime Minister will know, the Scottish cashmere and whisky industries are being hammered by the tariffs imposed by the United States as a result of the trade dispute with the European Union. Those tariffs are now doing serious harm to such iconic Scottish products, costing us jobs in the Scottish borders. Will the Prime Minister reassure me that the Government are doing everything they possibly can to find a resolution to the dispute?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is entirely right to raise that issue. It continues to be a cause of grave concern, and I raise it repeatedly with our American friends. I am working with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Trade to reach a negotiated solution as fast as we possibly can.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point, and we are thinking about this issue in government right now. As he knows, in response to the early data that we saw about the impact on black and minority ethnic groups, we brought forward enhanced testing procedures for particularly vulnerable groups—those who are exposed to a heavy viral load, perhaps in the course of their work. There are other factors at play in the prevalence of the disease among black and minority ethnic groups. I am sure that the point he makes will be among the considerations that the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation takes into account in the course of deciding how to roll out the vaccine and where it should go first. He makes an important point.
Mr Speaker
I would like to put a big thank you on record to the broadcasting team for making today happen.
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.
Northern Ireland Protocol: Implementation Proposals
(3 years, 5 months 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
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the preparations for the implementation of the Northern Ireland Protocol.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Robin Walker)
My Secretary of State is on the way to Northern Ireland this afternoon, and has asked me to respond to this question on his behalf. We continue our work to implement the protocol in a pragmatic and proportionate way that minimises the disruption to people’s day-to-day lives and preserves the gains of the 22 years since the Belfast/Good Friday agreement was signed. We are helping traders to prepare for the end of the transition period. We published business guidance in August, and are updating it all the time as arrangements are finalised. We have established the trader support scheme, backed by £200 million of Government funding. More than 7,000 businesses have signed up, and hundreds more are joining them every day. We are considering further support measures for agrifood traders, with further details to be announced shortly.
We are getting on with the work that we need to do so that our systems and facilities are ready. We are putting in place the IT systems that are needed to process goods movements, supported by £155 million, which we announced in August. We are working with the Northern Ireland Executive on the delivery of expanded points of entry for agrifood, with the contract now awarded and work under way on arrangements on day one and thereafter.
We are getting on with putting the legislative framework in place for manufactured goods and food safety among many other issues, and our programme is well on track to be delivered in full by the end of the year. We are delivering on our unequivocal commitment to unfettered access. We have provided for robust protections in the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill for mutual recognition and a prohibition on new checks and controls. We will re-table those clauses when the Bill returns to the House.
We laid a draft statutory instrument in Parliament, which was approved on 10 November by this House, and is scheduled for debate in the other place on 30 November. That will ensure that on 1 January Northern Ireland businesses can continue to move their goods as they do now. We are working with the Executive to introduce a longer-lasting second phase of that system, to focus its benefits on Northern Ireland businesses, to be introduced in the course of 2021.
We are working intensively and in good faith through the Joint Committee to pursue the solutions that we need to support our approach. We have already agreed a phased approach for medicines rules in Northern Ireland, ensuring that those critical goods can continue to flow. We have agreed an approach to scoping the application of the electricity directive in respect of Northern Ireland’s single electricity market that will ensure that the single electricity market continues to deliver for Northern Ireland.
We are working to ensure that UK internal freight is not subject to tariffs, and to remove export declarations from Northern Ireland to GB trade. We continue to pursue specific solutions for supermarket trade, noting the huge social and economic importance of avoiding disruption. That essential work will continue at pace in the coming days but, of course, I cannot give a running commentary on discussions with the European Union.
Louise Haigh
Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. There are 43 days until the end of the transition period, and it is hard to express the frustration, anxiety and fears that have been relayed to me and to the Minister by countless businesses and communities in Northern Ireland, as the clock has started to tick. Northern Ireland needed every second of this transition year to get ready for the biggest changes to its trading relationship that it has ever known, but vital time has been squandered, first with the denial that any checks would take place at all and then with the extraordinary spectacle of the Government threatening to tear up their own oven-ready deal and breach international treaties that they had signed into law—an approach that the Minister has just confirmed they are sticking to when the Bill returns to the House from the other place.
The result of that recklessness and incompetence is that thousands of businesses still do not know the bare basics of how they will trade with Great Britain in just six weeks’ time. As the president of the Ulster Farmers Union said this morning, we are in a transition, but we do not know what we are transitioning to. The whole purpose of the protocol was to protect the Good Friday agreement in all its dimensions, and the relationship east-west is as important as the relationship north-south. The Government’s reckless approach to negotiations and their incompetent failure to prepare risk significant disruption, a maximalist interpretation of the protocol and completely unnecessary checks. Ministers should take their heads out of the sand and give businesses the answers for which they have been begging throughout this transition year.
First, on the customs declaration service, which will handle over 1 million declarations in January alone, experts say that they need 18 months to get traders ready for the new system, so why has the industry not had the final version? Given that those experts now say that it is simply too late for the system to work, what are the contingency plans to avoid widespread disruption on 1 January? Will there be flexibility to allow businesses to adapt to new systems? What is plan B?
On the trader support service, which the Minister mentioned and which is supposed to guide businesses through the complex new customs arrangements, can he confirm that the Government are not seriously considering leaving it until 21 December for that system to go live? Why have businesses had no information whatsoever on the tariff rebate system, as confirmed by the chief executive of Manufacturing NI this morning? Where is the border operator model promised by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster over summer? Without it, traders are completely in the dark on what data they will need to provide in order to move goods.
Finally, on food imports, which the Minister referenced, a compromise is now desperately needed—and the EU has a huge responsibility of its own to deliver this—in order to reduce checks that some supermarkets and food producers say could lead them to pull out of Northern Ireland altogether. It is absurd that food destined for Northern Ireland supermarkets should be considered a risk to the EU single market, so is either a temporary waiver requirement or a permanent trusted trader scheme about to be confirmed? Again, why have the Government refused to engage directly with Northern Ireland retailers?
Northern Ireland desperately—
Mr Speaker
Order. Can I just say that when I grant an urgent question, it is for two minutes, but we are now over three minutes? I did give the hon. Lady some time and I think the Minister will have picked it up.
Mr Walker
Delivering on the protocol is a crucial part of operations for the end of the transition period. Providing certainty is urgent and we will continue to prioritise this. As we implement the protocol, it is important to keep in mind that it was designed as a way of implementing the needs of our exit from the EU in a way that works for Northern Ireland and, in particular, as the hon. Lady says, maintaining the Belfast/Good Friday agreement in all its dimensions—the gains of the peace process and the delicate balance across communities that explicitly depends on the consent of the people of Northern Ireland for its continued existence.
For the protocol to work, it must respect the needs of all Northern Ireland’s people, respect the fact that Northern Ireland is an integral part of the customs territory of the UK, and be implemented in a way that protects Northern Ireland’s economy. Our approach does that, focusing on implementing the protocol in a way that is flexible and proportionate, and protecting the interests of both the whole of the United Kingdom and the EU. As I have already referred to, the Government have already taken practical steps to do this, working in partnership with the devolved Administration.
The hon. Lady referred to the delivery of IT systems. I can confirm that the delivery of IT systems necessary for the end of the transition period is on track. The recent National Audit report confirms that since May, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has made progress, putting in place the core elements of the IT services required. As a responsible Government, however, we continue to make extensive preparations for a range of fall-back scenarios. We have been working with key delivery partners to support preparations for IT systems delivery, and we will continue to support their preparations for the end of the transition period.
We are reaching agreement with the EU on individual areas of approach—for instance, the phased approach to medicines that I referred to, and agreement on the process for identifying Northern Ireland traders for VAT purposes and enabling them to reclaim VAT through existing IT databases when trading in goods with the EU. However, the hon. Lady is right to reflect that there remain important outstanding issues to be resolved in discussion with the EU. For example, we are seeking, through the Joint Committee, specific solutions to supermarkets and on the classification of which goods are at genuine and substantial risk of entering the EU market. Those are still subject to discussion and need to be agreed with the EU. There are real-world consequences for businesses and consumers if they are not, which we believe would be contrary to the intentions of the protocol. We have agreed with the EU to intensify the process of engagement, to resolve all outstanding issues. These discussions are ongoing and we continue to act in good faith and in line with the approach we have adopted throughout.
The Government are committed to ensuring that businesses and communities are ready for the end of the transition period, and our intensive programme of engagement with industry has continued at pace. The business engagement forum has now met 20 times since May, and this month the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster formed a UK-wide business readiness task- force. The hon. Lady talked about the importance of supermarkets and food producers, and I can confirm to her that one of the most recent meetings was between the Secretary of State and supermarkets in the industry.
We have also made considerable progress in the provision of guidance, publishing over 25 pieces of sectoral guidance in recent weeks for moving goods between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. We will continue to work with businesses in this manner and ensure that they are provided with the guidance and support they need to be ready.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con) [V]
It is 43 days until 31 December and covid-hit businesses are exasperated —and I share that exasperation. Every witness the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs has heard from says that they wish to obey the rules, whatever they are. When are they going to know definitively what they have to do and how they have to do it, in order to keep themselves in business and on the right side of the law?
Mr Walker
I absolutely recognise the concern that businesses have, which has been reflected to me and to the Secretary of State in our meetings, and their desire to have absolute certainty on this. As my hon. Friend will recognise, some of these things are still subject to ongoing negotiations with the EU; of course, I would much rather that those things had already been resolved, as I know he would. However, we want to ensure that for those things that are within our gift, we provide that certainty, and the UK Government are doing that when it comes to unfettered access. For those things that stand to be resolved, we continue to negotiate in good faith to resolve them so that we can put that information in front of businesses, but what we are doing already is progressively providing guidance where agreements have been reached. We will continue to pursue that.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP) [V]
I really am appalled by the lack of seriousness with which the UK Government are taking issues in Northern Ireland. We have warned about it for long enough: even this morning, this House’s Committee on the Future Relationship with the European Union heard from Victor Chestnutt, the president of the Ulster Farmers’ Union, who has no axe to grind politically in this. He said that we are approaching 1 January
“with both arms tied behind our back and a blindfold on.”
The other place heard last week from the Police Service of Northern Ireland that there is a real risk that there are bad men on all sides of the discussion in Northern Ireland ready to take advantage of chaos, and that internationally, we could see organised crime focusing on Northern Ireland because of the lack of preparation and uncertainty. This just is not ready yet, Minister. Northern Ireland needs an adjustment period: are preparations ready for that? Failing that, what plans are there for a relocation of police officers to Northern Ireland on a massive scale, in order to assist with such procedures as will need to be enforced because of his Government’s failure?
Mr Walker
I simply do not recognise the picture that the hon. Gentleman paints. The protocol will ensure that many of the key issues about which his party has warned over the years are addressed with respect to the end of the transition period, and that there be no disruption at the border, as some have suggested in the past that there could be. We will absolutely deliver on that, and I am looking forward to giving evidence to the Select Committee on the issue of cross-border co-operation. I am convinced that strong co-operation to tackle crime, including organised crime, can continue between the UK and the Republic of Ireland.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
It will be essential to restore the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill to the status quo ante will it not?
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
This morning, the Committee on the Future Relationship with the European Union took evidence from the Ulster Farmers’ Union, the Northern Ireland Retail Consortium and Manufacturing NI. Their message was clear: Northern Ireland businesses and the supply chain will not be ready for 1 January, because they do not know what to plan for, they do not know what goods will be identified as being at risk, and they are not confident that customs facilities, checks and software will be ready in time. As the Minister knows, the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs itself says that it will not be possible to complete the necessary work by 1 January. Given the length of time the Government have had to prepare for the bits they do control, how on earth has it come to this?
Mr Walker
I recognise the meticulous and detailed work that the right hon. Gentleman does on his Select Committee, and the importance of all those stakeholders he has mentioned. We do want to provide the certainty and the structure, and I have already given an update in my statement on IT systems and some of the support we are providing through the trader support service. However, he will recognise that some of these issues are not yet resolved due to ongoing negotiations with the EU, and I am sure he would join me and the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland in urging them to work with us to resolve those in a pragmatic manner.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
The very point of the protocol is to uphold the Good Friday agreement, and also to protect consumers in Northern Ireland. The First Minister and Deputy First Minister recently made this clear when they wrote to the European Union. Does my hon. Friend agree that if the EU is as serious as we are about peace, prosperity and the people of Northern Ireland, it must take a pragmatic and proportionate approach to all negotiations?
Mr Walker
My hon. Friend is spot on. It is also important that both parties to the protocol bear in mind the wording in that protocol about protecting the everyday life of people in Northern Ireland. That is absolutely crucial to this, and it is something that we should both be working to deliver.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
The Minister will be aware that the protocol enables the UK Government to act unilaterally where that is necessary to protect the economy of Northern Ireland. In relation to the single market Bill and the Finance Bill, will he assure the House that he will bring forward those proposals and measures that are necessary to protect Northern Ireland’s place in the internal market? Does he recognise that there is cross-party and cross-community support for a period of time for the implementation of those measures, to allow our businesses, supermarkets, and others to prepare properly?
Mr Walker
The right hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly important point. He mentioned our approach to the return of the UK Internal Market Bill to the Commons and a Finance Bill later this year, and although I do not have specific control of that, I am happy to make those commitments to him and to all parties in Northern Ireland. It is crucial that we resolve these issues, and he has set out one of the most sensible ways to do that.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that the European Union’s threat to refuse to list the UK as a fit country to export food to the European Union, and the de facto ban that that would involve on transporting food between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, contravenes its duty of good faith towards the withdrawal agreement and the protocol? Will he press strongly in the Joint Committee for the EU to take the proportionate approach to sanitary and phytosanitary checks that is required of it by its international WTO obligations?
Mr Walker
My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point, and in fairness, it is right to acknowledge that some of the threat that she talks about has since been withdrawn. We must ensure that the EU meets its commitments—again, I return to the point about protecting people in Northern Ireland from the impact of the protocol on everyday life, and flows of food are incredibly important in that respect.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I congratulate the Minister on a bravura performance today. It is absolutely without parallel, and Sir Humphrey himself would be proud of what we have heard from the Dispatch Box. Essentially, he is telling us that those farmers, business organisations and everybody else who say that they are not ready for this move are wrong and that he is right. If, come January, it turns out that they are right and he is wrong, will he resign?
Mr Walker
The right hon. Gentleman is typically charming in the way he asks his question. We all ought to focus on delivering what the protocol promised in the first place to the people of Northern Ireland and, accepting its unique circumstances, on delivering the flow of goods north, south, east and west, and protecting and respecting its place in the UK internal market. That is what businesses want, and that is what I want.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con) [V]
Work is continuing at pace to get Northern Irish businesses to sign up to the trader support service, but how confident is the Minister that all qualifying businesses will have signed up by the deadline? Will he consider a temporary concession for any businesses that, come January, say that—for whatever reason—they were unaware of this service, or failed to sign up in time?
Mr Walker
My hon. Friend makes an interesting suggestion that I will happily take away and consider. Progress so far with 7,000 businesses having signed up is good, but of course we want to see more. She is right to say it is important that all businesses in Northern Ireland, particularly the many small businesses that form the backbone of the economy, are aware of this scheme, and we should continue to encourage them to sign up.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
If there is no deal on data sharing with the EU by the end of the transition period, there is a real risk that health services in Ireland will not be able to carry out cross-border contact tracing. Brexit is a total mess of this Government’s making. The pandemic—covid—is a mess and a crisis made worse by this Government’s handling of it. Lives and livelihoods are at real risk because of the ineptitude of this Government. When will people in Northern Ireland have some confidence that contact tracing will be able to continue across the border?
Mr Walker
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the importance of north-south co-operation, and east-west co-operation, with the Republic of Ireland in dealing with the covid pandemic, and we should continue to support that. The UK Government are clear that we will give data adequacy to the EU, and given that all the legal instruments are in place to meet its requirements, we think there is no reason for there not to be a joint agreement on data adequacy. I hope that will be achieved in the weeks to come.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
Can my hon. Friend guarantee that in all circumstances, this Government will completely protect the unfettered access of goods moving from Northern Ireland to Great Britain?
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab) [V]
Edwin Poots, Northern Ireland’s Agriculture Minister, has made it clear that he does not believe that the new border control posts necessary to control the movement of goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland will be in place by 1 January. The Association of Freight Software Suppliers has made it clear that it does not believe that the customs declaration service will be operable by 1 January. That would be massively disruptive for businesses on both sides of the Irish sea, in Northern Ireland and Great Britain. Who will take responsibility if those who fear this is going wrong prove to be right?
Mr Walker
I have worked closely with Minister Poots, and I recognise that he comes at this with a very different attitude to the protocol—it is not something that he necessarily wanted in the first place—but he and his Department are working pragmatically to deliver on this. We will continue to work with the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to ensure that the requirements are met and that, where necessary, infrastructure is upgraded. The UK Government have offered to cover the cost of some of that, because we recognise that this relates to an international agreement for which we are responsible. With regard to customs systems, it is for the Treasury to respond on the detail, but I reiterate what I said in my statement: IT systems are on track.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) [V]
Can the Minister confirm that the Irish tax authorities and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs are working together to put in place common-sense arrangements that can help to address the unique issues arising from Northern Ireland’s status in both the UK and the EU customs areas? Some sensible interpretations and information sharing could avoid some of the more extreme proposals being put forward by one side or another in this debate.
Mr Walker
My hon. Friend makes an interesting proposal. In the absence of an agreement and a deal between the UK and the EU, clearly we would need to explore everything that could be done at a bilateral level. I am not aware of those discussions as of now, but I am happy to discuss that with Treasury colleagues and write back to him if that is the case.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance) [V]
I am concerned that the conclusion of the Joint Committee work is being overly conflated with the future relationship negotiations. There is also an emerging issue around the loss of access to the VAT margin scheme for used cars sourced in Great Britain for sale in Northern Ireland, which entails VAT on the full value, rather than just the profit margin. Will the Minister undertake to have urgent discussions with HMRC to find a resolution to that problem?
Mr Walker
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about not conflating the future relationship with delivery of the protocol. The protocol is agreed between the parties, and we need to deliver on it in all circumstances. I think that many of us in this House hope that an agreement on the future relationship will make that more straightforward. On his point about VAT, I am happy to have those discussions with HMRC and look into that issue in more detail.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
Northern Ireland will always be as much a part of our United Kingdom as my constituency, so the notion of businesses in Ulster facing barriers to trade with those in Blackpool and elsewhere is completely unacceptable. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need “flexible and imaginative solutions” around Northern Ireland to ensure that we can maintain unfettered access? Those are not my words, but those of the EU’s negotiating team.
Mr Walker
My hon. Friend is right about the huge importance of flexible and imaginative solutions to deliver on this. That is something to which the EU is committed and the UK is absolutely committed. He is right, of course, that Northern Ireland is as much a part of this United Kingdom as his constituency.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP) [V]
Under this protocol, the European Union appears to have even more say on trade and services within the United Kingdom than when we were actually members of the EU. It is dictating that Northern Ireland cannot benefit from VAT margins, as already discussed. It is dictating higher food prices to Northern Ireland, which will increase poverty. Unfettered access will be hindered because of more red tape and the additional costs outlined today. Indeed, in the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, we heard this morning from the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland about how she is completely out of the loop when it comes to the negotiations on how we manage criminality and justice matters. Will the Minister admit that this protocol is a complete and total disaster and that it should be set aside if it damages good business between Northern Ireland and GB? The Secretary of State previously spoke on this matter. Will he match his busting at words with busting at action?
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con) [V]
We cannot talk about the Good Friday or Belfast agreement without thinking of my predecessor Dr Mo Mowlam, who was instrumental in achieving the agreement in 1998. Today, preventing a hard border east-west in the Irish sea is just as important as preventing one north-south on the island of Ireland. Does my hon. Friend agree that the EU must take a pragmatic and proportionate approach to any discussions to ensure continued peace and prosperity for all parts of our United Kingdom?
Mr Walker
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and he is right to pay tribute to his constituency predecessor in this respect. The Good Friday agreement has always been a careful balance of the interests of the communities in Northern Ireland and the importance of east-west and north-south co-operation. It is vital in delivering the protocol that all parties should continue to respect that.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) [V]
Peter MacSwiney, the chief executive of a customs agency, has said there is a
“totally unacceptable level of risk”
in getting the vital customs declaration service ready for 1 January and that it risks paralysing all of Northern Ireland’s trade movements. Ministers were warned in summer 2019 that industry will need a year to test, trial and implement this new system, so how can it be right, with 43 days left, that the final version has still not been delivered?
Mr Walker
The hon. Gentleman will recognise that, when we talk about customs, the protocol is there, in part, to ensure the absence of customs requirements on goods going between GB and Northern Ireland and on goods coming from Northern Ireland into GB. It is essential that we deliver on that. His question on implementation could perhaps more appropriately be discussed with Treasury Ministers. However, I refer him to the point I made in my statement about the IT systems being on track.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is very disappointing that the European Union continues to engage in wrecking tactics, which are in breach of both its duty of good faith and its duty of sincere co-operation?
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
For all the issues that the Government face on the protocol—caused by Brexit, it should be said—and all the concerns raised by Members in the House this afternoon, are they now tempted to agree with the comments made by their own Brexit negotiator, David Frost, who concluded in 2016 that it
“simply isn’t worth jeopardising access to the single market for the sake of global trade”?
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
The First Ministers wrote jointly to the EU regarding the application of the protocol, saying it was not intended to impose new costs on food for consumers in Northern Ireland. Will my hon. Friend tell the House when the First Ministers last agreed on a matter relating to Brexit?
Mr Walker
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Executive have always taken a responsible approach to working together in the interests of Northern Ireland. It says something that there is cross-community agreement on the importance of addressing this. It is therefore vital that both parties work as hard as they can to resolve the issue and make sure that the protocol delivers on what it promised about not impacting everyday life for people in Northern Ireland.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Can I say to the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton) that it is not up to him whether Northern Ireland remains in the UK in perpetuity? That is a matter for the people of Northern Ireland under the Good Friday agreement.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster told the Future Relationship with the European Union Committee on 8 October that border infrastructure in Northern Ireland would be ready for exit day, but the permanent secretary in charge of the project to deliver that infra- structure in Northern Ireland’s Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs has said that the project is unachievable and will not be finished until June by 2021. What is the Minister’s explanation for the difference between those two statements?
Mr Walker
All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that we continue to work closely with DAERA both at ministerial and official level to deliver the necessary arrangements. He will recognise that we are not talking about new customs infrastructure. We are talking about an expansion of existing facilities to make sure that we can meet the SPS requirements, and I think that it is something on which we can absolutely deliver.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Assuming there was a free trade agreement, I suppose there will still have to be some checks—for example, on quality of goods—within the United Kingdom. Will the Minister reassure me that any official who works doing such minimal checks is actually British?
Mr Walker
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. The UK is responsible for the implementation of the protocol in the United Kingdom, and therefore we want to make sure that any checks and processes are streamlined and do not interfere with unfettered access for Northern Ireland goods coming into GB. Any internal checks are the responsibility of the UK Government and their employees.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I am sorry that the Prime Minister and the Minister still seem to be living in some sort of Trumpian fantasy land about the consequences of the clauses in the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill. I would urge them to listen to the voices on all sides in both Houses and, indeed, President-elect Biden on that issue. It is absolutely crucial that they do that.
Will the Minister give me a cast-iron guarantee that traders operating between the Welsh ports—Pembroke, Fishguard and Holyhead on Anglesey—and either the Republic of Ireland or with Northern Ireland in internal UK trade that transits the Republic of Ireland in either direction will not face any difficulties with IT systems, checks or processes come the end of the transition period?
Mr Walker
As the hon. Member knows very well, I would love to be able to give him that cast-iron guarantee, but some of it is dependent on negotiations that are ongoing with the European Union. He is talking about trade between the UK and an EU member state. What we will ensure is that we meet our commitment to unfettered access. In that respect, I think his comments on the UKIM Bill are a little naive. We have to ensure that we can deliver on that commitment under all circumstances.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
As someone who has links to South Down, can I ask my hon. Friend to assure me that everything is being done to ensure a smooth transition both for businesses and for individuals, and that we are trying to reach agreement with the EU as soon as possible?
Mr Walker
Yes, I can give that assurance. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point to the importance for real people living in the real world in places such as South Down. We want to ensure that there is delivery on the intentions of the protocol, and that it can be seen through so that people can go about their lives and their business without having been impacted negatively.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The agrifood sector in my constituency provides some 3,000 production jobs, so it is very important. Can the Minister of State outline what specific inroads have been made on information for agrifood producers about the Northern Ireland protocol to ensure that, in six weeks’ time, their perishable valuable goods can continue their journeys in a smooth manner not only to EU countries, but to the UK mainland? Furthermore, what discussions have taken place with DAERA for that very smooth transition?
Mr Walker
The hon. Gentleman raises a hugely important point. I have met many farmers and agrifood producers in Northern Ireland, and I recognise the crucial importance of that industry. The protocol ensures that movements of Northern Ireland produce into the European Union—into the Republic of Ireland—are protected. We deliver on the movement into the rest of the UK through our unfettered access commitment, and we continue to work very closely with DAERA on all these issues.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
As a sovereign nation, it is essential that we complete our transition out of the EU on 31 December with our sovereignty intact. Will my hon. Friend confirm that we can also do that with our Union intact?
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP) [V]
The Government frequently claim that Brexit will not lead to a lowering of standards on foods, medicines and rights, so presumably the resistance to agreeing a level playing field is just to have the theoretical power to lower standards. We have just been hearing how Northern Ireland is grappling with the protocol, which is, of course, a necessary consequence of Brexit. Is the risk of such deep economic damage and political instability really a price worth paying just so that this Government can have a power that they can boast about, but which they claim they are not going to use?
Mr Walker
I recognise that the hon. Lady has strong views against our leaving the EU which she has been consistent in demonstrating. It is essential that we deliver on a protocol that is there to protect the unique circumstances of Northern Ireland, and that is absolutely what we will do.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
I recently visited a manufacturer in my constituency called Thumbs Up, which highlighted its concerns about export summary declarations and their impact not only on its business, but on its customers. What work is the Department doing to maintain the frictionless and unfettered movement of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland to mitigate any impact on businesses such as Thumbs Up in Radcliffe?
Mr Walker
My hon. Friend raises an important point. Where British businesses are selling into Northern Ireland and the intended use of their goods is clearly in the Northern Ireland market, it is, of course, important that we do everything we can to protect them from unnecessary bureaucracy. Discussions on this issue are ongoing with the Joint Committee, and I assure him that we will do whatever is in our power to deliver that frictionless access for businesses in order to ensure that the crucial trade between Britain and Northern Ireland can continue.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
There was a time when the Conservative party was proud of the fact that it was the party of business, but those days seem to be long gone: we have a situation where business is telling the Government about the problems that these arrangements will cause. Businesses need certainty and time to put in place measures to make such fundamental changes. We have a Government who seem to be passionate about the fact of Brexit, but ignorant of the facts around it. Will the Minister just come to the Dispatch Box, take seriously the concerns that have been put in front of him by a whole array of business bodies, and try to sort this out?
Mr Walker
We absolutely take seriously the concerns of business. We are engaging with businesses all the time on this and we want to deliver for them. One of the key concerns is the delivery of unfettered access. That is one of the issues on which businesses in Northern Ireland have repeatedly pressed me and my colleagues. The hon. Gentleman’s party is currently failing to support that in its approach to the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con) [V]
Any assistance by the EU on the need for export summary declarations for goods moving from Northern Ireland to the rest of the UK would not only be contrary to the Good Friday agreement and the 1800 Acts of Union, but would fly in the face of the clear commitment in the withdrawal agreement to ensure unfettered access to such movement. Will my hon. Friend ensure that this unfettered access is protected in all circumstances, whether or not we conclude a trade agreement with the European Union?
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
What assessment has the Minister made of the remarks of Northern Ireland’s chief veterinary officer, who has said that it would be impossible to check all food products after exit day given that construction has not even begun on any of the three new border control posts in Northern Ireland? What contingency plans are being put in place for SPS controls for goods entering Northern Ireland from GB, specifically if there is no waiver or no phased implementation from 1 January?
Mr Walker
It is not my role to make assessments of officials, but let me be clear that we are working with DAERA on delivery of these SPS checks. We are talking not about building totally new infrastructure, but upgrading existing arrangements. As the hon. Member will know, there are already arrangements in place in some respects between Great Britain and Northern Ireland to protect the single epidemiological unit of the island of Ireland. Work is continuing, and we will continue to work hand in hand with DAERA and its officials to deliver it.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con) [V]
Does my hon. Friend agree that the imposition of restrictions on the movements of goods within our sovereign Union by a third party is not compatible with the definition of sovereignty?
Mr Walker
My hon. Friend is right to point out that it is crucial that the UK should be able to determine how goods move within its own customs area and internal market. That is why we have taken the steps that we have in respect of the UK internal market to make sure that we have a fall-back and an absolute guarantee that we can deliver unfettered access. I am hopeful that we will be able to reach agreement with the EU on the outstanding issues, and we continue to negotiate in good faith in order to do so and to make sure that unfettered access, as was envisaged in the protocol, is delivered.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
Notwithstanding the fact that the abilities of this Government are clearly quite limited, will the Minister outline specifically how he expects this Government to make trade deals with the likes of the United States while simultaneously seeking to break international law in respect of the Northern Ireland protocol and putting at risk the Good Friday agreement?
Mr Walker
I have been clear on our intention to deliver on the protocol and to meet both our international commitments and our commitments to the people of Northern Ireland in that regard. Indeed, we have already discussed in these exchanges the fact that the protocol is there to protect the Good Friday agreement and the peace arrangements. That is exactly what the US Government have urged us to do, and we shall continue to discuss with them how we are absolutely determined to protect the peace process.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
The recent focus on the Northern Ireland protocol has not just raised questions about our commitment to uphold international law but shone a light on our wider commitment to play a more influential role on the international stage. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, when it comes to re-establishing greater western resolve, 2021 could be a big year for the United Kingdom, as we host COP26 and take on the presidency of the G7, but that that can happen only if we secure a trade deal with the EU, protect our overseas aid budget, complete a costed integrated review and bury the myth that we might consider deliberately breaching international law?
Mr Walker
My right hon. Friend is very kind not only to promote me to right hon. but to try to give me responsibility for things way beyond my brief. The UK has a vital role to play on the international scene and it is vital that we meet our commitments with regard to the protocol, which I believe we will do.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The Minister has assured us that he wants the Government to meet their international commitments, their commitments to the Northern Ireland protocol and their commitments to the Good Friday agreement, and to maintain their relationship with the United States. Will he tell us, then, what the Government have done in reconsidering their position since President-elect Biden has made it absolutely clear that he is not happy with the current situation and that that will be taken into account in any trade talks once he enters the White House in January?
Mr Walker
Although, again, I am not responsible for trade negotiations or the relationship with the United States, I recognise that the United States is a crucial investor and partner in Northern Ireland: more than almost any other country, it has invested in the peace process and provided jobs and prosperity in Northern Ireland. We should continue to support that, to work closely with the United States and to make absolutely clear to them our determination to support the peace process and the Good Friday agreement, part of the principles of which the protocol is delivering in terms of the importance of both east-west and north-south arrangements.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The protocol anticipates progress by the Joint Committee on the issue of fisheries relating to Northern Ireland and Ireland; what assurances does the Minister anticipate will be forthcoming on the future relationship that will ensure that UK boats that land fish and shellfish in Northern Ireland will not be subject to tariffs, customs demands or other technical impediments?
Mr Walker
My right hon. Friend raises an important point. We will pursue specific solutions for Great Britain vessels with the EU separately. The approach to landing for GB vessels in Northern Ireland is linked to, but not subject to, ongoing discussions with the EU regarding Northern Ireland landings for Northern Ireland vessels within the Joint Committee process.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
When I was a shadow Transport Minister, I debated the significant risk of documentation, IT infrastructure and systems not being ready at the end of the transition period. My concerns were dismissed, but here we are in a state of chaos, 43 days before we leave the current arrangements. Further to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), in light of the fact that the Northern Ireland Department for the Economy has said that 20% of Northern Ireland trade with Great Britain transits via Dublin port, what facilitations are the UK planning to ensure unfettered access for Northern Ireland goods arriving into Holyhead from Dublin port?
Mr Walker
The hon. Lady raises an important point, and we want to ensure that all Northern Ireland goods that are coming to GB to be used in GB can have that unfettered access. This is still subject to discussions with the EU, and we would hope to make progress on that front, but in the meantime we are delivering on our commitments legislatively through bringing forward the statutory instrument on the definition of Northern Ireland qualifying goods. That will be the first stage in a process to make sure that all Northern Ireland qualifying goods can enjoy unfettered access to the rest of the UK.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
The SNP is always seeking to exploit this issue just to further its separatist agenda. Does my hon. Friend agree that the SNP should welcome the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, which will protect over half a million jobs in Scotland that rely on trade with the rest of the UK, particularly north-east England?
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab) [V]
Will the Minister confirm that the vital trader support service, desperately needed to remove the burden on businesses from custom checks, will launch only on 21 December? Does he accept that leaving seven working days is an insult to businesses whose livelihoods depend on this system working seamlessly?
Mr Walker
The service is already signing businesses up, and as I said earlier, more than 7,000 businesses across Great Britain and Northern Ireland have signed up so far. We are seeing hundreds more registrations every day, so I do not recognise the point that the hon. Lady makes, but it is vital that the service is in place for the end of the transition period and the beginning of the new arrangements, and it is vital that it reaches as many businesses as it possibly can.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab) [V]
There are concerns that the end of the margin scheme could destroy the Northern Irish second-hand car market because VAT would then have to be paid on the full purchase price of cars from GB, not just the profit. Does the Minister think that we can expect this to be resolved during negotiations, or if not, what impact does he think that it will have on the car market in Northern Ireland?
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
Will my hon. Friend update the House and clarify for us what the position will be on live animal exports from the Republic of Ireland to Northern Ireland, and from Northern Ireland to the rest of Great Britain, following 1 January?
Mr Walker
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We want to ensure—and the protocol will ensure—that animals can continue to move between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. That is important and reflects existing patterns of trade between the two. With regard to goods coming from Northern Ireland into Great Britain, we of course want to make sure that we provide unfettered access for Northern Ireland qualifying goods, and the definition of that is the crux of my hon. Friend’s question. That is an issue on which we continue to work closely with the agriculture and agrifood industry.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee was today warned by Aodhán Connolly and Stephen Kelly, who represent sectors of business in Northern Ireland, of the great difficulties that their sectors are going to face. Ironically, both gentlemen are partly to blame for the restrictions that they are now complaining about, because they led the charge in propagating the mythical problems that will exist across the Irish border after Brexit. Will the Minister give us an assurance that if the EU insists on its interpretation of the withdrawal agreement—which will disrupt food supplies, supplies to farmers and supplies to manufacturers in Northern Ireland—as it is entitled to under article 16 of the Northern Ireland protocol, the Government will act unilaterally to protect the Northern Ireland economy and Northern Ireland’s position within the United Kingdom?
Mr Walker
The right hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the concerns of those businesses. We share those concerns and we want to resolve them through the Joint Committee, but as he knows, and as we have shown through the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, where we need to take steps to protect our commitment to unfettered access and the UK internal market, we will.
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)
With over 25 years of working, living and breathing importing and exporting, I understand the importance of protecting the unfettered access between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I thank the Minister for his guarantee that it will be protected. Does he agree that all the naysayers do is bring uncertainty to businesses and local economies, and that they need to get on board with the fact that unfettered access will be protected by the UK Government?
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
If anything will be disastrous for devolution, it is the Government’s United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, but the Minister does not seem to get the point put to him by several Members. How is the Government’s determination to reinstate the clauses that allow them to break international law compatible with the assurance that the Prime Minister gave President-elect Biden that he would not allow Brexit to undermine the Good Friday agreement?
Mr Walker
Absolutely explicitly, there is nothing in the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill that in any way contradicts the Good Friday agreement or our delivery on it. We want to ensure that we can protect the unfettered access to the rest of the UK on which the Northern Ireland economy depends. That is something that the hon. Member and his party should be working with us to deliver.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his answers. Perhaps if we were having this question in a week’s time, we would have some more clarity, because the negotiations are clearly moving to a conclusion. We all hope it will be a successful one. While I recognise that the Minister cannot comment on the details, will he confirm that any permanent EU presence in Northern Ireland will be resisted by the Government and that, while the Commission will have rights of supervision, all checks on agrifood entering Northern Ireland will be conducted by British authorities?
Mr Walker
I confirm to my hon. Friend that this is something on which we have taken a clear position in the UK-EU Joint Committee. It is for the UK to implement the protocol. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), the details of that implementation should be for UK officials, employees of the UK Government and their partners in the devolved Administrations, not for the EU.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for seeking the urgent question. As it draws to a close, the questions remain many, yet the answers are few. I make no apology for raising again the VAT margins issue raised on three occasions thus far. With 43 days to go, it simply is not good enough for the Minister to say that he will now have a conversation with HMRC and the Treasury. Will he commit today that, if this issue is not resolved in the overarching agreements with the European Union, the Government will rectify it through a finance Bill?
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is in fact because of the necessary measures brought forward by the Government in the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill that there will be legal certainty around the integrity of our Union at the end of the transition and not, as Opposition Members have argued, the other way round?
Mr Walker
Yes, I wholly agree. It is crucial that we provide that certainty. I have heard time and time again from Northern Ireland businesses about the importance of that certainty to their biggest single market: the rest of the UK. We must deliver on that as we deliver on the wider protocol.
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 item of business, I suspend the House for three minutes.
Towns Fund
(3 years, 5 months 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
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government if he will make a statement on the towns fund.
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)
The towns fund is one element of this Government’s mission to spread opportunity and to level up by investing in towns and smaller cities—places to support businesses and communities so that we can help them to thrive.
Last year we announced that 101 places had been invited to develop proposals for a town deal as part of the £3.6 billion towns fund. These towns are spread across the country. Many are birthplaces of industry and centres of commerce. Others are bastions of the maritime economy or the pleasures of the English seaside. Others are great agricultural and market towns. They are all different. But what they do have in common is that they have been underinvested in and undervalued by central Government for too long as too much investment has been centred on our big cities.
Town deals are about reversing that trend. They are about providing investment and confidence at a crucial time for these communities. Through town deals, we are driving economic regeneration and growth, raising living standards and boosting productivity. We are investing in new uses for often derelict and unloved spaces. We are creating new cultural and economic assets that will benefit those communities not just today but for generations to come. We are connecting people through better infrastructure both digital and physical, such as the new walking and cycling routes planned for Torquay and the creation of the new digi-tech factory in Norwich.
We have already made some investments as a rapid response to the effects of covid-19 where towns are particularly vulnerable. Up-front grants of up to £1 million are being spent in places such Burton-on-Trent, on its new main shopping centre to allow greater access for pedestrians and cyclists, or on demolishing and rebuilding unloved buildings in places like Newcastle-under-Lyme. Many towns are repurposing empty shops into vibrant community and business spaces that will help them to bounce back when covid is done.
Each town selected to bid for a town deal is eligible for an investment of up to £25 million. Of course, that is not guaranteed, and all proposals are rigorously assessed by officials in my Department. In exceptional circumstances, such as the nationally significant plans for the great town of Blackpool, we will invest more. I am particularly excited by Blackpool’s plans to make its illuminations even more impressive and attract more visitors when they are back next year.
Town deals are about more than simply investment. They are about the whole town coming together, to create and share a genuine vision for the future of that place. We have just offered Barrow-in-Furness a town deal that will help to address the skills gap, create better housing and support local businesses to grow and employ more people. I am hugely excited by these deals. They offer a chance to turn around the fortunes of many, many places.
This is just the start. The Government are committed to levelling up all parts of the country. We want everyone, wherever they live, to benefit from increased economic growth and prosperity. Town deals are but one way to achieve that. All Members of the House will agree that places such as Blackpool, Barrow and Darlington need and deserve investment, and they will have it under this Government. The work of the towns fund is just beginning.
Justin Madders
Thank you for granting the urgent question, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the Secretary of State for his response, although many questions remain unanswered. He discussed the Blackpool illuminations, and we certainly need illumination on this side of the House about exactly why particular towns were chosen and not others. Can he tell us what was in his mind when he ignored civil servants’ advice and allocated funding to low-priority towns? Was it really a complete coincidence that all the low-priority towns that he chose happened to be in Tory-held or target seats? We have heard nothing to convince us that it is anything other than a deliberate ploy.
Serious concerns have been expressed, not just by Opposition Members but by the National Audit Office and the cross-party Public Accounts Committee. We are told that we are making the issue party political, but I remind Government Members that we are not the only ones who question this process. This is party political because the Government made it so in the first place by gerrymandering the fund. Can the Secretary of State give us assurances that the whole rationale for these decisions will be published and that any future rounds of the towns fund will be dealt with solely on merit?
I want to know whether Ellesmere Port will get a fair crack of the whip next time round. Before the scheme was announced we were told that we were well placed for the next round of funding. If the funds had been allocated on the scores alone there is no doubt that we would have qualified for support, and we would have put that money to good use, because there are ambitious plans for the town, ready to go, that only need Government support to be realised. When is the next opportunity, and will funding be allocated on a transparent and impartial basis? Does the Secretary of State accept that the pandemic has accelerated the challenges that many towns face and urgent action is needed? There can be no levelling up if one structural bias is replaced by another. There can be no levelling up if the playing field is uneven, and there can be no levelling up if large parts of the country are ignored just because they voted the wrong way.
Robert Jenrick
I look forward to receiving a bid from Ellesmere Port in the competitive phase next year. It seems as if the hon. Gentleman wants more of the towns fund, not less, and we can all agree that this is an important investment opportunity for places throughout the country.
A rigorous and robust procedure was put in place by the Department, before I or any other Minister set foot in the Department. That was then followed; we followed the advice of our excellent civil servants in the Department —it is a pity that the Opposition tried to cast aspersions on them—by selecting the 40 most highly ranked towns and smaller cities that their methodology drew up. It is surprising that the hon. Gentleman has such great enthusiasm for algorithm-based policy making. We have learned in the past year that a degree of judgment and qualitative analysis is also useful. The officials advised just that. They said that in addition to those 40 places we should use our judgment to select other places for inclusion from the list informed by the information and advice that they provided to us, because many of those places were quite finely balanced.
That is entirely consistent, and is set out in the work that the Department has shared with the National Audit Office. I have seen the recommendations from the Public Accounts Committee and, in the usual way, the Department will respond. The permanent secretary of my Department has made it clear that Ministers followed a rigorous and robust procedure in full. That is quite right, and that is how we will approach the next round of funding.
All of us on both sides of the House should be able to agree that this fund is important and that these places need investment. We are working very well with Labour councils in these places. The hon. Gentleman says that these are Conservative-voting places. I am afraid that it is not the towns fund that is responsible for the way people have voted in those communities—it is the fact that Labour MPs and successive Labour Governments have let down those communities for too long. More than 60% of the towns and smaller cities that we have invested in have Labour councils, and we are working extremely well with them, whether that is Wolverhampton or St Helens; I am sure we will hear other examples today. I look forward to working with Members on both sides of the House to continue to invest and level up.
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con)
I am disappointed to see an attempt to score political points over a fantastic policy that is hopefully bringing investment to places such as Wolverhampton. In Wolverhampton, we have worked very constructively on our really rounded bid with MPs of both parties, under a Labour-led council, and local stakeholders. This policy has been met with unanimous positivity in the city of Wolverhampton, so I thank the Secretary of State for it. We are anxiously awaiting the result of our bid. One element of our bid that is very important to me is Wednesfield, a town in my constituency that has felt ignored for a number of decades. I would like reassurance that any money allocated to Wednesfield from this bid will be ring-fenced and will not be spent on other elements of the towns fund.
Robert Jenrick
I think the rules of the towns fund allow for funding to be devoted to a project anywhere within the boundaries that are agreed between my Department and the city or town concerned. I encourage my hon. Friend or officials from Wolverhampton City Council to get in touch with my officials to agree whether funding can be devoted to Wednesfield, because she makes a strong case for that. She made the point well that we are working extremely productively with local councils across the country of all political persuasions. I have spoken to the Labour leader of Wolverhampton City Council a number of times over the last year. He and his fellow councillors of all party persuasions support the towns fund and are in the process of putting in some strong proposals, and I look forward to a successful result in due course.
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State is accused today of blocking funding from the £3.6 billion towns fund going to the most deprived towns for which it was intended, and instead funnelling it into marginal Conservative party seats ahead of the general election, including to help his own re-election campaign. This clearly is not about levelling up, so let us see whether he will level with the British people about what really went on.
Did the Secretary of State discuss which towns would receive funding with No. 10 or any Conservative party employee before making the allocations, and will he publish any correspondence? Why did he tell his constituents,
“I helped to secure a £25 million town deal which…will…make the town centre a more attractive place to spend time in”,
despite claiming not to have been involved in any decision about Newark on “The Andrew Marr Show” on 11 October 2020? Was he present when his junior Minister made decisions about his constituency, and will he publish all minutes from that meeting, in which they both chose 61 towns that would benefit from funding?
What did the Secretary of State mean when he said that the Government would “only” commit £25 million to Stapleford in the constituency of Broxtowe if the Conservative party candidate, Darren Henry, was elected? Newark and Sherwood District Council removed the Secretary of State from its board “following conversations with Government”. What were those conversations, and did they take place before or after he saw the damning NAO report?
Finally, will the Secretary of State clear this up and publish in full the accounting officer’s assessment of the towns fund and the full criteria that he and his Ministers used to select towns when they chose to override civil servants’ advice? If he refuses to publish, the public can only conclude that it is because they have something to hide.
Robert Jenrick
Once again, the hon. Gentleman seeks to sow discord where there is none. We followed a very clear and robust procedure. The permanent secretary of my Department made that very clear when he appeared before the Public Accounts Committee. Again, I think it is disappointing that the hon. Gentleman chooses to cast aspersions upon distinguished civil servants.
With respect to the accounting officer’s advice, such advice is not routinely published. That is a decision not for Ministers, but for civil servants. Once again, the hon. Gentleman is highly misleading in his remarks, because the accounting officer’s advice was shared in full with the National Audit Office when it produced its report for the PAC. The Chair of the PAC asked to see the report and, in line with usual practice, the permanent secretary wrote a comprehensive summary of the advice. I have asked him once again to check that advice, and he says that the summary was comprehensive and covered all the points. The Chair of the Public Accounts Committee has all the information at her fingertips, as I suspect she knows perfectly well, because she is a highly experienced Member of this House.
With respect to Newark, I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman shows such interest in my constituency. Perhaps he could come up and visit us, but he does not like to go north of the M25 very often. If he did, he would know that Newark was the 16th most highly ranked town in the east midlands to be a beneficiary of the fund, and we supported 19 places in the east midlands. There is absolutely no reason why a Minister should disadvantage their constituency. We are both Ministers and constituency MPs, which is one of the great virtues of our political system, but it is right that those decisions are not taken by that particular Minister and, in the usual way, the decision was taken by a colleague.
With respect to the hon. Gentleman’s question about why I had said on the campaign trail that the fund’s future would be in question if there were a Labour Government, I think he has made that point for us today. He does not support the towns fund. The 101 places that are benefiting from it would be poorer if they had been under a Labour Government.
The message from the Labour party is very clear today: while we want to level up, it wants to score pointless political points. The shadow Secretary of State cannot talk about local government because his own Labour council has gone bankrupt with debts of £1.5 billion. He cannot talk about communities, because the committee on antisemitism has called him out, along with the majority of the members of the community team on the Labour Front Bench, for antisemitic incidents—quite how he can stay in position after that, I do not know. He cannot talk about housing because he has said that his team has no housing policies, and it will be years before he produces any. He cannot talk about housing because we are building more homes than any Government have done for the past 30 years. We will keep on building homes, we will keep on levelling up, and we will keep on investing in the communities that need it.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con) [V]
The towns fund will help reverse the decline in places such as Ashfield and other ex-Labour strongholds in the midlands and the north, where, during decades of Labour MPs and Labour councils, the only thing on offer was more decline and more broken promises. The £1.5 million accelerated towns funding is already being put to good use in my area. Does my right hon. Friend agree that Labour should be supporting our plans to level up in the old industrial towns in the north, and will he meet me to discuss how I can get the town of Eastwood on my patch to be included in the next round of funding?
Robert Jenrick
I have to say that I do not recall my hon. Friend’s predecessor coming to me to lobby for investment in his community. What a refreshing difference it is to have a Conservative MP in Ashfield who is fighting for investment for that community. I would be delighted to meet him and discuss his plans to take Ashfield forward.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) on securing today’s urgent question. During Monday’s departmental questions, I raised my concerns about the lack of clarity on the Barnettisation of towns funding and received the usual “jam tomorrow” answer that Scotland has become so accustomed to hearing from Whitehall, but what we are increasingly seeing from this Conservative Government is cronyism and sleaze, particularly from the Secretary of State’s Department. First, we have the Westferry scandal calling into question the Secretary of State’s inappropriate contact with Tory donor and property developer, Richard Desmond. Secondly, the coronavirus pandemic has seen the British Government award £1.5 billion of taxpayers’ money to companies linked to the Tories. Finally, last week we saw a damning report from the Public Accounts Committee, which said on the subject of towns funding that the Government
“has also not been open about the process it followed and it did not disclose the reasoning for selecting or excluding towns. This lack of transparency has fuelled accusations of political bias in the selection process”.
That report was signed off by Conservative MPs. Why can the Secretary of State not see, as everybody else can, that this stinks to high heaven and that sunlight—producing those accounting reports—is the best disinfectant?
The UK stronger towns fund is only 10% of what the UK would have received from EU cohesion funds if it had remained in the EU. Can the Secretary of State confirm that other towns funds and schemes will make up the shortfall from the stronger towns fund?
Robert Jenrick
I already responded at departmental questions that the question of Barnettisation of the fund will be a matter for the spending review. The hon. Gentleman I think said erroneously at departmental questions that it had taken us a number of weeks or even months to respond to him. That was not the case; actually, we responded immediately to his question at the previous departmental questions. I am happy to resend him a copy of that if he seems to have mislaid it.
With respect to the hon. Gentleman’s wider questions, I have already answered that we followed a robust procedure. That has been set out by the Department. My permanent secretary, in giving evidence to the Public Accounts Committee, made that abundantly clear.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con) [V]
May I congratulate Warrington’s town deal board, which is cross-party, private and public sector, for its tremendous collaboration in securing £22 million for this area? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the shadow Communities Secretary, who pretends to be concerned about taxpayers’ money, should look closer to home, where his friends in Croydon have bankrupted the local council through terrible investment and financial mismanagement?
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend makes a good point. If we are looking to the shadow Secretary of State as the guardian of value for money and the Exchequer, I think the public will be sorely disappointed. It is probably about time that he spoke out about the activities of Croydon Council. Croydon Council’s mismanagement of public money has been, frankly, catastrophic and shocking. Who will lose out as a result? It will be the people of Croydon, who will see their services reduced and will have to deal for years to come with the toxic legacy of a Labour council that the shadow Secretary of State has fastidiously supported.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Who authorised the 18 taxpayer-funded adverts that were placed on Facebook by the Secretary of State’s Department and were subsequently removed by Facebook?
Robert Jenrick
All spending by the Department is approved, by definition, by the Department, through the accounting officer and the permanent secretary.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
I very much support the towns fund, but I support even more the principle of the town deal, which lies behind it. That is the right way to level up the country—not just by allocating dollops of funding from Whitehall but by working with local leaders, councils and local enterprise partnerships that have a vision for their town to develop a plan to invest in it. Does my right hon. Friend agree, though, that we need to go beyond just councils and LEPs and ensure that money and power go directly to civil society and community groups that have a more granular vision for their place?
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend has been a champion of this for some time, and his brilliant report published earlier in the year made the case once again. One of the ideas behind the town deal is, exactly as he describes, not just for central Government to work directly with a particular local council—although, as I say, relations with local councils have been uniformly excellent in this process—but to broaden it out by bringing in members of the business community, members of civil society and Members of Parliament of all political persuasions. That is happening across the country. On Friday, I had the pleasure of joining a Zoom call with St Helens Council and the local community of St Helens, including the two Members of Parliament for St Helens, to hear their brilliant proposals and to offer my support and that of my Department as they bring them forward to fruition.
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)
In my constituency, Workington will hopefully receive £25 million from the towns deal and Maryport £17 million from the future high streets fund. These figures will make a tangible difference to communities such as mine that have previously been let down by their political leadership. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Opposition Benches might not be so empty if Labour had done more for its communities when it held those seats and local councils?
Robert Jenrick
I welcome the fact that Workington has the opportunity to bid for the funding. It will make a difference. The communities that my hon. Friend represents are exactly the sorts of places that we set out to support when we created the towns fund and the future high streets fund. These are places that have not routinely received substantial amounts of Government funding, and that extra investment for skills, for culture, for digital and transport infrastructure and for the revitalisation of places and high streets will be really welcomed by local people. As I have said to other colleagues, I very much look forward to seeing the plans come to fruition if Workington is successful.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Contrary to the Secretary of State’s remarks, the Public Accounts Committee says that the criteria for funding the towns fund were insufficient and “vague”. So, once again, I ask the Minister to release in full the accounting officer’s assessment of the scheme.
Robert Jenrick
I know that the hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member of the House, but I do not think he understands what accounting officer’s advice is and how it corresponds with advice from the permanent secretary before the Public Accounts Committee. The permanent secretary is—[Interruption.] Well, I’m afraid that says it all. A member of the Committee himself does not know. The permanent secretary is the accounting officer. The permanent secretary at the time wrote the advice. The permanent secretary gave evidence before the hon. Gentleman’s Committee and shared a summary of the accounting officer’s advice with the Committee that the hon. Gentleman is a member of, so I am rather confused about what his point is.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I welcome the £1 million already given to Telford and Wrekin as part of the accelerated delivery fund—a Labour council, by the way. I just wonder whether the Secretary of State will have time to look at the excellent proposals from Telford’s town board, particularly around maths and digital education and the ambitions for links into local manufacturing. Can I put in a very strong plea that, while we want to level up northern towns, we do not forget the west midlands towns? Can I also put in a very strong bid for the full £25 million, please?
Robert Jenrick
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I had the pleasure of visiting Telford recently, and I met the chief executive of Telford and Wrekin Council and members of the town board, who showed me some of their exciting proposals, including the beautiful new bridge linking Telford railway station with the town centre and the science and technology section of the town that they are hoping to build adjacent to the shopping centre. That seemed a very strong proposal to me, but of course I look forward to receiving the proposals in due course.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) [V]
Clearly, this issue is just as big north of the border as it is in the rest of the UK. If I look out of the window of my office in my home town of Tain, I can see many formerly prosperous businesses and shops that are now boarded up and gone. I would not be surprised to see tumbleweed blowing down Tain’s high street sometime in the future. May I ask the Secretary of State two things? First, is this going to be recognised by means of Barnett consequentials—that is, with the money going to the Scottish Government? If so, will he use his good offices to persuade the Scottish Government to spend the money where it desperately needs to be spent—that is, in the town centres the length and breadth of Scotland that are falling into ruination and disrepair?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I have allowed the hon. Gentleman to ask two things, but let me just point out that we must have one question per person, or else we will be here all day.
Robert Jenrick
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall try to be swift. As I said in an earlier answer, the question of Barnettisation will be settled at the spending review, and hon. Members do not have very long to wait for the answers there. On the hon. Gentleman’s broader point, he is absolutely right. The challenges facing smaller cities and towns are consistent across the whole of the United Kingdom. That is the reason we set up the towns fund, and that is why we having been doing town and city deals in all parts of the UK, including a large number in Scotland.
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)
I think it shows how far Labour has fallen from its natural home that it is essentially condemning funding going into some of the most deprived communities in our nation. That is absolutely astonishing to witness. The residents of Bishop Auckland are incredibly grateful to have been shortlisted not only for the towns fund but for the future high streets fund, and to have received £750,000 of accelerated funding. We are doing some incredible cross-party and cross-community working on our towns board to secure that deal, and I look forward to that bid going in. My question to the Secretary of State is: if the towns fund is opened up in future, will he seriously consider including Spennymoor in that, because Bishop Auckland is a tale of four towns, and Spennymoor deserves its fair share?
Robert Jenrick
I thank my hon. Friend, who has been a fantastic champion for her constituency since she was elected just a short time ago. As she says, it is a reflection on the Labour party—at least in Westminster—that it wants to pour cold water on a fund that is doing so much good work in communities across the country. Fortunately, that is quite a different picture from what we are seeing from local councils of all political persuasions elsewhere, which really want to get on board and make a huge success of these proposals. We will be doing a competitive phase next year, and I look forward to an application from the other parts of my hon. Friend’s constituency.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab) [V]
From this towns fund being handed out to Tory seats, to the money being squandered on covid contracts and the ferry contract being awarded to a company with no ferries, this is all part of a very murky picture, is it not? How can my constituents have any confidence at all that public money is being well spent when cronyism, mates’ rates and political manoeuvring seem to be at the heart of so much Government decision making, not to mention downright incompetence?
Robert Jenrick
Well, I did not detect a question there, other than a whole series of pointless innuendos. We are going to keep focusing on what the public want us to do, which is investing and levelling up in the communities that need it the most despite all the challenges of covid, and that is exactly what this fund does.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
The towns fund is, of course, an England-only fund, but the Government’s levelling-up agenda means supporting towns right across the UK, including Rhyl in my constituency. Will my right hon. Friend commit to exploring opportunities for the shared prosperity fund and other sources of financial assistance to help redevelop Rhyl’s Queen’s Market?
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the shared prosperity fund will be a great opportunity for the whole United Kingdom to come together; for us to be doing work not dissimilar to the activities of the towns fund and the high streets fund, investing in skills, transport, technology and in place in a way we simply have not been able to do while those funds have been directed through the bureaucracy and regulation of the European Union. As we design the UK’s shared prosperity fund and bring it to fruition in the early part of next year, I will certainly be listening to my hon. Friend and his colleagues in Wales.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) [V]
Among the damning judgments issued last week by the Public Accounts Committee was that
“we are not convinced by the rationales for selecting some towns and not others. The justification offered by ministers…are vague and based on sweeping assumptions. In some cases, towns were chosen by ministers despite being identified by officials as the very lowest priority… The Department has also not been open about the process it followed… This lack of transparency has fuelled accusations of political bias in the selection process”.
That is just a selection of findings from one page of a 21-page report. I have seen the summary accounting officer assessment provided in confidence to the Public Accounts Committee, which most Members taking part in today’s session have not, and I do not think that summary exonerates Ministers in anything like the way the Secretary of State is claiming. Why will his Department not allow that summary to be published, so that hon. Members can do their job and decide for themselves?
Robert Jenrick
I think I have already answered that point: the accounting officer’s advice is not routinely published within Whitehall. That is a matter for the Department and the civil service more generally. However, it has been shared with the Public Accounts Committee, and I am pleased to see that at least one member of the Committee actually bothered to read it, unlike others present in the Chamber. It is a fair summary, and my permanent secretary has attested to that.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
I thank my right hon. Friend for the answers he has given thus far. London is effectively a network of towns and villages, not just the centre of London. What hope can he give to parts of London that are suffering from deprivation, and need capital and revenue investment just to get them started on the route to recovery?
Robert Jenrick
We have actually included communities within larger cities in both the towns fund and the future high streets fund, because my hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that there can be a world of difference between Birmingham city centre and the high street in Brierley Hill, and we want to support those places as well. There were beneficiaries of the future high streets fund in London, for example: I recall Putney putting in a bid that will now be considered by the Department, and it is absolutely right that we do that. Covid has of course brought profound challenges even to some of our most robust city centres, including London, Manchester and Birmingham, so it will be a focus of my Department’s work in the weeks and months ahead. We will give what support we can, working with Mayors, city council leaders and the GLA to provide further support for the renewal and adaptation of those places.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
Stoke-on-Trent is a city of six towns and three highly motivated Conservative Members of Parliament. As my right hon. Friend knows, we work together to ensure joined-up strategic thinking and maximum benefit for everyone in Stoke-on-Trent. On behalf of all three Stoke-on-Trent MPs, will he ensure that the bid process for the next round of town deals will allow for a Stoke deal featuring three of our towns, Hanley, Longton and Tunstall, and will recognise the importance of investment in our towns in the future vision for our city as a whole?
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend and I have discussed this previously. The criteria designed by the Department for the towns fund placed an upper limit on the size of communities that were able to benefit from it, because it was supposed to support towns and smaller cities. I appreciate that the circumstances of Stoke are unusual because, although a city, it is a collection of historical towns, so it was not able to be considered as part of the process. When we design the criteria for the competitive phase, we will take into consideration her view that collections of towns, even within a broader city, might be eligible.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
When I consider the constituencies of the hon. Members on the Government Benches who have contributed so far—indeed, the constituencies of other hon. Members who are in their places—such as Wolverhampton North East, Ashfield, Warrington South, Workington and Bishop Auckland, and I see the hon. Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) and for Shipley (Philip Davies), every single one of those constituencies scored less than Ellesmere Port and Neston in the same borough as the City of Chester, and yet they were awarded the money and Ellesmere Port was not. We know that rankings are important, because the Secretary of State used the ranking of Newark in the east midlands to justify money being awarded to his own constituency. Let me ask him specifically: who took the decision to exclude Ellesmere Port town centre from the money allocation, and what criteria were used?
Robert Jenrick
I have been very clear that, on the advice of civil servants, we gave the opportunity to bid for a town deal to the 40 most highly ranked. Then, in accordance with the advice of civil servants, we applied a qualitative judgment in coming to conclusions on the others. As the civil servants made clear, some of those communities were very finely balanced, and it was important to take a geographical spread and a spread of different types of community, whether ex-coalfield, seaside, market towns, or sub-high streets and communities within great cities.
With respect to Ellesmere Port, I look forward to receiving a bid in the competitive phase to come. I point out that the Department chose Ellesmere Port to be one of the 14 pilots for our high streets taskforce. I hope that the significant amounts of money that we are investing and spending in Ellesmere Port are making a difference and regenerating its high street.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
I have been watching on with great admiration at the way in which Labour-run Kirklees Council has been working closely with my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mark Eastwood) on their transformational bid to the towns fund for the town of Dewsbury in the constituency neighbouring mine. The Secretary of State kindly visited Holmfirth, one of my market towns, a year ago. Will he look at another round of the towns fund and, if so, may I share that around my numerous communities, so not just Holmfirth but Marsden, Slaithwaite, Milnsbridge and Lindley, to do something similar to what they are doing in Dewsbury?
Robert Jenrick
I had a very enjoyable visit to Holmfirth, one of the most special places in Yorkshire. I will be delighted to consider proposals from the town in the future. We will be bringing forward a competitive phase next year, as I said. From comments across the House today, we have heard loud and clear that there is great support for the towns fund. Colleagues of all political persuasions want to see more towns benefiting from it, so I will be taking that message to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
I am a member of the Runcorn town board, and I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury), present on the Front Bench, is also supportive of the bid being developed for Runcorn. The time and the bid are exciting, because we have seen the development of the Runcorn station quarter and we have a fantastic community initiative to restore the locks of the Bridgewater canal and the link back to the Manchester ship canal. Given what has been said today, will the Secretary of State give us an assurance, that Runcorn will not be treated less favourably than other town centres in Conservative constituencies?
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his answers so far and, indeed, for giving Newcastle-under-Lyme a shout-out in his initial answer. The £1 million we have had so far has been put to good use. We also have the future high streets funding and the rest of our town deal bid to come. That will represent more investment in Newcastle-under-Lyme than it had in 100 years of Labour MPs and many Labour Governments during that time.
I have to tell the Secretary of State, however, that the coronavirus pandemic is having a lasting effect on our town centre. Many retail units are closing and seem unlikely to reopen. Does he agree that this pandemic in fact presents an opportunity to rethink our town centres and, particularly in Newcastle-under-Lyme, to ensure that they thrive, by repurposing retail space into, potentially, office or residential space?
Robert Jenrick
I should say, just to clarify my answer to the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), because he seemed confused by it, that the point I was making was that absolutely, his bid will be treated with all fairness and I hope it is successful.
With respect to my hon. Friend’s question, Newcastle-under-Lyme is a town that I know very well and I can see the great proposals coming forward there. He makes the same very important point that a number of colleagues have made today—namely, that covid will accelerate market forces in our towns and city centres. It will make investment of this kind more important than ever and even more prescient than when these funds were created. I hope that they will be a shot in the arm—a boost of confidence—for communities as they begin to recover from the covid pandemic, and that they will help them to adapt and evolve, turning empty shops into homes, and beautiful buildings back to the uses that they were made for.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) [V]
I support boosting towns. The Secretary of State talks about a robust procedure and fine balance. There are plenty of communities in Stockport that would be worthy recipients of towns fund money, including Reddish, so what instead attracted him to Cheadle? Was it its unemployment rate, at 3% below the north-west average? Was it its deprivation ranking, decile seven, making it one of the north’s least deprived areas? Was it its low shop vacancy rate? Was it his Department’s assessment ranking it the 535th priority out of 541 towns? Or was it the Tory majority of just 2,366? [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. No clapping from the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden). If he wishes to make some audible sound, that is a different matter.
Robert Jenrick
Well, it is not a terribly good look for the Labour party to say that it does not want investment to go into Cheadle. I think that the good people of Cheadle will welcome the fact that they are part of the town deal, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson) will be working very hard with her town board to bring forward exciting proposals for the place. We are working extremely well with Labour councils and MPs throughout the north-west, though perhaps not with the hon. Gentleman, to bring forward proposals, and we have just heard from one in Cheshire.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
May I urge the Secretary of State to ignore the siren voices on the Opposition Benches and thank him for including Shipley in the towns fund, which is very much needed? I am sure my constituents will be very interested to hear that the Labour party seems to be indicating that it does not think that Shipley should have been included in the towns fund. May I ask the Secretary of State to go further? Although it is very much needed and welcomed in Shipley, my towns of Bingley and Baildon would also very much welcome this funding and very much need it. I hope that he will do future towns funds and that Baildon and Bingley will both be included.
Robert Jenrick
I thank my hon. Friend and will bear that in mind when we come to the competitive phase of the process. He makes the broader point very powerfully—namely, that from what we have heard this afternoon, Labour Front Benchers are now explicitly opposed to investment in these 100 places. He can take back to the people of Shipley and Bradford that, if there were a Labour Government, this funding would certainly not be flowing to their communities.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his responses so far. Secretary of State, it is my understanding that local enterprise partnerships—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. The hon. Gentleman does not say “Secretary of State” to the Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman has to say, “Madam Deputy Speaker, does the Secretary of State…” I am sure eventually I will achieve my ambition of having the hon. Member for Strangford use the third person and not the second person. He does not address the Secretary of State directly.
Jim Shannon
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is my understanding that local enterprise partnerships and investment promotion agencies across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland were invited to submit nominations for the second round of the high potential opportunities scheme by 17 April 2020. I would be anxious to know the success of Northern Ireland applications for the towns fund.
Robert Jenrick
From memory, the fund he is referring to was established by the Secretary of State at the Department for International Trade, but I will take his representations to my right hon. Friend and ensure that he gets a fulsome answer as quickly as possible.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I have to rush off after the Secretary of State’s answer for a Westminster Hall debate. The Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions estimated that Scotland will lose out on €840 million by 2027 due to the loss of access to EU regional development funds. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the funds apportioned to Scotland, assuming that they will be, from the stronger towns fund and the shared prosperity fund will make up that gap and that Scotland will not lose out on this substantial funding?
Robert Jenrick
We have made a manifesto commitment that I have repeated many times in this place that we will be bringing forward a UK shared prosperity fund. Further details on that will be set out at the spending review. It will ensure that all the nations of the United Kingdom receive the same level of funding in this Parliament as they received from the EU structural funds that we are moving away from.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
I have spoken to businesses across Burnley and Padiham, and they are as excited as I am about the prospect of a towns deal. It will bring together the strength of the private sector with Government investment to level up and spur on our economy. I urge the Secretary of State to move at pace to release the next tranche of towns fund deals, so that we can get Burnley’s bid in.
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend makes a strong case for Burnley. As I say, we will bring forward that competitive phase early next year, and before the end of this year, I hope to be announcing the successful bidders for the future high streets fund, where we will be ensuring that up to £25 million of investment flows to dozens of communities across the country. It is another fund designed before covid, but it will be ever more important as we see the pressures wreaked on our high streets by the pandemic.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
It was really distressing to see such critical funding for our regions mired in political favouritism. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that the shared prosperity fund does not suffer the same fate? Will he confirm that the north-east will receive from the shared prosperity fund at least the £1 billion that it would have got from the European structural funds?
Robert Jenrick
As I have already said, a fair and robust procedure was used to determine the places, and many places adjacent to the hon. Lady’s constituency have benefited. I think of Blyth, for example—a community that needed investment. It saw very little of it under the last Labour Government and will now, I hope, be benefiting. She represents a great city. That was not the primary focus of the towns fund, as the name rather suggests.
With the UK shared prosperity fund, we will be ensuring that each of the nations of the United Kingdom receives the same funding as they did under the EU structural funds. We fundamentally believe that we can design better, more outcomes-focused funding streams than the European Union was ever able to do during our long years of membership. We will bring forward more details on that very soon.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
May I ask my right hon. Friend to comment on the element of the Public Accounts Committee report that says his Department misrepresented the National Audit Office by falsely asserting that it had concluded that the selection process had been robust? I ask that because it is important, surely, that the Government respect the work of the National Audit Office—now more than ever, when we are in an enormous public expenditure crisis. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he and other Ministers will respect the work of the National Audit Office?
Robert Jenrick
As a former member of the Public Accounts Committee and a former Treasury Minister, I hold our colleagues at the National Audit Office in the highest esteem. They prepared a report that informed the hearing that was held by the Public Accounts Committee. At the Committee hearing, the permanent secretary of my Department gave evidence, answered questions and made it very clear that, in his opinion, a robust procedure had been followed. In my opinion, it was disappointing that the Chair of the Committee chose to give comments even before she had held that hearing, as that rather suggested that her approach was more partisan than one would expect from the Chair of that Committee.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Officials advised the Secretary of State to choose “relatively few” low priority towns. My constituents in Crosby accept that Crosby did not qualify because it was just outside the top 100. What they do not understand is why Southport—456 on the list—qualified and met the criteria that the Secretary of State described earlier. Will he confirm once and for all that the only politicisation on view today is the allocation of the towns fund to Tory key seats such as Southport?
Robert Jenrick
The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. One only has to look at his neighbours to see good examples of that. I think of Birkenhead, for example, which I do not think was high on the list of Conservative targets at the last election, but which is now the proud beneficiary of the right to bid for a town deal. I think of St Helens, where, as I have said, I met his Labour party colleagues—two fantastic MPs who are working hard on their town deal board to bring forward great proposals for the benefit of their local communities. A small number of places were chosen from what was deemed to be the low priority category, and that was exactly—
Robert Jenrick
No. The hon. Gentleman has a bit of a habit of saying things in the House of Commons that are not exactly accurate. Sixty communities were not chosen from the low priority category; 17 such communities were chosen. [Interruption.] From his sudden change of demeanour, I take it that he is apologising for his remarks.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Whether or not the hon. Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed) is apologising for his remarks is not a matter for me, but remarks should not be made while hon. Members are sitting down and do not have the floor, especially not from the Front Bench.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I have read the summary of the accounting officer’s assessment, and can also confirm that our report says that the permanent secretary
“was satisfied the selection process met the requirements of propriety and regularity”.
In King’s Lynn, we welcome the opportunity to benefit from £25 million of investment. Will my right hon. Friend visit King’s Lynn to talk about our ambitious plan to create more opportunities for young people and innovative businesses, for an enhanced town centre with more cycling and walking, and that builds on our historic court and waterfront?
Robert Jenrick
Madam Deputy Speaker, I apologise; I spoke in error a moment ago. It was not 17 communities that were chosen from the low priority category, but 12 —even fewer than I said a moment ago.
I am pleased that my hon. Friend was able to read the accounting officer’s advice and that he considers it to be a fair summary that sets the record straight in terms of some comments that we have heard today. I would be delighted to visit King’s Lynn. It is exactly the sort of community that should be benefiting from these funds, and its bid for the future high streets fund will be considered carefully in the coming weeks.
Virtual participation in proceedings concluded (Order, 4 June).
Points of Order
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Linden
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance and clarification. In response to my earlier point, the Housing, Communities and Local Government Secretary suggested that it did not take his Department four months to respond to me and confirm that the stronger towns fund would be subject to the Barnettisation process. I actually have in my hand the letter from the Department in June responding to my letter in February and apologising for the delay in doing so. Is it appropriate for me to place a copy of this in the Library, and would it be appropriate in this circumstance for the Secretary of State to come to the Dispatch Box and apologise for inadvertently misleading the House?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Ah, further to that point of order—Secretary of State.
Robert Jenrick
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would be delighted to respond to that point of order. The point that I was making was that the hon. Gentleman had implied that after he had raised it at our last questions session, it had taken four months to reply. As he can see, my private office—as soon as alerted to it by the hon. Gentleman at questions—responded immediately, so he was actually speaking in error himself.
Madam Deputy Speaker
The point of order is clearly not a point of order for me, but an exchange—a further exchange—between the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Gentleman. It has been satisfied, as far as I am concerned, in procedural terms. Whether it has been satisfied in political terms is not a matter for the Chair.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During the general election campaign, the Conservative party candidate for Weaver Vale shared an image on social media that referred to the significant investment going to Runcorn old town; it came from Conservative party headquarters. I would just like to clarify—and to ask for advice about how I do clarify—whether a mistake of geography actually benefited my good colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg)—it is actually in the constituency adjacent to mine.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising a point of order. As I have just said in reply to the previous point of order, what is said by hon. Members and the veracity of it or otherwise is not a matter for the Chair. What is said in election literature by candidates who do not subsequently become Members of Parliament is definitely not a matter for the Chair, which is a matter of some relief for any occupant of the Chair. The hon. Gentleman asks me how he can draw his point to a wider audience. I think he has just done so.
Madam Deputy Speaker
No, the hon. Lady just wants to leave the Chamber. In order to facilitate the exit of the hon. Lady and all other Members and the safe entrance of those who wish to participate in the next item of business, I will suspend the House for three minutes.
Supported Accommodation
Wednesday 18th November 2020
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Supported Accommodation Bill 2019-21 View all Supported Accommodation 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
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave given to bring in a Bill to require developers to disclose for planning purposes an intention to use a building for supported housing or other accommodation that is specified for the purposes of Universal Credit and Housing Benefit; to establish a suitability test for accommodation proposed for such use; to make provision about the fitness of persons to be landlords or managers of supported or other specified accommodation; and for connected purposes.
The issue of the conversion of small family homes to houses of multiple occupation that are subsequently used as unregistered hostels has become a real problem in my constituency. Unregistered hostels, or exempt accommodation, are a problem in many parts of Birmingham and elsewhere, as illustrated by other the Bills introduced to the House by the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Ian Levy) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy). They are a lucrative business for those who concentrate on what we call supported exempt accommodation, which is a part of the exempt-accommodation sector in which operators are supposed to provide some level of support as well as lodgings but the accommodation is not commissioned by the local authority. This part of the sector has become important for more commercially minded providers. My experience is that much of the non-commissioned accommodation is anything but supportive and has become a goldmine because of the ease with which owners receive Government money for vulnerable people in desperate need of accommodation.
In theory, supported housing refers to any scheme in which housing and support services are provided jointly to help people to live as independently as possible. The sector covers a range of accommodation, including group homes, hostels, refuges and sheltered housing. Much of the accommodation is excellent and those providers should be applauded, but it can be supplied by a wide variety of people and not all are as reputable as we might hope.
In their report “Exempt from Responsibility?”, which was published last November, the Spring Housing Association, the Housing and Communities Research Group and Commonweal Housing examined the use of exempt accommodation in Birmingham. They concluded that there are thousands currently living in non-commissioned exempt environments that are potentially unsafe, unsuitable and not conducive to progression or growth. This provision is largely untracked and unmonitored, and there are more than 11,000 vulnerable people living in this kind of accommodation in Birmingham. There are virtually no standards beyond the most basic: it is supposed to be fit for human habitation, have no hazards and comply with relevant building-maintenance legislation, but there seems to be nothing covering the size of rooms, kitchen and toilet facilities, restrictions on numbers or the suitability of owners or managers. That means that the same property can have a mix of tenants that might include youngsters from care, people with mental health difficulties, those released from prison and victims of domestic abuse and their children.
Not only do we find mixes of tenants in a single property, but there is nothing to prevent several such properties from being developed on the same street. These properties are often associated with complaints about antisocial behaviour and drug use, with local residents on the receiving end of abuse and intimidation. I have been contacted by neighbours who have been threatened by occupants of such properties and by vulnerable occupants who felt threatened by other tenants. It can often be difficult to identify the owner or managers, and on occasions when matters are reported to the police or the local authority, ownership can mysteriously change hands.
The tenants are given no say over the choice of residence. These are usually vulnerable people who are desperate for a place to stay, which means they can end up in highly unsuitable accommodation. In one situation, a pregnant woman and her young son were housed with several men who frequently harassed her. On one occasion, she had to barricade herself in her room while my office called the police.
The “Exempt from Responsibility?” report says that residents of exempt accommodation described
“feelings of ‘entrapment’ in financial instability; exclusion from decision-making processes”
in those properties and a total
“lack of control over where, and with whom, they are housed.”
One resident described an appalling lack of upkeep and care:
“It was dirty, filthy, rats and allsorts. Really dangerous. Never saw a staff member again after I got the keys.”
I am aware of one establishment where the supervisor appears to double as a taxi driver, regularly performing his taxi job when presumably he should be supervising at the accommodation.
The police are not consulted when a property is converted with the intention of providing exempt accommodation. They, like the residents, become aware as problems emerge.
The research to which I referred concluded that there is an accountability deficit and advised strengthening the criteria in terms of payment of housing benefit or universal credit rent to such providers. It also suggested that the Regulator of Social Housing might need new powers. We certainly need a clearer definition of what constitutes adequate support when it comes to supported accommodation and there must be greater transparency in identifying those profiting from such accommodation.
I understand the Government’s anxiety about regulation, but they should consider a stronger framework for consumers and better protections across the exempt accommodation sector. Providers should be subject to routine monitoring, with close attention paid to complaints from tenants and neighbours. Any property intended for such use should be subject to a background planning check to ensure that it is safe and suitable for such purposes, with a specified number of occupants, and that there is no history of breaches of planning law or unapproved extensions or building work. When the intention is specifically to convert a property for such use, that should be subject to a planning application and not allowed under permitted development rules. Approval should be based on the nature and safety of the conversion, adequacy of facilities and suitability for particular client groups.
We need to be clear about who is responsible for managing and supervising such accommodation as well as who owns it. Both should be subject to fit and proper person checks. Those minimum changes might go some way to raising the quality and safety of what has become an extremely problematic part of the accommodation market.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Steve McCabe, Jack Dromey, Kerry McCarthy, Dame Diana Johnson, Jim Shannon, Ms Karen Buck, Mr Clive Betts, Gary Sambrook, Shabana Mahmood, Rachel Hopkins, Daisy Cooper and Ian Levy presented the Bill.
Steve McCabe accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 January 2021, and to be printed (Bill 214).
Exiting the European Union (Energy Conservation)
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Kwasi Kwarteng)
I beg to move,
That the draft Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products and Energy Information (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 13 October, be approved.
In recent years, the EU has introduced, through the ecodesign directive and the energy-labelling framework regulation a suite of product-specific regulations. Ecodesign regulations are all about minimising the cost and environmental impact of products used in homes and businesses by setting minimum energy performance standards. Energy labelling regulations provide consumers with information about a given product’s energy performance to allow them to make informed purchasing decisions. In 2020, those policies will save households approximately £100 on their annual energy bills, and they will also lead to greenhouse gas emissions savings of 8 million tonnes of CO2 while driving innovation and competitiveness in business.
The aims of the statutory instrument are relatively straightforward. It amends retained EU law to ensure that the ecodesign and energy labelling regime remains operable in the UK once the transition period ends at the end of this year. The SI also implements the Northern Ireland protocol and unfettered access for ecodesign and energy-labelling policy.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I am concerned about the Northern Ireland protocol. We spent some 60 minutes on that in the urgent question to the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office. Will the Minister clarify the issue of labelling on products from Northern Ireland and confirm that the protocol will not prevent my agrifood sector and other sectors from selling their products across the water east-west and west-east?
Kwasi Kwarteng
I think there are two different issues. Clearly, there are labelling issues, but the question that the hon. Gentleman is asking relates to market access. There is no reason, once the SI is on the statute book, that there should be any impediment to trade.
Amendments to retained EU ecodesign and energy-labelling legislation are required to ensure that that legislation can continue to operate legally within the UK from 1 January 2021. Amendments are also made to our 2019 EU exit SI to ensure that that continues to function as intended. New energy-labelling regulations for some products have come into force in the EU, and they require that suppliers of the relevant goods provide rescaled energy labels with their products from 1 November 2020. Retailers, however—this should be stressed—do not need to display those labels until 1 March next year. This SI ensures that the March 2021 requirements that would otherwise not become retained EU law still come into force in March, as intended.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
On retailers needing to display the new labels, does the retailer just swap one label for another, or is there some other process they need to go through come March?
Kwasi Kwarteng
There will be a requirement from March 2021 for retailers to display the requisite labels, but we do not envisage this as being a particularly difficult transition.
To ensure legislative implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol—this relates to what the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said—the statutory instrument amends our 2019 EU exit SI, and underlying legislation, so that certain UK-wide provisions are limited to Great Britain only. This will ensure that EU requirements continue to apply in Northern Ireland after the transition period, as per the terms of the Northern Ireland protocol. The instrument also allows relevant qualifying Northern Ireland goods that comply with EU ecodesign and energy labelling regulations to be placed on the GB market without—this relates directly to his point—undergoing additional checks. Qualifying Northern Ireland goods are defined in another instrument laid before Parliament by the Department.
Finally, the SI implements a decision to replace the EU flag on energy labels with the UK flag. Alongside this, we have removed EU language text from energy labels, and UK energy labels have been made available to businesses—free of charge, I would like to add—through an online service that supports compliance with this amendment.
These regulations are necessary to ensure the continued functioning of ecodesign and energy-labelling policy in the UK, while upholding our commitments under the Northern Ireland protocol, with the result that the UK, its consumers and our businesses can continue to realise the benefits of this policy. I commend the regulations to the House.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for giving us a careful and clear exposition of the position that was the case prior to this year and what will now be the case with the effective continuation of the provisions of the two EU directives that he mentioned—the EU ecodesign directive of 2009 and the EU energy-labelling framework regulations of 2017—in terms of their position as continuing defenders of consumer rights in the purchase and use of electrical goods and similar items that are covered by those directives. They deal, in the first instance, as he mentioned, with ensuring a progressive energy efficiency base for electrical products so that the least efficient are progressively withdrawn from sale as the provisions of the ecodesign directive comes in—that is, the requirement that goods are progressively designed in an increasingly energy-efficient and therefore energy-saving way.
The second directive, as the Minister mentioned, provides a labelling system, which I think hon. Members will be familiar with, that covers the energy efficiency rating of a particular product and therefore gives customers guidance on the products that they are purchasing and reinforces the ecodesign directive in terms of informing customer choices about what they are purchasing. Clearly, it is very important for the purposes of continuing the protections and support for the marketing and purchasing of those electrical items that what was in the directives is properly transposed and changed into UK law. As far as I can see, what has happened with both statutory instruments in this area is that the transposition has been fully made so that the provisions come properly into UK law.
Of course, that is not the full story and we need further elucidation on one or two things, whether or not we agree that the SI does its job of making sure that after 1 January—or in this case, March—the provisions are fully transferred and protection can continue. Slightly confusingly, this SI follows on from an SI with exactly the same name in 2019, which first transposed EU eco- design and energy labelling directives into equivalent standards in UK law. That SI transferred those arrangements on the basis that they would come into force in March 2020. However, with the extension of article 50 and the date of exit now being 1 January 2021, the SI might conceivably have needed updating to deal with the new date. Indeed, as it transpired, a number of amendments, changes and developments in those EU directives were made and came into force in the period between the original start date of the 2019 SI and the start date that is envisaged in the new SI we have before us.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
I wish to take my hon. Friend’s point somewhat further forward. Does he agree that the public and many environmental organisations are deeply concerned, in exactly the way that he is pointing out, about the slippage and the way that the Government, through sleight of hand, are watering down very important EU environmental regulations?
Dr Whitehead
I agree that the public are concerned about that, and we in this House should be concerned about it, because in a number of instances we can see that the period between the lapsing of the EU regulation and its replacement by UK-based provisions has been used, either accidentally or purposefully, to lose some of the protections in transition. Part of our job today is to make sure that what was there for our protection prior to EU exit remains there and continues for future purposes. On this occasion, I think—this SI is 118 pages long, so it is quite a read—
Dr Whitehead
The hon. Member quite rightly corrects me; it is substantially shorter than I thought.
The provisions appear to be consistent with what was there before and what is there for the future, but that does not cover all the issues, important though it is that we get that right. It was not just a question of checking that the original SI had done the job of making the transition safely into UK law. There was a period during which we were effectively bound to EU law, and a number of changes took place that were to be implemented during that period between the passing of the first SI and this SI being introduced. This SI therefore had to do a number of additional things, to incorporate those changes into UK law for future purposes.
In so doing, a number of issues have arisen, particularly in relation to Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland protocol comes into question as far as those changes are concerned, as well as how Northern Ireland and Great Britain would be incorporated into the changes for exit on 1 January. The two things that have happened in the intervening period seem to throw up some difficulties, and I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on them.
The first is that the question of the status of the regulations has arisen as far as Northern Ireland is concerned, because Northern Ireland will now continue to be in the EU regulatory system for the purposes of the two directives and will continue to eco-label on EU badging. That appears to present a problem for the marketing of Northern Ireland-manufactured products in Great Britain. In the SI, those products have effectively been given leave to market in GB on EU labelling and efficiency bases, but with a clear marking of their origin, which is tracked into GB.
That issue may well have been resolved by this SI, but there also arises a problem the other way round. If goods are being marketed from Northern Ireland with EU eco-labelling on it and are subject to ecodesign regulations, it is important that those labels and the ecodesign standards are compatible within the UK. The UK Government have effectively provided an internal solution to that problem by ensuring that the new regulations on UK eco-labelling apply only to GB and not to Northern Ireland, and what comes in from Northern Ireland can be marketed in Great Britain without further additional labelling.
However, what about the marketing of Great Britain-manufactured and labelled goods into Northern Ireland? The SI mentions a possible solution to this, which I would like the Minister to comment on. It has been agreed that there should be a mark on the GB certification to allow those goods to be sold in Northern Ireland. I am not clear what that mark is, how it will be distinguished for the purpose of selling in Northern Ireland and how it will differentiate goods that are being sold from the EU in Northern Ireland, as opposed to being sold from Britain. That is particularly important because of goods from the Irish Republic.
As for the marketing of UK-manufactured goods in the EU, I expect that the UK will have to produce separate agreements on conforming to EU standards to market, and that the existence of a UK mark will not be sufficient to secure marketing arrangements. Can the Minister clarify that position and say whether the eco-labelling UK label will be sufficient for goods that are manufactured in the UK, but marketed in the EU, if those arrangements are in parallel? Would that be acceptable for marketing purposes, or will UK companies have to agree on an additional EU label, over and above the UK label, to secure those marketing opportunities? That is the first additional problem with which we must get to grips.
In addition, some of the changes in the directives issued between March and January are not due to be implemented until 2021. Although those measures should have passed into UK law between March and January, the UK Government opted not to include them in this SI, because they are not due to be implemented before we have left the EU. We may ask whether that is of any significance. Indeed, there is a question mark in my mind about whether or not it is significant, because one change that was made in the regulations prior to this period, and which therefore should have been implemented but will not come in until 2021, relates to lighting standards. It looks as if those who manufacture lighting products in Northern Ireland will have to apply further changes in lighting standards and eco-labelling in 2021, which will set Northern Ireland at odds with GB standards. As far as the UK is concerned, in Great Britain that element of EU law will not yet have been passed on at all, and it may or may not be in the future.
What plans does the Minister have subsequently to incorporate those changes into UK law, so that those standards will be the same? He will agree that this is not an academic point. There could be divergence between Northern Ireland and Great Britain on those standards, and that might take us further away from the simple question of putting on a mark, or providing a way leave.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I assumed he was aware—although he might not be—that in a motion such as this, which has a 90-minute limit, even though there is currently no pressure from other Members who wish to speak on this specific item of business, it is unusual for the Minister or shadow Minister to take more than 15 minutes to make their point. The hon. Gentleman has taken significantly more than 15 minutes so far, and although he would be right to argue that plenty of that 90-minute slot is left, on behalf of Members who are waiting elsewhere to speak in the next and subsequent items of business, I should point out that there is a lot more business for the House to get through today. I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would consider truncating his remarks.
Dr Whitehead
I thank you for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. In my defence, this is a particularly complicated statutory instrument and I have felt it necessary to try to lay it out in some detail to get to the heart of what we are trying to talk about. If I have taken rather longer than I might have done in that process, I am sorry, but I hope that I will be coming to the end of my remarks shortly.
Will the Minister set out what will be done about the lighting changes that have taken place in directives and how that can be reconciled with procedures in Northern Ireland and Great Britain? There is also no agreement yet, as I understand it, on access by Northern Ireland to the EU product database, which informs eco labelling and product standard activity. The UK is not supposed to have access to the database because it will be independent of the EU and will need to set up its own database in due course—or rather quickly I would have thought. However, if Northern Ireland is to continue to work on EU eco labelling criteria, it should have access to that database. Will the Minister tell us what is happening now about this apparent impasse?
You will be pleased to know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we will not oppose this statutory instrument this afternoon, but I do hope that the Minister will be able to enlighten us on some of the points that I have raised. I think that, at the end of this, he might perhaps agree with me that this is rather a mess, isn’t it?
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
I presume from your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you do not want me to try to push this to the full 90 minutes.
Alan Brown
I will do my best.
This sounds all very grand—"Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products”. I look forward to scrutinising and getting stuck into this legislation, but will it be about a cleaner, greener UK, or taking back control and leaving the EU? Well, no. There are actually 116 pages of legislation, nearly 100 pages of which are nice pictures of labels. Rather than taking back control, this is all about putting a Union Jack over what was formerly the EU flag on the labels on our appliances, which we all recognise, that tell us how energy efficient they are. The explanatory notes, at 10 pages, are nearly as long as the text in the regulations, which, again, says it all.
Noting what you said, Madam Deputy Speaker, about other important business coming later on, we have to ask: why is this legislation being debated in the main Chamber and not where SIs are usually done, which is in a Committee Room? It prompts the question of why the Government are bringing this legislation here anyway.
Will the Minister tell us whether a consultant was used to design these new labels and specifications included in the 100-odd pages, or was he able to do it in-house with civil servants? Did they come up with the new specification and the colour coding all by themselves, or did they have to go to someone external? Can he tell us what the advantage is of removing the EU language from the labels? Is that really necessary? In paragraphs 2.12, 2.15, 2.26 and 2.27 of the explanatory memorandum, reference is made to “fixing deficiencies” in retained legislation. Will the Minister confirm that no improvements or alterations have been made to coding and regulations other than, as has been already said, substituting references to EU legislation and EU bodies for references to UK bodies and adding a Union Jack to the labels, and that the measure just mirrors other regulations that have been incorporated, such as the power transformer amendment regulation? Does that mean there are no actual deficiencies in EU legislation to be fixed and that it is just about sorting UK legislation out before leaving the EU? If the Minister could confirm that, it would be good.
Can the Minister explain why there is just a one-year transition period for CE marking? As I tried to ask in my intervention earlier, for goods that arrive in the UK during that transition period but are not sold until later, when the regulations kick in for the new labels that must be displayed, will it just be a matter of the retailer swapping the label over to the new label without doing anything else, or will some other process have to be followed to provide certification?
Paragraph 10.1 of the explanatory memorandum states that stakeholders
“raised concerns about the limited timeframe being granted to implement the required”
changes. What has been done to help stakeholders with the timeframe, and what additional stakeholder engagement has taken place?
Paragraph 12.3 of the explanatory memorandum gives an estimate of the total cost to business under de minimis self-certification of £1.95 million. What is the total of all the various de minimis assessments that have come through the Minister’s Department? That £1.95 million cost itself is small, but if we keep adding up all these de minimis estimates, what is the estimated total cost to business of changes as a result of our leaving the EU?
Paragraph 2.25 of the explanatory memorandum gives details on compliance with the Northern Ireland protocol, which is good, but ironically, the UK Government seem to want to rip up that protocol, which was the whole point of the urgent question earlier today. Unfettered access for goods in Northern Ireland—for goods coming from Ireland and the EU, and for getting GB goods into Northern Ireland—would seem to be a really good advantage for distributors in Northern Ireland. Does that give Northern Ireland distributors an advantage over their GB mainland counterparts in business overheads and the checks and scrutiny they need to do?
Going forward, if there is a divergence in standards between the EU and the UK, how will the declaration of conformity for goods coming in and out of Northern Ireland to GB be implemented and checked? What discussions has the Minister’s Department had with counterparts in Northern Ireland?
It seems to me that even this simple replacement of labelling and updating of references to standards to comply with the EU—to make UK law valid and compliant as we exit the EU—is being left to the last minute. How are we supposed to believe that the UK is ready and okay to handle a no-deal exit, which the Government say will cause no problems whatsoever to business and transactions going forward?
As the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) asked, what is the reality for GB goods being exported to the EU on exit? What arrangements are in place so that, going forward, these GB regulations that are coming into place will be accepted by the EU once the UK is a third country? Have any discussions taken place? Are any agreements in place, or is this all at the mercy of whether we get a deal or no deal? We do not have long left for that to be sorted out.
Let me conclude by asking the Minister this. Given that he is introducing legislation today that swaps flags and changes references from EU legislation to UK legislation while possibly missing key export issues that we need to understand, is he not embarrassed to be doing that from the Dispatch Box rather than in a Committee Room?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Before I call the Minister, I thank the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) for having pointed out what an interesting piece of legislation this is. Very rarely do we get a fully illustrated instrument like this before us. I have never understood energy labels, but I have a much better idea now than I ever had before. I hope that many people will go to the Vote Office and pick up this draft statutory instrument.
Kwasi Kwarteng
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am delighted that you appreciate the various illustrations in the legislation, and I am delighted, too, that you have learned a great deal about energy labelling.
I shall sum up very succinctly, because I fully understand the pressures on time and the fact that people want to move on to subsequent debates. I thank the hon. Members for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) for their contributions. I will address two or three of their points as succinctly but as clearly as I can.
In relation to the implementation period—the transition period, as we call it now—it was always the case that we had an obligation to enshrine in UK law measures that were introduced by the EU in the course of the transition period, but once we had left the EU, there was no such obligation. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test is therefore quite right to say that, as per the Northern Ireland protocol, there could in theory be some divergence. However, if that happens, we can keep on an equal basis, mirroring what goes on in Northern Ireland at a subsequent date after we have left the EU. That is possible, and I am not going to prejudge the outcome of that.
With respect to marketing, in the provision in the statutory instrument, there is a period of a year where EU goods can be marketed in this country. As the hon. Gentleman said, leaving the transition period will not affect the marketing of goods from Northern Ireland into Great Britain, nor should it affect the marketing of goods from Great Britain into Northern Ireland, but there will be a marker. I cannot remember its exact design off the top of my head, but I will certainly come back to him on that question.
As to why this debate is happening on the Floor of the House and not in a Committee Room, that is clearly an issue for the business managers of the House. I am not in a position to fully answer that question, I am afraid, but I reiterate our commitment to the standards, ecodesign and energy labelling regime that has helped us to significantly reduce energy bills and increase emissions savings. This will make a massive contribution to our carbon reduction commitments in future. I think Members of this House will be very pleased to know that our standards have led the EU over the past few years: no country in the EU has decarbonised as readily as we have done since 1990. I notice that our German colleagues are still committed to the mining of coal until 2038, and I am pleased to say that we are taking coal off the power generation grid by 2024. I make that point not as an idle boast, but to say that we are, and have been, leaders of the EU, and with COP26 we will continue to provide leadership on the decarbonisation agenda.
This draft instrument will allow businesses in Northern Ireland to trade smoothly with Britain. It will allow Northern Irish products to circulate without any hindrance on the GB market, and it will also preserve the highest standards within businesses in this country.
Dr Whitehead
Madam Deputy Speaker, I draw attention to my having asked the Minister to give way.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I think the Minister has concluded, so the hon. Gentleman’s opportunity has, I am afraid, passed.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products and Energy Information (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 13 October, be approved.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Between this item of business and the next, I ought to briefly suspend the House in order that the Dispatch Box and so on can be sanitised. I suspend the House for three minutes.
Exiting the European Union (Building and Buildings)
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)
I beg to move,
That the draft Construction Products (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 15 October, be approved.
The draft regulations were laid before the House on 15 October this year. They were debated and supported in the other place on 10 November. They are part of the Government’s programme to update European Union exit legislation to reflect the fact that we are now leaving the transition period under the withdrawal agreement and the Ireland-Northern Ireland protocol.
The regulations will amend existing construction products regulations in the United Kingdom using the powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. They will ensure that EU construction products legislation continues to apply in Northern Ireland, in accordance with the Northern Ireland protocol. They will also amend the remainder of the United Kingdom regime so that it applies to Great Britain only.
It is probably worth my taking a few moments to remind the House of some of the background. The EU construction products regulation, or CPR, is directly applicable in all EU member states and has applied across the United Kingdom since 2011. It seeks to remove technical barriers to the trade in construction products in the European single market.
The CPR harmonises the methods of assessment and testing, the means of declaration of poor 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. Where an EU harmonised standard exists for a product, the CPR places an obligation on manufacturers, distributors and importers of that product when it is placed on the market. That includes a stipulation that the product must have been accompanied by a declaration of performance and affixed with a CE mark. This helps provide reliable information to industry and consumers about the performance of the product.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
One of the concerns I have in relation to this statutory instrument is the north-south movement of products for the construction sector, such as cement moving from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland, and vice versa. There is also the movement of wood from the Republic of Ireland and across from Scotland and the mainland. Can the Minister confirm that a full consultation process has taken place with all those in the sector, and that they fully believe this will enable the construction sector to continue as it is? I say that because I believe the construction sector is able to lift the economy come 1 January next year, and the opportunity must be there. It should not be inhibited in any way.
Christopher Pincher
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He is a doughty campaigner for his constituents in Strangford and across Northern Ireland.
The amendments we are debating today are of a technical nature, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is not the objective of these measures to inhibit in any way the transfer of goods between the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland or the transfer of goods between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. We want unfettered access to our mainland markets to continue, of course, for businesses and services in Northern Ireland. I will address those points in more detail in my remarks.
At the end of the transition period, the CPR becomes retained EU law and will form part of the United Kingdom’s legal system. We made the Construction Products (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations in March 2019 to ensure its provisions will have practical application in the United Kingdom. That was, of course, before we had a withdrawal agreement or a Northern Ireland protocol.
Those 2019 regulations include the introduction of United Kingdom-wide provisions, such as the UKCA mark and UK-designated standards, in preparation for a no-deal Brexit but, of course, we have now left the European Union with a withdrawal agreement and a Northern Ireland protocol.
Without the amendments made by this instrument, the 2019 regulations would not be compliant with the Northern Ireland protocol, as they would have application to the whole United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland. Regulators would lack powers to enforce EU regulations in Northern Ireland, and manufacturers would not be able to test their products in the United Kingdom and affix the UKNI indication to place the product in the market.
The policy intent of these regulations is to keep the same requirements set out in the 2019 regulations in Great Britain but to introduce a Northern Ireland regime that complies with the Northern Ireland protocol. They 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 transition period, and products that meet Northern Ireland CPR requirements will have unfettered access to the market of Great Britain.
The effect of these regulations can be considered in three parts. First, they will amend the 2019 regulations so that current United Kingdom-wide provisions, such as UKCA marking and UK-designated standards, will become Great Britain-only provisions at the end of the transition period. A further effect of this territorial amendment is that it will ensure that EU construction products law will continue to apply in Northern Ireland, in line with the Northern Ireland protocol. As United Kingdom-designated standards will be identical to EU harmonised standards at the end of the transition period, there will be no change for businesses placing goods on the market in terms of the standards that must be met.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
I understand what the Minister is saying about standards still being the same when we leave the EU, but if we leave without a deal the UK will be a third country. What will that mean for the export to the EU of construction goods manufactured in the UK? Will a reciprocal arrangement have to be put in place to recognise those goods, so that they will not have to undergo additional checks and certification in the EU?
Christopher Pincher
We want unfettered access to the EU markets, and we want the same for them. That is why we are attempting to implement a trade deal. The standards between the United Kingdom and the European Union will remain harmonised, unless or until we introduce further regulations. Such regulations or changes will be available to debate, and I look forward to that opportunity.
Secondly, the regulations make provision for conformity assessment bodies established in the United Kingdom. They enable UK-approved bodies to continue testing against EU harmonised standards for the Northern Ireland market, and they introduce, as I have said, a new UK(NI) indication, as required under the protocol. Where the UK-approved body undertakes the conformity assessment activities required under an EU standard, the manufacturer must affix the CE marking together with the new UK(NI) indication. These regulations ensure that these CE plus UK(NI)-marked construction products will be recognised in Northern Ireland and in Great Britain. The details of the UK(NI) indication will be established under a separate instrument, led by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, and those regulations were debated in the House on 16 November.
Thirdly, these regulations amend existing UK-wide enforcement provisions so that they apply in Great Britain and restate EU CPR enforcement provisions in respect of Northern Ireland. For Great Britain, the regulations amend the enforcement rules to reflect that the CE marking on its own and the CE marking together with UK(NI) indicators will be recognised in Great Britain. For Northern Ireland, the regulations provide an enforcement regime in relation to the EU construction products law and the new UK(NI) indication.
Finally, the regulations make a small 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.
To conclude, these regulations serve a very specific purpose: to amend the 2019 regulations to ensure that there is a functioning legislative and regulatory regime in both Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This is necessary in response to the withdrawal agreement and the Ireland/Northern Ireland protocol that the United Kingdom and the EU agreed in January 2020. Our overall approach to these amendments is entirely concurrent with both the policy and the legal intent of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, and enacts the policy that the Government set out in guidance to the industry in September.
I apologise for the detailed technicalities in these amendments, which are, effectively, amendments to amendments, but I hope that Members across the House will join me in supporting them. I commend the regulations to the House.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for opening the debate, and I understand the technical nature of taking forward the regulations. As the Minister will know, I have a great deal of interest in ensuring that products used in the construction of our buildings reach the highest standards and are used in the appropriate way. The Minister is well versed in products such as aluminium composite material and high-pressure laminate insulation, and in the problems that we have in our high-rise buildings—not only those of 18-plus metres, but those of 11-plus metres—and those that certainly are risky that are cladded and have vulnerable people living in them, but this debate is not about that.
These regulations are important for ensuring that we prepare for the next phase of our relationship with the European Union. As someone who voted remain and campaigned for remain, I find it regrettable, but it is the reality, and now it is time to get on with it. It is not quite oven-ready, but that is another debate. As such, the Minister will be pleased to know that the Opposition will not be objecting to the regulations, but I want to raise with him a number of points that require clarification.
No impact assessment has been released with the legislation, so I would be interested to listen to the Minister’s reply in that regard. Immediately following the end of the transition period, UK designated standards will be identical to those under the European Union regime, but will that always be the case? If the Government are planning to make any changes, and should the regimes diverge, it is not hard to envisage real and material difficulties for UK manufacturers and distributors acting in Northern Ireland. Again, it would be interesting to hear the Minister’s reply on that matter. Will he give us such points of clarification, but also, very importantly, of reassurance? Does the Minister see any changes on the horizon, and what impacts could those changes have?
Before this debate, the Construction Products Association wrote to me, as I am sure it has written to the Minister and the Department. It raised some concerns about the types of testing that can be undertaken currently by UK notified bodies and therefore are currently done by a European Union notified body. It wants clarity about what the situation will be in January. I believe the CPA has already brought up these concerns, which bring into question whether some products made in the UK will be allowed for sale on the UK market post Brexit. We are at a very late stage of the process, so I would be grateful if the Minister gave some detail in responding to the House on those concerns.
I want to echo my colleagues in the other place—the Lords—in asking for the detail contained in the enforcement provisions. I understand this will work in a very similar way, and again I would be grateful if the Minister expanded on that. Echoing the comments from hon. Members in the Chamber today, what will the implications be for the construction industry and those involved in producing these products to high and world-class standards in the event of a no-deal Brexit, which is potentially a few weeks away. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Alan Brown
I will be brief, because to be honest I do not understand why this SI is being debated in the main Chamber and has not been tucked away in a Committee Room as it should have been.
In a former life I worked as a civil engineer, so I was familiar with working with British Standards and then the changeover to Eurocodes. The harmonisation of products was welcome: it gave a wider choice and helped to bring down the cost of construction projects and make them more efficient, in the UK and throughout the EU. That was a big advantage of that harmonisation. I suggest to the Minister that the UK should not be in a rush to diverge, because there are unintended consequences from diverging for no real reason. Will the Minister explain how any proposed changes in legislation will be handled? How will he judge the impact of the benefits of making changes versus the possible disadvantages of diverging from an EU-wide coding scheme?
The Minister stated earlier that he hopes to get a trade deal; how detailed are the trade deal discussions on matters such as this? It is really important that after we leave the EU, EU products can still come into the UK to keep building projects going and that UK manufacturers are able to export their goods to the EU uninterrupted and uninhibited. Otherwise, there will obviously be an economic cost to the UK. How detailed are the proposals in the current trade deal discussions?
We need to face reality, because the Minister’s Prime Minister says that we can leave the EU without a deal and that that will not cause any problem. If we leave the EU without a deal, what will that mean for construction products that are either exported from the UK into the EU or, vice versa, imported into the UK from the EU? As I say, those imports are vital to keep our construction projects going—to keep houses being built and infra- structure upgrades going. The UK Government are planning a big infrastructure investment, which in itself is to be welcomed—if we get a cleaner, greener UK, that is to be welcomed—but it will rely on construction products coming from the EU. What will be the real impact if there is no deal and the UK is operating as a third country? I would be interested to hear the Minister clear that up. With those brief remarks, I conclude.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown).
I rise to speak in this debate because of the importance of building safety in my constituency—as in many parts of the country—following the dreadful disaster at Grenfell. We have a number of tall blocks, many of which are unfortunately still covered in dangerous cladding, including ACM cladding, cladding made from other materials and, indeed, dangerous wooden cladding. Royal Berkshire Fire and Rescue Service has uncovered a series of problems in Reading and other Berkshire towns, and there is a great deal of concern from local residents about these matters. I appreciate the Minister’s reassurance on the nature of the UK standards and the fact that they are separate, although they interconnect with the European ones. I wish to reiterate residents’ concerns and ask some questions, in a helpful way, to try to elicit a response that might reassure local people.
First, let me outline the scale of the issue in our community, because at first sight it might not be obvious that in a medium-sized town thousands and thousands of people are affected by this building-safety scandal. It affects not only the people who live in taller blocks, nearly 10 of which are affected in Reading. They are all either privately owned or have a mixture of different forms of ownership, but they are not council-owned—the council blocks are safe. These privately owned blocks have been clad dangerously and are affected by a series of other matters, such as a dangerous car park ventilation that could lead to fires on the side of buildings.
There is a range of issues and a great deal of concern among thousands and thousands of residents. In fact, that is something of an understatement, because another group of residents might also be affected, and the level of risk in their buildings is unclear. I am talking about people who live in lower-rise blocks of flats and houses of multiple occupation. The issues are similar: many have issues with potentially dangerous cladding; others have issues with fire safety doors or just the very fact that a block has multiple occupation and requires greater scrutiny of the fire safety messages, briefing and information provided to residents.
In a town the size of the one I represent—and its suburbs—a substantial number of people live in medium-sized accommodation of three to six storeys, and however technical these matters may be, all those people are affected deeply by changes to building safety.
Alan Brown
I was hesitant to interrupt the hon. Member’s flow because this matter is obviously important for him and his constituents. Is the real issue the products that are on the market or governance in terms of building control, inspection and regulation?
Matt Rodda
I am grateful to the hon. Member. I believe it may be both of those as well as the lack of resource for the fire service, which sadly has been cut significantly since 2010. There are, therefore, a number of significant issues for us as parliamentarians. I seek the Minister’s reassurance in particular on, as the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) and my hon. (Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) mentioned, what happens as we move out of the scope of EU regulations and into a UK-based regime covering Great Britain while there will be continuation of EU measures in Northern Ireland. There is a great deal of scope for confusion.
Mike Amesbury
Of course, many of the products, whether ACM, HPL or insulation, have been tested, though some of those tests have been questionable. As my hon. Friend rightly says, any divergence beyond the arrangements that we have now for transition out of the EU—of course, we do not have a trade deal—may have a further impact, and building safety issues go much broader than cladding, whether ACM or HPL, affecting thousands of buildings and hundreds of thousands of people.
Of course, 1.5 million people are now trapped in flats that largely have a zero rating for a mortgage. They also have to pay additional costs for waking watch, which in some cases can be thousands of pounds a month. Going forward, measures in the building safety Bill have the potential to put even more charges on leaseholders. Does my hon. Friend concur that, beyond Reading, this is a national scandal—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I am sorry but this intervention is way too long. Has the hon. Member got the gist of the point?
Matt Rodda
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I thank my hon. Friend on the Front Bench. He is right that this is a national scandal. I seek to give one example of one constituency and to represent local people. It is utterly abhorrent that millions of people in the United Kingdom face these dreadful problems and are living with the nightmare of an unsafe flat that they cannot sell or leave. It is dreadful that they are living through this utter nightmare. I call on the Government to step up their action and address this with far greater urgency. I find it staggering that, three years after Grenfell, it is still an issue on the scale that it is and that the Government are only now beginning to address it. I ask the Minister respectfully to explain—perhaps in front of the House, or he could write to me—how the Government will deal with the risk of confusion about regulation and the potential watering down of the current standards once we are no longer in the EU regime.
Christopher Pincher
We have had an interesting debate on what otherwise might be described as dry and technical matters, though in saying that I do not wish in any way to diminish or undermine the seriousness of the issues at hand, some of which I will address in my remarks. I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for their contributions.
We are seeking a positive future trading relationship with the European Union that we hope will include a mutual recognition agreement on conformity assessment, supporting United Kingdom approved bodies and construction manufacturers alike. These regulations will come into force at the end of the transition period—in either scenario—and further legislation will be laid to implement such a trade agreement. The reason for these amendments is not a deal on free trade with the European Union, nor because we are attempting to diverge from the present harmonised rules on construction standards. It is simply that the present provisions, which will come into force at the end of the transition period, were made before the withdrawal agreement was agreed and before the Northern Ireland protocol was signed, and we need to amend them in the light of those—I think we would all agree—welcome advances.
I will address some of the points raised by hon. Members across the Chamber. With respect to building safety, I will not attempt to drain the debates that we have had across the Dispatch Box and around the Chamber over several weeks about the importance of dealing quickly with ACM and non-ACM clad buildings. As the House knows, the Government have put aside £1.6 billion for that purpose, and we keep the situation under review. We remain committed to maintaining the highest standards for construction products that are put on the market. Let me say to the hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) and to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury), that the Building Safety Bill, which has been published in draft and will be brought forward as soon as possible, will implement the recommendations of the Hackitt review. We want to use that further to strengthen the regulatory oversight of construction products at a national level. This is not a race to the bottom; it is very much a race to the top in terms of standards.
The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) also raised the question of where the CE designation will apply. The reason that we are transposing it into British law—Great Britain—is to ensure that businesses have an opportunity to prepare for any future changes in order to minimise business disruption. We are introducing the UK(NI) designation to ensure that any goods sold into Northern Ireland meet European Union CPR designated standards. Again, we want to ensure that the CE designation continues for a period of time. Will future regulations diverge? Well, that is a matter for the Government of the day. Any changes to our regulations will be debated in this place and the other place in the usual way, and the House will come to a conclusion. Should the European Union wish to change its designations, that is a matter for it. In those circumstances, the European Union would certainly have to comply with UK-wide designations, with the exception of the UK(NI) designation, which of course applies to Northern Ireland qualifying goods.
Mike Amesbury
What assurance can the Minister give the House that this divergence will not see a race to the bottom? We have talked about current standards, and it has been mentioned that there have been some major issues, including products that have been tested, and which have then been used either as fire breaks or to encase buildings. It has got to be a race to the top, rather than to the bottom. What assurances can the Minister provide?
Christopher Pincher
I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. We have always been at the forefront of good design and product safety, and I hope that nobody in the House will assume that somehow, because they are EU regulations, those regulations must ineluctably be better than our own. We will make sure that we have regulations that are suitable for our markets. We will make sure that we have really good regulations and that, as we leave the transition period, we maintain EU regulations, which are being incorporated, as I have said, into British law.
The hon. Gentleman asked a question about enforcement. One reason why we need to introduce the amendments to amendments is to make sure that local authorities, which are usually responsible for the enforcement of such regulations, have the wherewithal in England, Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland to enforce the necessary regulations, whether they are the CE regulations that we are transposing in Great Britain, future regulations that we might apply or the construction products regulations that will continue to pertain in Northern Ireland. The enforcement regulations —I think Lord Blunkett asked about this in the other place, and my noble Friend Lord Greenhalgh replied—will be maintained as a result of these amendments.
What will happen in future? It is for my noble Friend Lord Frost and his negotiating team to win a great trade deal for the United Kingdom, and that is what he is endeavouring to do. I hope, given that the amount of trade in construction products is definitely in the European Union’s favour—something like £10.8 billion-worth of trade, compared with £4 billion and a bit the other way—it is in its interest to reach a good trade deal with the United Kingdom, to ensure that that trade continues to flow.
The Government believe that the regulations that we have laid before the House are needed to ensure that there continues to be a functioning legislative and regulatory regime for construction products at the end of the transition period and that it is, as I have said, in line with commitments set out in the all-important Northern Ireland protocol. I trust that I have answered all—or nearly all—the questions that have been put to me by Members in all parts of the House. If not, I am happy to write to them. With that, I conclude and commend the draft amendments to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Construction Products (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 15 October, be approved.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. We are going to suspend for three minutes so that the Dispatch Boxes can be sanitised.
Covid-19
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered covid-19.
Yesterday, there was an increase of 19,609 cases of coronavirus in the UK, and sadly we recorded 529 deaths. I am sure I speak for everyone when I say that our sympathies and prayers are with each and every family. It is a stark reminder, if we needed one, that we still have a long way to go in beating this disease and seeing our country thrive again.
I know that Members across the House will join me in wishing those who are currently unwell a speedy recovery and thanking all the staff across health and social care and key workers for all they do, but I would also like to mention one or two who do not always get a mention: those working in community health, including our health visitors and our pharmacists, and many of the volunteers who keep many of the shows on the road.
As the Office for National Statistics report on loneliness earlier today showed, these changes are taking a toll on our lives. They are taking a toll on individuals, families and businesses, so the news this week of further successful vaccine trials with Moderna and today’s update from Pfizer have given rise to the very real prospect of an effective vaccine in the near future. While I share that sense of hope with many, we still have some way to go, and we must never lose sight of the challenges that we face at the moment. A vaccine still has to go through a regulatory process, but it is right that the planning of the huge logistical exercise of a vaccine roll-out led by the NHS is now very much under way. Throughout this pandemic we have had to learn, and each week brings further understanding.
As more information continues to emerge on the risks of long covid, for example, we are reminded how this virus can remain a threat. I am sure hon. and right hon. Members will be pleased to hear that the NHS will have a network of 40 long covid clinics in place before the end of this month, bringing together doctors, nurses, therapists and other NHS staff to help those patients suffering from the lasting effects of this virus. That is an example of how our response to the virus has to continue to evolve and strengthen to protect staff, patients and the public, moving with the science as we learn more.
It is hard to overstate how little was known about the virus at the start of the year. We have done many things for the first time, and the learning curve has definitely been a steep one, but looking back, we have come a long way through this difficult year. We have always sought to base decisions on evidence, data and scientific advice, and we have been willing to reflect and adapt as we go. From repatriating individuals from Wuhan in the early days of the pandemic, we have constantly faced and met enormous challenges. In the words of General Sir Nick Carter back in April, distributing personal protective equipment, for example, was
“the single greatest logistical challenge”
in his 40 years of service. However, with others helping, such as the Army, we built those supply chains and responded to demand. In some areas, demand went up by 17,000% for eye protection, for example, and by approximately 4,700% for masks. So far, we have distributed more than 4.9 billion items of personal protective equipment to the frontline, and today we have a four-month stockpile in hand across all nine key lines, with a further 32 billion items of PPE on order. We have regularly delivered to more than 58,000 health and care organisations. I would like to pay tribute to Lord Deighton and his team for their extraordinary efforts in building resilience into the supply chain, to enable us to be as confident as we are today.
I am clear that none of this would have been possible without the incredible collaboration we have seen between industry, social care providers, our NHS, the armed forces and others. Industry and individual businesses stepped up to meet the challenge. At the start of the pandemic, only 1% of PPE was manufactured here in the United Kingdom. By the end of the year, we will be manufacturing 70% of the amount of PPE we expect to use from December to March in all key areas bar gloves. This enormous national effort has put our country on a strong footing today and for years to come. Following the launch of the PPE strategy in September, we are looking at sustainability and initiating a UK production site for gloves.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
I accept that it was an extraordinary time and that extraordinary measures needed to be taken, but as we have heard from the National Audit Office today, tried and tested processes and procedures were not used. Will the Minister say something about that report and why that was the case, why we had 11 ministerial directions by May and whether those lessons have been learnt by her Department and others that fell foul of the procurement procedures?
Jo Churchill
The NAO report to which the hon. Member refers highlights that we were acting with “extreme urgency” in a global market where demand exceeded supply. The report states that the situation in responding to the covid-19 pandemic was unprecedented, but that we
“secured unprecedented volumes of essential supplies necessary to protect front-line workers.”
Jo Churchill
If the hon. Member will bear with me, I will continue.
The NAO report examined potential conflicts of interests involving Ministers and the awarding of contracts and found none. It states:
“we found that the ministers had properly declared their interests, and we found no evidence of their involvement in procurement decisions or contract management.”
The report recognises that there are robust processes in place for spending public money, to ensure that critical equipment got to where it needed to go as rapidly as possible while ensuring value for money. I welcome the report, because we can all learn.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I want to make a very different point, which is about how well prepared we were for this year and how prepared we would be if all this were to happen again. The truth is that we tend to run the NHS at 90% to 95% capacity, and it takes the requirement of only a tiny smidgen of increased capacity for the whole thing to fall over. I am particularly conscious of that in relation to intensive care. We have had to cancel elective surgery just to keep intensive care going. If we had the same number of beds per head of population as France or Germany, we would not have had to do that. Another affected area is neuro-rehabilitation after brain injuries, which was already struggling and will even more so because covid clearly leads to some neuro-degenerative conditions.
Jo Churchill
The hon. Member is an incredible campaigner in the area of neural injuries. When elective procedures are stood down, those are clinical decisions. We have ensured that many can keep going in the second wave, but this must be done on a local level. There is surge capacity in the Nightingale hospitals, with an additional 2,000 beds, and we have the ventilator capacity that was built up during the first wave of the pandemic. I recognise what he says, but I do feel that these decisions have to be made locally by the clinicians who are involved in delivering the care.
Chris Bryant
I am not having a go at the Minister; I am simply trying to ask a question for the country, in a way. For the future, we will have to have much more capacity in the NHS, won’t we? We will have to nearly double the amount of capacity we have in some areas, particularly in intensive care, in neuro-rehabilitation and, for that matter, in radiotherapy.
Jo Churchill
I will come on to the area of cancer, in particular. Strides have been made in different ways of treating virtually, so that fewer people go into the hospital setting, and so on. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point about capacity, but that is why the Government have committed to building 40 new hospitals—because there is a need to ensure that sufficient capacity is available across the country for people.
Jo Churchill
I am going to push on a little bit and then I will give way again.
This enormous national effort has put our country on a strong footing for today and years to come. We are using the best of British ingenuity to help us to deliver in this area. Progress has also been seen in other areas. As the pandemic unfolded, the UK could not call on a major diagnostic industry. From a standing start of about 2,000 tests a day in March, our capacity is now over half a million tests per day. This matters, because it has often been said in this place that in order to beat the virus we need to draw on different parts of our armoury to help to get us through. Testing works. It helps to deny the virus the connections it needs to spread. Mass testing therefore offers us a chance to achieve that on a much bigger scale. We are making progress in city-wide testing in Liverpool. I thank Joe Anderson for his leadership in helping to deliver not only in testing but in other areas too. We are also rolling out a further localised approach to other areas with the help of directors of public health, among others, who know their local areas. Some 83 local authorities have now signed up to receive regular batches of lateral flow tests, which allow for a result to be seen in 15 minutes.
Further, I know that hon. Members will celebrate Monday’s announcement of two mega-labs coming on stream early next year—very high-throughput laboratories, one in the midlands and one in Scotland, adding a further capacity of some 600,000 tests per day. These are massive gains that we are achieving by embracing cutting-edge technology such as automation and robotics and harnessing the best of British industry and academia, meaning that we will not only be able to process more tests but that they can be processed quicker and at a lower cost. The mega-labs will be another powerful weapon in our defence against this deadly virus in order to get back to a more normal way of life, but more than that, they will form a permanent part of the country’s new diagnostic industry. They can help us to respond in the future and build further resilience.
I am excited at the potential for a new diagnostic industry to help to care and deliver across other disease types, not least cancer. Hon. Members will know that, informed in large part by my own experience, I was an advocate of improved cancer outcomes long before I came to this place or took on this role. Early diagnosis is the key to beating the disease, and with bold steps forward in diagnostics, I would like it to make it my mission—I am sure with many others across the House—that we seize new opportunities in cancer services so that covid-19 is not a derailer but an opportunity for a new phase in smarter, faster diagnostics.
Jo Churchill
I would be happy to hear from the hon. Member, who champions radiotherapy.
Tim Farron
I very much appreciate the Minister’s work in this area. She will have seen that leading clinicians think it will take five years for us to catch up with the cancer backlog. Indeed, Cancer Research UK has recognised that there have been 35,000 avoidable deaths from cancer over this period. Only very recently, there was an awful figure in an article in The BMJ saying that there have been 60,000 lost life years as a consequence of cancer during this period. I absolutely acknowledge that progress is being made when it comes to diagnostics; I am less convinced that progress is being made when it comes to treatment. Will she confirm whether her Department is making an urgent bid for spending review funding for smart radiotherapy, for delivery at satellite sites and for digital technology, to ensure that we clear the backlog, save lives and catch up with cancer?
Jo Churchill
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. As he will know, the comprehensive spending review will deliver forth, and bids have been put in across the piece. I am sure he will understand that it is not my place to answer, as those decisions are still being made.
We know that some of these figures relate to specific challenges. For example, endoscopy is still a particular challenge because of the aerosol-generating procedure. That is why I was really pleased that Cally Palmer, Professor Peter Johnson and other stakeholders, including charities, have formed the cancer recovery taskforce. They will be laying out a national plan for how we beat this, and also how we optimise the use of new treatment paths. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are using fewer radiotherapy treatments, or fractions, so that people do not have to attend so much. There is also oral chemotherapy and many other advances that need building in, to ensure that patients get timely and quick treatment.
As the first wave subsided, the NHS rose to the challenge of restoring cancer services: it kept focus and did some amazing reconfiguration work around cancer hubs and rapid diagnostic centres. I recognise that, as the hon. Gentleman says, there is a way to go, but I am aware of how much each day spent waiting for a diagnosis, for treatment or for an answer suspends time and feels like a year for the individual. We will continue to ensure that cancer services are prioritised and we thank those who work in the cancer workforce for everything they are doing.
In September, slightly over 86% saw a cancer specialist within two weeks of a referral from a GP, and 94.5% had treatment within 31 days of a decision to treat. I would really urge people who are worried about cancer or any other major issue, “Please, don’t leave it. Help us to help you.” It is always challenging, and many people have said to me that they do not want to overload the system, but doctors are keen to help.
A vaccine will perhaps be our most potent weapon, once we know that it is safe and effective. However, we do not yet have a vaccine. I must be very clear on that point. We are not quite there yet—we must ensure that we stick to hands, face, space and ventilate our environments by opening windows for short bursts—but progress on this front is encouraging. Last week, we heard about phase 3 trials from Pfizer and BioNTech, stating that their vaccine was more than 90% effective in preventing covid. Today, further data indicates that the vaccine is now thought to be around 94% efficacious for those who are 65-plus, with good data on many other groups. As I say, we are constantly learning. Earlier this week, preliminary trial data from Moderna suggested that its vaccine had an effectiveness of 94.5%. Additionally, we have had the start of Janssen’s phase 3 trials in the UK this week, and we will hopefully have more phase 3 trials reported in the next few weeks.
This is all very positive, but of course, our regulator will not approve any vaccine until it is proven to be clinically safe and effective, and the way to get there is via trials. On that note, I would like to give a shout-out to my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double), who is taking part in the trial, and my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Kemi Badenoch), who is also doing so. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Dr Davies) and my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) have registered, although I do not know whether they are part of it. I am sure several other Members across the House have also stepped up.
We have already struck commercial deals to secure access 355 million doses of seven vaccines, and the Department is working at pace with the NHS to ensure that we will be ready to roll out any that are proven safe and effective immediately. That will be a massive undertaking, and I thank everyone for their hard work thus far.
Mr Deputy Speaker, you were not in the Chair yesterday, but I somewhat embarrassed myself by perhaps displaying more of the parent in me than the Minister. This country’s journey in beating the pandemic, however, has been a little like watching one’s child grow: it is a huge undertaking, it comes without a manual, we are proud of the successes and, when things are trying, we attempt to learn and move on—but the work is never done. Over the past year, so many parts of our country have risen to meet an incredible set of challenges; challenges they are facing every day. Only by ensuring that we have those different lines of defence, and by pulling together in local, regional, national and international ways will we protect those on the frontline and allow family and business life to resume and get back to a different, albeit more normal way of life.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
As Members will see from the call list, quite a number of people wish to participate in this debate. We will start all non-Front-Bench contributions at six minutes, although clearly that limit might be reduced later on depending on how many interventions there are.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful for the opportunity to open this debate for the Opposition. It is an important debate, though a solemn one: 589 deaths of our countrymen and countrywomen were reported yesterday, having perished from this virus. The total official number of deaths from covid is now more than 50,000, but the real figure is likely to be much higher. Those are big numbers, but behind each number is a person and a grieving family. All our thoughts are with them.
It is important and appreciated that the Government continue to give Government time in this place for the consideration of covid. Often—we understand this—the Government need to act swiftly to tackle the virus, but it is crucial that we get parliamentary opportunities to scrutinise their actions. I hope that we find the Government in listening mode, because we could do much to improve the current response.
In that spirit, I turn first to test and trace. Test and trace is important for two reasons: first, it is our best weapon to break the chain of transmission, and secondly, it is the part of the process that the Government have the greatest control over. Of course, the behaviour of the public is paramount, and it is critical that we guide them as best we can, but eventually it becomes a matter of personal responsibility. Test and trace, however, we have direct control of—we have control over the implementation and the commissioning.
Let us start with the good news. We recognise and welcome the overall volume of capacity developed by the Government, which the Minister talked about. That was done from scratch, and it is a very good thing indeed. However, that is as far as the good news goes, because the rest of the system is simply not delivering.
I was concerned that the Minister talked about testing but did not talk about tracing or isolation, because the system is failing, not on my terms or on political barriers put up by me or my colleagues, but on the Government’s own terms. The Prime Minister promised test results within 24 hours by the end of June. The current figure is 37.6%. That is a failure on the Government’s own terms. I hope that the Postmaster General will say when the 100% target will be reached.
On tracing, the Government say that of those with the virus, 80% of their close contacts must be reached for the system to be effective. Last week, it was 60%. It has never been at 80%; it has bumped along, frankly, in the 50s and 60s throughout. For last week, that represents 126,000 people who ought to have self-isolated but did not, simply because they did not know that they were supposed to. Each of them is walking around unaware, working as usual, living as allowed by regulations, and in close contact with goodness knows how many people. Again, that is a failure on the Government’s own terms. Tomorrow, we will get the latest weekly figures. Do we expect performance to have reached that 80%? I do not. I raise this issue every day, whether in the Chamber, online, in the media or, frankly, to anyone who will listen. That is because the failure of the system is the root of our loss of control of this virus.
If this debate follows the patterns of previous ones, we will hear contributions from Government Back Benchers critical of the symptoms of that loss of control—damage to the economy, delayed or cancelled healthcare, restricted civil liberties. Those are all exceptionally important symptoms, but I cannot understand why we do not hear greater concerned scrutiny of the cause of the problems, which is the failing system. I hope that those Members will join us in pressing the Government to do better, not because of the politics—on this occasion, I could not care less about that, frankly—but because this is a hole beneath the water line when it comes to tackling the virus. Nothing will truly get better until this gets better.
The final weak link in the chain is about isolation. Even if all elements of the system over which the Government have direct control work flawlessly, the enterprise will fail if the person at the end of the process does not isolate when supposed to. The Prime Minister has bemoaned that issue previously, which I suspect is part of his attempts to shift the blame on to other people—'twas ever thus. In reality, however, even before the pandemic, too many people were just getting by on low wages and insecure work. People were in work but in poverty, and forced, hour by hour, to earn that poverty. Now they are being told to forego even that income in favour of sick pay. That might be the right thing to do to beat covid-19, but people do not know how to isolate and feed their family at the same time.
The Health and Social Care Secretary himself said that he could not live off statutory sick pay, and it took seven months until the £500 stipend came in. The Prime Minister thought that the stipend was weekly—it is not, and it is still not enough. Until we change the situation so that those who have least in our country, and who often work in frontline jobs where they are more likely to contract the virus, do not have to choose between the national effort and financial reality for their family, we will not get people isolating in the numbers we need.
Tim Farron
The hon. Gentleman is making a good point, and the 60-something-per cent. success rate of the national system is deeply regrettable. As in many other parts of the country, Cumbria public health has been far more successful, with a 97% success rate. However, because of a flaw in the system, if someone is contacted by Cumbria public health, they are not able to get the isolation grant. That is preventing many people from making the choices that they need to make to keep everybody safe, while also putting food on the table. Does he agree that the Government need to answer calls from the director of public health in Cumbria, and ensure that those who are contacted and asked to isolate by that body get that grant?
Alex Norris
The hon. Gentleman gives a concerning example that shows how the system is struggling in general. I hope that the Minister will address that issue when she winds up the debate, and I will refer more directly to local authority public health shortly.
I do not want to carp on about what is not working without providing any solutions, so I come armed with three things that Ministers could do at a stroke of their collective pens that would radically improve test and trace in short order. First, we must better use NHS lab capacity to turn tests around. I very much welcome what the Minister said about megalabs, which we have eagerly anticipated for some months. However, there has been a large gap in which we have not had that lab capacity, and we will not have it for some time yet. In the meantime, let us put our NHS lab capacity to use in getting tests turned around.
Secondly, we should give control and resources to local authorities to run the tracing operation. They know our communities and already have a local presence. They are a trusted voice and, crucially, they do this routinely. They do this already. Admittedly, that is on a smaller scale—perhaps related to an outbreak of food poisoning linked to a takeaway—but they do it effectively. Let us support them to do it fully. Thirdly, we must develop a proper package of support for those who need to isolate—that is self-evident. Those three things could be done immediately, and we would all be better off if they were.
We have seen the consequence of failure and of a test and trace system that is struggling, and that is another lockdown. This time last year we were banging on doors in the cold and the rain, and none of us supported the lockdown because we want to keep family members away from each other, or to shut businesses in our community or anybody else’s. However, the failure to break the transmission rate of the virus leads us there.
There are two important things that I wish the Government would communicate more. This is not a choice between lockdown and the economy; it is not a choice between lockdown and non-covid healthcare treatment in the NHS. We must have the lockdown for those purposes, and the longer we delay putting restrictions in place, the worse are the long-term impacts on our economy. If we do not introduce regulations to reduce the transmission of the virus, the greater are the pressures on our hospitals, and the less likely they are to be able do other treatments. Those things are not in tension; they are very much complementary.
The failures of test and trace may have led us to a lockdown, but that lockdown buys us time to sort out problems in the system. We must see progress. Lockdowns alone will not tackle or eradicate the virus, but they buy us time to put in place the things that do. We have now had two weeks of lockdown, but we have not heard about what is improving in the test and trace system, or what will be better, including in the next two weeks. Ministers really need to say this today, so we can be sure and confident that the time is being used wisely. Otherwise, when we leave lockdown, this will all recur again, something that none of us wants.
We are all very wary of Christmas. Depending on which newspaper Members read, they may have woken up yet again to see that the Government’s plans, this time regarding yuletide festivities, had been briefed out to national newspapers. Putting aside the discourtesy to the Speaker and Deputy Speakers, to all of us and to this place in general, that is all well and good, but those plans are only going to be feasible if the right efforts are put in place now and this time is used wisely.
It also ought to be stated that this lockdown is longer and more painful than it needed to be because, once again, the Government acted too slowly. The scientists told them they needed to lock down, as did we, but for two weeks the Prime Minister disregarded reality, which meant that the situation worsened. That has meant that the lockdown will be longer and harder, and also meant that we lost the benefits of the school holidays. These are mistakes that cannot be repeated in the future.
As we exit lockdown, the Government need to be honest with the British people—not in off-the-record briefings to mates in the media, but to the British people—about what will come next, both at Christmas and in the return to a tiered system. I know from our experience in Nottingham that trying to negotiate restrictions was painful, even when we wanted them at the beginning of October as our infection rates increased precipitously. We could not get the initial restrictions we wanted, because the Government were moving to the tiered system and it did not fit their timeline. We then managed to get into the tiered system at tier 2; the next day, the Government said that they wanted us to move into tier 3 and were going to call us, which they did not for a further week. Eventually, we had the painful negotiations about what that actually meant for Nottingham: we brought those restrictions in on the Friday, and by the Saturday, the national lockdown had leaked out. The system has not worked for Nottingham, so we need to know that in any return to a tiered system, the Government are going to work much more quickly and in a more agile manner. Every day wasted is a day when the virus thrives, so we need to be better upon exit.
Turning to the vaccine, we strongly welcome the Government’s efforts in this area: they were right to pre-order doses across a wide portfolio, and they were also right to back British. With our excellent research and our proud record in this area, we should be in the vanguard of it, and patriotic about our efforts to tackle this global issue. Last week, I responded on behalf of the Opposition in an excellent Westminster Hall debate on the covid-19 vaccine, secured by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin), the day after the news broke that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine had achieved success in a phase 3 study. Since then, we have heard similarly positive news about the NIH-Moderna vaccine candidate, which is likely to be followed by other candidates, whether that of the University of Oxford and AstraZeneca, the candidate referenced by the Minister, or candidates developed elsewhere. I understand that overnight, there have been further promising developments for a Chinese candidate.
During that debate, colleagues and I raised the challenges and considerations that need to be addressed to make sure that this is handled and executed well. I will not repeat those contributions in the level of detail we went into then—they are on the record in Hansard for people to read. However, the theme was that we cannot repeat the slowness or logistical challenges that we saw early in the pandemic with regard to the procurement of personal protective equipment and testing: no Nottingham people being sent to Llandudno or Inverness for their healthcare this time, please, Minister.
As we have done throughout the pandemic, we on the Opposition Benches will work constructively with the Government to support viable vaccines being secured, ensure the right groups are being prioritised, develop an effective delivery programme, counter vaccine hesitancy—that is critical—and continue to support these efforts globally. A failure on any of those points will undermine the whole process, so it is absolutely crucial that we come together, and I am sure that Ministers will welcome that.
However, I want to briefly reference a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) made regarding the NAO report. Again, we understand—as that report did—that the Government were having to do things that would normally take 18 months’ worth of planning in hours and days, and that comes with some efficiency trade-offs. However, we did not hear clearly enough in the Minister’s opening statement a sense that that has been reflected upon, and we did not hear what will be different in future to make sure those mistakes are not repeated.
Karin Smyth
I appreciate my hon. Friend having picked up on the point I made. The Minister very carefully read out a statement in reply to my question about the Government’s response to the NAO report. I am concerned that she was saying that the Government stand by what they did in that period, and do not think that the way in which those contracts and large procurement processes were handled was a problem. It may be that the Minister wants to correct the record, but if that is the case, does my hon. Friend agree that that is deeply worrying?
Alex Norris
I heard the point that the test had been clear that nothing wrong had been done, which, frankly, is a very low bar. I do not think anybody would say that there was nothing that happened in the early procurement phases that we would not perhaps want to change or do better later. I hope that the Paymaster General in winding up might reflect on that.
Perhaps this is the best place to say that the announcement on long covid will be very much welcomed by a lot of people, including my good friend Jo Platt who has been campaigning on this for many months, as well as living with her long covid. This is a story for lots of people up and down the country, across all our constituencies, who are living with the after-effects of this horrible virus over and over again. The act of knowing that they are being heard, as well as the 40 clinics, will be a real tonic to a great number of people, so we very much welcome that.
I turn to inequalities. At the beginning of the pandemic, we talked about the virus being a great leveller, not distinguishing between us depending on our lives, our jobs and our postcodes, but nine months on we know that to be patently untrue. Sixty per cent. of those who died were living with disabilities. Those of Bangladeshi heritage are twice as likely to die as those who are white British. Those of Chinese, Indian, Pakistani and black Caribbean ethnicities are 10% to 15% more likely to die than I am. Mortality rates in the most deprived communities are more than twice those of the least deprived communities. This pandemic has shone a light on our inequalities, whether that means the inequality in work, in housing or in income, and these inequalities have had tragic consequences for some and, in the aggregate, are catastrophic for all of us.
When we beat this virus, which together we will, what comes out of it must be a fair settlement that recognises these inequalities as bad and tackles them head-on. That is why it is already concerning to see again—of course, leaked to national newspapers—that the overseas aid budget is the first on the chopping block. In 2010, the Government chose to target those who had the least to pay for a crisis that they did not cause, and these reports are a sign that maybe this is the plan again. We will not let them repeat this in 2020. It simply would be hugely unjust.
Before I finish, I would like to take this opportunity to thank our incredible NHS and social care staff for all they have done for us. They are truly the best of Britain. Similarly, the pandemic has revealed the key workers all over our communities and all over our economy, so this week, during Respect for Shopworkers Week, I would like to say a special thank you to those working in our shops, keeping us fed, but still facing rising violence and abuse every day. The Government should take better action to protect you—the Government could, of course, adopt my private Member’s Bill and I encourage them to do so—but whether it is that or through another mechanism, we will fight for you until they do.
In conclusion, now more than ever we must stand together as a country, as families and as communities, and show once again that at a moment of national crisis, the British people always rise to the challenge, support those who need it and pull together. That involves not only recognising successes, but assertively tackling the failures that have held us back during the pandemic. If we address these, we will beat this virus.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We will begin with a time limit of six minutes.
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)
It strikes me that, as MPs, it is our duty to make difficult decisions. We must face head-on the life and death challenges that very few people would wish to face in their daily lives. We must make contested judgments, and this debate and the response to covid is a case in point. Whether it is going to war with Iraq, which was before my time in this House, military operations in Syria or the very painful issues surrounding Brexit, we have a duty to reflect carefully and responsibly when confronted with complex challenges. It seems to me that our response to covid demands a similar level of reflection to reach our best judgments.
There are a multitude of variables involved in this decision making. Given that thousands of lives are being lost to covid, thousands of lives are being lost with covid, and thousands of lives are being lost by our response to covid, it is no easy judgment. Businesses are being forced to close across my constituency and across the country—businesses that people have spent their lives building up. Jobs and livelihoods are being wiped out. Civil liberties are certainly under threat, freedom of speech is threatened, freedom of assembly has been all but washed away in the short term, and even Parliament—even with your efforts, Mr Deputy Speaker, and the efforts of Mr Speaker—is not necessarily functioning as it should during a crisis such as this.
Looking back, I suspect hon. Members will agree that the first lockdown was absolutely the right thing to do. In March this year we were confronted with an unknown enemy: a deadly virus determined to secure its own survival by infecting as many people as possible, with sometimes fatal consequences. With incomplete information from China at the time, we did not know the fatality rate. We did not know the vectors and means of transmission, or which age groups were worst affected, or about its ability to mutate or the type of mutation that may take place. We did not have a ready treatment available for the symptoms.
That was back in March, but today we know so much more. We know that healthy children are hardly affected by the virus, and that is a godsend, considering illnesses and diseases from the past. We know now that the overwhelming majority of adults are reasonably safe: perhaps 80% will not necessarily even notice any symptoms. We know that people over the age of 65 and those with pre-existing conditions are, sadly, most likely to suffer the serious effects of the virus. We know that the virus is transmitted by touch and by being in close proximity to others, and that washing hands and maintaining social distance largely prevent transmission.
We also have far more PPE than we had when we started, thanks to the efforts of the Government. Even if we have overdone it with PPE and end up at the end of this pandemic with millions, if not billions, of pounds’ worth of spare excess PPE, that will be a good sign: it will be a sign that we prepared effectively, and it may be of use to other nations in the future.
We also know that modern treatments can halve the death rate. We know that vaccines, particularly the two new ones, can stop the illness by generating antibodies. We know that our NHS, if fully staffed, can treat those affected, provided that the inflow of patients is moderated over time.
We can see from data that the tiered local approach is having an impact. Data that we have seen over the past week or two is to do not with the current lockdown but with the previous regional measures. That is a good thing, because we can see that we can control this virus to some degree.
Of course, there is still much more that we do not know. That is why we will be forced to make a judgment at the end of this month, but that judgment must be an informed judgment. I very much welcome the Government’s commitment to giving Parliament a say on future restrictions and regulations. I also welcome the Prime Minister’s desire to try to avoid restrictions in future, if it is considered safe to do so, and I very much welcome the Minister’s comments earlier about the progress we have made in tackling the disease so far and our prospects to do so in the not-too-distant future.
To move forward I believe we need to recognise the costs of the restrictions in addition to the benefits of future restrictions. I urge the Government to do three things. First, I ask them to prepare a clear cost-benefit analysis of any future proposed regulations, in terms of both the health and the economic costs and benefits in the short and the long term. Clearly, the two are intricately connected, but it is very important that MPs in this House—the decision makers—have clear sight of the overall costs and benefits.
Secondly, I ask the Government to ensure that the latest data is available from the NHS on hospitalisations, intensive care unit beds and their occupancy, and death rates from all causes, very carefully categorised, perhaps against a five-year baseline. This summer we have seen that the modelling can, let’s face it, get a bit out of control and, on occasion, be more like conjecture than reality. When we make the decision at the end of this month, it is important that we are in a better position to see the real data and perhaps to reflect on it ourselves.
Thirdly, I urge the Government—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I am terribly sorry, but the six minutes are up. I know that before I call you, Mr Hanvey, you will be conscious of the time constraints on other people.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
This global pandemic has shaken the lives of so many. The pain from the loss of loved ones, friends and colleagues has been compounded by redundancy or business failure, as support for key sectors has failed to materialise or people have found themselves excluded from the UK Government schemes. As we now pin our collective hopes on the brightest and the best delivering promising vaccine candidates into clinical use, we must turn our minds to our recovery and how we choose to build a better, greener and fairer future for our communities.
I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to those who have contributed to the spirit of community across my Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath constituency. First, I pay tribute to Tricia Marwick, the chair of the NHS Fife board, and to its members, to Dr Chris McKenna, the medical director, and Helen Buchanan, the director of nursing, and to every single member of staff on the frontline, to whom we owe so much.
I would also like to pay tribute to the local media outlets—the Fife Free Press, the Central Fife Times, K107 community radio and Kingdom FM—all of which have helped my constituents stay informed and updated and have kept us all safe. I pay tribute to the many community lifeline groups, such as the Cottage Family Centre, which aims to ensure that no child or family goes hungry, cold or without presents this Christmas; Love Cowdenbeath, whose online presence has been supporting the local community and retailers; and Linton Lane Centre, which sadly, like other groups across my constituency, had to cancel its annual Christmas day meal for seniors, but will aim to distribute 100 hampers to those who would have attended.
There are so many other examples that I simply do not have time to mention, but the spirit of community that has emerged from this dreadful pandemic is built on hope and an aspiration to do better by our neighbours and, like much of my constituency, is bursting with vision, ambition and confidence that a better future is possible.
Such a future is possible, but it is imperilled by decisions made in this place, led by a Prime Minister who considers our considerable achievements in government and our shared aspirations a mistake and does not see a case for further consideration. I put it to the House that, in our recovery from covid-19, it is the independent countries that will do better. By following the path of regaining democratic control of our own country, our people will be richer, our influence for good greater and our future brighter.
However, the PM’s unguarded words have undermined even article 19 of the Acts of Union, which he purports to uphold. He poured scorn on Scots’ ability to make their own laws while, in his words,
“free-riding on English taxpayers”,
describing it as “simply unjust”. I would be interested to know if the Minister genuinely thinks that the people of Scotland believe that a Government with such an appalling track record—of austerity, welfare cuts, the two-child cap, the bedroom tax, benefit sanctions and the unfair manner in which the Women Against State Pension Inequality have been treated—are uniquely benevolent when it comes to Scotland. Of course she does not, and the facts expose the mendacity of that obtuse notion.
It is a matter of record that in each of the 30 years prior to the introduction of “Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland”, Scotland generated more tax revenue per head for the UK Treasury than the rest of the UK. If the Minister believes that with 8.2% of the population Scotland creates between 50% and 60% of the UK deficit, will she please direct me to where that money was spent and by whom? Will she also tell me why the people of Scotland should have any confidence in this place to help Scotland build a better future post covid? I can provide the Minister with the answer: they do not.
According to the latest gold-standard Scottish social attitudes survey, 61% of people say they trust the Scottish Government to work in the national interest, but just 15% trust the UK Government to do likewise. The gulf is even wider when it comes to leadership. First Minister Nicola Sturgeon’s approval rating in Scotland is 100 points above that of the Prime Minister, with one commentator—a Unionist, as it happens—stating today that
“that is the good news”
for the Prime Minister, since he suspects that he has
“not yet reached rock bottom”.
That distrust will only grow as the cronyism at the heart of this Government continues to be exposed. Today the National Audit Office released its damning report on the UK Government’s procurement practices during the pandemic, which confirms what we have been saying for months about a Government failing to manage conflicts of interest, doling out public money to clearly unsuitable companies and improperly avoiding scrutiny.
Tim Farron
I think the hon. Member will probably agree with me that what is galling for so many people is the £10.5 billion of contracts given out without proper tender processes and without transparency, if we contrast that with the 3 million people in this country—people who have been self-employed for a short time, company directors of small limited companies and many others—who have been completely excluded from support. A small fraction of that amount of money would have kept food on their tables and a roof over their head.
Neale Hanvey
The hon. Gentleman makes the extremely important point that the avarice attached to these contracts undermines any sense that the Government are putting their arms around anyone, let alone the whole country. I would be interested if the Minister could indicate whether the Prime Minister will heed SNP calls—in fact, cross-party calls—for a full public inquiry into the cronyism at the heart of this Government. Convincing answers are urgently needed as to why so many Tory friends, relatives, donors and prominent lobbyists were awarded jobs and privileged access to UK Government meetings and decision making.
The National Audit Office has exposed and confirmed the existence of VIP lanes in which unsuitable companies were often placed by the private offices of Ministers, and they were more than 10 times as likely to win a contract as other suppliers. Recent weeks have seen reports that £1.5 billion of taxpayers’ money has gone to companies linked to the Conservative party. Concerns have also emerged over the weekend about privileged access for lobbyists with links to the Conservative party, without any public process or announcement.
With so much suffering across these islands, it is vital that there is full transparency and that the public have confidence in the manner in which the UK Government spend taxpayers’ money fighting coronavirus. As we heard last week from the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), rather than support experienced and established UK-based PPE providers, the Government chose 12-week-old businesses with no experience or capacity to provide PPE. How can UK-based companies survive when their Government cut them off at the knees? If everything is above board, surely the Minister will have no issues indicating her support for an inquiry.
Yet that is not the only economic vandalism of this Government during the pandemic. Despite the promises to wrap their arms around everyone, support remains poorly targeted and offers no relief for people who have become self-employed more recently or to businesses in my Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath constituency such as RG Construction, which was denied £64,000 of furlough support on a technicality it could never have predicted or met. Will the Minister undertake to ask the Treasury to review these entry requirements to open up support to self-employed people and other businesses that have so far been excluded?
The Government sprang into action to provide countless contracts for their wealthy friends, but that sense of urgency is sadly lacking when it comes to taking action on social care reform, pay awards for frontline NHS staff or addressing the poverty of carers. This week on the Health and Social Care Committee, we heard evidence that healthcare assistants were not being provided with the same standard of PPE as more senior staff, leading to stress, anxiety and burnout. This risk of burnout is all the more concerning when it comes to how we recover the delays in cancer treatment precipitated by the pandemic. The King’s Fund has described an already existing problem of chronic excessive workload in the NHS. This week we heard expert evidence that that, in combination with the culture that demands ever more, can lead to serious mental health problems. What action is the Minister taking to address these pressures and challenge such an unhealthy culture in the NHS?
I would like to pay tribute to Macmillan lead cancer nurse Denise Crouch for her valuable evidence highlighting the pressure cancer nurses have been facing before and during covid-19. Macmillan has highlighted serious shortages in the cancer workforce, in which 2,500 specialist cancer nurses are needed to meet current demand, rising to 3,700 by 2030. I say with genuine sensitivity that this pandemic has thrown into even sharper focus the fragility of our NHS workforce and the need for fast-paced and substantial action. I would be interested in what action the Minister has taken to secure additional capacity in the NHS beyond March 2021 and to invest in the cancer workforce as part of next week’s comprehensive spending review.
Work-related stress is also being amplified elsewhere. Where is the urgency or action addressing the deeply immoral exploitative practice of firms firing workers only to rehire them on significantly reduced terms? This fire and rehire practice has sadly emerged in many sectors, most notably in aviation. Those are not the only threats to our ability to build back better after covid. To pile misery on misery, the Government are persisting with their plan—I use that word in the loosest of terms —with no regard to the consequences or the views of the people of Scotland.
What of the £20 uplift to universal credit? With so many now facing redundancy, this must be made permanent and extended to legacy benefits. These calls are backed by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and Save the Children. Can the Minister not see the need for this support and the positive impact that such support could have on health and wellbeing? If the UK Government are as keen they claim to be on protecting people, why is it that their own workforce in the Department for Work and Pensions, already equipped to work from home as part of a pilot, are being forced to work in an office one day a week in the face of covid clusters occurring among their colleagues?
In Scotland, we see things through a different lens. As a small country, we ascribe more value to the view that intangible infrastructure such as education and healthcare form the backbone of a country. The Credit Suisse country strength indicator places six small countries in the top 10. Small countries make up more than half of the world’s top 30 countries, with Scotland showing higher scores on the UN human development index than the UK as a whole.
Scotland must build back better, and that is only possible with the full powers of an independent nation. A new YouGov poll across Britain revealed that 85% of respondents from Scotland think that the UK Government are doing badly at handling the UK’s exit from the European Union. An expert study from Warwick University earlier this year revealed that Scotland is already £3.9 billion worse off as a result of Brexit, losing £736 per head of population, with Aberdeen the worst hit at £9,000 per head. Separately, Scottish Government analysis revealed that Tory plans to end the transition period in 2020 could cut £3 billion from the Scottish economy in two years on top of the impact of coronavirus. It is no wonder then that 14 polls in a row now show a majority of support for independence in Scotland, with the most recent poll by Panelbase showing support at 56%. I know that my focus on Scotland and the interests and aspirations of my constituents tire some on the Government Benches, but there is a simple and obvious solution available to them.
In closing, the difference between the independence regularly celebrated on the Government Benches and the one that Scotland will choose soon is that Scotland wants independence to join the world whereas the real separatists sat on the Government Benches have sought separation to be an isolated and rudderless state. It is no wonder that support to abandon the UK separatists is growing, and growing in the majority of Scotland.
Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con)
There are a couple of areas relating to how we continue to fight the virus that will benefit from some further consideration, and I urge those on the Front Bench to take another look at them and refine the current arrangements and regulations.
In my maiden speech some months ago, I highlighted the heroic efforts of our doctors, nurses, paramedics and NHS support staff in responding to the pandemic. As each day passes, my admiration for them grows even more—for their professionalism, dedication and resilience during these trying times.
At present, local NHS staff are battling with rising bed occupancy at Dewsbury Hospital and Huddersfield Royal Infirmary and with fluctuating staffing levels. Sickness, the requirement to self-isolate, burnout due to the very demanding nature of their work and poor staffing levels have seen wards badly hit. Having spoken to fellow Members, I also understand that this is a big issue affecting hospitals outside my constituency such as, for example, Pinderfields Hospital, Leeds General Infirmary and St James’s Hospital.
In my local Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust, at times up to 20% of junior doctors in medical specialities have not been at work, through no fault of their own. That has the effect of increasing the pressure on those who remain on duty. It is not my intention to be alarmist, but having listened to NHS leaders and those on the frontline, it is clear to me that staffing levels are at risk of being stretched too thin, and the pressure is likely only to increase.
Meanwhile, there many third-year student nurses and fourth-year medical students in universities; they made a large difference in the first wave of the pandemic and could be called on again. A four-week placement of such students in hospitals could alleviate some of the pressures. After speaking to local NHS leaders, I know that they are keen to discuss that idea with the Government. I ask the Minister to consider seriously this temporary measure to help to release the pressure on our local hospitals and to support our amazing teams of doctors and nurses.
It is crucial to ensure that all our children get the education that they need at this time. The second thing that I ask those on the Front Bench to look at again is the guidance relating to school attendance of children with extremely clinically vulnerable parents—an issue that has come to light in my constituency. Although extremely clinically vulnerable children can, rightly, attend school remotely, the current guidance compels extremely clinically vulnerable parents—who may, for example, have a weak immune system—to send their children to school or potentially face a fine.
The parents are in a tough and worrying position, juggling concerns about their own physical and financial health while being required to send their child to school and risk bringing home an infection. The situation could easily be remedied by allowing such pupils to study remotely. In these rare circumstances, schools and colleges are seeking to be as compassionate as possible, but they feel restricted as to how lenient they can be. I hope the Government will consider taking another look at the guidance.
It is not all doom and gloom, though, and there is much to be optimistic about. Rumour has it that there may be several vaccines on the way. The introduction of rapid testing should also help to control the virus until we are in a position to fully roll out a vaccine in the new year, which I hope will mean that we can all get back to some kind of normality.
In summary, I ask that the Minister and the Secretary of State consider my request to release nursing students to help our local hospitals, and that the Department for Education looks at the issue I raised regarding clinically vulnerable parents having to send their children to school during the pandemic.
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
It is interesting to follow the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mark Eastwood); we share the same hospital trust and I was struck by the fact that he appears to think the diminution of staffing there somehow just happened by accident, when in fact his Government have been in power for 10 years. Throughout those years, there were cuts in our area: in the trust covering West Yorkshire, which the hon. Gentleman shares with me, there are 2,000 fewer beds in the health and care sector than there were when Labour left office.
It is probably no surprise that the chief executive has told both of us what is happening in that hospital trust: there are now 240 cases of covid in the hospitals we share, whereas there were only 170 at the height of the pandemic. The chief executive also told both of us that the trusts are now closing operating theatres, putting off operations and not allowing relatives of patients to visit. Of course covid is a problem—of course it was unexpected —but the truth is that the cuts went too deep and the NHS was left without adequate resources even in a normal year, never mind in the face of a pandemic.
The point I want to make, however, is this. I represent some of the poorest communities in our country, as many Opposition Members do. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) said, we know that this disease affects different parts of the population in different ways. In the former mining villages that I represent, the number of people infected has increased almost threefold in the last three and a half weeks because covid attacks deprivation—that is what it does.
It is no use avoiding the central issue of the character of society that the Tories have built over the last 10 years —the cuts, the austerity, the hunger, the poverty, the polluted air that we breathe, the poor housing and so on. Here are some facts for the House to consider. The covid mortality rate among the most deprived communities is 128 per 100,000 people infected. In the least deprived communities, it is 58. This disease is attacking poverty—poverty that the Tories created, in a system subjected to the cuts that they imposed.
They cannot say that they were not aware of this. Sir Michael Marmot, a leading physiologist, wrote a report in February this year, before covid had begun to really affect us. In that report, he said to the Government that the more deprived an area, the shorter the life expectancy. What a scandal that that should be the case in Britain in 2020. He went on to say that the social gradient, which is the gradient of mortality related to poverty, “has become steeper” in the last decade—the Tory decade. He also said that there are “marked regional differences”. Of course there are, because poverty is not only stratified in socioeconomic terms; it is also geographically organised. The north, in particular, has huge areas of real deprivation.
The Government were aware—they knew what they were doing. They knew that poverty, ill health and early death were connected. Covid has revealed that in terrifying ways. The cuts, the austerity and the poverty that has been inflicted reduced not only human resilience in physiological terms; it also reduced the resilience of communities to fight this battle.
How can Conservative Members vote to deny children food during the school holidays? Is it not quite apparent that a hungry child is more likely to be susceptible to infection than a child who has been well fed? Is that not clear to everybody on both sides of the House? Yet, during the half-term, that is exactly what happened, except for one thing: communities came together in every village across this land—I saw it the most in the poorest village—and looked after each other because the Government had abandoned those children. What a disgrace! If our society has the ingenuity to find a solution to a vaccine in such a short period and a way of tracking this disease, and if our society can mobilise the resources to distribute PPE and source the ventilators we need, surely we have the capacity to tackle the underlying problems of our society that they, to their shame, have created.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
In the light of the welcome news that a potential vaccine is forthcoming, I want to talk about the consequences for BME communities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) said, covid-19 has hit BME communities hard. A recent study in The Lancet pointed out that black people are twice as likely to be impacted by covid-19 as white people, and someone of an Asian background is one and a half times as likely to be impacted by covid-19 as a white person.
It really worries me that, of the 270,000 people who have signed up to the NHS vaccine registry, only 1,200 are from black, Caribbean or African heritage. That is only 0.5% of the entire registry. For people of an Asian background, it is slightly better, but even then the figure is only 4% of the entire registry. What worries me is that this is a community that has been hit so disproportionately —as I have seen at first hand—and if we do not get more people from this community signing up for the trials, the research findings will not be representative.
I want to pose a few questions to the Minister. I do not expect her to answer me straightaway, but I hope that she will consider my questions because I am really concerned about the BME communities and I hope that the people in government will think about these issues. What have the Government actually done to take concrete steps in trying to persuade people from BME communities to take part in the vaccine trial and to get involved in research that is linked to the virus? Have the Government undertaken an assessment to find out why more people from BME communities have not been coming forward? Have they looked at the root causes of people not trusting the system? Have they tried to rectify these problems and bring people forward?
Are the Government undertaking initiatives that we simply do not know about, but should? I know that local MPs are undertaking activities with BME communities in their own constituencies, but I want to know whether the Minister thinks that the Government, have done enough with the national effort. I welcome the fact that the Minister for Equalities put out a statement saying that more people should come forward, but warm words will not cut it at this point—when it is about life and death. And, with all due respect, a Minister writing in The House magazine is not the medium through which we access hard-to-reach communities. We have to do better than that.
The low sign-up rates for the vaccine are not only a problem when it comes to representative research; they do not bode well for when the vaccine is actually rolled out across communities. In its independent report published in September this year, the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation does not include ethnicity as one of the prioritisation factors for the roll-out of the vaccination programme. However, it does state:
“Any programme will need to ensure every effort is made to get good coverage in black, Asian and minority ethnic…groups”.
We need a better explanation of why ethnicity is not provisionally included as a priority factor for vaccination, given how vulnerable the BME communities are. I understand that it is complex, and of course we have to be careful not to allow anyone to believe that they are being targeted or forced to trial something that is unsafe—this subject has been a source of misinformation and mistrust so far—but we also need a clear plan from the Government to get good coverage with the vaccination.
The Social Science in Humanitarian Action Platform has said:
“Vaccine trials must engage with communities or risk failure… this means understanding contextual determinants of (mis)information …and identifying both formal authority structures and informal sources of information/influence”.
The Government would do well to heed this advice, and I would like them to consider funding and working with small charities and communities that the BME community trust and engage with. For example, have the Government thought about engaging in town hall meetings—even if they are virtual—with BME scientists, doctors and nurses in order to hold question and answer sessions on the concerns of BME communities, and to provide more information? Have they thought about using places of worship as a way of disseminating information to hard-to-reach communities?
I am not being facetious, but I honestly do not think that politicians are the best people to do this outreach. A survey last year showed that we are the least trusted profession in Britain; we actually ranked lower than estate agents! I am a politician as well, and I am saying to everyone in this Chamber that we need to think about how we can get information to the right people through the right medium. This is not about scoring political points. It is a matter of life and death. I am worried that, if the Government do not take this seriously, we are going to run out of time and we will not do what is right by the BME communities in this country.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
The people of Darlington have followed the rules, but this invisible virus has continued to infect them. Sadly, the infection rate remains high, with 337 cases per 100,000 last week. The local hospital trust, which includes Darlington Memorial Hospital, has more covid-positive patients than at the peak earlier in the year, so we welcome the additional 10,000 tests that have been made available to us.
As we entered the national lockdown, negotiations were under way to move the borough of Darlington, along with the other four Tees valley local authorities, into tier 3. It is my sincere hope that the efforts and impact of the lockdown will be such that, as we emerge from the current restrictions, we can remain in tier 2. My right hon. Friend the Paymaster General is aware that I and other colleagues from the Tees valley were opposed to an early move from tier 1 to tier 2, not because we wanted the virus to continue to spread but because we were concerned about the impact on the mental health of our constituents and the economic wellbeing of our communities. Part of that concern was alleviated by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor’s additional support for those businesses able to remain open in tier 2 but adversely impacted. I welcome Darlington Borough Council’s efforts to distribute the grants as quickly as possible.
Darlington hospitality is legendary. We are proud to fly a purple flag, celebrating our town centre night-time economy. While hospitality businesses across Darlington are presently closed, I am confident that the support that has been forthcoming to Darlington will help us bounce back. We have had 9,000 jobs protected through furlough; 2,000 self-employed people supported, over £50 million of bounce back loans, millions in grants, rate exemptions and reductions. There is also the continued delivery of our levelling up agenda, with tangible investments, including £100 million in our expanded mainline train station and over £23 million through the towns fund, setting our plans on track for the development of the rail heritage quarter. Those investments will truly level up and help us bounce back.
I and many colleagues were elected not only to get Brexit done but to breathe new life into towns that stagnated under Labour control for decades. I am proud that, despite the wholly unprecedented challenge that this year has brought, we are continuing to deliver on those manifesto commitments. Recent figures reveal that in September the economy of the north-east bounced back at a faster rate than any other region of the country: a really positive sign.
We have the energy, drive and ambition of our Tees Valley Mayor, Ben Houchen, who has been at the forefront of much support through these times. With a saved airport, investment in hydrogen buses, trains and cars, carbon capture and storage and massive investment in offshore wind, new jobs in emerging technologies are putting the Tees valley at the heart of the green revolution. They make me confident that, certainly in the Tees valley and specifically in Darlington, levelling up is having a tangible and visible impact on the community I serve.
We all want to see the back of this virus. It has destroyed lives, changed everyone’s way of life and wreaked financial havoc on many businesses. I have been a champion for all the Government have done to support businesses, but on behalf of the people of Darlington, caught between the desire for liberty and their commitment to protecting the most vulnerable, I urge Ministers to continue their support for our local businesses and charities, and in particular—I declare my interest—to provide more support for our hospices not only in Darlington but across the country.
Finally, I pay tribute to the team at Darlington Memorial Hospital. They have adapted at pace, doubling their capacity in A&E and in ICU and working around the clock. They are doing all they can in the fight against this disease and delivering their other services too.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I can see that we still have a fair number of speakers, so after the next speaker I will reduce the time limit to five minutes. It may have to go down a little bit more after that.
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)
Madam Deputy Speaker, I cannot remember the last time I was able to take part in a general debate in the Chamber, so I am delighted to be back here. I want to take you back to 1966. In 1966, Harold Wilson was Prime Minister and England won the World cup. When people talked about the moonshot they were actually talking about people going to the moon. It is 54 years since those events. That time gap matters to today’s debate, because before this year, 1966 was the last time that my constituent, whom I will call Mrs Enfield, was apart from her husband. That is 54 years of a life together: cups of tea; walks in the park; the trials, tribulations and triumphs of a long marriage. Now, along with her family, Mrs Enfield finds herself apart from her husband once again, unable to visit him in hospital after a worsening of his Parkinson’s condition forced him to go there; unable to visit him in the nursing home, to which he was moved after two weeks; and unable to make sense of a system that is doubling the disadvantage experienced by the most vulnerable adults. The video calls that they have been permitted are next to no good, as her husband cannot understand what is happening. The feedback that the family receives is patchy, and they do not know whether their loved one is distressed and confused.
That is not an isolated case. I accept that it is not simple to resolve it, but this is not March. The Government have had eight months to address the most obvious and heartbreaking consequence of the covid-19 restrictions. Our care homes, their staff, the residents and the families who rely on them were let down in the tsunami of the first wave. It is unforgiveable that they have been let down once again, as there has been time to work up safe solutions for those families.
I am sure that, like me, every Member in the House can point to anguished sons and daughters in their constituencies who are victims of well meaning but confused restrictions and regulations. No one blames the care homes or their staff. Confusion reigns, and they are doing the best with the guidance that they have been given. The truth, however, is that those visiting restrictions have created and deepened trauma, with disastrous consequences for elderly and frail people and their families. They are trying to make themselves understood behind a mask; there are shouted conversations, 3 metres away, to mums and dads with dementia; people are trying to mouth and sign conversation through frosted glass in the November rain; and there is confusion and heartbreak as elderly relatives with Alzheimer’s think that they have been abandoned or have done something wrong.
We can make an immediate and safe leap forward by putting decency and common sense back into the heart of care homes by classing designated family members as key workers, offering them tests on the same basis as care-home staff. It can only be right, as Deirdre Barr has recently pointed out on behalf of Dementia UK, that if a hairdresser is permitted to touch her mother’s hair, so should she. The trauma that thousands of families across the country are experiencing could be partially alleviated if the Government acted on that one simple and fair change. Testing for designated visitors would be good for families, care homes and the country as a whole, as we try to reconnect with all our loved ones, no matter where they live.
A lack of fairness, however, has become all too apparent in the way in which the Government have awarded public money for covid contracts to VIP friends and donors. Many of my constituents have expressed anger at those dodgy dealings in recent months. It is neither right nor fair for the Government to bypass usual procurement procedures and gift their friends lucrative contracts, some of which result in the purchase of products that are unsuitable for use—for example, £150 million was spent on masks that could not be used. A transparent procurement process would not only have secured value for money but would have ensured that companies could reach a certain stage of the bidding process only if the product that they offered could do the job as intended. The Government have failed to do that.
My constituents in Enfield North and I want to see a return to fairness—a fair process to be conducted when spending taxpayers’ money to combat the virus and a fair approach to allowing relatives to visit loved ones in care and nursing homes. It has been eight months since the first lockdown. We can and should be better than this.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
I start by paying tribute to the amazing work undertaken by healthcare workers, care workers, teachers and support staff in schools, and all the key workers, who have not only kept us supplied during the pandemic, but kept as safe.
We have spent more than three and a half months in heightened restrictions in the north-west, and we are now starting to see a change in the curve. We reached a peak last week of 586.9 cases per 100,000 in the borough of Bury, and we are now down to 473.8 cases per 100,000. We are seeing a fall, but our numbers are still high and still of concern. I hope that trajectory will continue.
“Hands, face, space” has been the motto for many weeks, if not months, but I still think we are not as safe as we could be. Far too many hand sanitisers are out there that do not meet the set criteria. Many face masks are used mainly as a fashion accessory without offering any real safety protection. I would like to ask the Paymaster General, my right hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) what more work we can be doing to ensure that all products meet a set safety criteria and certain benchmarks to ensure we are as safe as we can be in public.
Following on from the hon. Member for Enfield North (Feryal Clark), care homes have been of huge concern to many Members and members of the public throughout these isles. There was a well-attended Westminster Hall debate last week where a lot of comments were made in particular about the loneliness and isolation of those who suffer from dementia and who have not had any real visits for months. There was a small period where window visits could continue, and to have those taken away in areas with a large number of cases was not only heartbreaking, but cruel. We are getting to a point where we are now talking about rapid testing for visitors moving forward from December.
I hope we can get to a point where not only visits can continue, but families can be reunited and the heartbreak that residents, family members and care workers—they are having to see this each and every day—can be fully addressed. I pay tribute to the great work that the Fed at Heathlands Village in Prestwich is doing in my constituency. It has spent an inordinate amount of money to make sure it is as covid-secure as possible for when visits can restart.
We have some potential good news on the horizon in regard to vaccines. It is great news. However, we need not only a plan for delivery that addresses all locations across the UK and all communities, but a plan B in case these vaccines do not come to fruition. At some point, we may need to start living with covid, and we need to consider that. Although it was great that there was great promotion of the flu vaccine, can my right hon. Friend say how many people truly took that up? Are we as safe as we can be from the troubles of flu?
I will start bringing my speech to a close by focusing on certain sectors that have raised their troubles with me—mainly the events and hospitality sector. Through no fault of their own, they are arguably the ones who are struggling the most. Moving into tier 2 and tier 3, when all of a sudden we prevent any socialising outside of people’s households, had a huge detrimental impact on those sectors. We had conference providers that were no longer able to provide conferences. However, because we did not order them to close, they were no longer able to access Government support. We had events operators that were unable to operate because there were no events, but because they had no bricks and mortar, they also received no support. While I am pleased that some support is now starting to be offered, it is very late in the day and we need to consider that there has to be a sector to go back to.
Places of worship have gone above and beyond. I have been speaking to communities and community leaders—rabbis, priests and imams—across the north-west, and they have gone above and beyond in making sure that their places of worship are not only covid-secure, but offer a place of solace, a place to appease mental health and a place of hope. I urge my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister and all members of the Cabinet to do what they can to reopen places of worship for communal prayer and to give the hope that the nation needs.
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
I am delighted to start my contribution to this debate by paying tribute to the key workers on the frontline of this pandemic. Their commitment to public service and their selflessness in the face of the most severe of circumstances set an example to us all.
I am deeply concerned by the dangerous polarisation on public health measures that have been implemented to save lives, and that is what I want to focus on. I am sure that Members across this House have been inundated with correspondence from constituents sharing very legitimate concerns about restrictions that have been imposed in order to protect the NHS, keeping us agile enough to deal with covid, while thousands of elective care patients have had procedures and treatments delayed. This suffering is real. The diversity of the issues raised is phenomenal, spanning mental ill-health, business support, attendance at funerals, redundancies, access to universal credit, and care home closures. We also receive correspondence from constituents reasonably seeking to clarify the rules in respect of their own actions.
On the other side of the coin, we have all received correspondence from angry constituents—on occasion aggressive, even abusive—about the restrictions that this Parliament has collectively implemented, under great duress and with an increasingly heavy heart. Aggression and abuse are never acceptable, but the anger is justified, and it is not taken lightly; neither is it dismissed by anyone in this place, especially coming from those many constituents who have fallen on hard times.
However, I want to shine a spotlight on some of the more sinister and fringe drivers of that anger. A cause for growing apprehension is the misinformation, the fake news and the dismissal of science in the post-truth world that a small number of hardened minds occupy. Assertions are made, social media lies are repeated, and distrust in our institutions, our scientists and our elected representatives is sown in reference to their motives. That translates into real-world consequences. This ugly underbelly has seen a small number of aggressions against those in Liverpool waiting patiently in line to be tested. There have been megaphones outside school gates screaming at parents and pupils about testing, confrontation sometimes of those wearing masks, and the outright dismissal of the growing prospect of a vaccine—a prospect that is giving so much hope to a beleaguered population who yearn to return to some normality.
It is apparent that much responsibility for such behaviour lies with social media platforms: most people receive their information through that medium. People currently have many insecurities, both health and economic, and the misinformation plays into these deeply held fears and is easily shared at the click of a button. My colleagues on the Front Bench are right: the producers of such material should be denied a stage to peddle these lies and myths that have no basis in truth. Ahead of the delivery of a vaccine, we cannot let the naysayers spread further mistrust when so much is at stake for all our people.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker), although I do not agree with her obsession with trying to restrict free speech and information for the general public. Surely it should be for the general public to discuss and determine these things themselves.
The Minister referred to evidence, data and scientific advice as being the watchwords of the Government. Those words ring rather hollow with my constituents, because they regard that as spin rather than substance. Earlier today, I suggested to the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s questions that the million-plus people who had tested positive for covid-19 and had recovered should be exempt from the regulations because their T cells would give them immunity for at least six months. That is the evidence provided by and published in The BMJ, and yet the Prime Minister seemed to cast doubt on it, despite the fact that that evidence was produced in collaboration with Public Health England and has won plaudits from the Medical Research Council.
One of the advantages of providing such an exemption is that it would deal with the people who are suffering from long covid, to whom the Minister also referred. In Sweden, they apply such an exemption. I know that any references to Sweden are anathema to the Government. Last time I mentioned Sweden, the Minister tried to pour cold water on my statistics. She was wrong, and I questioned her and have not had an answer. Again, I make no apology for referring to the comparable statistics.
In the past week, ending 17 November, there have been 85 deaths from covid-19 in Sweden. In the similar period in the United Kingdom, there have been 2,975 deaths. Taking into account the population difference, there are six times as many deaths per capita in this country as in Sweden, and that takes no account of all the collateral damage that we are causing to our people who cannot get access to healthcare, including 5,000 excess deaths from heart disease alone.
The Minister was saying that we talk about evidence. In answer to parliamentary question 111413, asking about the public health justification for refusing to allow the giving and receiving of the sacrament in places of worship, this is the answer I received:
“Public Health England had not been requested to research and publish detailed specific data on the numbers of COVID-19 cases related to place of worship and allied settings on outbreak investigation. This is now being performed.”
That answer came in 10 days after it should have done, but why was that work not done before? Why are we refusing to allow people to receive the sacrament in places of worship without any evidence in justification? Similarly, I asked about the difference between two people playing golf on a public golf course and two people walking a dog on a public footpath. There was no satisfactory response from the Government.
On another issue, while the Government say that people are at great risk if they go to play golf together, the greatest risk, it seems, is to have the misfortune to go to hospital and then contract covid-19. In answer to a question yesterday, I have been told by the Minister that in October alone there were 3,934 cases of people who went to hospital without covid but got covid while they were there, as a result of hospital transmission of infection. In October, in Poole hospital, which serves many of my constituents, 120 people were in hospital, and some 73 of them contracted covid as a result of infection within the hospital.
The question I ask of the Minister, therefore, is: when we get the vaccination, will someone getting a vaccination automatically be exempt from the lockdown rules? If not, why not? Also, when we get into discussing criteria for moving out of the lockdown, what will we do about false positive tests? If there are 500,000 tests a day and 5% are false positives, we will have 25,000 false positives. That is number enough to justify a continuation of lockdown—based on false tests. Surely that cannot be sensible policy for the Government.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. It will be obvious from the Order Paper that I have to reduce the time limit. I will do so to four minutes, but after the next speaker.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
On 22 October, the Prime Minister said:
“We are wrapping our arms around the country to give people the support they need to get through this.”
I am rising today to ask the Prime Minister to make good on that promise.
At a time of an unfolding public health crisis for my constituents in Hull, with around three times the national average of covid-19 cases, Kingston upon Hull currently has the highest covid-19 infection rate in England and, indeed, in the United Kingdom. Our brilliant local NHS are planning for 450 beds for covid-19 patients and a back-up of 800 beds. We are geographically isolated. We do not have lots of hospitals on our patch, like other big cities, and our NHS could be overwhelmed. We are the fourth most deprived area in the country.
Last Thursday, I and my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) and for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) were so concerned about what was happening that we wrote to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, asking for action to combat the frightening increases in covid-19 in our constituencies. The leader of the council also wrote to the Prime Minister in similar terms, and both letters asked for a number of interventions from central Government that are fundamental to tackling this unfolding public health emergency. Sadly, to date we have had no response.
Let me take this opportunity, on the Floor of the House of Commons, to make these asks directly of the Government. First, we need logistical support and capacity to deliver Christmas tests for the University of Hull, as well as the welcome 10,000 lateral flow tests. Public health advice is that those tests are important and should be used in a targeted way, rather than mass testing. When Liverpool had an especially high rate of covid-19 infections, with 440 cases per 100,000 people, the Army was utilised for logistical support. As I speak, the covid-19 infection rate in Hull is more than 760 per 100,000. We need that help too, now.
Secondly, we require additional expert support from Public Health England and the Joint Biosecurity Centre, to work alongside Hull’s director of public health on the analysis and responses to the pandemic, and to pin down where the infection is spreading, and why. Thirdly, we seek additional local flexibility for Hull’s schools— 55 of the 97 schools are affected by bubble or year group closures. On Tuesday, attendance was just 65%. As a former schools Minister, I want to keep schools open if at all possible, but to do that we need national support that permits a flexing of the national covid-19 rules—something local headteachers have asked for—so as to keep only vulnerable children and the children of key workers at school in areas where infection rates are spiralling and staff absences are too high. When Nottingham had high covid rates it was granted extra local powers and flexibilities, so please can we have them in Hull? We know that children from disadvantaged communities are falling behind due to covid-19, so we also need extra help with laptops and internet access.
Fourthly, Hull has been hit hard by covid and its economic consequences, and with national lockdown due to end in a fortnight, we need to know and start to plan now for what will happen in Hull, and the wider Humber region, after 2 December. If we move to tier 3 —or even, as has been mooted, to tier 4—in December, Hull will need additional support for businesses, just like Liverpool and Greater Manchester received. With Hull being a low-wage economy, I am concerned that we must consider further flexibility to support working families when asked to isolate, and we would like flexibilities around the £500 payment.
Jobs, livelihoods, and the future of Hull depend on that vital economic support. In the lead-up to the festive period, Hull cannot once again be the forgotten city, as it has often felt, from the Blitz to the Brexit preparations. We want to start to plan for Christmas and the new year, and give hope to our people.
I have listened to the Government’s commitment to levelling up in the north, and I gently remind the Prime Minister that that means the whole north, including areas with Labour MPs. The Prime Minister tells us that we must unite cross-party—absolutely—but amid all the recent Downing Street shenanigans, I was disappointed that northern Conservative MPs were invited to Downing Street for photo calls, while MPs from the worst hit cities who were seeking help were ignored.
In conclusion, Hull’s covid infection rate is expected to be very high for days and weeks to come. This cannot wait. We need answers. In Hull we have often had to make our own luck in areas such as green energy. We are proud, resilient and resourceful, but we need help now.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
Over recent months there has been robust and at times heated debate about the response to the covid-19 pandemic, from testing roll-out to PPE stocks, school closures and lockdown restrictions. We have stood in this House and debated fiercely with one another about the right course of action to take, and I have no doubt that in the months to come, that lively and necessary intensity of debate will continue.
We have seen great successes, and it is a testament to the ingenuity of British businesses that they have been able to adapt existing resources to manufacture vast amounts of PPE, and that small and medium-sized enterprises have had, and will have, greater opportunities to access public sector contracts. We have seen mass testing, reaching 500,000 capacity, due to the hard work and dedication of many individuals and organisations.
However, I think it will be universally agreed on both sides of the House and across the country that this pandemic has shone a light on acts of heroism, dedication, fortitude and inspiration by our wonderful frontline NHS staff and care workers. Amazing doctors and nurses, porters, cleaners, receptionists and pharmacists, our GPs, care assistants and the management across our NHS trusts and care homes have all worked, under extraordinary conditions, to protect us and to nurse those who suffer back to health as best they can. These are the real heroes and heroines of this pandemic.
Many of us will have read reports and articles, and received correspondence from those frontline health workers, showing that some are about to be hit with hospital car parking charges, including a 200% rise at one of the UK’s biggest trusts. That cannot be right. Back in March, the Government rightly introduced, for a temporary period, free hospital car parking for NHS staff. That was absolutely the right thing to do. With Christmas fast approaching, I ask the Government to provide our health and care workers with an early present. Let us extend the free hospital car parking again and make sure that our brave NHS workers continue to battle the virus. We should do all we can to support them in a limited period of time.
I am tempted to go further this Christmas and even suggest extending the free car parking beyond hospitals, and ask the Government and MPs to consider and encourage free car parking in local authority car parks, for this limited period of time, for our NHS and social care staff. NHS staff have been there for us throughout this pandemic, under extraordinary pressure. Let us give them a little perk this Christmas. Little perks matter. Let us make life a little easier for them.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
Back in March, when our worst fears were confirmed and the first lockdown hit, I thought that some aspects of the UK Government’s response would be taken as read. I worked in public health and emergency planning before entering this place, and I know at first hand what a response should look like in the most basic terms and what it should feel like. I expected usual processes to function and best practice to kick in, and for muscle memory and accepted norms to initially, at least, shape our response. And I expected all that to happen underpinned by Government support.
I accept that the extraordinary nature of those months, as the Minister said in opening this debate, was unusual, However, as the National Audit Office report states, there were 11 ministerial directions. I do not accept that the virus was unexpected: the scenario planning was based on a threat of this type. I do not accept that the NHS was prepared: the Government were consistently warned that running at 95% capacity was not sustainable. And I do not accept that the way in which the response was led is beyond scrutiny.
What we heard from the Dispatch Box earlier was worrying, and I hope that the Paymaster General will clarify the situation when she winds up the debate. Essentially, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), said, “Nothing we have done was corrupt.” However, issuing a ministerial direction is serious. It is about regularity, propriety, value for money and feasibility —and these contracts do not stand that test. One of the contracts for free school meals, for example, was with Edenred, a French company. There was no formal tender process under the emergency regulations, despite existing processes and companies being able to provide those critical school meal vouchers back in early spring. That took so much time and energy from schools in my constituency. It affected vulnerable children and that is totally unacceptable.
We may not be able to scrutinise the Government as we should because we passed the Coronavirus Act 2020, but the Select Committee on Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs, of which I am a member, will continue to do its job. I hope the Government will consider a more open and transparent way of operating in the coming months and that they will look at our report—the Minister gave evidence to the inquiry—in order to learn some of the lessons of what we should have used from the Civil Contingencies 2004. I am afraid time precludes me from talking about that in more detail, but we should return to that in this place.
I said in July that I hoped that we had turned a corner and that there would be more local work and a more local response. I genuinely thought that we might, but we have not, have we? As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) has outlined, we will continue to try to make positive suggestions, but it remains the case that people in Bristol South are being disproportionately hammered by covid compared with other parts of the country. For the young and the very old, those on low incomes or in insecure work, those living in houses in multiple occupation, those from black and minority ethnic communities, those from multi-generational households, the cooks, cleaners and retail and hospitality workers, and those who rely on the Government, their inequalities are being exacerbated. This is made worse by the fact that the Government have lost time and wasted valuable knowledge that they could have used locally to manage the system better.
On the Select Committee on Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs, our inquiry has shown that the disconnect between the local and the national has been deeply problematic. In early May, we heard evidence from Sir Ian Diamond of the Office for National Statistics about how we could have utilised much of the data that is available much better, but again the Government have been too slow, and we need them to try to be much better. I think lessons are being learned, but I do not think they are being learned by Ministers and the Cabinet; the political direction and leadership are desperately worrying. We want the Government to do much better, and it is not too late to reset—it really is not. Our lives and our families depend on it, but it is crucial that the Government build back trust and admit where they have got things wrong. People will understand that. We need to empower local capacity and knowledge to lead the work, shape local solutions to the challenge, and deliver on the ground so that we can all have our lives back.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
I have made no secret of the fact that throughout this pandemic, I have been repeatedly impressed by the Government’s response to this monumental crisis. This is a good Government doing good things, yet be in no doubt, Madam Deputy Speaker, that what we are experiencing is the greatest challenge this country has faced since 1945. Since March of this year, little over two months after we had all first heard of covid-19, the Government responded at breakneck speed to ensure that we would both cope economically and save as many lives as possible. From the establishment of the furlough scheme and the Nightingale hospitals to the self-employed income support scheme and the rapid testing, this Government’s swift action has enabled us to weather the worst of the storm presented by this virus.
However, there is one issue that I believe urgently needs addressing by the Government as we manage this second lockdown and deal with the economic pain it is causing. That issue is that of sole directors of limited companies. Initially, I understood why it was difficult for the Government to offer such individuals support, as they had done for employees at the start of the pandemic. Having been in business myself, I am also far too aware that many directors of this kind pay themselves through dividends, and consequently have saved money by not making national insurance contributions. This, I initially reasoned, was one of the reasons why the Government could justify not offering the same level of support as they did for the self-employed back in March this year, yet now the situation is very different. We have entered the second lockdown, which has hurt many of the smallest businesses which are operated by self-employed directors.
This cannot only be looked at as unfortunate, because the other fact is that while these individuals have not been offered any support, supermarkets have been provided with up to £1.9 billion in support as a result of their business rate relief. On Monday, the Financial Times reported that £1 in every £6 of rate relief went to the big four supermarkets, which have reported nothing but strong sales throughout this pandemic as pubs, restaurants and cafes have been shut.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we are a nation that is known to keep calm and carry on during times of crisis. We have undoubtedly seen that fighting spirit throughout this terrible pandemic, yet we are also known to be a nation that has a strong sense of fairness. Put simply, it is not fair that while directors of limited companies have received little support from the state, huge companies such as Tesco and Asda are benefiting from rate relief despite having seen good sales. We need this money back. Of course, I understand that redistributing these funds to such individuals may be administratively difficult, so I believe the Government should evaluate how this can be done based on a company’s turnover. It is a blunt instrument, but it is one way of doing it. In my view as both a Member of Parliament and a businessman, directors of limited companies with a turnover of £1 million or less should be provided adequate support by the Government through the use of the money we will take back from the supermarkets. I firmly believe that the vast majority of the public would be happy with this arrangement, seeing it as just and fair.
Undoubtedly, as we look back in years to come, individuals will criticise the mistakes the Government have made in the chaos of this pandemic, yet if the Government follow through with this policy, no one can say they did not act in a fair way. If this cannot be done, we should also remember that we cannot tax these people heavily on their way out of the pandemic when they have received little support from the Government.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I appreciate this opportunity to pay tribute to some of my constituents who have had such a tough time during this pandemic and during the lockdowns and restrictions. The businesses in Richmond Park have had a really difficult time, but I have been so impressed by how they have responded to the challenge, made themselves covid-secure and continued to deliver for my local constituents in whatever sector they are in. I pay tribute to those who have gone above and beyond and made a difference to the community. I am thinking of my favourite pizza restaurant in north Kingston, Peppe, which has been providing pizzas to NHS staff every time someone has bought a pizza from it.
Our cultural organisations, which we value so highly in Richmond Park, have had a really tough time. They were all opening up again and having record demand for tickets during October. Then, of course, we had the current lockdown, and we are hoping against hope that they can still open in December. I am particularly looking forward to going to see “Rapunzel” at the OSO Arts Centre in Barnes in December. It is billing it as “The Original Isolation Story”, so I think that is something we are all looking forward to.
I want to take this opportunity to draw attention to people who have been without financial support during the lockdown. I welcome all the Government’s efforts on furlough, and there is absolutely no doubt that that has been critical to the survival of many businesses not just in my constituency but elsewhere. However, I want to highlight the lack of support for those on contracts and the self-employed, which we raised in the Public Accounts Committee hearing with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs on Monday. That is a big issue in my constituency. We have lots of people who are employed by the live events sector, which of course has been really badly hit during the lockdown, and it struggled to come back before the second lockdown. I just do not understand why we cannot do more for this particular group of people who have been paying taxes for years. All the records are at HMRC, and there is absolutely no reason why more could not have been done for them.
The children in my constituency have suffered huge disruption throughout the summer. I am so pleased to see them all back in school. I was speaking to year 6 at the Vineyard School in Richmond just this morning, and it was wonderful to see them all there. I very much look forward to being able to visit them in person soon. I would also ask the Government for some clarity on what will happen with exams next summer. That is what headteachers are asking for, and they need a decision now. Are exams going to be cancelled, as they have been in Wales by the Lib Dem Minister for Education there, or will there be a different source of assessment? Something needs to be done, and teachers ideally need to know before Christmas, so that they have time to prepare.
I was speaking to the management team at my local hospital, Kingston Hospital, last week, and that reminded me why we are doing this lockdown. They have had a big increase in hospitalisations, which, at the end of the day, are what we need to be careful of. I want to reiterate what the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) said earlier, and it is the message from my local hospital too: “Please, please, please continue to attend”. I have heard some distressing tales of cancer sufferers whose conditions have worsened through not being able to access health services during the first lockdown, and I really do not want to hear any more.
I pay tribute to all the voluntary organisations in Richmond Park. I was speaking to FiSH, which looks after the elderly residents of Barnes. Its particular issue has been isolation, and I am so pleased about all the work that it and all the other excellent neighbourhood charities in Richmond Park have done, with befriending calls and so on.
Finally, it is such welcome news about the vaccine. We are all very excited about that, but there is an urgent need for clarity about how we get from here to where we have all been vaccinated and can operate safely again. I urge the Government to bring forward announcements on that as soon as they possibly can.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney).
I pay tribute to all the amazing key workers who have worked tirelessly this year in the care system, the NHS and local government, which I think is quite often forgotten, as well as the police and our teachers. However, I also pay tribute to the local people of my constituency of the Cities of London and Westminster. Many people think that central London is an unfriendly place, but I can tell them that it is a place that is full of community spirit. I have seen that at first hand in the City, on the Golden Lane estate, in the Barbican and on Mansell Street. I have seen it at the Square Mile food bank, which has done brilliant work. It is manned by volunteers, and I pay tribute to them. I have seen it in Westminster, among the residents of Pimlico, Marylebone, Covent Garden, Belgravia and Paddington, who are really working together to help the more vulnerable in our society. I saw it when Westminster City Council launched its Westminster Connects volunteer scheme, which I took part in myself, helping to prepare food for the rough sleepers we have brought in. Some 90% of rough sleepers were brought in under the Government’s Everyone In scheme, which was outstanding. So I pay tribute to everyone today.
I pay tribute to the Government. Let us not forget how far we have come in 10 months. Yes, there have been difficulties, but we now have amazing laboratories doing the testing, we have the PPE, and we have the NHS working so well. I pay tribute to the Government for doing that, and I look forward to the vaccine coming on board and to us being able, hopefully, to get back to some normality at some point next year. It is also important to pay tribute to the businesses. Central London is usually first out of the traps when it comes to facing up to an economic depression or recession. Sadly, this time, I think we will be one of the last to get back to normal. We used to see 1 million people come into my constituency to work every day, but they have disappeared and the retail and hospitality sectors have paid the price, as have other service industries such as beauty therapists, cobblers and dry cleaners. Those small businesses rely on workers and visitors coming in every day of the week, but they have disappeared. I also pay tribute to the brilliant financial schemes that the Government have brought in. I held a roundtable for representatives of the theatre industry in my constituency last week, and every single one of them paid tribute to the furlough system.
However, there are still things we could do. I would like to see an extension to the business rate holiday. I would also like to see an extension to the VAT cut, maybe to other industries such as the beauty industry and hairdressers, who have been hit particularly during the second lockdown. As we move towards the lifting of restrictions, hopefully in a couple of weeks’ time, we need to plan ahead. Businesses need to know what tier they will go into. We also need to look at the 10 pm curfew, which to me is counterintuitive. I would rather see the ability to stagger the times at which people leave restaurants and bars, because I think that would be safer. I would also like to thank the business organisations that I have been working with, such as UKHospitality, who have made their arguments. I have enjoyed working with those people, because they care about their sectors and about recovering the economy when it is safe to do so.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
In order to try to accommodate everybody, I will reduce the time limit to three minutes after the next speaker.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
This is a crisis of a proportion that we could never have imagined, but it seems that cronyism has proliferated in a number of recent appointments by this Government. Of course, Dido Harding’s appointment is an example of that. She is someone who continues to sit on the Benches in the House of Lords as a Conservative peer. She asks and answers questions as a Conservative peer. She has been appointed to run part of a Government Department, not as a Minister and not via the standards in public appointments process—in fact, that was totally disregarded in her appointment under the guise of this crisis—but because she has some contacts and was in the telephone industry, which she apparently was not very good at anyway. She has been appointed, and of course her husband is the tsar in charge of anti-corruption and all that kind of stuff.
Of course, it might well be that the very best people are appointed in a pandemic. It might well be that honest, good decisions have been made, but one of the central points of anti-corruption is the idea of transparency and the idea that public appointments and public contracts are given through due process, even if that due process is extended or expedited, and even if, in the end, the appointments go to the same people. That is not what we have seen and we need urgent action on building trust back into some of those appointments.
We also need to build trust back into many sectors. Teachers need trust put back into many of the decisions around exams, for example. I have just come off a call with the general secretary of the National Education Union and his feeling is that teachers are totally confused about what is actually going to happen. Will there be exams or will there not? Will there not be exams in Wales and Scotland? None of this would have been a problem if we had not had the scrapping of coursework.
The problem would also not be exacerbated if we were able to properly scrutinise Ministers, not just in this place, but in correspondence and parliamentary questions. The reality is that the response time to parliamentary questions is woeful. My caseworkers pull their hair out every single day, and it is not fair. In good times, Government get it wrong and maltreat our constituents. They do it all the time, whatever the Government guise—under whatever party is in government —and one of our roles is to correct those wrongs when they are done. Correction is not always done through the courts. It is very often done by the MP.
If my caseworker has to wait a whole day on the phone for the advice line for immigration, only to be told, “I am terribly sorry; we haven’t followed that case up in three months, even though we promised you three months ago that we would follow it up”—that is routine, Minister—there is a real problem with the system. I have a single mum, for example, who claimed benefits. Someone else fraudulently claimed in her name. She has been chased down by debt collectors about universal credit. She has been treated appallingly. The Department for Work and Pensions agreed with me in the end that it was a fraudulent claim from someone else and that there should be no debt collectors, but it has not informed the debt collectors properly. Normally, we would phone the right people up and get through to the Minister, but that is not possible in this period. That needs to change.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle). I have only three minutes and I have three somewhat disconnected points, so I will try to make them quickly.
I shall start with the situation in my constituency of Newcastle-under-Lyme. We have had a lot of good news on the national level recently in the medium to longer term. We have had good news on the amount of testing available, good news on PPE and the best news of all, obviously, is about the vaccines. Congratulations to the scientists on their breakthroughs and congratulations, too, to the Vaccine Taskforce on all the work that it has done to make sure that we are in the right place when those vaccines become available.
But locally and in the short term, I am afraid the news is not so good. The case rate in Newcastle-under-Lyme has risen to 464 per 100,000 and in neighbouring Stoke-on-Trent, it is up to 562 per 100,000, which I believe is the seventh worst in the country, there or thereabouts. This has put a huge amount of pressure on our local hospital, the Royal Stoke. I would like to praise all the staff there, including the doctors and nurses, under the leadership of Tracy Bullock, who is doing a phenomenal job and has been briefing all the local MPs on what is going on. They have 304 people in hospital with covid at the moment and 32 are in critical care. They expect a further 100 by the end of next week based on modelling. They also have a lot of staff absence related to covid, with people having to self-isolate—62% of the staff absence is related to that. In the time available, I would like to impress upon the people in north Staffordshire the seriousness of the situation we are facing and the importance of continuing to follow the Government guidance.
I turn briefly to what we are asking of people in isolation and the evidence we heard on the Science and Technology Committee’s joint inquiry. I believe that what we are asking of contacts of people without symptoms is not rooted in probability, is not realistic and is not rooted in human behaviour. We heard from Professor Sir John Bell on 10 November that the data on asking people who have no symptoms and are just a contact to isolate for 14 days shows that very few of them are actually infected. He said:
“In order to prevent a single transmission, you have to isolate 70 of those people for one day. It is massively ineffective. The trouble is that people out there know it is massively ineffective. That is why they hate it.”
I think we have to be realistic about how isolation works. What we need to do, using the new lateral flow testing, is to find a way, as Sir John Bell said in his evidence, to enable people who are merely contacts to essentially test their way out of isolation at an earlier stage. I believe that the same could also be applied to travel quarantine.
Finally, as I have only three minutes, I wish to turn to long covid. I bring high praise from my mother-in-law, who has suffered from long covid, to the Secretary of State for what he said at the press conference on Monday. I have seen for myself how debilitating long covid has been for her. It is debilitating for lots of people across the country. It is damaging to everybody, not just the older people who are suffering worse from covid—I should stress that my mother-in-law is not an older person. I very much welcome the 40 long covid clinics that the Secretary of State has set out. We have a lot still to learn about this disease and that will be of great benefit to the people who have suffered.
To conclude, there is some light at the end of the tunnel. Science has shown us the way and I pay tribute to the Department for Health and Social Care for everything that it has been doing.
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind)
Amid a deadly second wave and record-breaking numbers of covid-19 infections, it is important to act for change. The virus is continuing to rise. The measures put in place are not working. Time is running out. My constituency of Leicester East knows this only too well as our city has been under enhanced restrictions and/or lockdown longer than any other area in the UK, yet our numbers are continuing to rise.
People in Leicester East and across the country cannot afford to live below the minimum wage. Even before this crisis, more than half of the 40 million people in poverty in the UK were part of the working poor—suffering in-work poverty. Child poverty is off the scale due to a decade of austerity, extortionate rents and declining living standards. The Conservatives have overseen an unacceptable breakdown in our social contract in which a job no longer provides a route out of destitution. Yet now, during an unprecedented crisis, the Government are handing out poverty payslips and driving our residents into hardship. Will the Government today commit to ensure that no one receives less than a living wage throughout the remainder of this crisis? We are only as safe as the most vulnerable in our society, so, yes, local and regional authorities need funding to use their discretion to fully support undocumented workers and those on no recourse to public funds. Will this Government relax the barriers and grant status now to all undocumented workers, so that they can access much-needed social security benefit and not be destitute or desperate?
What makes this lack of support even more disgraceful is the billions that the Government have been willing to pay to private companies to oversee the disastrous test, track and trace system. The recent National Audit Office investigation into Government procurement has highlighted cronyism at the heart of Government. That has had a devastating impact on the spread of the virus in Leicester. In one week this month, the success rate of Leicester’s privatised contact system was just 55.5% and this has decreased by more than 5% on the previous month. That means that, in one week alone, nearly 700 Leicester residents who may have been exposed to the virus were not informed and therefore did not self-isolate. This is a Government who are frivolous when it comes to handing out public money to Tory donors or private companies, but penny-pinching when it comes to bailing out communities and the 3 million excluded, including the self-employed across the country.
As the representative of one of the most diverse areas of the UK, I am also especially concerned about the disproportionate impact of coronavirus on African, Asian and minority ethnic communities. Recently published research by the universities of Leicester and Nottingham found that black people were twice as likely, and Asian people 1.5 times more likely, to be infected with covid-19 compared with white—
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
The announcement of the preliminary results of the effectiveness of the Pfizer and Moderna covid vaccines is great news, a ray of hope at a time when we are tired, weary and going through a second lockdown. There are still many questions, but the direction of travel is a good one.
I will talk in a moment about the many challenges ahead, but before then I want to point out that this Government are unrivalled in their support of research and innovation. They have led the world in funding and promoting efforts to find treatments and vaccines, and it is this Government who are already laying down plans to deploy a vaccine. After further analysis and the results from the vaccine trials come good, it will still take some time until we are on the other side of this. Depending who you listen to, life can be back to normal by spring, by summer, by winter, by next year. We simply cannot yet know, and while now we have reason to be optimistic, none of this helps those struggling now.
Lockdowns are incredibly damaging and the lockdown itself will have a cost in lives in the future. We need to think where we will be after six months more of this. The Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies does not consider the economic impact of its recommendations, which is a substantial limitation. The economic impact will cost lives through diseases generated through poverty. Our public services are built on the back of a strong economy. Economic damage means less money to invest in medical care and treatment, in community services and in education, again with a cost in lives and quality of life.
Decisions are being made on epidemiological scientific information alone. Although we have been able to see interpreted data—I thank the Government for making experts available—we have been unable to interrogate SAGE and the modellers directly or to see economic impact assessments. The Government’s decision making is rightly based on the science. As any scientist knows, scientists disagree all the time. We need to be able to hold Ministers to account and to interrogate the scientists advising them.
I therefore support calls for a covid commission to take an overall view of all the features of the covid response, but again, that does not help those affected now. We will need to make more difficult decisions over the next few weeks. Lockdowns and restrictions, like all interventions, are a tool—one that has great side effects but, deployed cautiously when necessary, can prevent the NHS from being overwhelmed. Just like in any discussion about a potential treatment with a doctor, before someone consents, they need to know the risks and benefits. That is why we must see clearly the projected harms and benefits before we make any decision.
We are told that there is no alternative, but with potential vaccines around the corner, we will be living with covid and its impact for some time. We cannot simply ask those who are struggling to wait just a bit more, just a bit more, just a bit more, so we need to have now an enduring plan to live with the virus.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer). I appreciate that time is short, but let me start by offering my heartfelt thanks to NHS staff, care staff, key workers, volunteers and, indeed, our whole community. There has been the most terrific national effort at a time of great crisis that is, indeed, unprecedented in peacetime.
I would like to correct—or to set the record straight—what the hon. Gentleman said about the economy. It is quite clear from international evidence, including from the OECD and other economic sources, that we are not facing an either/or choice between a short lockdown and protecting the economy. A shorter lockdown—a quicker lockdown—protects the economy. Indeed, SAGE recommended that the Government should take action earlier this autumn, and it is such a tragedy that they did not. They are now, once again belatedly, following advice. I urge the Prime Minister to try to react much more quickly to these pressing matters.
I would like to make two key points based on casework from my constituency. I am sure that the Minister will want to consider them, but I urge her and her colleagues to take them on board. The first is about the expansion of testing, and it relates to the importance of testing home care staff—care staff who visit vulnerable people at home. I had a fascinating but worrying discussion with an elderly resident who pointed out to me that she is visited by her home carer, who has to see 14 other people each day yet has no testing.
Surely, the Government should be prioritising that form of testing—it is absolutely common sense—in the same way that they are now belatedly tackling the need to test care home staff on a much more regular basis. I am grateful to the Minister, and I appreciate that she is in a difficult position with the short supply of testing, but I urge her to consider these sorts of cases. It was a very difficult conversation that I had to have with that elderly woman, who is vulnerable, yet her carer is unable to get a test. I hope that the Government can address that soon.
My other point picks up on something that other Members have already spoken about eloquently. There are many groups of people who have been missed by the Government’s attempts to support the economically vulnerable, but following a conversation I had with a constituent, I want to draw the Minister’s attention to one particular group: people with small businesses who have had no support whatsoever. There is quite a large group of them—3 million people. In a country of 65 million, that is a really large proportion.
I wish that the Chancellor, for all his eloquent rhetoric in the House, would look at that practical problem. He has had six months to address it, and it has not been addressed. The case of my constituent is really telling. She set up a new small business in a thriving sector of the economy just before the pandemic started. She had no idea, but she was completely vulnerable to this terrible pandemic. Please will Ministers address the problem of these 3 million people? They are in desperate need.
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
One of the issues to emerge with covid is the apparent difference in rates and severity for different ethnic groups. To generalise, if someone is from a black, Asian and minority ethnic background, they are at greater risk when it comes to covid. This is accepted. But for some, it has been connected to an argument about discrimination—and this is actually coming from senior figures.
The chair of the British Medical Association appeared before the Health and Social Care Committee yesterday, so I took the chance to ask him about some of the views that he has expressed on this topic. Dr Nagpaul talked about “structural factors”, “differential attainment” and anecdotal evidence on PPE. I asked him several times whether he thought that the NHS was structurally racist. He would not repeat the term, but kept repeating that there were inequalities, and he said: “That’s what I am describing under that heading of racist”.
The NHS is probably the most diverse organisation in the country. It is doing heroic work to battle coronavirus. That effort has come from everyone within it, yet some regard the organisation as somehow racist. For me, this is personal, because both of my parents worked as nurses for our NHS in Peterborough.
Claudia Webbe
Does the hon. Member not agree that the intensive care beds are filled today with covid-19 patients from African, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds—back at levels seen during the first peak, despite earlier pledges from the Government to learn lessons and protect the vulnerable? What we need is change now.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I really do urge people not to make interventions, because it is going to prevent other people from speaking.
Paul Bristow
I thank the hon. Member for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe) for her comments, but if she listens further to my speech, she might fully appreciate the points that I am trying to make.
The conclusion that the NHS is somehow structurally racist can come only from the new logic of our age. The standard form of this new logic is this: if 10% of people are characteristic x, then 10% of workers should be x, 10% of every company should be x, 10% of every role should be x and 10% of all chief execs should be x, and where that is not true, it is offered as evidence of discrimination—differences are inequalities, and the logic assumes that what is unequal must be wrong. We have seen this logic applied to sex, gender, education or geographical background, disabilities and race, and now it is being applied to a virus: if 10% of NHS staff get covid, 10% of NHS staff with characteristic x should get covid, and because that does not hold for BAME staff, it is viewed as evidence of racism. I am staggered by how many intelligent people seem to have bought into this argument.
Characteristics cannot be taken in isolation; we have to control for variables. Moreover, no free society will ever see equal distributions for anything, even if individuals started from the same place. And, Madam Deputy Speaker, we do not—we do not in character; we do not socially; we do not genetically; we do not economically; we do not in terms of upbringing, geographical opportunity or education; we do not in health and diet; we do not in career paths; and we do not in our preferences. These may be inequalities, but they are not evidence of discrimination. That does not change when characteristics are used to define groups. As any scientist should know, correlation is not causation. As scientists also know, getting particular diseases and viruses is not uniform, particularly across ethnic groups. No organisation could escape from this mad progressive logic: if it was not damned for one thing, it would be damned for another, no matter how woke its values—just look at The Guardian.
I want to be very clear: obviously there are incidents of racism within our NHS. There is still racism within our society. The NHS is far more diverse than most organisations, but it employs human beings, and it gets its fair share of bad ones. This needs to be detected and it needs firm action. Likewise, the NHS can be unwieldly and inefficient, so problems are not always dealt with as they should be. But this pandemic has shown our NHS at its best and its staff at their best. We ought to be proud of them. If—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. The hon. Gentleman has had longer than three minutes.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I echo the sentiments of many Members in thanking our NHS workers for the work they have done throughout this crisis and will be expected to do through the winter ahead. I want to focus on an issue that affects them very keenly: the national scrubs crisis, which leaves NHS workers without the equipment they need to do their job in fighting covid on the frontline.
In answer to a written question I asked, the Government assured me in August that
“NHS Supply Chain, the main provider of consumables and equipment into the National Health Service, report that its suppliers have sufficient supplies of scrubs for NHS customers to order.”
That is not the case on the ground, as I am told by so many NHS staff and by those who are sewing scrubs on a voluntary basis across the country. The Government are lying, in denial or blissfully unaware of the reality on the ground. I would like the Minister to take the time following the debate to look into the scrubs crisis, to meet the leader of the Putney scrub hub, who is a very inspiring woman, and to find out what is going on at NHS Supply Chain in order to sort this out.
It is essential that our NHS workers have enough scrubs and the right scrubs in the right size. Scrubs must be lightweight enough to be worn under other PPE, and they must not take three months to order from abroad, as they currently do, if an order can even be got in. There has been a massive increase in the need for scrubs in hospitals, clinics, care homes, prisons and now vaccination clinics. The demand for scrubs will increase at a time when we cannot even provide enough scrubs to our NHS workers. Staff are being told to go home. There is one hospital that has 500 staff and 300 scrubs, so 200 staff are being sent home because they do not have the equipment they need. Newly qualified medical staff are being told to find their own scrubs, and they cannot get hold of them.
The Putney scrub hub in my constituency, which has a highly-skilled leader, is making 15,000 scrub sets, all from a squash court in Roehampton. Those volunteers are still making those scrubs, and they want to go home. That is why I implore the Minister to look into this. The most recent orders they have had are from a psychiatric unit in West Middlesex University Hospital, from King’s College Hospital, Central Middlesex Hospital, the West London Kidney Patients’ Association—I could go on, but this demonstrates that a lot of NHS providers do not have enough scrubs.
There seems to be no central co-ordination of scrubs procurement and no national plan to deal with obvious supply issues. In July, I said that the Government needed to put this at the top of their to-do list to sort out in the summer. It has still not been sorted out, but there is time. Can the Minister address this and enable Putney scrub hub volunteers to put down their scissors and get back to their normal lives?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
We will start the winding-up speeches at 6.44 pm. There are three speakers left, so if colleagues take two minutes instead of three, we can get everybody in. I call Tom Hunt.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I will be incredibly quick.
This is an incredibly fast-moving situation, and it is too early to tell whether the second national lockdown has had the effect that the Government would have liked. Although it is hard to provide certainty, that is what a growing number of people in my constituency need. Retailers and the hospitality sector have lost November, which is one of their busiest months. They need to know as soon as possible what December will look like. Will they have the opportunity to make up some of the losses they have made so far, or will the restrictions be extended? Non-essential retailers in particular need that certainty, such as Coes on Norwich Road in my constituency, which provides essential school supplies. There is an argument that it should have been allowed to stay open, because there is a lack of a level playing field between that shop and essential retailers that sell non-essential items within them and were able to carry on selling those products. However, we do not want to see the scenes that we saw in Wales.
The school kids I met last Friday at Stoke High School have already lost a lot of learning, and they want certainty about what their education will look like in the year ahead. They want to know whether they will do exams and whether their mocks are a practice or will count towards the grade they end up getting. They deserve certainty as soon as possible as well.
I want to touch briefly on test and trace. I agree with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell). Compliance is very low at the moment among contacts asked to self-isolate for 14 days. Some of that is to do with financial assistance, but some of it is also to do with the toll of going through that period. I have done it myself, and it is incredibly difficult for people who live in a small property with no fresh air.
Ipswich has low levels of covid compared with other parts of country. We need to remain vigilant, and we need certainty in key areas as soon as the Government are able to provide it. The education sector needs to know whether there will be exams and what they will look like, and the retail and hospitality sector needs to know whether it will be able to use December to make those gains. They need to plan soon, and every day matters, because hopefully they will be able to do that.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
As I said in the Chamber two weeks ago, it goes against every bone in the body to impose restrictions on livelihoods and curtail people’s freedoms. I want to use my two minutes to talk about the next steps.
The whole Government have done a fantastic job supporting people and businesses throughout this unprecedented crisis, but grants and financial support can be no substitute for our businesses being open. From speaking to many businesses across Keighley and Ilkley, it is clear that a number of them relish the opportunity to stand on their own feet again. Therefore, as the country unlocks, it is vital that decisions are taken on the basis of risk and past evidence of risk, not on pre-conceived ideas.
I will focus on two types of businesses in particular. First, as a result of the enhanced local restrictions put in place in my constituency at the end of July, gyms and fitness and dance studios did not open at the start of September—indeed they were among the last to open in the UK. However, they have proved to be some of the safest places to visit. Therefore, beyond 2 December we must get our gyms and dance studios open across the country, because they are vital to improving people’s mental health as well as their fitness. That brings me to outdoor sports, which, from children playing football to a couple playing a round of golf, are absolutely beneficial to mental health and improving fitness. I urge the Minister to ensure that golf clubs can get back open.
Finally, I turn to non-essential retail and services such as the hair and beauty sector who have also been asked to close. My constituency is home to a wealth of independent shops, which are the backbone of the local economy. We must give those businesses the opportunity to open again, because they have spent so much money on becoming covid-secure. The answer is: yes, let us get those businesses back open to get our economy running.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
Thank you for your flexibility in managing the timetable, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have two points that I will try to make in two minutes. The first is for those constituents who are bearing the lockdown with a great deal of patience and fortitude but who have concerns about the policy approach. I urge Ministers to share the data we have as widely as possible. I understand that the quality-adjusted life year measure that is standard for medical treatments in the NHS is not directly relevant to public health, but the more we can explain and demonstrate the value of this lockdown in preserving our economy and people’s wellbeing so that we come out of the period in good shape, the more confidence the lockdown will command. We should treat that as an urgent task, because people bear these measures with patience and fortitude—I think when history looks back on this time we will regard them as proportionate—but none the less we need to ensure that they feel willing to comply with them.
Secondly, I pay a big tribute to all those in the children’s sector who have ensured that nurseries, schools and childcare settings have remained open so that key workers and—vitally—working parents can keep doing their jobs. However, a challenge I am conscious of that affects businesses such as Jungle Monkeyz and Jurassic Perk in my constituency and many others around the country is the fate of soft play centres and other venues for children. They are closed at the moment, and recognise that the market will be there for them when they seek to reopen, but they are concerned about cash flow and any impact on the jobs of the people they employ. Therefore, when Ministers look at the financial support provided to all kinds of businesses, may I ask them to recognise how the wellbeing of working parents and children is supported by those businesses’ activities and that they seek to ensure that an appropriate degree of priority is given to them in the financial measures available in local areas?
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
As this dreadful pandemic continues week by week, we cannot allow ourselves for a moment to be desensitised by the numbers. In the last seven days alone, 2,909 people have died from covid-19 in the UK. Each one leaves behind grieving family and friends; my thoughts are with them. I pay tribute to everyone working in our NHS and social care, key workers in retail and distribution, postal workers, community organisations and many others working through the long, gruelling slog of coronavirus.
None of us debating coronavirus in this House is arguing to score points. The focus of this important debate, challenge and scrutiny is to save lives. That is important, because in the UK we are in the devastating situation of having both the worst coronavirus death rate in Europe and the deepest economic recession of any country in the G7. Scrutiny and accountability matter, and I am grateful to all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate. The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mark Eastwood) highlighted the exhaustion and burn-out of NHS staff in his constituency, and the risk to NHS staffing levels. However, his neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), gave him a clue about the reasons for that, with the impact of NHS cuts on people’s resilience and capability to cope with coronavirus.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) raised the devastating impact of coronavirus on black, Asian and minority ethnic communities, and their lack of participation in vaccine trials, calling for urgent action to address that. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Feryal Clark) highlighted the devastating impact on families with loved ones in care homes who are unable to visit them at present. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) argued for the urgent need for action to tackle misinformation from fake news on social media. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) spoke powerfully, from her own experience, of NHS emergency planning. The hon. Members for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) and for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) both raised gaps in the Government’s provision of economic support in relation to coronavirus.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) spoke about the woeful failure of Ministers to answer questions and inquiries from MPs, which is vital at this time. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) highlighted the urgent issue of access to testing for home care workers, and my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) spoke passionately about the national scrubs crisis and, again, the urgent need for Government action.
Today is a day on which the step change that we need to see from the Government is clear. The National Audit Office has delivered its report on pandemic procurement, and it makes for uncomfortable reading. At best, the findings expose shambolic incompetence, with documents missing and no clear trail of accountability. At worst, there may be deliberate attempts by the Government to withhold information and cover their tracks while wasting public money and awarding lucrative contracts to friends and donors. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that the Government must seriously clean up their procurement act in response to the coronavirus pandemic.
This debate is about covid, the many difficult challenges that it poses and how we as a country might overcome them. It is clear that the Government’s crony-riddled, incompetent approach to outsourcing vital public services has significantly undermined the response. Nowhere is the impact of that illustrated more clearly or worryingly than in contact tracing. It is as clear as day that the Government’s national contact tracing system is not working. Labour has brought concerns about that to the House many times, as the system has consistently failed to meet the 80% target required for it to be effective, and the performance trend in recent weeks has got worse, not better.
When the Government announced the newest lockdown, the Opposition urged them to take the time to fix the contact tracing system, but that has still not happened. Last week’s figures showed that the system was failing, as 40% of close contacts were not reached—half the proportion needed effectively to break the chain of transmission. Labour, along, I am sure, with everyone in the House, is unequivocally delighted about the promising news on vaccines, but the roll-outs will take some time, and in the short term there is no silver bullet. We still need an effective, localised contact tracing system. We also need urgent action to alleviate the devastating isolation of care home residents. Today, I met several care home providers, who spoke about the huge undertaking that rolling out visitor testing would mean for them, and expressed scepticism about the resources that the Government were offering to enable that roll-out from just 20 care homes at present to all within only a few weeks.
Across the country, people are sacrificing so much to do their part in beating coronavirus. The least they can expect is that the Government are doing everything that they can to fix it. Instead, little has changed over the past few weeks. The Government have not made any attempt to review their outsourced Serco and Sitel-led national system. They have not offered any more support to local communities, and they have not taken the practical steps they could take to improve the system and help it reach more people effectively.
The Government do not need to look far for practical examples of how to deliver a better system. They could look at the Welsh Labour Government’s localised, insourced contact tracing programme, which has reached close to 90% of contacts. It could look to local councils across England, from Preston to Peterborough, which are working hard to pick up the pieces of the contacts missed by the national system, despite not being resourced to anything like the levels needed.
This failure on contact tracing is not just hampering our response to the pandemic; it is having heartbreaking consequences. Families have lost loved ones, as people who did not know that they were at risk of having contracted coronavirus continued to circulate in the community because they had not been contacted and told to self-isolate. The sheer chaos of the system has also had deeply distressing impacts. For example, one family who tragically lost a father from coronavirus were telephoned multiple times by the national track and trace system. Contacts being traced are not just names in a database. They are real people with real lives, and members of a community.
There is also a spatial dimension to contact tracing. It is not only about speaking to individuals in isolation, but about identifying patterns of infection that may lead to workplaces or particular types of accommodation. Public health teams who are embedded in their communities, as well as being experienced in infection control, are well placed to do this work. Labour would trust those at the heart of a community to lead contact tracing, and it is not too late to change this. No one will be happier than Labour Members if the Government curb their instinct to outsource their covid response by default, trust and resource public servants to deliver, and stop handing public money to Tory party friends and donors. We urge them to do so, because what comes next matters.
As increasing good news of a vaccine emerges, we must trust the values of community and public service over profit, and harness the talents of the British people. We should use those values and talents to build a national vaccine system. We want to work constructively with the Government in the national interest, but that requires a clear change of direction: rejection of cronyism and commitment to public service. I hope that the Minister will set out today how she plans to clean up the Government’s covid contracts calamity once and for all.
The Paymaster General (Penny Mordaunt)
I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. It is a chance to remember those whom we have lost, and to share the hopes and fears of our constituents, who collectively have shown such resolve and sacrifice since the start of the pandemic and in the face of ongoing restrictions. It is also our opportunity to thank and pay tribute to the many individuals and organisations who are helping in the response. We have heard tributes to those providing PPE and scrubs, and even to pizza suppliers. The hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) said that he hoped the Government were in listening mode. We are. I personally am in listening mode at 10 am every single weekday, when colleagues can find me and raise any issues, particularly cases that they are struggling to get sorted out with Departments.
I want to spend a bit of time talking about procurement, which, as the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) pointed out, it is extremely important to get right. We have followed clear processes throughout the whole pandemic. We have also issued new public procurement notes—not just for central Government, but for partner bodies. At the heart of that is value for money, and we always remember that it is not our money that we are spending. Accusations have been made about the quality of the equipment provided. I want to get it on record that 0.5% of PPE supplied turned out not to be up to spec or was faulty. That is an incredible achievement by those 500 civil servants, who have done an amazing job in this pandemic.
There have been accusations of a high priority lane. There is no such thing. As all hon. Members will know, there is a triage service for Members of Parliament. Today I have heard the scheme criticised by certain Members who actually used it, including the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), who used it twice. Several MPs placed those contact points on their websites. No special treatment was given to those companies. The same due diligence was applied—all eight checks. What it did allow was gumption to be used. There were many great offers of help out there, and there were also some not so great offers of help. We wanted to avoid good bets being parked in a system and buried under thousands of not so useful inquiries. Those businesses and MPs were not on the take or the make. All of us were working together to meet huge demand, and to keep health workers, care workers and other key workers safe.
With regard to transparency, everything is in the public domain and is independently reviewed by the National Audit Office. The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), quoted the NAO report, which showed that no evidence was found that Ministers had improperly hidden interests, or had been involved in procurement decisions or contract management. If any part of Government—for example, the intelligence agencies—cannot reveal issues with procurement, there are systems to ensure that that is properly scrutinised in this place.
The National Audit Office said that we were behind in our paperwork, and that is the case, but as one civil servant said to me, “I would rather be behind in my paperwork”—and they will be catching up on that—“than care workers not have gloves.”
The 11 ministerial directions included bounce back loans, local authority grants, the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme, small business grants, and the leisure and retail support funds. Concerns were raised with Ministers about them, but Ministers said, “No. Crack on: people need support.”
The hon. Member for Nottingham North rightly raised the issue of Test and Trace, as many others have done. I shall not go through all the statistics, but the latest published results, for the week of 29 October to 4 November, show that where communication details were given 78.3% of contacts were reached and told to self-isolate. He made very good points both on lab capacity and on support, which I shall raise with the Department, and, of course, on the importance of locally led contact tracing. We now have 80 local authorities involved in that. It is a central system, but they are doing the contact tracing locally.
Many Members, including Opposition Front Benchers, have spoken about the exit from this particular lockdown in England and the importance of getting the right balance. Hon. Members have also spoken about data. The Treasury provides regular data. We have key performance indicators in health.
My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) mentioned the quality of answers he was getting. I am on this and have sent two of his questions back to Departments in order for them to do a better job.
I agree with the points raised by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) with regard to risk management and what we can learn. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey) made several points, but I say to him that, as well as the financial reasons that are often given for the Union of the United Kingdom, it is not just about head; it is also about heart. It is about our mutuality, and I think there is no greater example of that than the NHS—four devolved systems all learning from each other’s unique strengths, but working as one for the benefit of the whole United Kingdom.
Many Members spoke about the fact that covid has stamped on the fault lines of inequality in our country. The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), who is no longer in his place, mentioned the Marmot curve, and he was right to do so. However, although we have had a lot of cross-party co-operation, it is quite wrong for people to revert to the default setting of claiming that the motives of Government Members are a result of their being either evil or stupid. Those are ridiculous stereotypes, but they still persist in our politics. The idea that people who were on free school meals as children or who grew up in deprivation or in the care system suddenly become a bunch of rotters when they get their Conservative party membership card is ridiculous.
The hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) rightly raised important points about the BAME community and our Central Office of Information work. I shall write to her at length. The Central Office of Information does an incredible job in outreach and uses surrogate spokesmen, as she suggested.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mark Eastwood) raised very important points about workforce resilience, and I will take them up. Many Members raised issues about additional support and paid tribute to their constituents. The hon. Member for Enfield North (Feryal Clark) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford) raised issues about care home visits. Their points were well made. Pilots are taking place for fast testing and improving all that. My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) raised excellent points about parking, which I shall take up. I shall also ensure that we publish on the parliamentary website clarity around exams, because there have been statements made about that.
In the 10 seconds that I have left, I would like to thank all hon. Members for their contributions. When I spoke before, I mentioned that although we were in darkness, there were many points of light.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered covid-19.
Dame Diana Johnson
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was really disappointed that in the Minister’s winding-up speech there was no reference to Hull. I made a very clear ask for a response to the letters from the three Hull MPs and the leader of the council. I think the Minister might want to respond to that point.
Penny Mordaunt
I will happily respond. I am sorry that I did not have a lot of time at the Dispatch Box. However, during the course of the debate I arranged for the covid-19 taskforce—who, through the Cabinet Office and my office, will co-ordinate this—to have a meeting with the hon. Lady and any other people, whether colleagues in this place or the local resilience forum. The notes that she has given us today on further logistical support are incredibly important, and we will act on them. I will see her after this debate to confirm all that.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Thank you. I should just say that both Front Benchers agreed to keep their contributions shorter than they ordinarily would have done in order to accommodate as many Back Benchers as possible.
Business without Debate
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
We now come to motion 8 on virtual participation in substantive proceedings. The Speaker selected a manuscript amendment to the motion. Amendment (a) in the name of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is as follows:
Line 5, leave out from “Members” to “to” in line 8 and insert “with a public health reason relating to the pandemic”.
Under the established practice of the House, a selected amendment to a motion that cannot be proceeded with after the moment of interruption constitutes an objection, so the motion cannot be taken.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As you know, the provision that we have in this House is that some things go through after the moment of interruption, so after 7 o’clock tonight or after 5 o’clock tomorrow night, on “nod or nothing”. The whole point of “nod or nothing” is exactly what it says on the tin—that if the whole House agrees, then the motion can go forward, but if one Member objects because the motion is not consensual, then it cannot go forward.
I tabled the amendment today after consultation with quite a lot of other Members on both sides of the House, including several Select Committee Chairs, several of whom went to meet the Government to discuss this earlier today, and following on from the debate that we had on Monday afternoon on the urgent question by the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron). I think I am right in saying that every single Member who spoke argued for a more generous system that would allow Members who either have to self-isolate for themselves, or are shielding to protect other people in their family or for some other public health reason, should be allowed to participate fully in debates, including on legislation. I do not think that many in the House disagreed with that proposition.
The Leader of the House said on Monday that he was coming forward with a motion. The motion was tabled late last night without being notified to the Opposition or any of the Members concerned, which is very unusual. The motion is on the Order Paper this evening. We were not able to table any amendments or have any consultation on this whatsoever. That is why I have tabled the amendment, which means that it cannot go forward tonight.
I understand from the Table Office that the Government have already said that they will table exactly the same measure tomorrow. I just do not think that this is treating the House with respect. The honest truth is that there should be no distinction between different Members. Lots of people have lots of different reasons why they would want to take part in debates. What I hope you will be able to confirm, Madam Deputy Speaker, is that if we go through this whole rigmarole again tomorrow—the Government table exactly the same motion, and I table exactly the same amendment, which I can assure you I will—then the motion will again fall tomorrow.
I think the House wants us to be able to progress this. There are two ways in which we could do that that would meet the House’s needs. The first is that the Government say, “Let’s have a debate” and we have a vote on an amendable motion, and the House can decide. There are arguments on both sides, I accept, so let us have that debate if that is what the Government want. Alternatively, the Government table tonight—and they have until the close of play tonight—an amended motion that does not require individual Members to have to go to a GP to get a certificate to say that they are shielding so that they can then take part in debates, but actually allows MPs to be grown-ups, to make their own decisions and to take part on behalf of their constituents.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for that point of order. First, I can confirm that if a motion is tabled for tomorrow night at five o’clock and if the hon. Member were to table an amendment and the Speaker were to accept it, the same process would be followed as has taken place tonight. I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard the comments of the hon. Member and will feed that back to the Leader of the House. Of course, it is business questions tomorrow, where this may be something that gets raised again.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it not correct that if the motion is carried over from tonight and is on tomorrow’s Order Paper, it can be amended, and provided the debate starts before five o’clock, we can then have a debate about it and a vote on it?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Well, a motion has to be re-tabled, an amendment has to be re-tabled and then that has to be selected. If it comes after five o’clock, then it would be the same as tonight; if it comes before that, then that is a different matter. I suspect tomorrow is actually quite busy, not least because the hon. Member has tabled an urgent question, which will be heard, so he might be wondering about that one. I hope that that explains the position.
Petitions
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
We now come to the presentation of public petitions. As hon. Members will know, the Member has about one minute to present the petition. These are short speeches.
Solar Flares and Electricity Grid Reliance
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
It is a pleasure to rise for my first Adjournment debate in many years—once a decade perhaps.
I am a little concerned that people might think that I am trying to be the new Lembit Öpik of this Parliament, in that he was famously obsessed with asteroid impacts that never occurred. Equally, people might think I have been spending far too much time during lockdown watching boxsets, such as “Cobra” on Sky Atlantic, which I was wholly unaware of until I watched an episode this weekend. I assure the House that it had no impact at all on me picking this particular topic.
People might wonder what on earth I am on about. What is a solar flare? A solar flare, also known as space weather or coronal mass ejection, is an event that has the potential to knock out our electricity grid by causing voltage instability, power transmission network instabilities and transformer burnouts. A modest one in Quebec in 1989 did just that for a few hours to the Hydro Québec grid.
A bigger solar flare is likely to be around the corner, even if we do not know when. The last so-called biggie was in 1859, called the Carrington event. That was a very different era, with fewer consequences. Events with limited impacts have occurred throughout the past 100 years, but as we become more reliant on technology, they have an impact on navigation systems, aviation and satellites, increasingly. As with Los Angeles atop the San Andreas fault, another episode is both expected and unavoidable.
It is important to prepare, and with the knowledge that we will have very little warning that such a solar flare is occurring before we suffer the consequences. Government say that we are the best prepared in the world but, without being unkind to them at the moment, those are the precise words used of our pandemic preparations. It is therefore worth exploring in greater detail whether we are truly prepared for any solar flare, let alone the right sort of solar flare. The concern in the UK is that, while there was some pandemic preparation, it was for the wrong sort of virus.
The Civil Contingencies Unit might be able to maintain the national strategic stockpile of body bags. The NHS might well have tried to foresee every strain of virus, and ensure that vaccines were available, but the collision of plans with reality is always the point at which flaws are revealed. I do not mean that we should be looking at websites for survivalists and preppers, or stocking up on tinned food—we have had enough panic buying this year. However, we should consider those risks that the scientific community believes to be worth mitigating.
It is fair to ask how far the Government have progressed since the 2015 space weather preparedness strategy. As good as it is to know that solar flares are on someone’s radar somewhere in Whitehall, some of its relaxed conclusions may need re-testing. For example, the document rather blithely states:
“Some of this resilience is not the result of planning for this risk but good fortune.”
It gives me slight pause for thought that we are relying on good fortune to see us through future space weather.
To me, the golden thread stretches from the Met Office alerting the Government to the imminence of a solar flare, to the National Grid then having a limited period of time—if any—to implement mitigating measures.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The hon. Gentleman’s coastal region has the potential to suffer the same problems from solar flares as my coastal region, and I am pleased that he has brought this forward for the House’s consideration. Is he aware that coastal and more rural areas like both of ours would be worst hit? We need to ensure that we are not left languishing, waiting for replacement transformers. Does he further agree that planning should include specifics for coastal areas in particular?
Paul Maynard
I was fascinated to see how the hon. Gentleman would respond to the challenge of this topic in an Adjournment debate and he has surpassed my expectations. I urge him to speak to EirGrid, which is the grid that covers Ireland. I am sure it will be interested in explaining to him what actions it is taking. But there are issues we have to consider. The 2015 space weather preparedness strategy indicates that the nearest radiation monitor to the UK is in Belgium. Can the Minister confirm whether that remains the case, and whether our decision to pull out of all EU agencies in any way jeopardises our access? Either way, what steps have been taken to develop sovereign capability in that regard? When was the last Met Office review of warning systems for space weather, and what role would he anticipate for the UK Space Agency?
The British Geological Survey has three operational magnetic observatories. Can the Minister confirm that that remains the case, and explain how resilient they are in and of themselves to space weather? The 2015 review described a number of priorities for future investment. Can the Minister update the House on what publicly funded research has now commenced on space weather, as per the strategy? Can he update me further on what progress has been made in working with international partners?
The Government’s 2015 report stated
“the GB power grid network is highly meshed and has a great deal of built in redundancy. This potentially makes it less susceptible to space weather effects than power grids in some other countries. Over recent years a more resilient design for new transformers has been used to provide further mitigation.”
That is all very positive, you might think, but a 2013 report by the Royal Academy of Engineering painted a slightly different picture:
“Since the last peak of the solar cycle, the Great Britain transmission system has developed to become more meshed and more heavily loaded. It now has a greater dependence on reactive compensation equipment such as static variable compensators and mechanically switched capacitors for ensuring robust voltage control. Thus there is increased probability of severe geomagnetic storms affecting transmission equipment critical to robust operation of the system.”
That is a little less positive.
Right now, National Grid seems to be focusing on hanging on to its role as the electricity system operator, as well as balancing expanding offshore wind farms and building interconnectors to them. Does it have the bandwidth that it needs to keep checking whether its network of transformers can withstand an event of space weather? Back in 2015, it calculated that some 13 transformers were at risk, and the likes of the US are stockpiling back-up transformers. National Grid is supposed to have spare transformers, but it is not clear how many. If we were to need more, do we even have the industrial capacity to build them, notwithstanding the eight to 12-week lead-in time, and the need to transport them by road to their destination? What more can Government do to assist increasingly commercially oriented companies such as National Grid in this regard, and what progress has been made on developing transportable recovery transformers, as was suggested as far back as 2013? What progress does the Minister believe National Grid is making on installing such mitigating inventions as series capacitors and neutral current blocking devices? Interconnectors are a good thing in themselves. They are also direct current equipment, and as such are not affected. However, during a solar flare, they may be affected, because the convertors to alternating current at either end will come under risk. As we develop ever more interconnectors, what steps is the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy taking to ensure that those new interconnectors are made as resilient as they can be? Crucially, can I ask when the last national risk assessment update was conducted by the Government?
Some dangers never come to pass—Y2K passed without incident—but just occasionally, I believe it is worth posing the question “What if?” and not just trusting that it will all be fine, because that is the answer we want to hear and the alternative is perhaps far too unpalatable. Covid-19 teaches us many lessons about preparing for worst-case scenarios, and making sure that we assess all possible outcomes must surely be one of the key lessons that we learn. I look forward to learning what the Minister has to say.
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Kwasi Kwarteng)
I was very interested to hear the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard). He mentioned solar flares, and the fact that in the 19th century, people were very conscious of those solar flares. I would like to remind him, as I am sure he knows, that a whole economic theory about the business cycle relating to solar activity was presented in the 19th century, and there are British economists who are very interested in this subject. As a country generally, we have been very interested in solar activity, so I thank him for raising a subject that is very important. It is not as abstruse or obscure as people might think: the question we are considering is a very serious one.
Those severe space weather events are rare, but when they do occur, they can have a big impact on national infrastructure, as my hon. Friend has suggested. As such, it is—I am sure he will be pleased to hear this—a risk that we take very seriously. Severe space weather was first recognised as a risk in our 2011 national security risk assessment, and the 2017 national risk register of civil emergencies provided the most recent assessment of the likelihood and potential impacts of that risk. This assessment is kept under constant review: it is not something that we simply put away in a drawer once it was written up.
Of course, predicting when severe space weather events can happen is crucial to minimising their impact. I am pleased to reassure my hon. Friend that the UK is a world leader in this area, as I suggested in my earlier remarks. The Met Office’s Space Weather Operations Centre is one of only three 24/7 forecasting facilities in the entire world. Its systems are kept under constant review, and we are constantly looking to improve how we can maximise our capacity in this area. In recognition of the importance of these forecasts and the ability to conduct forecasting, in 2019 the Prime Minister announced a £20 million boost for research in this area, which represented a near quadrupling of the amount that we were spending. This funding means that the Met Office will be able to improve both the accuracy of forecasts and its warnings.
I have to say that when my hon. Friend mentioned the three operational magnetic observatories, I was very interested. I did actually do some preparation on that topic, and I am very pleased to say that all three magnetic observatories are operational. They are situated in Shetland, on the Scottish borders and in north Devon, and they greatly enhance our capabilities in this area. They are also extremely resilient to space weather.
My hon. Friend mentioned National Grid. The whole issue of National Grid ESO and National Grid’s relationship to it is something that again is under constant review. It is the subject of some debate in the industry. However that question is answered, I can reassure him that we have a resilient energy system. I was struck by the fact that he mentioned a report from 2013. He and I have been in the House of Commons since 2010, I think, and I hope he does not take it amiss if I say that 2013—certainly in the context of energy—is a very long time ago. We have had a huge increase in the deployment of offshore wind and we have more interconnector capacity. I suggest to him that the capacity and resilience of the system is considerably greater than was the case in 2013. Having said all that, I accept that the risk is serious, and he rightly draws it to my attention. I will take the matter up directly with National Grid and the ESO.
As far as National Grid and the ESO are concerned, they feel that they have instigated a few mitigating measures, including increasing the number of spare transformers so that damaged equipment can be replaced quickly. We have been assured—I can revert to my hon. Friend on this—that there are sufficient spare parts to deal with the reasonable worst-case scenario, and there are plans to deploy this spare capacity. Also, critically, we have to introduce—and they are introducing—a new design of transformers, which will be far more resistant to the effects of space weather that he described.
With respect to interconnectors, my hon. Friend will know that it is a direct current but the transformers transform it to alternating current, and that is an area again where we think we can get added protection from the risks he outlined. We will publish a new space weather strategy next year, which will set out a five-year road map—a five-year vision—for how we intend to boost resilience and build on existing UK strength and capacity in this area. It will also provide what he has asked for: an update on the progress that we have achieved since the 2015 strategy was published.
The long history of close working among the energy industry, thinkers and leaders of thought in the sector and the Government means that we have a good understanding of the risk posed by solar flares to the electricity network. We think we have put in place proportionate measures that will mitigate those risks, and I am firmly of the view that the system is highly resilient, but, once again, I am extremely open to ideas from my hon. Friend and from Members across the House—from all quarters—as to how we can improve our resilience and our ability to forecast potential danger in this area.
I once again thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. Far from being a flippant or trivial subject for an Adjournment debate, it is my pleasure to respond on a very serious problem. I hope we can assure him that the problem is well scoped and that we have decent mitigations in place.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Law Enforcement and Security (Separation Issues etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 5 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (James Brokenshire)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Law Enforcement and Security (Separation Issues etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg, and good morning to other members of the Committee.
The Committee will be aware that the Government have been preparing for the end of the transition period on 31 December. This statutory instrument forms one of the legislative changes we are making as part of those preparations to ensure that the law is clear and accessible on cross-border law enforcement and criminal justice matters. I have no doubt members of the Committee will have studied the statutory instrument carefully and read the accompanying impact assessment and explanatory memorandum. I hope it is clear from those not just what the regulations do, but what they do not do.
The regulations we are debating today are required under any European Union exit scenario. They will not enact an outcome of any negotiations. To that end, they are scenario agnostic. Instead, they will provide legal and operational clarity regarding the handling of live law enforcement and criminal justice related cases and procedures at the end of the transition period, and will ensure that the United Kingdom has a fully functioning statute book.
The regulations will do that by performing three main functions. First, they will make the changes needed in UK law to give full effect to the separation provisions contained in the withdrawal and separation agreements. These provisions concern ongoing cases and procedures at the end of the transition period, and place reciprocal obligations on the UK and European economic area-European Free Trade Association states regarding their handling.
Secondly, and in a similar vein, they will make the necessary amendments in UK law to give full effect to the related data provisions contained within those agreements. These provisions concern data accrued before the end of the transition period or under the separation provisions, and will provide clarity for operational partners regarding the handling of such data.
Thirdly, the regulations will address a number of deficiencies that would otherwise arise at the end of the transition period, for example where new EU law has come into force during the period since the Law Enforcement and Security (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 were passed. Addressing those remaining deficiencies will ensure that the UK has a fully functioning and relevant domestic statute book at the end of the transition period.
Overall, the scope of this statutory instrument is narrow. It will give full effect to the separation provisions in the withdrawal and separation agreements by making the necessary technical changes in UK law. Making these changes will provide legal and operational clarity on the handling of live law enforcement and criminal justice cases at the end of the transition period, and will therefore enable the UK to meet its obligations under these agreements.
The regulations are required regardless of the outcome of any negotiations, and form part of a package of legislative changes we are making to ensure that the UK is ready for the end of the transition period. The safety and security of our citizens is the Government’s top priority and this statutory instrument helps to support that.
I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg, although as your constituency neighbour and very much the junior partner in that relationship, it feels like I am getting my homework marked by the Chair—but it is genuinely a pleasure to see you in the Chair.
As has been said, this statutory instrument makes the necessary amendments to UK law to give effect to the separation provisions concerning law enforcement and criminal justice co-operation contained within the withdrawal and separation agreements. It facilitates legal and operational clarity on the winding-down of ongoing operations at the end of the transition period. The regulations also address several deficiencies in retained EU law that would otherwise arise following the transition period.
I make it clear that we will not oppose today’s regulations—they are necessary to ensure the ongoing integrity of continuing operations—but I want to raise some important concerns. I hope the Minister will take the opportunity to address them. While acknowledging that the instrument contains technical amendments, we also understand that they are necessary to meet our legal international obligations. It is good to see the Government agree on the importance of that point.
We are a responsible Opposition and want to ensure a functioning statute book after the transition period ends, and to make domestic law as clear as possible. We also recognise that UK law enforcement and its partners, which keep us safe, must have confidence that outstanding cases do not grind to a halt, which would compromise our ability to resolve serious cases, tackle criminality, prevent terrorism and protect our borders. Will the Minister take the opportunity to update us on what discussions he has had with UK agencies and with his European counterparts to allay such immediate and imminent fears and communicate that robust joint mechanisms will be in place to ensure relevant cases can be actioned with confidence, and not delayed or stopped?
The crux of the Government’s argument today rests on providing certainty—that is the claim at least—both operationally and legally to UK law enforcement and the public. I listened carefully to the Minister’s insistence that the regulations are a technical necessity to ensure the smooth transition to alternative arrangements. He also acknowledged that any clarity or certainty provided here is extremely narrow and limited.
We are hardly delivering certainty and confidence when now, just days away from the negotiation deadline and weeks away from the end of the transition period, UK law enforcement and security services still do not know what legal and regulatory framework they will be winding down to, nor what the practical, day-to-day impact of any security and criminal justice deal, or indeed no deal at all, will be on their ability to keep the public safe.
The Government need to be clear with law enforcement and the intelligence and security services, but most importantly, with the British people about what alternative —prospectively weaker—capabilities will mean for the UK’s security apparatus and our ability to protect the public.
On 5 November, the Minister told the House that if
“negotiations…do not conclude successfully, we will move back to pre-existing tools and powers.”—[Official Report, 5 November 2020; Vol. 683, c. 528.]
Two weeks earlier, on 19 October, the Minister for the Cabinet Office implied, in response to a question from the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), that under such a scenario, we could
“intensify the security that we give to British people”.—[Official Report, 19 October 2020; Vol. 682, c. 761.]
Can the Minister tell us what that means? From a senior member of the Government, not least one charged with securing a Brexit outcome, it seems rather vague and complacent.
In his letter to the Select Committee on Home Affairs, published only yesterday, Martin Hewitt, chair of the National Police Chiefs’ Council laid bare the stark operational impact these measures will have. He said that
“the loss of some or all of the tools will mean that, even with contingencies in place, the fallback systems will be slower, provide less visibility of information/intelligence and make joined up working with European partners more cumbersome.”
I have some questions to the Minister on this point. How does he assess the likelihood of the situation that the chair of the NPCC has outlined arising? Given that, as I think he would agree, we need to take the warning very seriously, will he outline the details of any contingency plans that are in place for the loss of these vital tools? On data and information sharing, which is key and which, in terms of prospective ongoing cases, forms a large part of the regulations, lowering current capabilities would be seriously damaging and adversely affect the UK.
Lord Anderson, the former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, said that UK police would be “increasingly unable to cope” without adequate cross-border data-sharing abilities. That would hinder our ability to receive alerts, search for criminal records, and extradite criminals.
UK law enforcement agencies are concerned. They still do not know what capabilities they will have, for example, in relation to the Schengen information system, SIS II, which the UK uses prolifically and we are set to lose. The alternative, as it stands, is to fall back on the Interpol apparatus. Steve Rodhouse, the National Crime Agency’s director general for operations, made clear the impact of that loss. He said that there are
“capability gaps affecting both sides which will reduce our ability to… exchange real time alerts and data on persons and objects of interest.”
On fast-track extradition arrangements to replace capabilities enjoyed under the European arrest warrant, we are none the wiser. That applies also to the loss of the European criminal records information system—ECRIS—which, as the statutory instrument’s impact assessment highlights, affects around 4,000 requests every month.
The list continues. There is no certainty on Europol, and we have seen the success of European co-operation through Operation Venetic, the biggest and most significant law enforcement operation in the UK. I pay tribute to the NCA for its incredible work on that, but it was done in partnership with law enforcement across Europe. It was instigated by the French and Dutch police and it led to 756 arrests and the seizure of 2 tonnes of drugs, £54 million in illicit cash and 77 firearms in the UK alone. It saved countless lives and took criminals off the streets. It is a tangible product of European co-operation between law enforcement agencies. We will also potentially lose future access to passenger name records data and the Prüm database. I do not need to outline the potential effect of that to the Minister.
I do not want to be uncharitable, but this is something of a mess. To have law enforcement, counter-terrorism and security services winding down operations, some of which we know will not be wound up again, and some of which, if a deal is forthcoming, may or may not be wound up again to effective levels in the new year, is not a responsible or sustainable way to proceed. It is clear that the approach to the negotiations has been dither, delay and complacency. I acknowledge that that has not all been one way. This instrument might be a practical stopgap for now, but I am afraid it represents yet more kicking of the can down the road—which increasingly looks like a cul-de-sac rather than a motorway—with more uncertainty about the impact on ongoing investigations and resources.
It is hard to countenance how an almost blasé, all-right-on-the-night approach has been taken to the vital issue of the security and safety of British citizens, with the result that police efforts and resources are wasted in communicating changes, and their focus is forced to move away from day-to-day priorities to this. We wish that the future had more certainty and clarity for UK law enforcement—and they do, too. With time running out, that is in the Government’s hands and it is their responsibility to deliver.
We appreciate that today’s regulations are necessary for us to fulfil our legal commitments on law enforcement and criminal justice separation provisions, and provide UK law enforcement with some clarity. We will not oppose the regulations because it would be irresponsible and put ongoing operations at risk and people in danger.
However, placed in the wider context, the Minister must realise that any certainty here is limited. Our law enforcement, security services, their operational partners and indeed the wider public, need clarity on where the UK is headed. Importantly, they need to know the practical reality that outcomes of the negotiations—or, worse, a no-deal scenario—will have on the ability to fight crime and terrorism and keep them and our country safe.
James Brokenshire
Although I appreciate the Opposition’s support for the statutory instrument, unsurprisingly, I do not accept the shadow Minister’s contentions about the Government’s approach and posture. I say to him that the UK is, and will continue to be, a global leader on security and one of the safest countries in the world. The Government take their responsibilities for the safety and security of the people of this country incredibly seriously.
As I have highlighted, the regulations will provide legal and operational clarity regarding the handling of live cases and procedures at the end of the transition period, and they will ensure the UK has a fully functioning statute book. As I have explained, they are required under any scenario, regardless of the outcome of the negotiations. Talks obviously continue in Brussels. There has been a constructive atmosphere, and progress has been made on putting legal texts together, but there are still significant differences on the familiar difficult issues—the so-called level playing field, and obviously in relation to fishing. Time is short, and we are focused on reaching an agreement with the EU. In the space of criminal justice, there is a good degree of convergence in what the UK and EU are seeking to negotiate on operational capabilities. In any negotiation, however, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. We obviously look to continue those negotiations and to find a solution that fully respects the UK’s sovereignty.
I shall respond to some of the points made by the shadow Minister in relation to a non-negotiated outcome, which I think was the main thrust of his remarks. In the event that it is not possible to reach an agreement, the UK has well-developed and well-rehearsed plans in place. He speaks about the incredibly important role of the National Police Chiefs’ Council as well as the National Crime Agency, and I pay tribute to them for all their efforts and their work in seeking to ensure that we are well prepared under any scenario. If the shadow Minister looks at those letters, he will see that they underline those organisations’ preparedness. I pay tribute again to them for the work that they have put in.
Conor McGinn
Does the Minister agree with Martin Hewitt that the loss of tools will mean that, even with the contingencies in place, systems will be slower, provide less visibility and make joined-up working more cumbersome? That is not my contention; that is what the chair of the National Police Chiefs’ Council said.
James Brokenshire
I will come to the hon. Member’s broader point. We can obviously discuss the specific issue of the second-generation Schengen information system, SIS II, and what that does and does not do. Notably, it was introduced in this country only in 2015. We had been reliant on various other measures, such as Interpol, to be able to facilitate exchanges.
This country will remain a safe place, and I reject any contention that there is any lack of emphasis on national security or on ensuring that we do not continue to be a global leader in the way that this country has been.
James Brokenshire
Perhaps I can help the hon. Member by saying that the plans for transitioning will clearly involve co-operation with EU member states in order to reach alternative non-EU arrangements by the end of the transition period where available. Broadly speaking, that would mean making more use of Interpol, Council of Europe conventions and bilateral channels, which are tried and tested mechanisms that the UK already uses for co-operation with many non-EU countries.
Conor McGinn
I have asked the Minister a very specific question: does he agree with the assessment of Martin Hewitt, the chair of the National Police Chiefs’ Council? In a letter to the Home Affairs Committee, he expressed in stark terms his concerns about these specific matters. Does the Minister agree with him or not?
James Brokenshire
I think the shadow Minister’s points are specifically about the second-generation Schengen information system. We have always said—I have said it myself before—that there will be some mutual loss of capability in the event that the UK no longer has access to SIS II. That is why we offered to reach an agreement with the EU that delivers a similar capability. The Commission maintains that it is not possible legally for the UK to continue to co-operate through SIS II after the transition period, but we have maintained our offer. Obviously, we know that there is clear benefit on all sides to working together, which is why we are positive about a continuing relationship with our European partners. That allows us to benefit through our collective and shared security. In the absence of SIS II, we will use Interpol channels, which predate our SIS II access and provide the capability to exchange data and communicate with all our international partners quickly and securely. I underline that the UK has an excellent relationship with Interpol in that regard.
Work continues on the issues and on preparations for all outcomes. The hon. Member for St Helens North highlights national security and counter-terrorism. National security has always been the responsibility of member states. Co-operation with European partners on national security largely takes place outside EU structures and so is not dependent on our membership of the EU. Our bilateral and multilateral co-operation will continue regardless of the outcome of any negotiations. It is important to highlight the work of organisations such as the Counter Terrorism Group, which facilitates counter-terrorism co-operation across 30 European intelligence and security services.
It is important to stress the steps that have been taken, such as the establishment and funding of the International Crime Coordination Centre to help police forces adapt to new processes after transition. Alongside extensive domestic preparations, we are also engaging with member states who have expressed their willingness to continue to share critical law enforcement data with the UK using Interpol channels. Although I recognise that today’s statutory instrument is narrow, dealing with the effective continuation of various operational data sharing post transition that may have commenced before the end of the transition period, no one in this Committee should take anything I say today, as the shadow Minister has tried to play it, as anything other than an indication of our determination to ensure that the UK remains a leader in security. Steps have been taken by police, the NCA and other partners to see that we are ready and we have given them support. Clearly, we would like an agreement with our European partners. That is where the Government’s emphasis continues to be, and we remain positive that even though gaps remain and even though time is short, that can still be achieved in the time available. That is where the Government’s focus remains.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Coronavirus Act 2020 (Expiry of Mental Health Provisions) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 5 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin our debate, I thank Members for observing the social distancing regulations. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if any speaking notes could be sent to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
The Minister for Patient Safety, Mental Health and Suicide Prevention (Ms Nadine Dorries)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Coronavirus Act 2020 (Expiry of Mental Health Provisions) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I am pleased to speak in support of the draft statutory instrument, which was laid before the House on 21 October. The Government have committed to keeping all elements of the Coronavirus Act 2020 under close review and to sunsetting any provisions that are no longer necessary. The Act expires two years from when it was passed, but it contains a power to bring forward the expiry date of any of its provisions.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care told the House in September, during the debate on the six-month review of the Coronavirus Act, that the emergency provisions of schedule 8 in England are to be sunsetted as they are no longer necessary. The regulations enact that decision. The regulations expire the provisions in schedule 8 to the Coronavirus Act 2020, which allowed for a temporary change to the operation of certain sections of the Mental Health Act 1983.
The emergency provisions that the regulations remove were included in the Act to protect the safety of patients and to maintain access to essential care. They were designed to enable mental health services to continue to provide vital care and treatment to patients in the event of the pandemic having a drastic impact on staffing levels. These were always powers of last resort; they have not been commenced and have never been used, because they have not been required. They were designed so that the emergency changes would be switched on by the Secretary of State only if staffing shortages in the mental health sector due to the pandemic were so severe that patient safety was significantly compromised.
I will briefly remind the Committee of the provisions we are seeking to expire in the draft regulations. The provisions would have enabled an approved mental health professional to apply to detain someone on the advice of one registered medical practitioner rather than two, if securing two recommendations was considered impractical or would lead to undesirable delay. They would also have allowed extensions to the time that individuals who were already hospital in-patients could be temporarily detained, pending an application for longer term detention under the Mental Health Act.
For individuals accused of crimes, defendants and prisoners with a mental health condition, the provisions would have extended the amount of time they could be remanded to hospital. The provisions would have allowed an accused person, convicted person or prisoner to be sent to hospital on the recommendation of just one registered medical practitioner rather than two. They would also have extended the procedural time limits for transferring a prisoner to hospital.
We are highly conscious of the gravity of the effects of these provisions, should they be commenced, and the need for them has been kept under continual review. We are pleased that, due to the resilience and ingenuity of NHS England, the provisions have not been needed and have never been used. We are removing them because we have listened to stakeholders and to Parliament. Three separate Select Committee reports have recommended that we take this step.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights reported on the Government’s response to covid and argued that, if enacted, the provisions would weaken the protections available for people subject to the Mental Health Act. The report also highlighted the concerns of stakeholders, including Mind, the Royal College of Nursing and the National Survivor User Network. The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee report on the Government’s response to covid and the Coronavirus Act 2020 also noted the concerns of the mental health charity Mind and its call for the removal of these temporary powers. Further to this, the Women and Equalities Committee highlighted that evidence suggests that the measures are unlikely to be needed. The Committee noted concern that the provisions
“went against the direction of travel in Mental Health Act reform”
and most notably the need for
“a more balanced system with more safeguards, more choice and less restriction”,
as set out in the independent review of the Mental Health Act 1983 chaired by Sir Simon Wessely. The Committee stressed that the measures should not be kept available on a “just in case” basis. The same report noted that the Royal College of Psychiatrists had emphasised to the Committee that any use of the emergency mental health provisions would have an unequal effect on black people, whose contacts with mental health services are disproportionately based on detention orders requiring them to stay in hospital.
The announcement of the decision to expire these provisions has been positively received across the House and by a wide range of stakeholders. Rethink Mental Illness said that the decision came as a relief to many people living with mental illness and their loved ones. I am pleased to reiterate the Government’s commitment to publish a White Paper setting out our priorities for reform to address inequalities in the existing system, strengthen patients’ rights and enhance protections within the Act. We will do this as soon as possible. The Secretary of State was not persuaded even during the initial covid peak that these powers were necessary, because our mental health services had shown incredible resilience and ingenuity. These powers are no longer required, so the regulations seek to expire them. It should be noted that the regulations do not expire the transitional provisions in schedule 8 to the Act; however, these will have no legal or practical effect.
In relation to Wales, the regulations expire only matters that are not devolved to the Welsh Government—those which relate to patients under the Mental Health Act involved in criminal proceedings or under sentence. Provisions under schedule 8 to the Act devolved to the Welsh Government relating to health services remain in the Coronavirus Act, with an exception for provisions relating to the Welsh mental health review tribunal. None of these provisions has been commenced. Should it ever be deemed necessary to return these provisions, we will introduce new legislation.
Mental health services were able to continue to support people detained under the Mental Health Act despite the pressures resulting from the pandemic. The Government and NHS England and NHS Improvement have taken measures to support mental health services to continue to offer vital care and treatment to individuals despite ongoing workforce pressures resulting from the covid-19 pandemic.
The Department and NHS England and NHS Improvement issued legal guidance for mental health, disability and autism, and specialised commissioning services supporting people of all ages during the coronavirus pandemic. The guidance set out how the Act’s code of practice may be interpreted during this period, including, for example, allowing the delivery of statutory forms electronically to allow mental health staff to work more flexibly and reduce risk of covid-19 infection. The guidance also set out how video technology can be used for medical assessments to be carried out remotely under the Act; this is to make it easier to have two doctors examining a patient during the pandemic. The Department has also supported the Care Quality Commission in bringing in a modified second-opinion appointed doctor or SOAD service, which allowed the service to work remotely. This enabled procedures around assessing and improving the medical treatment of patients detained under the Act to continue as normal, rather than enacting powers that would lessen this safeguard.
Those measures, coupled with mental health staff’s resilience and innovation, have been effective in mitigating pressure on mental health services, avoiding the need to commence the emergency powers. NHS mental health services have coped without needing to turn on these emergency powers through their hard work and innovative approaches, supported by the Department, NHS England and NHS Improvement,.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies.
The removal of these provisions from the Coronavirus Act is, of course, extremely welcome, and Labour Members will not seek to oppose it. When the Coronavirus Act was hastily drafted and enacted in light of the threat our country was facing in March, we accepted the inclusion of these regulations, to be used only as a last resort. It is a relief that the provisions have never had to be used, and we are pleased to see them dropped.
The legislation represented a significant reduction in the safeguarding of individuals subject to the Mental Health Act, and I am sure that the expiration of the provisions will be gladly received by those who are living with mental ill health and by their families. I thank all health and care staff for their hard work, and I am grateful for the work of the CQC and NHS England, whose response to the virus was robust enough that the provisions were never turned on.
Although the mental health provisions in the Coronavirus Act were never activated, that does not mean that the coronavirus has not had a significant impact on the mental health system in England. In March, at the very beginning of the pandemic, an additional 2,441 people were discharged from mental health hospitals. Compared with February, that is an increase of 26%. At that time, increasing bed capacity was a priority. Although it was necessary to take that step where it was safe to do so, it was vital that discharged patients continued to receive the care they needed.
Inevitably, the redeployment of staff to concentrate efforts on tackling the virus led to disruption to existing mental health services, with surveys from charities such as Rethink Mental Illness and Mind showing that many struggled to access support during the pandemic. That was especially true for those with existing mental health conditions, including many who were abruptly discharged. The needs of people who are living with severe mental illnesses are complex, and it is vital that they receive appropriate care in all settings.
As the number of cases and hospital admissions related to covid-19 continue to rise, so too does the prospect of having to empty beds again. In August, the Government announced a £588 million fund to support the safe discharge of patients in the event that it becomes necessary to free up space for coronavirus patients. That money is essential to prevent a repeat of the mistakes that were made in March, but I had it confirmed to me last week that mental health trusts are unable to access that funding. Similarly, alongside the announcement of that money guidance was published outlining the correct procedure for safely discharging patients from hospital settings. Again, mental health trusts were excluded from that, and there is currently no equivalent guidance for them. Will the Minister please outline why mental health trusts are excluded from this vital funding, and will she confirm what resources are being made available to trusts to support the safe discharge of patients and ensure that they receive ongoing care in the community?
Concerns have also been raised about patients who were not discharged. Many mental health estates were not built with social distancing in mind, and that has affected treatment and access to visits on and off site. Reduced contact with family and friends has undoubtedly had an effect on in-patients. Staying in a mental health ward can already be an extremely lonely experience, but the extra restrictions on social contact mean that it can feel truly, devastatingly isolating. Although many people accept that digital solutions are necessary, their success in such settings has been mixed. In-patients have stated that when social contact was facilitated virtually, it made a positive difference to their experience; however, when treatment was provided through digital means, many felt that the standard of care dropped.
It is important to remember that a large number of those who have lived in mental health wards throughout the pandemic are children who are living with severe mental health disorders, such as eating disorders or severe depression. They need a more intense level of care than would be possible in the community, but that does not make the experience any less traumatic for a child. The Children’s Commissioner found that there was a great deal of resilience on those wards throughout the pandemic, with staff working exceptionally hard to ensure that the standard of care and support provided to the children did not drop, but significant challenges remained. Although staffing rates stood firm in many children’s wards, visits from external professionals dropped alarmingly throughout the pandemic. The disruption to mainstream education filtered its way into hospitals, with many teachers stopping all face-to-face teaching on the wards, which left untrained hospital staff to deliver teaching in addition to caring for patients.
During this second spike of the virus, it is crucial that all mental health in-patients receive appropriate, high-quality care. Will the Minister outline the measures that are in place to ensure that people in mental health hospitals will receive the best care available to them, despite ongoing pressures from the coronavirus?
Entrenched inequalities in mental health treatment and access to services have existed for many years, but they are undoubtedly being deepened during the pandemic. The disproportionate impact of the virus on black, Asian and ethnic minority communities has put them at greater risk of developing mental health problems. That is especially concerning, because historical racism and experiences of inappropriate support have left many individuals from BAME communities distrustful of mainstream health services, highlighting the need for support in the community. Distrust should not come as a surprise to the Government, considering that in 2019-20 the rate of detentions in England under the Mental Health Act was more than four times higher for black or black British people than it was for white people. The racial disparity in detentions under the Mental Health Act underlines the need to address health inequalities and to ensure that provision is widely accessible and that support is suitable for all. I would be grateful if the Minister outlined what work is being done to address the inequality.
We need to be clear that for many people, community support is the most effective way to improve their wellbeing, and that has to be a priority as we look to the recovery period. What work is being done to strengthen mental health support in the community at this time?
The impact that covid-19 has had on the wellbeing of the nation has been profound. The Centre for Mental Health found that approximately 10 million additional people will require some form of mental health support as a result of the pandemic. It is important that the Government recognise the additional need and have a strategy to address it during winter and beyond. We know that the best mental health strategies are proactive and preventive. Early intervention is key to addressing mental health concerns before they develop into something more insidious. The Government must ensure that services are prepared and have the resources to cope with any rise in demand.
The expiration of the provisions today is a small but welcome step in ensuring that patients who rely on safeguards in the Mental Health Act are adequately protected. I urge the Government to not stop there. The next step must be to publish the long-awaited White Paper on the Mental Health Act and to stand by their commitment to reform the legislation to better support people who are subject to it. Only then can we be confident that those living with severe mental ill health will be properly supported by the system that is designed to protect them.
Ms Dorries
We recognise the immense strain that the pandemic and the measures to contain it have placed on everybody’s lives, particularly in-patients in mental health services and people who work for the NHS in such services. Mental health is critical in these unprecedented times, and we recognise how important it is that people get the support they need for their mental health.
We know that some people will experience exacerbated mental health problems as a result of the pandemic, and there are also issues with people’s wellbeing. I am probably accurate in distinguishing between wellbeing and mental illness—I think the hon. Member for Tooting used the term “mental illness” in her response. She was quite right to highlight that, during this pandemic, there has been pressure on people with pre-existing mental health problems and on the new cohort—frontline workers—who have been particularly susceptible during the pandemic.
Mental health continues to be our priority. We are doing our utmost to ensure that mental health services are there for everybody who needs them during the pandemic. As I said in my opening speech, that is thanks to the hard work and innovative approach of NHS workers, NHS England and NHS Improvement. We have recently announced our winter plan for mental health, in which we will outline the support that is available for people over the coming winter. I hope very shortly—within days—to be able to bring that plan forward. It is one element of our work to deliver a modern mental health service and to meet the demands created by the pandemic. The winter plan, which will be published imminently, is a demonstration of the Government’s firm commitment to supporting the mental health of everyone throughout this winter period and beyond.
We are absolutely committed to continuing our investment and to expanding the transformation plan for mental health services in England. As I have said many times, that amounts to an additional £2.3 billion of extra funding a year in mental health services by 2023-24. The Government are setting out clear commitments to support mental health services to manage pressures over the winter, and we will also do so during our winter plan. All health and social care staff, including those providing mental health services in hospitals, get priority access to testing when they show symptoms. Hospitals can test patients, including those admitted with mental health conditions, in areas with a higher prevalence of covid.
The NHS worked hard to keep mental health services going during the first peak, using technology where needed but also providing face-to-face appointments where appropriate. All mental health trusts have established a 24/7 urgent mental health helpline, where people experiencing a mental health crisis can access support and advice. We took up this idea in late March, when we realised that we were facing the full blast of the pandemic. We had a meeting on, I think, 4 April with NHS England and all the mental health trusts; the 24/7 crisis helpline rolled out across all mental health trusts at a rapid pace. and it has been there for anyone facing a mental health crisis to use.
The Government have committed more than £400 million over the next four years to refurbish mental health facilities, to get rid of dormitories in those facilities and to benefit the patients of 40 trusts across the country. We are committed to supporting NHS staff. The NHS is setting up staff mental health hubs to provide proactive outreach, in addition to the services we are already providing for NHS frontline workers. We are investing £50 million to ensure that all staff get rapid access to those expanded mental health services.
To bring us back to the core purpose of the Committee, the Government committed to keeping all elements of coronavirus under close review and to sunset any provisions that are no longer necessary. The emergency modifications to the Mental Health Act were designed as a backstop to support services if unprecedented constraints in the mental health sector put patient safety at risk during the pandemic, and the Government have remained conscious of the need to balance that with the rights of individuals who are detained under the Mental Health Act. Due to the resilience and the ingenuity of the NHS, we have not needed to switch on the provisions; now is therefore the right time to expire them.
This is an important milestone in our work to make much-needed reforms to the Mental Health Act, which will ensure that patients have greater autonomy and control over their care and treatment. The reforms will be set out in the Government’s White Paper on the subject, which will be published shortly. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Common Fisheries Policy (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 5 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Common Fisheries Policy (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. These regulations were laid under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. As with previous EU exit fisheries statutory instruments, the technical amendments made by this SI will ensure that retained EU law provides UK law with a mechanism that is both effective and enforceable. This SI does not make any policy changes to retained EU law, and no change is expected in how the fishing industry conducts itself.
The amendments extend and apply to the United Kingdom. Fisheries management in the UK is largely devolved, so this SI has been developed and drafted in close dialogue with the devolved Administrations, which have given their consent. That ensures an approach that is consistent with both the devolution settlement and existing systems of fisheries management.
The SI makes amendments to retained EU law in three policy areas: discards, quota and data collection. Turning first to discards, the changes implement the requirement to land all catches of species that are subject to catch limits and to count them against quota unless they are specifically exempted. The amendments replace references to EU bodies with references to the relevant UK bodies and remove the requirement to report data to the Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries—an EU body. The UK will of course still ensure that the relevant data is collated and reviewed by a replacement scientific body that we are currently developing. Our discards policy will of course continue to be scientifically based.
Previous EU exit SIs made in March and October 2019 made discard plan regulations that were operable in retained EU law at that time. However, the EU has since introduced new versions of the regulations, so because UK fishermen are already working to the standards in the new versions, we felt it was important to mirror current EU law, which is partly why we are updating the regulations.
Secondly, the SI will amend the EU’s 2020 total allowable catch and quota regulation in retained EU law as well as revoking the 2019 version. As we become an independent coastal state in 2021, we will move from having UK quota set at an EU level to the Secretary of State determining the UK quota. These regulations therefore replace EU references with the relevant UK ones to ensure that rules continue to apply effectively to UK vessels. One example is sea bass fisheries, where we are amending the regulations to prohibit UK vessels from fishing for sea bass in certain areas to match the prohibition that exists for EU vessels. We are again changing previous EU exit SIs to remove some earlier amendments that apply to regulations that have now been changed by the EU.
Thirdly, the SI makes amendments to the data collection framework. The regulations require EU member states’ vessels to conduct certain surveys at sea. We are removing the list of surveys and replacing it with a reference to the UK’s national data collection work plan. Without that amendment, UK vessels may inadvertently be required to conduct surveys in areas that are no longer relevant to the UK and are outside our exclusive economic zone.
Finally, as I already mentioned, this SI amends several previous fisheries EU exit SIs because changes have been made by the EU since they were passed by this House. We are therefore updating this SI to reflect those changes. Previous amendments to the retained EU law versions of regulations implementing the European maritime and fisheries fund are also removed by this SI, because the withdrawal agreement contains specific rules that will apply to the EMFF during the period when the fund will wound up and closed.
In short, this SI makes amendments that will assist with the smooth running of fisheries policy in accordance with the Fisheries Bill, which we hope will shortly become the Fisheries Act. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward, and to speak for Her Majesty’s official Opposition this morning. Labour does not seek to divide the Committee, but I will ask a few questions of the Minister in relation to the draft statutory instrument before us.
The Government have made a series of promises to voters about sustainable fisheries management and the control of our waters, and we will continue to hold the Government to account on those commitments. The stated intention of this SI is to ensure
“there is immediate continuity in the regulation of UK waters at the end of the Transition Period.”
Some of the changes make sense within the context that several of the retained rules from the common fisheries policy need to be changed where provisions would no longer operate effectively outside EU structures.
While the fisheries administrations will amend retained EU law over time in order to implement their own policies, I am worried by the impact of this Government’s attempts to weaken existing requirements in relation to scientific information and research surveys, sustainability of stocks, and reporting. The changes could limit the use of scientific expertise in decision making and threaten the sustainable management of fish stocks.
As ClientEarth pointed out, the requirements for authorities to submit annual additional scientific information supporting exemptions for plaice, skates, rays to the STECF has been removed. That requirement has not been replaced with a separate requirement on the authorities to collect the data and send it to any scientific body or any authority for review. Furthermore, the SI transfers powers from the STECF to the fisheries administrations to authorise gear types not specified in the regulations. Does the Minister believe that fisheries authorities have an equivalent level of expertise?
I want to press the Minister on the timeframe for the creation of a replacement fisheries advisory framework for the UK. When should we expect to see it, and what will its remit be? Without the assistance of highly qualified scientific personnel, I am worried that the Government will be paying lip service to their manifesto promise to have a legal commitment to fish sustainably. Without expert scientific advice to inform up-to-date and comprehensive data, how do we know that our post-Brexit fisheries regime will be truly sustainable? What assurances can the Minister give to fishers and to businesses in the sector? We are not seeking to divide the Committee, but I hope that she can answer those few questions.
Victoria Prentis
I am delighted to reconfirm the Government’s commitment to sustainable fishing. There is no weakening in our policy at all. Achieving healthy fish stocks is the first step to achieving a vibrant commercial and recreational fishing industry.
The Fisheries Bill, which we hope will become an Act later this week, sets out our commitment to sustainable fishing, The joint fisheries statement, which will be drafted and adopted by the UK Government and the devolved Administrations, will set out the policies in more detail, enabling us to achieve the fisheries objectives that are set out in clause 1 of the Bill. The regulation on total allowable catches is incorporated not in this SI but—much better than that—in the Fisheries Bill itself. The comparable UK provisions are in clauses 2 and 26, and the fisheries management plans will put flesh on the bones of those policy intentions. We are determined to achieve or maintain sustainable levels for the stocks that are covered, and there is no need to duplicate that intention in this SI.
The SI merely ensures that retained EU fisheries law is effective and enforceable after the end of the transition period. It tidies up our previous SIs to ensure that the UK statute book will not contain amendments to regulations that are no longer part of EU law. At the end of this year, EU law will cease to apply directly to the UK, with retained EU law taking its place, and the statute book needs to be correct to ensure that that important change can take place smoothly. The SI is a key part of that preparation and will help us to meet our commitment to deliver a prosperous and sustainable fishing industry for future generations. I therefore commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
DRAFT BANK RECOVERY AND RESOLUTION (AMENDMENT) (EU EXIT) REGULATIONS 2020
DRAFT SECURITIES FINANCING TRANSACTIONS, SECURITISATION AND MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS (EU EXIT) REGULATIONS 2020
DRAFT FINANCIAL HOLDING COMPANIES (APPROVAL ETC.) AND CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS (CAPITAL BUFFERS AND MACRO-PRUDENTIAL MEASURES) (AMENDMENT) (EU EXIT) REGULATIONS 2020
DRAFT BEARER CERTIFICATES (COLLECTIVE INVESTMENT SCHEMES) REGULATIONS 2020
(3 years, 5 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Bank Recovery and Resolution (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Securities Financing Transactions, Securitisation and Miscellaneous Amendments (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, the draft Financial Holding Companies (Approval etc.) and Capital Requirements (Capital Buffers and Macro-prudential Measures) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, and the draft Bearer Certificates (Collective Investment Schemes) Regulations 2020.
John Glen
Thank you, Sir David. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship yet again. The second bank recovery and resolution directive updates the EU’s bank resolution regime, which provides financial authorities with powers to manage the failure of financial institutions in a way that protects depositors and maintains financial stability while limiting the 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, and the first statutory instrument satisfies that obligation.
In transposing the BRRD II directive, the Government have been directed 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 taken account of concerns raised by industry on elements of the directive that could pose potential risks to financial stability and consumers by tailoring the approach for the UK market.
Subsequently, we are not transposing the provisions in the directive that firms do not need to comply with until after the end of the transition period. We are also sunsetting specific provisions so that they cease to have effect in the UK after the end of the transition period, as well as inserting 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 2020. Our approach meets our legal obligations and ensures that the UK’s resolution regime remains robust and in line with international standards. We have interacted with industry and stakeholders to help explain exactly what the change means for them.
Turning to the content of the draft Securities Financing Transactions, Securitisation and Miscellaneous Amendments (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, the SI is vital in ensuring that the UK has a fully effective legal and regulatory financial services regime at the end of the transition period. The approach taken aligns with the general approach established by the European Union (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. Specifically, this SI amends and revokes aspects of retained EU law and related UK domestic law, makes a small number of necessary clarifications and a minor correction to earlier financial services EU exit instruments, and provides sufficient supervisory powers for the financial services regulators to effectively supervise firms during and after the end of the transition period.
Moving on 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 CRD V—continues the EU’s implementation of the internationally agreed Basel standards, which further enhance international prudential standards and regulation and aim to help ensure the safety and soundness of financial institutions. This instrument will allow for the transposition of CRD V into UK law, as is legally required under the terms of the withdrawal agreement. It will also ensure that the legislation that transposes CRD V continues to operate effectively in the UK after the end of the transition period. As with previous capital requirement directives, the Government will delegate the majority of the responsibility for implementation to the independent Prudential Regulation Authority, which has the requisite technical knowledge and expertise to ensure an effective and proportionate implementation. This instrument therefore only includes provisions that are legislatively necessary to ensure that the PRA can effectively implement CRD V.
The instrument makes changes to the macroprudential toolkit to preserve 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 relevant institutions to address particular financial stability risks. In line with requirements of article 21a of CRD V, the instrument also allows holding companies in scope to apply for supervisory approval. The framework and scope of the approval regime will be administered by the PRA and the instrument will also ensure that the PRA has the appropriate tools to ensure compliance with it.
Although the capital requirement directives were created with banks in mind, they also extend to investment firms. However, the risks faced and posed by investment firms are substantially different to those of banks. The instrument therefore excludes non-systemic investment firms from the scope of CRD V. Until the Financial Conduct Authority introduces a prudential regime for investment firms, about which I have spoken to the chief executive just today, following Royal Assent to the Financial Services Bill, investment firms will remain subject to the existing prudential framework.
Finally, let me turn to the content of the draft Bearer Certificates (Collective Investment Schemes) Regulations 2020. The UK has played a leading role in transforming tax authorities’ ability to work across borders to tackle emerging international tax risks. Maintaining the UK’s position and driving forward this agenda is a central pillar of the Government’s no safe havens strategy, which aims to improve offshore tax compliance so that everyone pays what they owe. Bearer certificates are anonymous and infinitely transferable, making them an easy means of facilitating illicit activity such as tax evasion or money laundering. It is for this reason that UK companies have been prohibited from issuing them since 2015.
A 2018 report from the OECD’s global forum noted that although the UK had mostly addressed its 2013 recommendations on 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. It 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 already prohibited from using bearer shares by the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015. Complying with the global forum’s recommendation will help ensure that 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 and in conclusion, the Government believe that these four instruments are necessary and vital for the UK’s financial services regulatory architecture, and I sincerely hope that the Committee will join me in supporting the regulations this afternoon.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David.
We have a lot before us this afternoon. These statutory instruments are the latest in a large-scale exercise on the part of the Treasury, and indeed other Departments, to onshore various parts of EU legislation. I make no criticism of the Minister personally; I am sure it was not his decision that that should all be done in this way, and he has been very straight with me in everything we have debated in the six months or so that we have been opposite each other. However, the volume of the provisions before us, which on a quick count amount to around 130 pages of complex legislation, and which we have to go through in a 90-minute process, creates the impression of a Department shovelling legislation out the door before the end of the year. If we are honest, it certainly does not make for a sensible scrutiny process, given that we are expected to debate and scrutinise all these instruments, relating to complex issues such as bank recovery and resolution, capital requirements, holding companies and securitisation, within a short time.
We have four instruments before us, although the bearer one is perhaps a bit different. However, we could almost pose the question: if we are going to do it like this, why not 40 or 400? It would make as much sense as doing these four together. The truth is that there may be items in these instruments that prove to be significant further down the line, but the manner in which they have been presented for debate makes that difficult to judge. If we are honest, this is the appearance of proper parliamentary scrutiny; it is not the reality. Presenting a volume of legislation such as this is Potemkin scrutiny. I repeat: I make no criticism of the Minister personally, and I am not having a go at him, but this is not the best way to debate and handle things, and doing so does not reflect well on Parliament. However, I have a few questions for him on the content.
Bank resolution and recovery became very important after the financial crisis. When banks failed, there was no adequate living will; there was no means of recovery that did not involve either desperate mergers and shotgun weddings between institutions or the state stepping in to bail institutions out. Where they were allowed to fail, the long tail of consequences often proved disastrous for the rest of the financial system, for contracts that had previously been agreed and so on. That experience produced this debate and this legislation about capital levels, leverage ratios and bail-in debt, which could be transferrable into equity if a bank got into trouble. The question really is: to what degree do the instruments before us herald any change from the approach that has been developed over the past decade or so since the financial crisis?
The same question applies to the capital requirements instruments. Over-leveraging was at the heart of the financial crisis. The esteemed former Governor of the Federal Reserve, Paul Volcker, gave evidence to a Committee in this House some years ago. He quoted a leading banker as saying that his bank did not need any capital at all—money could always be borrowed on the wholesale markets. When times are good and markets are very liquid, there may be circumstances where that is true, but we discovered to our cost that, when times are not good, taking the view that a bank does not need any capital can have horrendous consequences. To quote perhaps the most obvious UK example, RBS was leveraged to a ratio of around 50:1 just before the financial crash. Again, I ask the Minister: in what way will this capital buffers instrument make any difference to how we approach the crucial issue of what is, in the end, public insurance against bearing the costs of failure? That is really the question we could ask about all these instruments: do they make any difference one way or the other to the degree of public security against the failure of financial institutions?
My third question for the Minister relates to the draft Securities Financing Transactions, Securitisation and Miscellaneous Amendments (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, and I refer him to regulation 72 on cross-border payments. He will be aware of the long-standing problem of hidden charges in remittances, which can end up costing people a lot of money and depriving those to whom the money is intended of the full value of the transfer. This is a multibillion-pound industry, and many people living in the UK send remittances home to families in other countries every year. Will the Minister clarify that this instrument does what he said was the Government’s intention in a written answer released on 3 July to a question from the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady)? The Minister said that
“the full cost of any fees and charges”
must now be explicit and cannot be hidden in interest rates that are obscure to the person purchasing the service.
My final question is, again, more about the process. What is the relationship between this onshoring process through these statutory instruments and what we are doing in the Financial Services Bill, which is currently in Committee? That, too, contains a lot of onshoring, so why are some things being onshored through statutory instruments, which are debated in this forum with all its constraints and lack of amendments, yet the ones in the Bill are going through the full legislative process, with a Committee stage at which amendments can be tabled and matters can be dived into more deeply and a Report stage and so on? I know the difference between the two processes, but why are there different approaches to some types of onshoring?
John Glen
I listened carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman had to say, and he is, as always, the model of courtesy and constructive opposition. The substantive challenge that he offered was about the value, legitimacy and appropriateness of a four-in-one SI debate. It is vital that we deliver each of these financial instruments before the end of the transition period both to ensure continuity and a fully functioning and effective legal and regulatory regime from 1 January 2021 and, in the case of the draft Bearer Certificates (Collective Investment Schemes) Regulations 2020, to ensure that the UK meets its international obligations.
Given the links across each of the financial services instruments and the importance of them coming into force before the end of the year, it is appropriate for the Committee to consider them together, and it is the most effective use of parliamentary time. It is also the case that the SIs could not have been brought forward sooner. Several of the provisions in the instruments fix deficiencies in changes to EU regulations that have only recently become applicable during the transition period.
The right hon. Gentleman asked three specific questions about the SIs and then one about the process. He first asked about the extent of the changes from the BRDD II resolution regime. Under the terms of the withdrawal agreement, the Government will implement EU legislation, such as this regime, that evolved during the transition period. In our transposition of BRDD II, we have considered which provisions would not be suitable for the UK resolution regime after leaving the EU, while still maintaining that prudential soundness and the other important regulatory outcomes, such as consumer protection and proportionality. We have also taken into account concerns raised in consultation responses about the potential risk to financial stability and consumers. Given the complexity of those considerations, I am happy to write to the right hon. Gentleman to set things out more clearly.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the extent to which CRD V changes the capital requirements regime. The capital buffers instrument is being introduced partly to ensure that the current macroprudential flexibility is maintained. The purpose of the buffers is to allow the regulators to continue to be able to address financial stability risks, including those posed by large institutions.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about hidden charges in remittances and referenced an answer I gave on 3 July about their cost. I am sorry, but I will have to write to him on that matter as well. I am sorry that I cannot offer him a clear answer now. I do not want to busk it.
Mr McFadden
No, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I would be grateful if he clarified the point. Let me be clear why. A clarification from him that the intention is to make transparent the full cost of fees and charges will help the regulators to police the charging of the instruments. If the Minister clarifies the matter in that way, that might help stop some of the practices that we have seen in the past whereby charges are hidden, to consumers’ cost. Clarification would therefore be helpful.
John Glen
I respect that point and I am happy to give that clarification at the earliest opportunity.
The final process point that the right hon. Gentleman set out is the relationship between the onshoring programme and the Financial Services Bill that is now in Committee. The EU exit legislative programme, known as the onshoring programme—I seem to have been engaged with it all my life—is about ensuring a fully functioning legal and regulatory financial services framework at the end of the transition period.
The Financial Services Bill is an important step in taking responsibility for our financial services regulation, ensuring that we maintain the highest regulatory standard and remain an open and dynamic global and financial centre now that we have left the EU. It will deliver several existing Government commitments and ensure that the UK maintains that world-leading standard. It goes beyond the simple process of onshoring what we have had to date and what has gone live this year. It looks forward and sets out, with a new accountability framework, how the regulators will act. It also enacts a number of other smaller measures. However, I concede that it is a complex process—I do not mean that to sound patronising—whereby we have been trying to onshore and then look forward. The Bill, which we will hopefully take through Parliament, is the first in a series of steps that will involve legislation in subsequent Sessions.
I hope that I have substantively, if not exhaustively, addressed the points that have been made. As ever, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the constructive way that he has brought his points to the Committee. I hope that the Committee is sufficiently satisfied to support the regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
DRAFT SECURITIES FINANCING TRANSACTIONS, SECURITISATION AND MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS (EU EXIT) REGULATIONS 2020
Resolved,
That the Cttee has considered the draft Securities Financing Transactions, Securitisation and Miscellaneous Amendments (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.—(John Glen.)
DRAFT FINANCIAL HOLDING COMPANIES (APPROVAL ETC.) AND CAPITAL REQUIREMENTS (CAPITAL BUFFERS AND MARCRO-PRUDENTIAL MEASURES) (AMENDMENT) (EU EXIT) REGULATIONS 2020
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Financial Holding Companies (Approval etc.) and Capital Requirements (Capital Buffers and Macro-prudential Measures) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.—(John Glen.)
DRAFT BEARER CERTIFICATES (COLLECTIVE INVESTMENT SCHEMES) REGULATIONS 2020
Resolved,
That the Cttee has considered the draft Bearer Certificates (Collective Investment Schemes) Regulations 2020.—(John Glen.)
Draft Hazardous Substances and packaging (Legislative Functions and Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
DRAFT OZONE-DEPLETING SUBSTANCES AND FLUORINATED GREENHOUSE GASES (AMENDMENT ETC.) (EU EXIT) REGULATIONS 2020
(3 years, 5 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind hon. Members about the social distancing requirements. Spaces available to Members are clearly marked, and our Hansard colleagues would be grateful if you sent any speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
The Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury (James Morris)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Hazardous Substances and Packaging (Legislative Functions and Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Ozone-depleting Substances and Fluorinated Greenhouse Gases (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
James Morris
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I will take each instrument in turn, starting with the Hazardous Substances and Packaging (Legislative Functions and Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020. The statutory instrument is needed to make small but important changes to ensure that our domestic legislation reflects that the United Kingdom is no longer part of the European Union. The SI covers two different subject areas. The first is the regulation of hazardous substances in electrical or electronic equipment, or EEE. The second is the regulation of essential requirements for packaging—the requirements that producers need to fulfil if they place packaging on the market, such as manufacturing and composition requirements.
Hazardous substances in EEE are regulated by the Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment Regulations 2012, the so-called RoHS regulations that implement the EU’s RoHS directive. The SI that we are debating transfers to the Secretary of State powers that are currently held by the European Commission under the RoHS directive. After the end of the transition period, the powers will allow the Secretary of State to grant, review, renew or revoke exemptions to the restriction of hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment, as specified in the RoHS regulations. Exemptions allow the use of restricted hazardous substances above threshold limits for specific uses, such as solders in medical equipment. The Secretary of State will also be allowed to amend the list of restricted substances and maximum concentration values, and to prescribe detailed rules for complying with maximum concentration values.
Those powers will apply in England, Wales and Scotland, but not in Northern Ireland, because the RoHS directive will continue to apply in Northern Ireland after the end of the transition period, as it is listed in Annex 2 of the Northern Ireland protocol. The changes are important, as we are taking powers back from the European Commission to the UK. The SI will allow the Secretary of State to make important decisions on RoHS, and it also amends the RoHS regulations and the Packaging (Essential Requirements) Regulations 2015. It amends both sets of regulations separately for Great Britain and for Northern Ireland. The amendments to the RoHS regulations for Great Britain introduce key measures to ensure a smooth end to the transition period for business, placing manufactured goods on the GB market. They include transitional provisions for importer labelling in order to provide a 24-month period in which importer details can be provided on accompanying documentation, and a similar transitional provision for the application of the new UK marking, which will replace the European Union’s CE marking.
This instrument ensures that, except for qualifying Northern Ireland goods, the automatic recognition in Great Britain of EEE meeting EU requirements will expire 12 months after the end of the transition period. It amends both the RoHS regulations and the essential requirements for packaging regulations, to make provision for access for qualifying Northern Ireland goods to the GB market. The instrument amends the RoHS regulations and the essential requirements for packaging regulations separately for Northern Ireland. The amendments that apply in Northern Ireland are more limited. They are to reflect the fact that the RoHS directive and the packaging directive will continue to apply in Northern Ireland—although not in the rest of the United Kingdom—by virtue of the Northern Ireland protocol. They will allow the UK to meet its obligations under the Northern Ireland protocol when it comes to packaging and RoHS.
We have ensured that the changes for Northern Ireland are as minimal as possible while also allowing the UK to fulfil its obligations under the Northern Ireland protocol. However, there are some unavoidable costs for businesses as a result of amendments to the RoHS regulations, including familiarisation and new labelling costs. No impact assessment was prepared for this instrument, as any costs to or benefits for businesses, charities and voluntary bodies were predicted to fall below the limit of £5 million in one year.
This instrument is reserved, as it covers specific technical standards and requirements on all businesses in relation to products, the subject matter of which is covered by EU law obligations until the end of the transition period. This is a reserved matter under all three devolution settlements.
This instrument makes small but important changes to ensure that regulations, processes and systems that deal with packaging and RoHS will continue to operate and be enforceable at the end of the transition period. It ensures that the UK fulfils its obligations on packaging and RoHS under the Northern Ireland protocol and, crucially, returns powers from the RoHS directive back to the UK to allow the UK to maintain its high product safety standards.
I now turn my attention to the second instrument for debate—the Ozone-Depleting Substances and Fluorinated Greenhouse Gases (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020. This instrument enables the UK to meet the requirements of the Northern Ireland protocol in relation to restricting the use of ozone-depleting substances, ODS, and fluorinated greenhouse gases, F gases, as required for transition period completion day. That will be done by making changes to existing legislation. The instrument also amends dates to prevent errors of law caused by those dates currently falling before the end of the transition period.
Ozone-depleting substances damage the ozone layer, while F gases are powerful greenhouse gases. The UK is a party to the United Nations Montreal protocol, which places controls on both ODS and F gases. The EU ODS regulation implements the Montreal protocol by restricting ozone-depleting chemicals to certain limited uses where there are no viable alternatives. Registration and quota limit requirements apply to those exempted uses. Imports and exports must also be licensed.
The EU F gas regulation cuts by 79% the use of hydrofluorocarbons, the most common type of F gas, by 2030 and implements other measures to reduce F gas emissions. The HFC phasedown is achieved through allocating quota to producers and importers. It underpins UK and EU compliance with international obligations to reduce HFC use under the Kigali amendment to the Montreal protocol.
The Northern Ireland protocol requires that the EU F gas and ODS regulations remain applicable to and in the United Kingdom in respect of Northern Ireland. This instrument makes necessary amendments to enable the UK to meet the requirements of the protocol. That means establishing quota systems for Great Britain that are separate from the EU systems. Northern Ireland will remain part of the EU systems. Producers or importers will require GB quota to place things on the GB market, with businesses seeking to sell into Northern Ireland needing EU quota.
This instrument introduces provisions to control the movement of F gases and ODS between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The provisions define that the movement will be deemed as imports or exports for the purposes of F gas and ODS trade. Controlling such trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland is vital to maintain the integrity of the GB F gas and ODS systems, meet the Northern Ireland protocol requirements and ensure that the UK remains compliant with its international obligations under the Montreal protocol.
This is not about stopping trade. The approach in the instrument has been developed to meet two key principles—first, that we continue to contribute to the UK ambition on climate change through complying with our obligations under the world-renowned Montreal protocol and, secondly, that we impose the most light-touch measures on movements of goods between Northern Ireland and Great Britain that we can, adhering to the Northern Ireland protocol, while still meeting our international obligations.
The previous EU exit SI—the Ozone-Depleting Substances and Fluorinated Greenhouse Gases (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019—as amended by this instrument will transfer powers and functions previously held by European institutions, including the European Commission and the European Environment Agency, to appropriate authorities and regulators in England, Scotland and Wales. The Scottish and Welsh devolved Administrations will have the competence to establish and operate their own ODS and F gas systems, if they choose to in the future. I am pleased to say that all the devolved Administrations have agreed to this instrument.
I also confirm that the Scottish and Welsh devolved Administrations have agreed in principle to the operation of GB-wide ODS and F gas systems. Compliance and enforcement arrangements will remain, as under the current EU regulations, with the Environment Agency and devolved Administration regulators undertaking the same sort of activity as they do at present. We do not expect enforcement costs to increase significantly as the number of companies being regulated will be similar.
The impacts of this instrument are well below the £5 million per annum threshold, which is why no formal impact assessment accompanies it. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments considered the instrument and cleared it without comment on 4 November.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Hollobone, and I start by wishing you a belated happy birthday. I welcome the hon. Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis, and congratulate him on his promotion to Minister, if only for today.
It is good to be with colleagues this afternoon and to have the chance, once again, to scrutinise and unpick more delegated legislation from the Government. I have to say that the way things are happening now, it is beginning to feel like this is Government by statutory instrument and, although I have only been a member of this House for 18 months, I know that is not how things should be done.
We have two SIs before us and I shall speak to each in turn. First, the Hazardous Substances and Packaging (Legislative Functions and Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 refer to legislative functions that are currently held and carried out by the European Union on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment. The instrument seeks to transfer the functions currently exercised in Europe to the Secretary of State, in relation to England and Wales, and to Scotland, after the end of the transition period following our departure from the European Union, which, as you know, Mr Hollobone, is on 31 December 2020—or, to put it another way, in 44 days’ time.
Her Majesty’s Opposition will not seek a Division on the regulations; I know hon. Members will be disappointed to hear that. I just wish we were not discussing this important transfer of powers on 18 November 2020, to be ready for 44 days’ time, but we have to do so, because we need to be ready for what comes next. We need to ensure that all the necessary steps are taken for what life will be like on 1 January next year and beyond.
For those hon. Members who have listened to me speak in Delegated Legislation Committees before, it will be no surprise that I am going to raise concerns about impact assessments, the language used in them and the language more generally. This statutory instrument makes an important transfer of powers, and the importance of those powers means that I am very concerned about the wording of the explanatory memorandum. I refer hon. Members to paragraph 12 of the explanatory memorandum. The first sentence of 12.1 says,
“there will be an impact on business”.
Paragraph 12.3 then says,
“an Impact Assessment has not been prepared for this instrument because no significant impact on business, charities or voluntary bodies is foreseen”.
I would be grateful if the hon. Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis squared this circle for us—and for the people who will be affected by the transfer of these powers. There is an impact on business, but there is no impact assessment because no impact is foreseen. Perhaps he could clarify that when he sums up.
I know that Ministers across Whitehall are stretched, and I pay tribute to all the hard-working civil servants in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and across Government, but this simply is not good enough from Ministers. For many Opposition Members, it seems odd to identify a difference between “no impact” and “no significant impact”. We need clarity and coherence on this, please, this afternoon.
I have two specific questions for the hon. Gentleman. First, I want him to confirm that the power to amend the list of substances will not be used to weaken environmental protection. This is vital for us as a country and for how we tackle the climate emergency that people across—and outside—the House want us to tackle now.
Secondly, I note that the Department’s response states that it is “the Government’s intention” to carry out a general public consultation; we all know about good intentions, but they are different from delivering real results. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that a public consultation—including seeking the views of environmental groups—will be carried out when the list of substances is amended? When will it start, and how long will it last? That is vital and we all need answers.
The second statutory instrument, the draft Ozone-Depleting Substances and Fluorinated Greenhouse Gases (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, deals with a specific policy area that is one of the international obligation exemptions to the Government’s unfettered market access policy. There will be two separate systems in Great Britain and Northern Ireland that require the introduction of controls and checks on the movement of certain gases, substances and equipment across the Irish sea between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. With the potential practical impact on trade between NI and GB, these are issues that I suspect the House will consider with greater urgency in the coming weeks.
Her Majesty’s Opposition will not seek to divide the Committee on this SI either because we are recognise its technical nature and, most important, we are keenly focused on the integrity of the Union and on doing right by the people of Northern Ireland.
The regulations show once again how much we need to get done in the next 43 days. The Opposition are prepared to play our part in ensuring that this country—and by that, I mean Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland—is ready for what happens next. We will hold Ministers to account every single day from now until 31 December and beyond.
James Morris
I thank the hon. Lady for her remarks. She raised three issues in relation to the hazardous substances regulations. On her point about impact assessments, there is a definition of “minimal impact”, which leads to the conclusion that an impact assessment is not required. On her second question about whether the powers to implement the lists will lead to a diminution in environmental protection, my answer is simply no. On the third issue, about public consultation, I will write to her to give her the clarity she requires. I hope that that has addressed some of the questions that she raised.
I trust that the hon. Members understand and accept the need for the instruments. Failure to make these regulations would mean failing to meet the requirements of the Northern Ireland protocol. We would also be unable to control the flow of ozone-depleting substances and fluorinated greenhouse gases that cause so much harm to our planet. The UK would, as a result, be deemed non-compliant with our obligations under the Montreal protocol, where we have traditionally been at the forefront of driving environmental ambition. Domestically, we would jeopardise our legally binding targets under the Climate Change Act 2008 and, ultimately, the aim of achieving a net zero economy.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Hazardous Substances and Packaging (Legislative Functions and Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
DRAFT OZONE-DEPLETING SUBSTANCES AND FLUORINATED GREENHOUSE GASES (AMENMENT ETC.) (EU EXIT) REGULATIONS 2020
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Ozone-depleting Substances and Fluorinated Greenhouse Gases (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.—(James Morris.)
Westminster Hall
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Union Learning Fund
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice to support the new call list system and to ensure that social distancing can be respected. Members should sanitise their microphones, using the cleaning materials provided, before they use them, and dispose of them as they leave the room—that is the cleaning materials, not the microphones. Members are also asked to respect the one-way system around the room. Members should speak only from the horseshoe and only if they are on the call list—that applies even if debates are undersubscribed. Members cannot join the debate if they are not on the call list, and they are not expected to remain for the winding-up speeches.
Members in the latter stages of the call list should use the seats in the Public Gallery and move to the horseshoe when seats become available. Members can sit in any part of the Chamber. I remind hon. Members that there is less of an expectation that they stay for the next two speeches once they have spoken—that is to help manage attendance in the room. Members may wish to stay beyond after their speech, but they should be aware that doing so might prevent Members in the seats in the Public Gallery from moving to seats on the horseshoe.
This is a heavily subscribed debate, and there will be a time limit, so I discourage interventions on the Member in charge’s opening speech. I call Lillian Greenwood.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the future of the Union Learning Fund.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. Paul Glover works as a refuse driver in Nottingham. He struggled with dyslexia at school and left without any qualifications. At work in the depot, he found it hard to read instructions, fill in forms and access training. Paul realised that he was not alone and that, in some cases, his colleagues were completing safety documentation that they did not fully understand, as they were unable to read.
With the support of his union, GMB, Paul trained as a union learning rep. Now other workers approach him for help with their learning problems. He has been able to signpost them to appropriate courses, and he has set up a group for people who struggle with literacy to help them understand safety procedures, building their confidence and skills as well as making the workplace safer for everyone. In 2018, Paul won the award for midlands TUC learner rep of the year. There is a photo of him grinning from ear to ear—I would say he is bursting with pride.
Most of us in this Parliament know what educational success feels like. We have passed exams, got the certificates to prove it and been to graduation ceremonies—maybe our own or maybe our kids’. We are not afraid to learn new skills. For too many people in this country, however, school was not a happy experience. Like Paul, they left with few qualifications and even a sense of failure. That is a terrible waste of talent and, for many people, it can be hard to overcome. However, union learning and union learning reps—volunteers in the workplace—are uniquely well placed to help their workmates do just that.
That is not hard to understand. If someone thinks education is not for them, or struggles with reading and writing, numbers or using new technology, they might not want to tell their supervisor or someone in human resources, but they will talk to a colleague—someone like them—especially if they know that their colleague faces the same problem. That is the beauty of union learning: it is incredibly effective at engaging those hard-to-reach learners. Believe me, once they get going, there is no limit to what they can achieve.
I spent 22 years as a trade union officer before I was elected to Parliament. For a period in the late 1990s, I was regional education officer for Unison. I remember when the union learning fund was created and the difference it made. Our union had always offered education and training courses, but the union learning fund and the statutory support for union learning reps enabled us to do so much more. We were able to build partnerships with employers; to share more widely information about the opportunities available, which are not just for trade union members; and to grow the network of learners and advocates for learning.
I saw the difference that union learning made. Participants grew in confidence and went on to get promotions or new jobs. Some progressed from basic skills courses to A-levels, professional qualifications and degrees. Once they had got the learning bug, they wanted to share it, and I saw how they inspired their colleagues and worked with employers to spread the word. I saw industrial relations change for the better, workers who felt more valued and employers who welcomed an opportunity to collaborate with the trade unions, particularly at a time of change when their staff were being asked to adjust to new demands and roles were changing.
I could easily fill 90 minutes with wonderful case studies that showcase how the ULF has developed over the past 20 years; the difference it has made to millions of working people of all ages in every part of the country, in sectors from retail to manufacturing; how it has supported people to acquire basic skills, digital skills and better English; and how it has helped people to complete apprenticeships and professional training.
I wish I could do that, because the Minister needs to confront what the decision to withdraw funding from the ULF really means. Every year, she will be depriving more than 200,000 working people—many of them low paid—of access to transformational learning opportunities. That is not because basic skills courses in maths, English and digital skills will not be on offer—the ULF is not about training provision per se—but because union learning is key to getting reluctant adult learners to take up those opportunities.
The Prime Minister has announced that from next spring all adults will be able to study for their first level 3 qualification free of charge—a new lifetime skills guarantee—but what he cannot guarantee is that adult learners will have the confidence to take that step; how they will get the level 2 skills that they need to go on to the level 3 qualifications; how they will overcome practical barriers such as finding the time to learn, managing caring responsibilities and understanding their entitlements; how they will have the confidence to think it is for them; and how they will get the support to stick with it if the course feels tough. Those are precisely the things that union learning does well.
Independent reviews of the ULF show that unions excel at supporting less confident learners, especially those with few or no qualifications, eight out of 10 of whom said they would not have taken part in learning or training without trade union support. The Government have announced that they will spend £2.5 billion on the new national skills fund, but they suddenly cannot afford £12 million for the tried and tested successful programme that will help them ensure it is effective. That is why I find the decision to scrap the ULF so incomprehensible, so counterproductive and such a mistake. I can only assume that Ministers in the Department for Education could use some training in evidence-based policy making.
Before scrapping a programme that has been working effectively for more than two decades, I imagine that Ministers would consult the trade unions delivering it, but they have not. Have they consulted employers? No. Since the decision to withdraw funding was announced, dozens of employers have written to the Secretary of State to share their concerns. For example, Paula Stannett, Heathrow airport’s chief people officer, said:
“The announcement that funding support for the Union Learning Fund is to be ended is as disappointing as it is perplexing. The unprecedented impact that this pandemic is having on jobs across the UK means there has never been a more critical time to invest in upskilling. We urge the Government to rethink its decision.”
How about training providers and HR professionals? Another blank. The ULF has received support from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, the Learning and Work Institute and the Royal Society for Arts, Manufactures and Commerce. At a time of huge change, when the country faces an economic crisis precipitated by the pandemic, with millions of jobs at risk, one would imagine a cross-Government approach to skills was essential.
The Treasury would of course want to ensure that public expenditure provided value for money. The latest independent review of the ULF by the University of Exeter estimates that every £1 invested in the ULF generates a total economic return of £12.87, benefiting both individuals and employers. Has the Treasury called for the ULF to be scrapped? No. Has the Department for Education conducted a new evaluation that contradicts the independent review’s findings on value for money? No.
As the country seeks to respond to a massive economic shock and to build back better, workers will be required to retrain, reskill and adapt as never before. The industrial strategy depends on investing in developing the skills and infrastructure that we need to support the growth of new sectors. Has the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy been consulted? Has the impact on the success of the Government’s industrial strategy been evaluated? It appears not.
In its June 2020 report on skills, the Industrial Strategy Council made a number of observations about the benefits of learning reps and the ULF to meeting its objectives. It specifically recognises the success of Unionlearn in recruiting low-skilled workers into training and the value of trade unions in helping to shape local skills strategies.
So why is the ULF being scrapped? Since that shocking decision was communicated to the TUC last month, numerous Members of this House and the other place have tried to understand. There have been many questions, but no credible answers, which leads me to believe that the decision is motivated by politics—that the Secretary of State wants to scrap the union learning fund because it is led by unions.
A few weeks ago, the general secretary of the TUC, Frances O’Grady, stood alongside the Chancellor of the Exchequer outside 11 Downing Street backing a package of support for jobs. It seems strange to react to that by scrapping a successful scheme. Doing so looks like unnecessary union bashing rather than supporting a skills programme that delivers good outcomes and value for money—that is not my analysis but that of a Conservative MP, the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), who is Chair of the Select Committee on Education.
I wish there were more time. I would like to talk about the incredible work of my former colleagues, Angela and Gavin, and all the Unison learning team in the east midlands. I would like to tell hon. Members about Neil Chapman, who began his own learning journey with retail union USDAW, and now works with learning reps at the Boots site in Nottingham. There, thanks to the ULF, they have an on-site learning centre and support learners to access training through a range of local providers and further education colleges, including, increasingly, in mental health awareness.
I would like to tell hon. Members more about Fire Brigades Union member Laura Wilton, who uses her training to help women in Nottinghamshire prepare for the physical demands of being a firefighter. I would share information about the important work of the Federation of Entertainment Unions, which uses the ULF to equip freelancers with the skills and knowledge they need to run businesses as self-employed workers.
However, many of my colleagues want to speak—some have not even been able to make it into the room today—and I am keen to hear their contributions, especially as many of them, like me, have direct experience of the union learning programmes. But before I conclude, I want to pose some questions that I hope the Minister will address in her response to the debate.
How will cutting this vital support for the hardest-to-reach learners help the Government to roll out their offer of level 3 qualifications? Which organisation will replace Unionlearn in engaging reluctant learners? How will scrapping the union learning fund help this country to “build back better”? What assessment has the Minister carried out of the impact of removing funding for the ULF on the industrial strategy? What discussions has she had with her colleagues in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on this decision?
If the Minister is concerned that the programme is available only in unionised workplaces, how will scrapping it improve the uptake of training in non-unionised workplaces? If she is concerned that union learning levers in investment only from larger employers, what discussions has she had with the TUC about addressing those concerns? Has she challenged it to reach smaller, non-unionised workplaces? Has she given it the opportunity to respond to such a challenge?
I am sure that the Minister’s numeracy skills are top-notch. Can she confirm what proportion of the Department for Education’s £54 billion budget the £12 million spent on union learning represents? If she really is worried about how her Department can afford that, what discussions has she held with other potential funders? For example, has she consulted Mayors and combined authorities about the impact that this cut will have on their plans to boost skills and productivity in their regions?
Union learning makes a massive difference to workers, employers and our economy, but it is the individual human impacts that get me every time. I want to give the last word to Sam Biddlecombe, an NHS healthcare assistant in Derbyshire. Sam joined a Unison women’s lives course, went on to a level 3 access to higher education diploma and ended up going to university to study nursing. She said:
“I think you have to be in the right mind-set to learn, school was wasted on me when I was young but after the two UNISON courses, I felt I’d been given a toolkit to further myself…My learning experience has made a real difference to my life, not just at work but at home too. My little girl sees me doing my homework and so she’ll pick up a book and read. In our house, free time isn’t just for sitting in front of the TV; it’s also for talking, reading and learning something.”
It is never too late to learn, even for Ministers.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
The debate can last until 11 am. I am obliged to call the Front-Bench spokespeople no later than 10.27 am, and the guideline limits are 10 minutes for the SNP, 10 minutes for Her Majesty’s Opposition and 10 minutes for the Minister. If the Minister would close no later than three minutes before 11 am, that will give Lilian Greenwood a chance to sum up the debate. There are 12 Back-Bench colleagues seeking to contribute until 10.27 am. If there are no interventions, we can have a time limit of three and a half minutes and everyone will be able to contribute. The clock will be operating to show you where you are during your speech.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Hollobone. I support the arguments powerfully laid out by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), as do employers, the RSA, the CIPD and others.
Last month the TUC was told that Ministers had decided not to continue funding Unionlearn beyond the current financial year. That is a termination of £12 million annual funding, which supports over 200,000 learners in workplaces across the country every year—learners who undertake all sorts of job-relevant learning and training, including basic literacy, numeracy, information and communications technology, apprenticeships and traineeships, vocational training, continuous professional development, and many other informal and formal courses. At the heart of the model is a union learning rep, a trained worker who understands the workforce, the nature of the business and the skills gaps that exist.
I know that the Minister is aware of work that I and other Members of Parliament around Heathrow are doing in response to the current pandemic to support a learning offer. Unite and others are involved in developing a new Unite learning hub at Heathrow, and it is one of the best examples I have seen, with hundreds of tailored courses based on learning surveys with people in the workplace and in the community. How many Unionlearn projects has the Minister visited? How many reps has she spoken with? How many employers and employees using the model has she talked to? What published assessment has been made of the return on investment or the impact? And what assessment has she has made of that impact?
To add to the comments made by my hon. Friend, I received a contribution from Catherine, a learning rep for Unite. She says:
“I would like to add some information that may be of use to you through my own personal experience…and the students I have worked with… the ULF is more than delivering maths, English and ICT… it is about giving someone the opportunity to learn, who for whatever reason may not have had the confidence within themselves, time or energy to go to college or do a course online… We are not just about gaining qualifications, we are about giving someone the ability to read to his grandchildren, we are about helping to deliver equality and diversity training to an entire workforce, we are about delivering vital skills to vulnerable and low paid workers who cannot afford to go to college, or whose working hours don't fit with that of colleges. We are about giving someone the belief in themselves that they can achieve.
By providing education delivery in the workplace and in the community, we are opening up countless opportunities for workers… who may have thought they were not available to them.
I say workers and not members because not everyone who takes part in one of the courses is a union member… because ULF workers are at the frontline… we can adapt and respond to the needs of workers in a work place and that too of the company… when working together and deliver education”
that is in line with the initiatives put forward by the Government. She adds:
“Many of the students would not be able to attend regular colleges due to cost”.
I do not need to say much more. With some policy choices, there are grey areas to consider. With this one, once we understand the work of the fund and what it achieves, there is only a downside.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) for securing this important debate. I know many hon. Members want to speak, so I will keep my comments brief.
I declare an interest as a GMB member and a former officer who was responsible for setting up Unionlearn projects at Heathrow. I fought to lead that project because I believe in the transformative power of in-work learning, If the Chancellor wants the country to rethink, reskill and reboot, he should be backing Unionlearn, not scrapping it. We should not wait until people are unemployed to reskill and retrain. We should be doing that when people are in work, allowing them to climb up, succeed and progress in their lives. That is not just a huge benefit to an individual; it also benefits companies, employers and the UK economy. Pre-pandemic, our economy was limping along and productivity was sluggish. The answers to that have been, time and again, a skilled workforce.
I will talk about Mark Church and his story, and how Unionlearn changed his life. He left school without being able to read or write. He spent most of his adult life just getting by and avoiding situations where he could be exposed. These are his words:
“I couldn’t pick up and read a book or a newspaper like other people. I also had great difficulty writing.”
Years after leaving school, Mark was redeployed from his manual role into a technical role, and he realised he could no longer avoid confronting the problem. He said:
“I panicked. I realised I would no longer be able to get by with the level of skills I had.”
He then turned to his union learning rep for support. The union arranged one to one training to help Mark improve his essential skills. He gained the qualifications he needed, and he got on. He did not just get on in his workplace; he actively encouraged other people to take on training as well.
As we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South, people like Mark trust their union. The idea that he could go to his employer and say, “I’m struggling with reading and writing,” is an absolute fantasy. People trust their union, which is why Unionlearn was such a success.
I ask the Minister to look at the benefits of Unionlearn and to rethink scrapping it. If we really want to “build back better”, we need a skilled workforce to do that.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) for securing such a vital debate, for speaking so passionately, from her own experience, and for thanking all the union learning reps up and down the country who are making significant differences to our communities.
I speak not only as the Member of Parliament for Weaver Vale, but as a former Unison convenor for careers services across Greater Manchester, some years ago. The union learning fund was introduced by the Labour Government in 1998 as a national scheme, but it was operated by the TUC in 1996, under the dying days of the John Major Government. It was a real game changer, and it still is. It is about promoting lifelong learning, which is something the current Prime Minister has referred to when he talks about “build back better”.
I have seen the difference it makes at the chalkface. We have already heard stories about the real difference it makes for people who have traditionally been failed by mainstream education and schools. For people who cannot do some of the basics, like reading, writing and basic maths, it is a real game changer. We have spoken about the trusted relationship with the trade union brand, but it is also a partnership with employers, Jobcentre Plus and training providers, who I have personally worked alongside in delivering these schemes in the past.
Recently, we had redundancies at Thomas Cook. Unite put together a fantastic scheme with those partners to upskill people and look at opportunities elsewhere. It would be absolute economic madness to shut the scheme down at this time.
I know the Minister is genuinely passionate about apprenticeships and has direct experience of them. She is the former co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on apprenticeships—I am a member too. I am not convinced that the Minister wants to go down in history as the Minister who shut the door on the people we are talking about—on the hundreds of thousands of workers a year who benefit from the scheme.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South rightly spoke about investment. Every pound invested creates £12.87 in return. To me, it is the right thing to do not only for education but for the economy. It is life-changing for many of our key workers who we rightly applaud. I certainly hope that the Minister does not want to go down in history as a key player or architect in shutting the door on hundreds of thousands of workers.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I, too, thank my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) for securing this important debate about something we all feel passionate about.
The union learning fund has helped millions of workers across the UK, so I and many hon. Members present were shocked when the Government announced that they were going to scrap the hugely successful programme. It is a brilliant initiative that encourages the greater uptake of learning within the workplace. It engages workers and employees alike to build the right structure and culture within an organisation by upskilling its employees. We have heard many powerful stories about it today.
Scrapping the fund is most painful to the millions of employees who have benefited from it, some of whom are constituents of mine. In the midlands and in my union, the GMB, members have learned to read and write through the scheme, which has given them empowering and life-changing opportunities for themselves and their families. Needless to say, the union learning fund has had a positive impact on the workplace environment for employees and employers.
I appreciate and welcome the Government’s focus on establishing a new national skills fund, but I put it to the Minister that the union learning fund could be part of that programme. In today’s climate, with covid-19 ravaging jobs and our local economies, a programme such as the union learning fund can have a powerful benefit and be an asset, not a hindrance, to the Government. In the financial year 2019-20, the fund improved the English, maths and digital skills of many employees across the country. It allowed them to develop and grow in high-quality apprenticeships and traineeships. It improved support for infrastructure projects, workplace development and skills progression.
The union learning fund has allowed many of my constituents to reach their full potential, which is something all hon. Members want for our constituents. It has demonstrated excellent value for money in return for public funds—£12 for every £1 spent. The Government always talk about ensuring that spending is effective; there is no better way than that.
More importantly, the fund has had a massive impact on the lives of many constituents across the UK, which is, honestly, truly priceless. I will quickly mention some statistics. The TUC has stated that 80% of employees said that they had developed transferable skills, 62% had acquired more effective jobs, 19% had gained a promotion or increased their responsibility, and 11% had gained a pay rise.
The Government have spoken a lot about upskilling during the pandemic, especially for those who have lost their job. I believe that the union learning fund provides employees and workers who have been furloughed during the pandemic with the opportunity to take part in online learning and training, which is something that we want for our constituents. My plea is for the Government to reconsider scrapping this brilliant programme and instead commit to funding it—and, perhaps, to go further and find a home for it as part of the national skills fund.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) for securing this important debate and for making a compelling case for the union learning fund. We live in an increasingly uncertain world where employment is more insecure, and long-established industries are giving way to new sectors and new forms of working. One of the most powerful tools that we have to help workers through the uncertainty and navigate the swirling tides of economic change is education and training. We need to be able to help workers throughout their working life to retrain, to reskill, and to update their capabilities so that they can take on new jobs.
Digital skills in particular are necessary in modern workplaces of all kinds, and in all fields. To take one example, local government has needed to make the changes quickly. There has been the most significant shift to digital working in our lifetime in just the last few months, and in my local authority in Newcastle learning zones have been set up so that staff can get online—many for the first time—so that they can continue to provide services. It is union learning reps who have provided the human support to make it possible and support people with digital skills. We know how important that is. I do not know about other hon. Members, but since we have moved to a more virtual Parliament I have been on the phone to the Parliamentary Digital Service almost every day. We need people to speak to, and that is the role that many union learning reps have similarly played for local government. The pandemic has supercharged the process, with so many people having to transition so quickly to working remotely.
As well as being vital for staff development, it is crucial to the economy to ensure that we have the workforce to meet skills requirements and develop the UK’s competitive edge in key industries in an increasingly uncertain and onward-developing world. The difficulties caused by the pandemic, and the growing number of redundancies, will leave many needing to retrain. They will turn to their union learning reps to support them in that. Lifelong learning is more important than ever, which is why the decision to cut the union learning fund is disappointing. It seems incredibly short-sighted and frankly unfathomable. It is also completely at odds with the Prime Minister’s professed intentions with respect to a lifetime skills guarantee, and to build back better—and, indeed, to level up—after covid-19. The union learning fund is particularly, and uniquely, well equipped to support those workers who might not otherwise be engaged with workplace learning, ensuring that everyone can get access to the opportunities and that no one is left behind. I urge the Government to listen to hon. Members today and to reconsider the decision—and to continue the vital union learning fund.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) on securing what is clearly an important debate. It is for exactly such debates that we need Westminster Hall up and running. I hope that participation here will be extended to those unable to be here in person because of the pandemic.
Other Members have clearly done an excellent job already of making the case for the union learning fund, but as a Liberal Democrat I want to add my voice. I am in agreement about being at a complete loss to understand why the Government have decided to scrap the fund. There are so many compelling reasons to keep it in place, which have already been set out—not least the fact that the change is happening during a huge shock to the economy at exactly the time when employees need to retrain and reskill. Indeed, the Government are spending other moneys on a campaign to encourage people to do just that.
One of the particular attractions, to me, of the union learning fund and the way it is delivered is the fact that it is co-ordinated by internal union learning representatives. All good businesses and organisations should have strong learning and development resources in place. Prior to becoming a Member of Parliament I worked in capability development in manufacturing, and I know the positive and important impact that that can have on employees and organisations in their turn. When I was studying for my Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development qualification a decade ago, the institute recognised union learning representatives as a positive and collaborative means of working. I note its support today.
The union learning fund is, in effect, a power-to-the-people approach to learning and development and a devolution of the powers of learning and development training to employees themselves. However, given recent comments by the Prime Minister, perhaps it is no surprise that the Government want to scrap it. Given the Scottish Government’s expected commitment to continue to fund the STUC’s union learning until at least 2023, denying people elsewhere in the UK access to the same provisions is another perfectly avoidable own goal.
I hope that the Minister will set out in full the reasons why the Government are intent on dismantling the fund. There is clear demand for reversing it. The TUC’s campaign is supported by businesses big and small—Tesco, Heathrow and Tata Steel. The early-day motion tabled by the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) had, when I last counted, been signed by more than 80 Members.
The fund itself consistently delivers value for money; it is a tiny amount, but it goes very far. Value for public money matters to my constituents in North East Fife, who pay their taxes and expect the Government to deliver that value in return.
I will conclude by echoing some of the questions raised by the hon. Member for Nottingham South in her opening remarks. Where is the £12 million for the fund being diverted to? Is it going into this national skills fund? Is there any form of direct replacement planned? What assessment did the Government carry out before they made this decision? Do they accept the analysis of the University of Exeter that the fund is effective? Finally, what assessment have the Government made on the impact of scrapping the fund on their levelling up agenda? I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) on securing this important debate; what a pleasure it is to speak in Westminster Hall for the first time on such an important issue. I declare an interest as a life-long trade unionist, as a former member of the Unite national executive and as someone who has greatly benefited personally from union learning on many occasions over many years.
This debate could not have come at a more important time; when tens of thousands of workers have lost their jobs or are under threat of losing them because of the economic devastation caused by the pandemic, the last thing that the Government should be doing is cutting funding to training.
The union learning fund, as has been said, was created over 20 years ago and has been a great success in enabling millions of working people to improve their skills and their lives, both in and outside of their workplaces. This is not a partisan issue; the union learning fund has always enjoyed cross-party support, receiving continued recognition for its contribution to work-based learning under the coalition Government and previous Conservative Administrations.
The statistics speak for themselves with regard to the fund; the most recent independent evaluation showed that 68% of learners with no previous qualifications gained a qualification due to the support of the fund, while 47% with entry or level 1 qualifications gained a higher qualification. That is not just beneficial for the employee; 77% of employers said that the union learning fund had a positive effect in their workplace. The fund supports working people to better their lives at all levels; one of my own team members is doing a part-time master’s degree that is partly funded by Unionlearn through Birkbeck College. With postgraduate qualifications out of reach for so many working people, the way that Birkbeck College utilised this fund alongside their evening study hours is commendable.
We need to be looking forward to a post-pandemic economic world, where this country’s skill base will provide the foundation for economic regeneration, growth and employment opportunities, and increased prosperity for all. A fully skilled workforce will be vital in spearheading the UK’s economic future in this new and challenging global economy. That is why the union learning fund should remain as an important section of the UK’s overall training program.
I hope that the Minister will listen closely to the contributions made here today and hear the overwhelming arguments for the union learning fund to continue and, in the words of the Prime Minister,
“offer a Lifetime Skills Guarantee to help people train and retrain—at any stage in their lives”.
A decision to continue funding and to abandon these plans to cease the learning fund in 2021 would be a positive step in achieving that ambition.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
One more speaker has arrived, so I will have to cut the time limit to three minutes with immediate effect. That way, everybody will get to contribute to the debate.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Hollobone, and it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) on securing this important and timely debate.
The Government have declared that they will put reskilling workers at the heart of their economic recovery plans after the pandemic. That was a significant and welcome announcement, so why are they now proposing to scrap one of the most successful schemes for encouraging workers to upskill? Since it was launched in 1998, the union learning fund has provided training and qualifications to around 200,000 workers every year—almost 4.5 million new qualifications that contribute not just to the worker’s confidence, skills and knowledge, but to the business they work in.
As a former Unison rep, I have witnessed first-hand the success of the ULF. Last year the union learning fund cost £12 million—a mere £60 per learner. Learners undertake all sorts of job-relevant training, including in basic literacy, numeracy, information and communications technology skills, apprenticeships, traineeships, vocational training, continuing professional development and other informal and informal courses.
At the heart of the model is the union learning representative, a trained worker who understands the workforce, the nature of the business and the skill gaps that exist. They work with employers, their own union and Unionlearn to broker access to relevant learning opportunities for workers in their workplaces. There are more than 44,000 in England. And the model works; 37% of union members regularly access workplace learning, compared with just 19% of workers in non-unionised workplaces.
The essential food industry is reliant on migrant workers and those with no or low-level qualifications. The Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union has provided Unionlearn-funded training to more than 31,000 workers over the past 20 years, including functional literacy and numeracy skills and English to speakers of other languages. Like other union partners, it provides a route back in for those failed by the education system, those with low confidence, and those whose first language is not English but who are likely to be key to the success of the business. An independent study in 2018 from the University of Exeter found that 68% of learners with no previous qualifications gained a qualification.
It is incredible that the Government—who were prepared to put billions of pounds into contracts with Serco for test, track and trace, and millions into precuring personal protective equipment not fit for use—made the decision to scrap the ULF. I urge the Minister to reconsider that decision.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) for securing this important debate and setting out superbly why the union learning fund has such an impact on workers’ lives, particularly in the workplace. I say this as a member of the CIPD and from my working life as a head of human resources and organisational development. The power of workplace learning is so important. The ULF supports teams across more than 20 unions, developing workers in NHS wards, offices and factories, on shop floors and in so many other workplaces. It offers hundreds of lifelong learning courses on a range of subjects, focused job-related training and upskilling to thousands of workers—union members and non-members alike. The workers who receive the most benefits from the ULF are predominantly low-paid, seeking educational opportunities. As TUC general secretary Francis O’Grady puts it so succinctly, the ULF is
“the Heineken of adult learning—it gets to people other approaches cannot reach.”
Through joint working between employers and ULF representatives, skills gaps in the workforce are identified and workers are provided with access to training that fills them. An independent evaluation of the ULF’s work in 2018 found that for every £1 spent on the ULF, workers gained £7.60 through better pay, employers gained £4.70 through higher productivity and the Government gained £3.57 from welfare savings and revenue gains. In pure financial terms, that is a win, win, win. However, instead of recognising the benefits of the ULF to workers and employers, the Government have announced that from March 2021 they will cut its funding. In one breath we have the Government stating they want to build back better across the country, then in another they undermine workers’ ability to develop the skills needed to drive our recovery.
I am pleased that there is huge support across the labour and trade union movement for saving the ULF but, as already mentioned, the campaign is backed by large employers such as Tesco, Heathrow, British Steel and Tata Steel. Given the successful track record of ULF over the past two decades and its positive return on investment—and given the support from employers and workers—why are the Government cutting the ULF and replacing it with the national skills fund? Why fix it when it ain’t broke? The answer is not one that is focused on improving development opportunities for workers. Instead, it smacks of a politically motivated attack on trade unions in the workplace and is another avenue to weaken their ability to support workers—and a shameless attempt to disrupt organised labour.
The Bank of England has warned that the UK faces the worst recession in 300 years, so scrapping a scheme that is not just oven-ready but already cooked to perfection, flies in the face of building back better. I urge the Government to listen to workers, employers and trade unions by safeguarding the ULF’s future.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mr Hollobone, and I concur with every word uttered in the debate, not least those of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood).
We are here because we have all witnessed something so transformative and so life-changing in workplaces across the country that we want the Minister to go on the union learning fund journey. It is no ordinary learning scheme. The Minister may be asking why trade unions would make such an investment in union learning. What do they gain from it? Why would people volunteer to be learning reps? Is that not somebody else’s job?
Let me tell the Minister about the transformative power of union learning reps and the union learning fund: for just £12 million, it returns £1.4 billion to the economy. Unions invest because that is what they do. Unions invest in health and safety reps because they want working people to be safer at work. Unions invest in workplace reps because they know that better workplaces are more productive workplaces, and provide more secure labour. Unions invest in union learning because they unlock the potential of others, give them life chances that they have never had, help them discover their skills and talents, and open up to them a new world of possibilities. That is what trade unions do. After going through training in which unions have invested, union learning reps ensure that effective programmes are available to workers that are matched to their needs.
I used to be Unite’s national officer, and I saw how many men and women who had no qualifications and would shy away from learning, began their learning journey with the support of union learning reps. They first gained basic skills thanks to the investment, encouragement and support of the union learning rep, working patiently alongside them to give them confidence and support. I would then see barriers fall, and the fear of learning turn into a new hunger. They then embark upon courses and improve themselves, becoming more confident workers and bringing real gain to their workplaces, as 80% of courses do.
I have witnessed tears of frustration turn to tears of joy. I have heard testimonials from employers who have confessed that they would not have been able to do what the fund does without the union learning fund. It is not just about the course or the qualification; it is about the learning journey—the support, the encouragement, the friendship and the fulfilment of the hidden dream. It is powerful. At a time like this, when we are going to have to use every resource wisely and see workers diversify their skills, the union learning fund has never been more needed. That is why employers want to keep it, and that is why employers have set up learning centres and learning agreements. The union learning fund does things that no learning programme can do: it brings together employers, workers and reps with a life of possibilities.
Before the Minister takes out her pen I want her, in her response today, to commit to immersing herself in the world of the union learning fund. She will witness something so moving, effective and valuable. I know she will change her mind as a result.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mr Hollobone. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) for securing this honourable and important debate. I am proud to be a trade unionist and to have the support of trade unions, and I declare an interest: I am a member of Unite the union.
It is through trade unions that working people advance our collective interests, from winning rights and better pay at work to building up our skills and talents. That is what the union learning fund is all about. Every year it supports 200,000 workers, enhancing literacy, numeracy, ICT skills and professional development, amongst much else. As hon. Friends have said, it is a proven success. A 2018 evaluation found that for every £1 spent on the scheme, workers gained £7.60 in better pay, employers gained £4.70 through higher productivity and the Government gained £3.57 from social security savings and revenue gains. That is why it is not only workers who back it, but businesses like Tata Steel. The fund pays for itself and enriches everyone else. It was needed in normal times, never mind times like these, when Britain has entered the worst recession on record, unemployment is surging to levels not seen in decades and the climate emergency is already with us. While people are losing their jobs in record numbers, work needs to be done. Our public services are in ruin: 10 years of Tory cuts have brought them to their knees. We need to build them up, skilling workers along the way, from the care sector to education to the NHS.
Our society is hooked on deadly fossil fuels. We need to break that addiction, decarbonising our economy with a green new deal, training and investing in our young people, so that instead of being trapped in unemployment, they are building the wind turbines that we need to power our country forward, building the clean public transport that is fit for the future, and retrofitting our country’s homes to reduce energy bills and emissions. There is work to be done, and it is the Government’s job to see that it is done. That is why, instead of scrapping the union learning fund, we should be investing in and expanding it.
Government Members like to pretend that they are the champions of the working class, but when it comes to concrete policies, such as the self-organised training of working people or feeding working-class kids during the school holidays, that façade vanishes and they show their true colours. However, they could prove me wrong and I would be very happy if they did. So, instead of their claiming the mantle of supporting working people only when it means pitting white working-class people against poor black and brown working-class people, I urge them to stand up for all working-class people, by committing to maintaining and expanding the union learning fund.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) on securing this important and timely debate. I declare an interest, as a member of Unison.
Today I join employers, businesses, and especially workers, across the country in being staggered by the decision—out of the blue—to scrap the union learning fund. In-work poverty is one of the main sources of poverty in my constituency. So many people are working two or three jobs but still cannot make ends meet. Workplace learning is a proven route out of poverty and the ULF is a proven provider of such learning. In-work learning removes the barriers to learning for those who need it most, so that low-paid workers and their families can get vital qualifications and skills. As the General Secretary for USDAW has said:
“Learning and re-skilling will be at the heart of helping the country recover from…this…pandemic…Unionlearn reaches the people other schemes do not”.
Will the Minister today explain how else the Government will provide such a highly successful route to learning for 200,000 learners every year? What is the alternative? I understand that the fund is being diverted or moved to colleges. Colleges need more funding, but this is robbing Peter to pay Paul. Local colleges cannot provide access to learning that is equivalent to the access that the ULF provides. The ULF is in the right place, where workers actually are. It operates around working hours and pools the resources of employers, education providers and trade unions. That makes it amazing value for money, so it should be valued in and of itself. And it provides more than training; it also provides mentoring, to increase people’s confidence and inspire reluctant learners to change their life and achieve their potential.
The ULF has been a successful provider of union learning for more than 20 years, during which time it has been built up. If it is removed now, and cut next year, that would be really hard for all involved; it would take another 20 years to build up such an amazing resource, including the network of providers and courses. The ULF benefits 200,000 workers every year and is a key route to apprenticeships. It is valued by employers from Tesco to Heathrow to Tata Steel, and so many more employers in industries that will be key for building back better.
In fact, the fund is needed now more than ever, as workers reel from the impact of covid. Scrapping it will undermine the lifetime skills guarantee and any promises about green jobs. I urge the Minister to stop, review the fund, value it, and keep it instead of scrapping it.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) for securing the debate. First, I declare an interest—I am a lifelong trade unionist and former regional secretary of Unite the union.
My experience in the workplace over many years has given me an insider’s view of how valuable the union learning fund has been to so many workers. Currently, the fund supports 250,000 workers, through the provision of first-class training and skills courses. The Government’s announcement last October that the fund would end in March 2021 flies in the face of the country’s needs, as the pandemic still rages. That is why the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have opted to maintain the fund.
As the virus tears apart our industry, resources need to be put into rebuilding our skills base, retraining our workforce and developing people capable of taking up new jobs in new industries. At least, that is the view of the devolved Governments, and I must ask why that view is not obvious to the Conservative Government. If they really believe that we must build back better, how can they also believe that taking away a key means of achieving that goal is a good idea? It will not save them money, but will cost them considerably in terms of an educated workforce, capable of meeting the challenge of the green industrial revolution that must lie at the heart of rebuilding our economy. Even now, the ULF more than pays for itself, contributing an estimated £5.4 million in improved productivity. For every pound spent through the fund, an extra £3.57 per worker is taken in taxes, as a result of improved wages and welfare savings from securing employment through the fund.
Not surprisingly many employers, including Tesco, Tata Steel and Heathrow, are supporting the trade union campaign to save the ULF. I warmly welcome the campaign and strongly urge the Government to change course on this issue.
As well as the big-picture arguments about the ULF’s economic value, I want to talk about the benefits from a human point of view. In my years as a trade union activist, I have seen and dealt with many individuals. I have had to support them personally as well as collectively. The beauty of the ULF is that it gives properly trained and accredited union learning reps the chance to help people directly in the workplace.
I have spoken to colleagues who have suffered a disability and panicked about their inability to carry out their job. I have spoken to people who cannot read or write, though many find ways to disguise that fact from their employer and colleagues, out of shame. I have met people whose potential to advance in their work has been cruelly hampered by a lack of education or being scared about learning new skills to do with new technologies.
It is simple: from the point of view of educating the workforce of the future and supporting the workforce of today, the ULF is a precious resource, which we must not give up. A sum of £12 million is not a lot of money, but it is worth its weight in gold to the people who use the fund. Stop being petty and reinstate the fund.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
We now come to the Front Bench speeches. The guidelines are 10 minutes for the SNP, 10 minutes for the official Opposition and 10 minutes for the Minister.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. Like others, I congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) on securing the debate.
Three themes have emerged from all the excellent speeches that have been made. First, there is the timing and the general situation in which the decision has been made. Secondly, there is the principle of lifelong learning and the importance of workplace-based learning. Thirdly, and perhaps most tragically, there is the perversity—if not prejudice—of the decision. I will deal with each aspect in turn.
On the timing and the situation, which many Members have mentioned, even pre-covid we lived in a fast-changing world where things did not stay the same, but were accelerating. The days are gone when people turned up at the factory gate at the age of 13 or 14—more recently, 16—and remained there until they got their gold watch at 65. Even those in a workplace with a more IT basis will likely have many employers and, more importantly, the nature of their work will change. For those leaving school or graduating at 16, 18, 21 or 22, how many jobs will they experience, how much training will they undertake and how vastly changed will their work be by the time they are 30, never mind 40, 50 or even 70, as the retirement age is likely to be?
That is why it is so vital to post people in retraining to allow them to better themselves. As others have also said, it is even more vital post-covid, because we all know that unemployment is rising and we are just at the beginning. It is going to go up significantly and hard times are coming. We also know that the nature of work is changing, which has been mentioned by many Members. The need for homeworking, the change in IT and the delivery of Zoom have changed within the period of my membership of Parliament, compared with what went before. The pace of change is significant and it is going to be driven.
We know that aircrew are being told that they have skills, and that they can retrain. I recall that it was difficult to keep senior police officers in the north-east of Scotland because, trained in command and control, they were perfect for many who wanted experience like that in offshore oil and gas. It will always be necessary for people to have that opportunity to move on and change. The world in which we live is changing. The nature of what people do will have to change, and we have to be able to support them.
That takes me on to the second issue, which has been touched on: the principle of lifelong learning and the importance of workplace learning. I have to confess to being an autodidact. That is because I did a degree in law and, as I frequently say, I have spent a lifetime trying to get an education. That is the nature of a law degree, or perhaps of myself. Education is something that we should value in itself. It is important that we educate people for the work that they do, so that they can improve the work that they do and improve themselves per se. That is necessary. This is not simply about education for education’s sake; it is about providing for workers. The two aspects are equally important, and that is why the fund is crucial.
Hon. Members have commented that the jobs that have been delivered are significant, and they have outlined the skills that have been provided for the whole of society, not just simply the individual or their employer. The individual’s general knowledge and the self-confidence that goes with it is unquantifiable and cannot be put in any briefing from the House of Commons Library or a trade union. Workplace learning environments are important because education has to be put in context. Hon. Members have mentioned the people they have come across who have benefited.
The context of this issue is longstanding. The fund was established in 1998 to institutionalise what had been ongoing for many years. Ruskin College was established, if I recall, in 1899, as we were coming into a new age of the industrial revolution. Scotland’s equivalent, Newbattle Abbey College, took a few more decades to come along. I know it well. Many people went there for reasons that many hon. Members have narrated: the opportunity to better themselves, perhaps after having left school without qualifications, and the opportunity to return to education. That was important not just for those individuals and the Scottish economy, but for Scottish society. Before the trade union learning fund, we had the Workers’ Educational Association, which still exists. If my memory serves me well, it has been around since the early 1900s. I know people who worked there and did a remarkable job, and people who went there. The trade union learning fund provided a context and some institutionalisation of that, because the benefits are clear.
I have studied Jimmy Reid extensively and have written a biography about him. He would be regarded as one of the greatest Scots of the 20th century. He was a most educated man, but he never went to university, other than gracing the University of Glasgow as its rector. He said that his university was in the shipyards. It was there that he met other worker representatives who directed him towards what to read, what to study, where to go and how to access it. The trade union learning fund brought together all the benefits that Jimmy Reid had.
I met many of Jimmy Reid’s colleagues. Many of the old CPers were the best if someone wanted to get an education. I recall being challenged by a CPer who was no longer able to work because he was blacklisted. At that stage, I was a young law graduate, and he asked what books I read. I have to say that I was humbled and shamed, but I have remembered that ever since, because my love of radical American literature came from that man, steered in a workplace environment, who told me not just about Steinbeck and Jack London, but about the benefits of reading John Dos Passos, Upton Sinclair, Richard Wright and all those other greats who I now pass on. It is that environment that the trade union fund brings together: the opportunity for people to better themselves and be improved as individuals. That is why it is important that we seek to protect it.
That is the basis of why we hope to hear from the Minister why the fund is being ended. It is important that we conceptualised this idea and put it in a framework. The days of someone turning up and the shop steward being there to advise them is much harder to deliver when they are working in a home environment or a working environment that is much less organised. It was important that we were able to bring together the benefits that we got to those comrades back then.
I appreciate that colleges and universities have expanded, that they provide much more, and that they do a remarkably good job. The college near me that provides for my community would tell me that the average age is well into the 20s and that many of the hardest working are the women who left school, had a family, realised that they have the skills and attributes, and want to better themselves for them and their families—they want to go back. That is why the decision seems—if not perverse—almost prejudiced.
I am conscious of time, so I will simply conclude with some questions. Is this simply prejudice based on a desire to do down the trade union movement? The Scottish National party is not affiliated as such, but it is a huge supporter of that movement and recognises the benefits. As I say, I think those who work today and those who went before are extremely praiseworthy. Equally, if the decision is not prejudiced, does it not seem perverse at a time when we require ever more lifelong and workplace education?
Perhaps most importantly, is the decision reversible? If not, the likelihood is that it will cause significant harm, not just to individuals or to employers who require their skills, but to us as a society, who can only benefit from having people as educated, well read and trained as they can be. That is the society we need: it will build us back better and it is what the fund was created to allow to happen. I leave those questions for the Minister.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I, too, thank my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) for securing the debate and for her contribution.
The sheer number of speakers in the debate says a lot. The Minister should be concerned not just about the number of Labour and Scottish National party Members who came; she should hear loud and clear that not a single Conservative MP was willing to come to the debate to speak up for the decision. The fact that the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) is not here to speak up for the decision should say more to the Minister than every single eloquent speech that we have heard from my hon. Friends and colleagues. For the 200,000 learners each year who will see barriers placed before their careers by this incredibly short-sighted move, the debate will provide reassurance that there are people in this place who are more interested in supporting them than in picking fights, settling scores and preventing that ladder of opportunity.
I will not have the opportunity to refer to every speech, but so many important points were made by colleagues, some of which I want to mention. As my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) said, the union learning fund has enjoyed cross-party support throughout its time, going right back to 1998. As other hon. Members have said, the programme has demonstrated the potential to enhance and transform the lives of workers. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South said that the programme reaches people whose statutory education has failed and who arrived in the workplace without functional literacy and numeracy. Those are the people the programme has supported.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) said, a Government who were truly committed to a skills-led recovery would recognise that Unionlearn is an example of building back better and of the very best of trade union and Government co-operation, helping workers to help themselves. Of course, we look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say, but whatever that will be, we know where the decision comes from. She might read the words, but the decision was made by the Secretary of State.
There is not much that I would say to commend the Secretary of State, but in fairness, he has been quite upfront and honest about that fact. There has been no attempt to hide behind the Treasury or an economic argument. This is a political decision by a politician who would rather settle scores with the trade unions than work with them constructively. In his own mind, he is the reincarnation of Margaret Thatcher, preventing workers from accessing literacy and numeracy skills. This is his Orgreave; this is the moment that he came into politics for. The evidence that we have heard is about the real people who will be affected by this decision. He is not the reincarnation of Margaret Thatcher; he is a mean-spirited Frank Spencer. That is who is making this decision.
The decision is so misplaced. It hits the workers, not the unions. Unionlearn is not a profit centre for trade unions. It will not hit the sustainability of the unions. In communities up and down the country, it will prevent people from accessing the skills that would enable them to better themselves. What idiocy!
All Governments will, on occasion, have arguments and fights with trade unions. That is the nature of being in government. But what a fight to pick! Why, if they want to fight the trade unions, do they fight to prevent them from helping people to better themselves? It is incredible to think that the premiership of the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) might be looked back on as a more enlightened time than what we have now, but with regard to Unionlearn it was.
Let us remind ourselves what the Minister’s predecessor, Anne Milton, said a couple of years ago:
“The aim of the National Retraining Scheme is simple—to produce the best programme of learning and training for people in work and returning to work in the changing world. To do this the Government, the CBI and the TUC all have our parts to play.”
She continued:
“That’s where Unionlearn comes in and why we regard it as an external partner in the national retraining scheme.”
That is a sensible, Conservative approach to recognising that Unionlearn is about unions and Government working constructively together. That is what a sensible Secretary of State would say now. Even in the teeth of austerity, when it seemed there was nothing the Government were not willing to cut back on, George Osborne decided to continue funding Unionlearn. That was the approach they took then. He was a poor Chancellor, but he was a skilful politician. The Secretary of State we have now is no such thing.
No fig leaves can cover the motivation for this decision. The most recent independent evaluation of Unionlearn, to which colleagues have referred, was published by the University of Exeter this month. It said that the £12 million spent on Unionlearn has an overall benefit to employers and individuals of £1.4 billion. As my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) said, every pound invested in the union learning fund in round 20 generated a total economic return of £12.87, benefiting workers and their employers almost equally.
The latest evaluation found that 80% of employees said they had developed skills that they could transfer to a new job. As my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) said, 19% of those who accessed the fund gained a promotion or increased responsibility after their learning. Some 11% gained a pay rise. My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) spoke about work-based poverty and the number of people working two or three jobs who are still unable to pay their bills. The union learning fund was a solution to that, with people getting pay rises as a result of the extra skills that they gained.
Like most acts of vandalism, this decision will come at a cost. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) referred to the fact that the evaluation showed that for every pound the Government spend, they receive £3.60 back. This decision will literally cost the Government money. It is not about them having to find an alternative way to pay for it; they are losing money through this decision.
The Government have not even pretended to investigate the impact. Last month, Baroness Berridge admitted that neither the Secretary of State nor any ministerial colleagues had met employers, trade bodies, sector skills bodies, individual trade unions, further education organisations or trading providers in advance of this decision. If they had taken the time to consult, however, they would know that there is a huge coalition opposed to the decision.
Can the Minister recall a time when such a broad coalition of employers has come together to back a union-led initiative? There is a long list of companies already opposing this decision: the British Ceramic Confederation, Cogent Skills, Ingenuity, British Steel, the Food and Drink Federation, Catapult, Make UK, the Manufacturing Technologies Association, Tesco, LIBERTY Steel, the Workers’ Educational Association, Heathrow airport, Tata Steel, Arla Foods, Milk & More and Müller Milk & Ingredients. How many more organisations need to come out and say that this is a retrograde step?
The challenges of the pandemic demonstrate the urgent need for retraining and upskilling. In Unionlearn, there is the very model of lifelong learning, yet the Government are axing this programme, which supports the learning of over 200,000 workers at a cost of just £12 million a year, while the community learning budget, which is 20 times bigger than Unionlearn, reaches fewer than twice as many people. There could not be a better example of the Government’s not spending money wisely.
This decision is not about the money. The Department has just sent £80 million that was allocated to providing help to retrain back to the Treasury because it could not spend it. This is a Government who rip up the rules on procurement to load cash into the pockets of their friends and Tory party donors, but when it comes to a tiny investment to help workers who earn in a year the sort of money these Ministers will pay as a day rate to consultants, the message from the Government is, “Your career is not worth it.”
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) said it is the opposite of a levelling-up approach. It says more about this Government, as my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) said, and more about this Secretary of State than any shiny new initiative. We can all see the truth: this is a decision that pits the Government against 200,000 low-paid workers, it will cost rather than save money, it is the opposite of levelling up, and it stinks. The truth is that the Minister could get to her feet now and confirm that she will cancel this divisive and regressive stupidity, and I hope that she will.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) on securing this important debate. Like her, I grew up in the north-west in the ’70s and ’80s, and I am very familiar with Paul’s and Mark’s experience of school—it is one that I also had, with more than 90% of my school friends leaving our Knowsley comprehensive school with few or no qualifications, so I am familiar with the challenge.
We all know, too, how rapidly the economy and employment can change, with the decline of jobs for life; instead, it is a life of jobs, requiring new skills. Hence the need for people to have those new skills and qualifications in order to be more resilient to change and better able to take advantage of the opportunities in their area. Of course, that means that access to education and training is essential for young people and adults to get the skills they need to equip them for the future and to allow them to take advantage of the opportunities open to them.
I hope it comes as no surprise to anybody here that I am passionate about this subject. I have my own experience as an apprentice, and I know that gaining skills and training develops confidence and opens the door to so many opportunities. Apprenticeships are now available at any age, to any worker, up to degree and masters levels in almost every occupation we can imagine.
However, getting into work, getting on to a training course and getting those qualifications mark a stage in learning, not an end. Now more than ever, things are changing at a rapid rate. New technology means new industries and the decline of some others. Jobs change, jobs are lost and jobs are created. We are living in a period of rapid change, and the impact of coronavirus has created another level of instability, which means that everyone needs to react to take advantage of new opportunities or to minimise the risks that change can bring.
The Government are committed to ensuring that every adult has the skills they need to progress. That is why we are investing £1.34 billion through the adult education budget in 2020-21 alone. That commitment is not just about ensuring that all adults can get a full level 3 qualification, but about basic skills. We know that any adult without basic skills and qualifications faces an impossible challenge in securing employment, and that is why, since the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009, we have fully funded adults without English and maths at level 2 to gain those essential qualifications. Since August this year, we have added a similar entitlement for every adult to gain basic digital skills at level 1.
Unionlearn, through the union learning fund, has done some really good work over the years in helping and supporting adults to gain the basic skills they need. It helps people to find out about learning opportunities and how to access them. Of the 200,000 people it helps each year, about 95,000 are supported in English, maths and information and communications technology up to level 2. In fact, almost all the Unionlearn help is at level 2 and below. It has been able to do this thanks to Government support. Since 2015, the Government have provided £74 million for the union learning fund, including £12 million for the current financial year.
There are limitations to the Unionlearn model, however. Although it is open to all, important information on opportunities is invariably circulated via the trade union network. Programmes are undertaken by the same set of unions each year. Typically, Unionlearn has supported 19 to 23 projects each year, but over time, only 24 unions have been involved. That is not to say that the projects are not good or worthwhile, but the support is going to the same unions for the same cohorts. Efforts to widen the range of programmes and unions securing project funding have not succeeded.
The Government want training opportunities to be genuinely open to all adults, rather than confined to a particular cohort by the limits of the union learning fund. Although many individuals feel that their learning journey would not have started without the support of Unionlearn, which I am sure is right, almost half of those training through it are qualified at level 3 or above, plus significant numbers said that they would have done the learning in any case.
We are not scrapping Unionlearn; we have decided not to continue funding it from taxpayers’ money. Of course, others could fund it, such as trade unions, employers and devolved Administrations. Indeed, it was established in 1998 and has been funded by taxpayers only since 2008, so there were 10 years of it being funded another way.
I referred to the work that Unionlearn has done to support people to gain basic skills, but I also spoke about the adult entitlement to financial support for them to get English, maths and digital qualifications. That was brought in after the establishment of Unionlearn, which brings me to a key point. At its heart, the Unionlearn model is a brokering one that helps to identify learning needs at an individual level or in a particular location, then to link those individuals to providers who deliver the training. It does not fund training, except in a few circumstances where it is not available through the adult education budget.
Gillian Keegan
I will not, but the hon. Lady will get three minutes at the end. I only have limited time; I think she knows that I would usually.
Unionlearn is a signpost to learning opportunities. I would be selling it short if I did not recognise that it has provided support, mentoring and advice to people over the years, but times and needs change. We need a solution at scale. Unionlearn was set up to help individuals to find out about and access training opportunities.
In 2006, only about a quarter of people in the UK used the internet every day. There was low-speed connectivity and smartphones were new—Apple launched the iPhone only in 2007. Now, more than 80% of households have high-speed broadband and a smartphone, which has driven a change in behaviour. People can access all kinds of information online. They can sign up for training online and take courses online, which was unimaginable 14 years ago. There has been a massive change in the information and basic courses that are available.
In some ways, covid-19 has accelerated that behaviour. FE provision went online—I joined virtual lessons during lockdown—and we have established a skills toolkit. People can go online to find things out. There has been a clear behaviour change in less than two decades, which means that there are now many ways to get support and information. On top of all that, there is an evolving adult entitlement that means that everybody is entitled to digital skills as well as English and maths.
There will always be a need for some personal support, which is why the skills recovery package includes £32 million of extra support for people to get more help from the National Careers Service. Today, it does not make sense to fund Unionlearn, with an additional set of admin costs, to support particular individuals in a unionised environment, while we have unprecedented access to information online, support from careers services and a basic entitlement.
We also want people to be more ambitious in their aspirations. English, maths and digital skills are essential, but are not enough for many people to secure the career or job that they want. That is why the Prime Minister has announced, as part of the lifetime skills guarantee, that adults lacking a level 3 qualification, equivalent to an A-level, will be fully funded from April 2021.
The size of the challenge is such that it requires significant investment and solutions. Small-scale inter- ventions will not suffice. That is why we have announced the creation of a £2.5 billion national skills fund to run over the lifetime of this Parliament. That is why we have set up a £500 million skills recovery package to support and encourage employers to offer apprenticeships and traineeships, to expand threefold the sector-based work academy programme and to help more than a quarter of a million more people to get advice and guidance on careers. That is why, against the backdrop of £3 billion of funding to support large-scale national investment in further education that will work flexibly for working people, it simply does not make sense to continue to support a niche Unionlearn offer.
I am enormously grateful for the support and consideration that the hon. Member for Nottingham South has given today, and she will have her time to respond. She has raised some important concerns about adult learning and access to skills, and it is clear that the Government share them. We have considered how the union-led fund might have addressed these, but we must go further than this model.
The Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that everybody, irrespective of who they are or where they come from, whether they are working in a unionised environment or not, can get the qualifications and skills they need to progress. That is the only way that we are going to build back better, meet our net zero by 2050 target and recover from the global pandemic. With £3 billion of support for further education, Members should be in absolutely no doubt that, as learners progress, this Government will be there with them, now and in the future, every step of the way.
I know that Members are disappointed, that they support Unionlearn and that many of them have had involvement with this model, but we cannot limit the scale of our ambition or limit access, when it is a basic entitlement for every adult in this country, which has been provided since and after Unionlearn was set up. These things are widely available in all communities, to those who are working or not working, and to those in unionised environments or non-unionised environments. They are available to everybody, and we must make sure that we are there to encourage people to come forward. There is a lot of information available now, in every way.
We are committed to training adults in this country. We are investing more than we ever have, but it needs to be a large-scale solution to a large-scale problem.
Lilian Greenwood
I cannot decide if the Minister actually believes a word of the speech she has just delivered. It is as if she was not listening to a single one of the contributions that we heard.
We know that Unionlearn is not primarily about delivering courses. It is about connecting people to opportunities and giving them the confidence to take up those opportunities. Even where courses are provided free of charge, the number of adult learners is falling. For example, the number of adults achieving first level 2 qualifications in English and maths has fallen by 30% since 2010, despite those courses being free. If the Minister is serious in thinking that the union learning fund is not on the scale required, she should be investing more in expanding it to enable those workers to take up those opportunities. I am glad to see the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) nodding along with that.
The Minister did not answer my questions about which organisation will engage reluctant learners. The careers service does a good job, but it cannot reach the same people. She did not explain how scrapping the union learning fund will help us to build back better, the impact it will have on the industrial strategy, the discussions she has had with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy or how it will increase the uptake of training in non-unionised workplaces. She did not answer my maths question about what proportion of the Department for Education budget that £12 million provides.
I am so disappointed. I read and hear many contributions about the difference that union learning makes, and people describe how it has transformed the way they feel about themselves and the opportunities open to them. I read someone saying: “I honestly feel like this is a new beginning for me. I am buzzing. I can’t wait to get back to work and start implementing everything I learned on the course.” That is what her Government are taking away. She should be ashamed of herself, a Skills Minister who wants to take away the opportunity for working people to improve their skills and transform their lives.
Mr Hollobone, I do not know what more to say, other than that I hope that other people can prevail upon the Skills Minister and her boss, the Secretary of State for Education, to wake up and do something positive, and change their minds about this appalling decision.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the future of the Union Learning Fund.
Worker Exploitation: Leicester Textile Industry
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of tackling worker exploitation in the textile industry in Leicester.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. Leicester has a proud heritage of textile manufacturing. By the middle of the 20th century, the success of our hosiery and footwear industries, including companies such as Corah, Wolsey and Byford, led to Leicester being called the place that clothed the world and the second richest city in Europe. Although no longer on that scale, the textile sector still employs around 10,000 workers in 1,500 firms in Leicester and Leicestershire, the second largest concentration of textile firms in the country outside of Manchester. I want my constituents and people across Leicester to have the highest possible standards of employment. I want them to be paid well and trained well, and to work in a safe and welcoming environment. I want our local businesses to be the very best and to have the support that they need to expand and thrive, and I want a sustainable and productive economy for our city and country as a whole. That is why I am so concerned about poor and exploitative working practices in some parts of the textile industry in Leicester and why I believe more effective action must be taken.
I want to focus my comments today on the fashion retailer Boohoo, which is a major part of the problem experienced in the city. I want to talk about the company’s shareholders, who, with one notable exception, have failed to fulfil their responsibilities, and I want to talk about the Government, who have a crucial role to play in ensuring an effective system of regulation and enforcement, backed with sufficient resources.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
I wish to put on record that, although I admire the fact that my hon. Friend has secured this debate, which is very pertinent to Leicester, the issue very much affects all of the consumers who purchase items from these retailers. The items are manufactured often in Leicester and procured in Leicester, and it is vital for everybody to know that these goods are being produced in the right way and that the workers are being treated properly when we make those purchases.
Liz Kendall
My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. This issue does not just affect the workers in this industry. It does not just affect those of us who have pensions that are invested in these companies. It also affects us as consumers, which is why it is so important that we get this right.
There have been long-standing and serious problems with workers being exploited in some textile factories in Leicester. In the last five years alone, they have been highlighted by the University of Leicester, the BBC’s “Dispatches” programme, the Financial Times and the Environmental Audit Committee. Many, although not all, of these appalling cases had been in the supply chain of fashion retailer Boohoo. The latest issues were exposed by The Sunday Times in July. Following those revelations, Boohoo finally commissioned a review into the supply chain, carried out by Alison Levitt, QC. The findings of this review, published in September, were utterly damning.
Ms Levitt found that repeated allegations of unacceptable working conditions and illegal underpayment of workers were
“not only well-founded, but substantially true”—
something that Boohoo had denied or downplayed for many years, which I know personally from my meetings with the chief executive and director of sustainability. The review found that a significant number of Boohoo’s suppliers and subcontractors had been paying their employees less than the national minimum wage and had serious health and safety violations, including the risk of fire that could lead to loss of life, and that employees’ rights had been ignored and neglected on a wide scale. The review concludes that these problems are endemic and
“exist across the best part, if not the entirety, of Boohoo’s Leicester supply chain.”
Ms Levitt says that Boohoo’s monitoring of its supply chain has been “inadequate” for many years, and that is down to “weak corporate governance”. She says:
“Commercial concerns such as growth and profit were prioritised in a way which made substantial areas of risk all but invisible at the most senior level.”
From March 2019, Boohoo knew there were problems in their supply chain, and,
“By December 2019, at the latest, senior members of the Boohoo Board knew for a fact that there were some serious examples of unacceptable working conditions and poor treatment of workers (including illegally low pay).”
Despite all that, in late June 2020, astonishingly, Boohoo unveiled a plan to pay bonuses of up to £100 million to its two co-founders, Mahmud Kamani and Carol Kane, and £50 million to its other senior executives.
Ms Levitt says that when the covid-19 pandemic struck,
“Boohoo was quick to take advantage of the commercial opportunities afforded by the increase in demand during the pandemic”,
but that
“at no point was any assessment made as to how the Leicester workforce was to cope with the increased volume of orders.”
She rightly concludes that that was “inexcusable” and that,
“in truth Boohoo has not felt any real sense of responsibility for the factory workers in Leicester…because they are largely invisible to them.”
An under-reported part of the review relates to the behaviour of Boohoo’s chief executive, John Lyttle, and the executive chairman and co-founder Mahmud Kamani. Ms Levitt questions why John Lyttle failed on three occasions to tell her about an email that identified extremely serious health and safety concerns in Leicester supply chain. She says:
“It was my view that, given that John Lyttle could not possibly have forgotten this, his failure to tell me about it was significant.”
Ms Levitt highlights Mr Kamani’s “lack of knowledge” or even “interest” in reports by Boohoo’s internal auditor about problems in the Leicester supply chain or the checks carried out by their independent auditor, Verisio. Significantly, she says that
“the Board has found it difficult to stand up to the current Chairman and to ensure that the best interests of all the shareholders are acted upon.”
She concludes that
“for too long, Mr Kamani’s priorities have been allowed to dictate company policy.”
Perhaps Ms Levitt’s most striking finding is that:
“No member of the Board I interviewed mentioned that the responsibility for what is happening in the supply chain derived from the duty of the company’s officers to act in the best interests of all the shareholders.”
She also highlights
“the failure of the company to grasp that their responsibility for the factory workers does not derive from a nebulous ‘moral’ duty but from their obligations as officers of the company.”
I am going through this in so much detail because it beggars belief that the very people who denied and brushed aside this appalling exploitation are still in place and, far from suffering any penalties as a result of their failures, have instead given themselves a huge pay cheque. Hiring independent directors, however good they may be, will not solve fundamental governance weaknesses where boards are still in the power of an all-powerful founder chairman, as others have rightly said today.
Boohoo is still failing to take sufficient action and fobbing people off with warm words. It promised to implement all the recommendations of the Levitt review, but to take just one example, I have repeatedly asked Boohoo to send me its emergency plan for a second national lockdown and to spell out exactly how many people are now physically inspecting the factories in its supply chain—a key recommendation of the Levitt review—but I cannot get any clear answers. This is a serious question for the chief executive, the executive chair and other members of the Boohoo board. It is a serious question for Boohoo shareholders, too, because shareholders have a responsibility for the companies that they own, and fund managers should be held to account for their promises to champion responsible investing and environmental, social and governance—so-called ESG—issues.
Following publication of the Levitt review, I wrote to all of Boohoo’s major shareholders to ask what action they were taking as a result of what I think is one of the worst ESG scandals in modern UK history. I said that I did not think that those who had turned a blind eye to these problems over many years were the right people to take the company forward. To be clear, the executive chairman and the chief executive officer should be removed.
The response has so far been extremely disappointing, to say the least, save for the notable exception of that from Standard Life Aberdeen. Of those shareholders that have replied, Jupiter Fund Management has told me that it is in “close dialogue” with Boohoo. Fidelity Investments claims that it has had “positive engagement”. Invesco also says that it is “engaging”. And BlackRock says that it is
“following the situation with the company closely”.
None, however, has changed any of its actual investment decisions. That makes a total mockery of their promises and claims to champion responsible investment. This matters, because these are the companies that manage the retirement savings of millions of ordinary Britons.
In contrast, Standard Life Aberdeen has sold all the shares that it owned in Boohoo, because of the company’s failure to take proper action. It told me that it had over time made specific demands of the company to improve its supply chain practices and management. It met regularly with the company to monitor progress. It demanded an extension of the audits carried out on the company’s UK supply base and said that Boohoo should engage with industry-led supply chain initiatives. It said that its patience with the company’s response on these issues had been diminishing during all of last year, that that patience finally evaporated in the summer, when the allegations by The Sunday Times were published, and that that was why it took the decision to sell its remaining shares. Standard Life Aberdeen also told me that it voted against the appallingly hubristic pay package for the co-founders and senior executives when it was introduced at Boohoo’s 2019 annual general meeting.
Standard Life Aberdeen is to be applauded for its decisions, because fund managers need to champion responsible investing—not as the latest marketing gimmick, but because they intend to drive real change. Otherwise it is all just warm words and not worth the paper, or website, it is written on.
Let me turn finally to the role of Government. Although most of Ms Levitt’s review focuses on Boohoo, she makes it clear that inaction by Government has also contributed significantly to the problems of worker exploitation in the textile industry in Leicester. She concludes:
“Legislation is not merely a system for regulating society but also the mechanism by which society’s values and priorities are communicated. If the law is not enforced, this sends a clear message that the violations are not important and the people affected do not matter.”
I think Ms Levitt is right, yet over the last decade the very bodies responsible for tackling worker exploitation and enforcing workers’ rights have faced considerable budget cuts from this Government, which has significantly reduced their capacity for inspection and enforcement. For example, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, responsible for enforcing the national minimum wage, has seen its budget cut by 17%, and the Health and Safety Executive has seen its budget cut by a staggering 46%. The HSE was also explicitly told by the Government to reduce its proactive inspections in the textile industry by a third, because Ministers wrongly considered this sector low risk. On top of this, Ministers have refused to implement recommendations from key reports such as the Environmental Audit Committee’s “Fixing fashion” report, which made some really important proposals, especially about improving supply chain transparency. The Government have also been far too slow in sorting out the mess of different regulatory bodies involved in this area.
Ministers proposed a new single enforcement body almost two years ago, but we have yet to see a response to the consultation on that important change, let alone the Government’s actual proposals. There are lots of important questions about this body that need to be answered: how much of a local presence it will have, how much it will engage with the local community and trade unions, what kind of sectoral expertise it will have, and what its enforcement powers will be. The Minister will know, as I met him to discuss this yesterday, that I think there is much that could be learned from the work being done by Leicester City Council as the Government develop their proposals for the single enforcement body.
Although local authorities have no powers to check on working conditions inside a building, enforce the minimum wage, or monitor the legality of the workforce, Leicester City Council has nevertheless been working hard to do what it can within the current framework and legislation. It has appointed a co-ordinator to bring the various national enforcement agencies together to improve intelligence sharing and enforcement—the very first post of its kind in the country. The city council is working closely with trade unions, local community and voluntary groups, the citizens advice bureau and Crimestoppers to raise awareness about the problems, better engage with employees, and give exploited workers the courage to speak out, because we know the fundamental problem is that many people are too scared to say what is really happening.
The council is also proactively helping the textile industry modernise by providing bespoke business advice, holding training sessions with factories and supporting businesses with nearly £600,000 of grant financing, for new equipment in particular. It is also investing £200,000 into setting up a new skills and training centre for the textile sector, and seeking investment and support from the industry and others.
Before I finish, I particularly want to emphasise to the Minister the importance of working with trade unions to support the positive changes we need. If we want greater openness and transparency, if we want a partnership between employers and employees to improve workplace safety and standards, and if we want all workers to have the courage and confidence to speak out, we must increase union representation in the textile industry. I hope that when the Minister speaks he will commit to working on these issues with trade unions such as Community and the GMB, because this is a critical issue for the future.
In conclusion, the responsibility for tackling worker exploitation in the textile industry—not just in Leicester but across the country—lies with the boards of textile companies and fashion retailers, with the shareholders of those companies and with the Government. Action is required by all three to end exploitation and ensure that not only Leicester’s but the entire country’s textile industry improves its standards and has an ethical, productive and sustainable future. I hope the Minister agrees, and look forward to hearing his response.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
I am afraid the hon. Lady does not have permission to speak from the Member in charge or the Minister, but she is welcome to intervene on the Minister.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I would like to thank the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) for securing today’s important debate. I was pleased to have the opportunity to meet with her and Councillor Clarke from Leicester City Council to discuss the issue, share our thoughts and plan together. I know it is not going to be the first or last time that we meet to do so. I welcome the opportunity to hear about the work on the ground in Leicester, and their insights as well—it is so important that we learn from the experiences there.
Claudia Webbe
I did have permission, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) on securing this important debate. The Minister says that we need to learn, but while the pandemic has thrown the crisis into sharper light, exploitation in Leicester’s textile industry is not a new phenomenon. The reality is that it has been widely reported and studied for at least a decade and there has been a shameful failure to act, despite widespread, long-standing evidence of employer misconduct. There has been a failure to address institutional exploitation in Leicester’s garment industry, which has been brought to official attention over many years and has posed an obvious injustice and health risk to workers.
Paul Scully
I thank the hon. Lady. We did have an exchange yesterday in a wider debate about workers’ rights and I was pleased that she was able to raise the important ongoing issues in Leicester. I shall cover some of the historic enforcement issues and what we have done, involving a variety of bodies, as well as some of the problems with getting the evidence to a point sufficient to get people to speak out and make it possible to mount prosecutions.
We are committed to ensuring that workers receive their employment rights, and that employers act responsibly. It is important to realise that some workers are particularly vulnerable. That is where our enforcement bodies have a role. The Government already spend more than £35 million a year enforcing the national minimum and living wages, protecting agency workers, administering a licensing scheme for labour suppliers in the fresh food supply chain, and protecting workers from the worst cases of labour exploitation. In 2017 the Government created the office of director of labour market enforcement, to ensure greater joint working and set the strategic direction across the three labour market enforcement bodies—HMRC national minimum wage enforcement, the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate and the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority.
The labour market enforcement bodies play a crucial role in protecting vulnerable workers. In 2019-20 alone, HMRC recovered more than £20.8 million for more than 260,000 workers and issued 1,000 penalties to non-compliant businesses with respect to national minimum wage. The Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate recovered more than £61,000 for agency workers, dealing with almost 1,700 complaints, and led more than 300 inspections. The Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority recovered more than £166,000 for workers and was involved in more than 260 criminal investigations, which resulted in 29 arrests for suspected labour market offences.
Those figures show only a fraction of what state enforcement bodies achieve on a daily basis to protect vulnerable workers, but there are challenges with so many different bodies playing a role in this space. That is why we have committed to the creation of a new single labour market enforcement body that will bring together what is currently a fragmented landscape, as we have heard, making it easier for workers and employers to know where to get help. It will do even more, enforcing holiday pay for vulnerable workers and also with respect to umbrella companies. By bringing together the existing bodies we can also develop a more comprehensive picture of non-compliance, making better-targeted, proactive activity possible.
We consulted on proposals for the new body last year, as the hon. Member for Leicester West said. We planned to take them forward in the forthcoming employment Bill. Progress on that has been slower than I would have liked, because of covid-19, but the delay gives us the opportunity to learn a huge amount from the situation in Leicester, as well as from the covid-19 pandemic situation. That will strengthen the plans for the new body.
Paul Scully
I have only a little time to cover the points raised, I am afraid.
The allegations of abuse in textiles manufacturing in Leicester that are the subject of today’s debate are not new, as the hon. Member for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe) said. On the recommendation of the previous director of labour market enforcement, Sir David Metcalf, the main enforcement bodies undertook a pilot project with Leicester City Council in 2018 to address the issues. In response to the most recent allegations, as we have heard, a multi-agency taskforce led by the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority has been set up in Leicester. It works closely with Leicester City Council. Partners include HMRC, the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate, Leicestershire police, the National Crime Agency, Leicestershire City Council and the Department for Work and Pensions.
The work plan includes targeting enforcement activity, strengthening intelligence gathering and improving community engagement. The taskforce has identified more than 200 premises of interest for investigation and has so far conducted more than 140 visits. In those visits, it has identified issues with non-payment of national minimum wage, unsafe working conditions and small amounts of potential illegal working, but so far it has seen no indication of modern slavery offences. The enforcement bodies will fully investigate all concerns and bring appropriate enforcement action against non-compliant employers.
Historically, HMRC has recovered more than £215,000 in wage arrears for 411 textile workers and issued more than £325,000 in corresponding penalties to employers, including in Leicester. Since 2015, HMRC has facilitated 19 director disqualifications relating to the textile sector. Early evidence suggests that the visibility of enforcement activity is having a positive effect on employer behaviour, with some factories making changes to become more compliant. That is an encouraging development, but the enforcement bodies clearly are not complacent.
One of the major challenges is a lack of reporting from workers, many of whom may be worried about speaking to law enforcement because of a perceived fear of reprisals. Leicester City Council has been leading work to improve community engagement and encourage people to come forward, and has launched a campaign with Crimestoppers to raise awareness and promote workers’ rights. In recent weeks, the taskforce has seen a small increase in reporting from workers, although we remain conscious that there is still work to be done.
This is a key issue that we need to look at as we develop plans for a single enforcement body; it must be seen as being approachable to workers and employers. We need to build stronger links—as we have seen in Leicester—with local authorities, workers and community groups, who can share valuable insights and information. There is much that we can learn from Leicester City Council here. I am also grateful to the director of labour market enforcement, Matthew Taylor, who is chairing a series of workshops to gather views on how we can make the body approachable to different groups and build links for effective ongoing engagement. Getting that right will be key to the body’s success. Through those workshops, Mr Taylor will also consider what sort of sectoral engagement and approach might be needed.
Alongside enforcement action, however, retailers of course have an important responsibility to promote compliance in their supply chains. The findings, as we have heard, of the review by Alison Levitt, QC into Boohoo’s Leicester supply chain are very concerning. I welcome Boohoo’s commitment to implementing the recommendations in that report, but, as the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) said, there is much more that we need to do. We must not be complacent, but work to see that that is carried through.
Since the publication of the report, the engagement with Boohoo has been encouraging, but there is more to do. Boohoo and other retailers, including Missguided and New Look, have raised issues with the taskforce as they have become aware of them, which has been instrumental in building the intelligence picture. The apparel and general merchandise public and private protocol is the main form of engagement between the taskforce and the sector, and is aimed at tackling all forms of labour exploitation in the garment trade. That group is undertaking a programme of work looking at improving worker engagement, business accountability, intervention mechanisms and the regulatory framework; I very much support its work and look forward to seeing the results.
The Leicester and Leicestershire Enterprise Partnership is also playing an important role, working with the city council to support businesses and improve working practices. It is keen to set up a textiles hub in the city, supporting local businesses and employees through the sharing of best practice, skills provision and business training. The Government have provided £1.4 million to the enterprise partnership since 2015; I welcome these initiatives and I encourage local partners to join in and deliver those plans.
It is in shareholders’ long-term interests to promote responsible behaviour from the companies they own. The share price often suffers if companies are found wanting. As reflected in the revised stewardship code, which took effect from the start of the year, I expect asset managers to take more account of environmental, social and governance factors in their investment activities.
The Government have acted to drive stronger business transparency so that companies are more accountable to shareholders on corporate responsibility. For example, in 2018, our corporate governance reforms introduced new company reporting requirements on executive pay, including pay ratio reporting and new reporting on how directors are having regard to employee, environmental and other interests in pursuing the success of their company within the meaning of section 172 of the Companies Act 2006. The hon. Lady talked about consumers, as well as shareholders, having a responsibility beyond the value of the company. It is important that consumers get that right and are very aware about supply chains, albeit that some supply chains are incredibly complicated.
The behaviour of brand names is not only affecting Leicester. I engage regularly with retailers and manufacturers from across the country on the issue and I stress the importance of preventing abuse in supply chains. I know the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee is doing some important work on that as well. My officials are engaging with the British Retail Consortium on options to improve compliance in UK textile manufacturing, including proposals for a licensing scheme.
We are also committed to strengthening our approach to transparency in supply chains overall, under section 54—
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. (10(6)).
Aviation Industry
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the future of the aviation industry.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. Before I start my remarks, I offer my congratulations to the Minister on his recent appointment. He was a very good member of the Select Committee and he is a very welcome addition to this role, even if the challenges he faces in it are pretty big at the moment. I wish him well.
The aviation industry is a vital part of our economy. It employs—or rather it did employ—hundreds of thousands of people around the country. It is an essential part of regional economies, which is why we see colleagues from around the United Kingdom here today, and it provides vital connections from the United Kingdom around the world. Today, it is a sector on its knees. Last weekend, I cast a quick glance at the Plane Finder app that some of us have on our phones. That afternoon, there were three aircraft in the air over the south of England—just three aircraft, and one of those was en route from France to the United States.
That is a disaster for this country. It is a disaster for all the staff and airline personnel who have lost their jobs, a disaster for the airport services companies and all their people, and a disaster for the suppliers to the industry, such as the catering services firms and the construction workers, who should be preparing to work on capital investment projects at our airports in the coming months but capital budgets have evaporated. They now face a bleak year ahead. The entire future of individual UK airlines is now under threat, and of course there is the broader issue of the impact on the aerospace sector as a whole.
We all accept that there was no way this pandemic could have passed without a major impact on aviation, but taking every step we can to mitigate that impact has been, should be, and must now be a national priority. However, as a loyal supporter of the Government who is sympathetic to them about the challenge they are trying to deal with, I must say that it does not feel like that at the moment. Public Health England, for example, produced what can only be described as highly questionable figures to justify the current restrictions. Only a couple of weeks ago, a Government Minister told the House of Lords that it is the view of the chief medical officer that travel is not a priority.
Although I really do understand the huge challenges that our medical community is facing, and they are doing a fantastic job in dealing with this pandemic, I fundamentally disagree with their view on this point about the sector. I urge the Government to change tack, to make at least the start of the reopening of our aviation sector an absolute priority and to use all the tools at their disposal to do so. That does not mean a mass opening of borders overnight, nor an instant return to mass holidays, but it does mean making a rapid move to restart key economic routes and to allow the return of travel without unnecessary restrictions to low-risk destinations.
The first key step that must be taken is to replicate what other countries are doing on testing. The current UK rules are simply too restrictive for low-risk destinations. I very much hope that the reports in the media about a reduction of the two-week quarantine rules are correct, but a decision to travel that still includes a period of several days when someone cannot leave their home, makes an important business trip, a short family holiday or a visit to an elderly relative in another country extremely difficult. Other countries are not asking for the same period of isolation.
I applaud my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary for the work he has done in expanding our test capabilities to the extent he has; it has been a phenomenal achievement and he deserves huge personal credit for that expansion. We have now by far the largest testing capability and the broadest range of testing capacity in Europe—well done. But if we can test the whole population of Liverpool quickly and effectively, why can we not open a handful of key economic routes quickly using those same technologies?
Why can we not reopen routes to New York and Washington, for example, setting aside the quarantine rules for those people who travel those routes and test negatively? Those are blue-chip routes for our industry; they deliver the highest level of profits and they are particularly vital for our economy. Are we really going to be putting the health of the country at risk by introducing the same kind of test rules that exist in other countries today and putting the same measures in place for those key routes?
Sir Edward, you or I could fly to Madeira tomorrow, taking with us a 72-hour-old test certificate. We would be allowed to enter the country freely, travel around and enjoy our visit. There is not a massive epidemic of the virus in Madeira. Why can we not apply the same rules for those key international destinations here?
The industry is starting to take steps itself. Heathrow airport, for example, is now providing travel to destinations such as Hong Kong, Cairo, Bahrain, the Seychelles, Japan, Italy and South Africa and pre-departure testing at the airport. The average turnaround time for test results is 67 minutes, and travellers have a certificate they can take with them to prove they have tested negative that same day.
British Airways is showing how it could be done on transatlantic routes by starting voluntary testing on key routes to the United States. Why not make those approaches official? Does anybody seriously think that that would be a less effective way of screening for risk than the current system, when it is patently clear, I am afraid, that many people are not following the self-isolation rules anyway? Allowing testing and restriction-free entry to the UK for those with negative results could unlock key routes and start the long rebuild of this vital industry.
I am not going to speak for long because many people want to contribute, but my message to the Minister is very simple; I also have one for the industry itself. Introducing airport testing and accepting a risk-based approach—which all the evidence suggests is low—is the easiest way to rebuild confidence in the airline industry and save jobs. That is the crucial piece: ultimately, the issue is about the welfare and employment of our fellow citizens. It is vital that we do this. Are we really going to continue to stand aside while entire airports risk closure and entire airlines risk disappearing? We have to act, and act now.
There is another issue for us as a Government and a nation. The first of January marks our first day outside the ambit of the European Union. The transition period will have ended and the post-Brexit world will begin—whatever the result of the negotiations. On the first day of global Britain, will there really be only three planes in the sky over the south-east of England? Will our global hub airport, and airports such as Manchester, Leeds, Bradford, Bristol, Belfast, Edinburgh, Glasgow and Cardiff, all be operating at a tiny fraction of their capacity? These are our global connections and have to be back in place for Britain in a global world post Brexit. For the sake of our economy, jobs and future role in that post-Brexit world, my message to Ministers is to make airport testing, and the flexibility that should come with it, the urgent priority that it should be.
One final word for the industry is that recovery must come and we have to do everything we can to make sure that it does, but it has to come with an eye for the future. I want to see that Plane Finder app full again, but aviation must rebuild with a focus on the environment as well. There is no magic technology solution that will make it a net-zero sector by 2050, although I welcome today’s announcements about support for improved technology in the sector.
I am hopeful that, before too long, hydrogen will power some short-haul planes, that all airports will have electric and hydrogen vehicles on their entire premises and that new technology for engines will continue to bring down emissions. I also believe that the industry needs to strengthen its offsetting strategy further to reduce its environmental impact. The Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation, or CORSIA, was a start, but is a long way from what is needed and is too remote a concept for consumers starting to worry about whether they can, or should, fly in the future. That is a big item on the agenda for the industry.
Immediately and over the next few weeks, the priority has to be getting planes flying again; the environmental strategy is a challenge we should be thinking about now, but the priority is that. That first task lies with the Government. My message to the Minister, to the great team at my old Department and particularly to the Department of Health is that we need airport testing and a regime that allows the industry to start to recover. Quarantine is killing it, and it will kill the first few months of global Britain. Things have to change, and they have to start changing right now.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
Order. A lot of people are trying to take part, so I am afraid we will have to start with a four-minute limit. We should probably avoid interventions otherwise some people will not get in.
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) for bringing this topic to the floor today.
I would like to focus on a number of areas. Aviation is a wide area; it is not just about airports and passengers—there is also the manufacturing end. It is vital that we look after that and get the planes flying. Otherwise, our manufacturing industry will collapse. Northern Ireland depends heavily on one of our major manufacturers. That company employs many in the aviation industry, but it depends on planes being built and sold. That is vital.
There are many areas to look at. One is connectivity, not just with the wider world but regional connectivity. Northern Ireland is suffering at present with a reduction in the number of flights we can get. There is even difficulty in coming to London, our capital city. We used to have five or six flights a day coming out of the international airport to Gatwick, but that has been rationalised down to four a week. Those numbers make it difficult to grow business.
There is good news in relation to a vaccine and trying to bring back some confidence to the public when it comes to making use of flying. Flights could go ahead safely if we can get people vaccinated to ensure that it is safe to fly. Many within the industry have done everything asked of them to try to encourage people on to planes. Unfortunately, sometimes the Government have not moved with the industry when it has made recommendations about what can be done, and it has had to take measures itself.
One tool vitally important from a Northern Ireland perspective is air passenger duty. A study by York Aviation on the removal of APD at a national level showed how that would be of benefit: it could save 130 routes that might otherwise be lost. The cost to the Exchequer would not be exorbitant—in fact, 3.3 times gross value added would be created by reducing the duty, given the increase in those who would travel. APD costs an additional £13 on every flight from Belfast to Bristol. When flying to Dublin, we would not see that because Dublin has been very active in reducing APD and encouraging people to use flights.
Interestingly, the Republic of Ireland Government made an announcement about injecting €80 million into the aviation sector—in a country with a population of about 4.5 to 5 million people. That is their predatory approach to sucking the life out of the aviation industry in Northern Ireland. We really need to wake up to that and see how we can put measures in place to ensure that, after the pandemic, we have an industry that is still vibrant and one that people will be willing to use.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) on securing this important debate on the future of aviation—an issue that the negative impact of the covid-19 pandemic has put into even starker relief.
I have the privilege of representing Gatwick airport, which is in my constituency, and it is truly suffering as a result of the pandemic’s impact. I established, and am honoured to chair, the all-party parliamentary group on the future of aviation because the issue has not only had a devastating impact on my local community; it is, as my right hon. Friend said, of vital importance for the whole UK economy. Before the pandemic, aviation accounted for about 4.5% of UK GDP and, as he also said, many hundreds of thousands of people are employed directly in the sector and more widely as well.
Business at Gatwick airport has reduced by more than 61% since the start of the pandemic. In August—its peak time—when it would normally have more than 5 million throughput passengers, it had fewer than 1 million. Some 40% of jobs have been lost, as they have been at some of the airlines that operate from the airport, such as Virgin Atlantic, which is headquartered in my constituency, and easyJet, whose largest centre of operations is there too.
That is why I very much echo the solutions to deal with this unprecedented challenge. I do not think anybody doubts the sincerity of the Government and the incredible challenge that they face in these unprecedented circumstances. We need to move from quarantine, which was a natural response in the early days, to a testing regime. Our competitors, such as Germany and France and, further afield, the United Arab Emirates and Singapore, are testing, which is putting the UK aviation industry and business more widely at a competitive disadvantage.
Last week in the House of Commons, I asked for the global travel taskforce, which the Prime Minister rightly established, to report as soon as possible. I hope that testing will be part of that. Anything that requires a quarantine of more than three days effectively means that travel does not happen in any meaningful sense.
I echo the remarks about air passenger duty. We charge the highest air passenger duty anywhere in the developed world—twice as much as some of our competitors such as Germany. Many of our competitors do not charge any at all. We need that to be reduced or, indeed, scrapped for at least the year to come, and, I would argue, for longer still.
Business rates relief is important. In England, airports should be subject to business rates relief. Gatwick airport is operating only from the north terminal. The south terminal is completely shut down, but it is still paying business rates on that. I echo what the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell have said about building back better and greener. I welcome the UK aviation industry’s commitment before the covid-19 pandemic to reach net-zero carbon by 2050, and the Jet Zero Council. If we invest in technologies such as hydrogen, we can build back better, greener and more sustainably, which is good for our economy and contributes to the global environmental effort.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) on securing this timely debate.
I completely agree with everything the right hon. Gentleman said about testing and the opportunity for testing at scale at our airports. He focused on long-haul routes, but on the routes that serve my constituency in the northern isles, it could be even more transformative. If we as an island community with few points of entry, and much lower rates of infection at the moment, could allow people in and out with confidence, it would be of enormous assistance. I very much hope that his words and mine will be heard in the parts of Government here and in Edinburgh where they need to be heard.
It is not rocket science; it is pretty straightforward. In an island community, if we get transport right, just about everything else—economic development, public services and the rest of it—falls into place. Aviation is critical, both within the islands to shift doctors, vets and teachers around the smaller island groups, and between the islands and mainland communities. Those are my principal areas of concern, but we need the same level of connectivity and interlining that other communities have. It is about us getting not just to Aberdeen, Edinburgh or Glasgow, but onwards to Heathrow or wherever else we may wish to go. For our businesses and communities, that connectivity is absolutely critical.
The situation facing Loganair, the operator of the lifeline services throughout the highlands and islands, is pretty serious at the moment. I should say parenthetically that I bow to nobody in my appreciation and admiration of the staff and management of Loganair, which just before the pandemic took on some of the Flybe routes, so it may soon be more familiar to other Members in this Chamber. I appreciate their professionalism and dedication and the approach they take to the business. They understand that they are there not just for an economic purpose, but for a social and community purpose. They are an exemplar for others, and a flying example of what corporate social responsibility means.
Loganair tells me that it faces a pretty bleak future. It has done well to provide a skeleton service throughout the lockdown, but as it looks towards bookings in quarter 1 of 2021, it sees very little to inspire confidence. It has the same fixed costs as all other airlines, including airport charges, standing charges and the cost of plane purchase and rental. Like other businesses it has the opportunity to put staff into furlough, but that is just part of the story.
In the Northern Isles, we are about to enter the third of three winters for our visitor economy. When we get to the end of the furlough period, at the end of March, we will be looking to open up and get our visitor economy going, because that is absolutely crucial to our running again. The availability of good, frequent, reliable air services in that time will be crucial.
On reliability, in the few seconds that remain to me, I place on the record yet again my exasperation at the fact that the Scottish Government, through Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd, continue to insist on the removal of air traffic control officers from airports throughout the highlands and islands, to centralise them all in Inverness. The service is not just good but reliable, so that should be put on the back burner for the foreseeable future.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I apologise for my lateness; I had to be in a Delegated Legislation Committee. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) on securing this important and timely debate. I will focus my remarks on aircraft manufacturing, as Filton in my constituency is at the heart of the UK’s Aerospace Centre of Excellence, which is in the south-west of England.
The south-west hosts one of the largest and most significant aerospace clusters in the UK, and the top 14 global aerospace companies have a significant presence in the region. Some 17,500 people work in the sector, which generates £1 billion annually for the greater south-west. That includes the wider supply chain and research work in local universities, such as the University of the West of England in my constituency.
We must not forget that the UK aerospace sector represents more than 110,000 jobs across the country. The aviation sector is worth £52 billion a year, which equates to almost 3.5% of the UK’s entire GDP. In 2019, the aerospace sector contributed £32 billion in exports to the economy. In my constituency well over 10,000 jobs directly depend on it, and many more are involved in the supply chain.
The challenges are clear. The aerospace industry has been disproportionately hit by the pandemic, owing to the shutdown in global aviation. The sector has seen a contraction of 32% since February. Although UK GDP grew 15.5% between June and September, the aerospace industry saw only modest growth of 2.7%, which suggests that demand remains low, and that it will be one of the last sectors to recover. Manufacturers have therefore had to cut production rates significantly—by more than a third in some cases. Demand for new aircraft may not significantly increase until 2025 at the earliest, and possibly much later in the decade for long-haul aircraft. If aircraft are not being delivered, the industry will not be able to generate revenue and continue to invest in the technology, apprenticeships and jobs that we need to maintain the UK’s place in a very competitive global market.
The Government have given great support so far, which I welcome. The furlough scheme is now extended until March. There is support from the Bank of England’s corporate finance facility and funding for the Aerospace Technology Institute, which supports research and development. That sum is now approaching £9 billion.
Nearly 70 aircraft flown by UK-registered aircraft are more than 15 years old. They could be replaced by new aircraft that have better environmental standards and use at least 25% less energy. The Prime Minister announced the ambition that this country should be the first to build an all-electric commercial airliner. That will encourage the development of jet zero technology—a net zero carbon emissions target by 2050. The Government should support the scrapping of those 70 aircraft, allowing manufacturers and designers to build newer aircraft, to protect jobs and skills for the future. I have also been working closely with the West of England Combined Authority and I applaud the action it has taken, under the leadership of Tim Bowles, to support the aerospace sector, with £5 million of funding for the digital engineering technology and innovation initiative—DETI—delivered with the National Composites Centre. The combined authority is supporting both initiatives as part of the regional recovery plan. It has pivoted to focus to ensure that it supports our recovery, accelerating access to skills and ensuring that our major industry can keep going.
Apprenticeships are a great way of providing high-skilled jobs and social mobility. The Government need to be a bit more flexible on the levy. Finally, we need to get aircraft flying back to more normal numbers and see the aerospace industry earning revenue again, or we risk losing the industry in this country and our world-renowned expertise.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) on securing this debate on an industry that is vital to my constituents, thousands of whom work at Heathrow.
I want to make a few points. First, we urgently need a plan for aviation, including a plan for passenger testing, to help get planes flying safely, inbound and outbound. Secondly, we need a realistic, targeted support package to tackle the impact of the pandemic in the medium term on jobs, businesses and aviation communities. Thirdly, we need to plan for the future and invest more, not less, in the pace of decarbonisation in the sector.
In March, the Government promised a recovery plan for aviation. Eight months later, an integrated plan has not yet been published, while redundancies continue to rise. To help the industry recover as quickly as possible, we need a robust testing regime at our airports, which could reduce quarantine. Some welcome pilots are under way, which put public health first while taking advantage of swifter testing.
The Government have said that families will be able to fly abroad for Christmas with a new testing regime, but that is still six weeks away. United Airlines has already begun pilots on the London-New York route, but closer international working is needed. Are the Government planning to commit to a common international standard for health screening measures? The UK lags behind more than 30 countries around the globe that are doing more on aviation testing.
Getting planes flying safely will be key to saving jobs, including those that will be viable for the long term. We need more flexible and targeted schemes to keep people in work, and in their jobs, until aviation recovers. In Hounslow, we have seen devastating impacts. My constituency has the third-highest number of furloughed employments in the country, but 40,000 jobs are still at risk unless we see a recovery. I thank our unions and councillors, like Councillor Khulique Malik, who works at Heathrow, for the support that they have given the community at this time.
Businesses also need to work together for the long term. I am grateful to Unite for highlighting the imbalance of power that we are seeing at Heathrow. Heathrow Airport proposes changes that could see workers’ pay cut by £8,000 a year—equivalent to a 20% slash in salary. Heathrow workers are set to go on strike next month. Much more concerted dialogue with management is clearly needed.
The GMB, Prospect and Unite have been clear in their ask of Government to put forward an aviation-specific package, and they will contribute to the thinking that goes into it. Furlough has been welcome, but the job support scheme, as expected, was criticised as not workable for the aviation sector and aviation jobs, which involve more complex 24/7 shift-work patterns. More support for transition where jobs are lost in aviation communities is vital.
Finally, on plans for the future and decarbonisation, we know that progress on decarbonisation has been painfully slow. We welcome the jet zero plans and the work going on in government on the aviation sector in that regard. More of that will be debated at the important conference, which the Minister is aware of, hosted by West London Business this Friday on “reimagining our global hub”, looking to the future of aviation and transportation, and our leadership in the UK and across the world.
What incentives are required to drive the innovation essential to delivering a zero-carbon aviation, and how can we look to the longer-term infrastructure development, including Southern rail access to Heathrow? Supply chains also matter. That is why we need an integrated sector-based plan now.
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) on securing the debate. It is good to see the Minister in his place; he visited Southampton airport within days of becoming the Minister, for which we are grateful. I will focus predominantly on Southampton airport this afternoon.
The pandemic has dealt the aviation sector a huge blow —Southampton airport, in my constituency, in particular. With airports predicted to lose around £4 billion by the end of 2020, and with possibly 20,000 jobs under threat, it is clear that a number of things need to be done urgently to support the sector. I want to raise two points in the short time that I have.
First, as has been discussed, we need a proper airport testing regime. The 14-day quarantine rules are inflexible and the process of setting up an airport testing regime is too slow. Airports are willing, but the speed of the Government response has hampered progress, and the delay in the committee’s reporting is regrettable. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell said, advice now needs to be re-examined to see how we can get that regime set up as quickly as possible, to unlock the industry.
Southampton airport has its own unique set of circumstances. With the collapse of Flybe, which represented 94% of all flights, and an application for a runway extension of 164 metres to allow larger planes to land, Southampton airport is now in a fight for survival. That situation could be exacerbated because any application, if refused, could take 18 months to appeal and any application, if successful, could be subject to judicial review.
The Minister and I have spoken about this before, but it seems bizarre to me that I can receive letters from the Cabinet Office for numerous special development orders being awarded for Brexit preparedness, but special development orders are not forthcoming or being examined by the Department for Transport or the Cabinet Office for a major regional airport like Southampton. I would ask the Minister to look for further advice on that as time goes on.
That brings me to my second and final point. I know that this is a Treasury issue and I know that the Minister is sitting on the Front Bench, but I would reinforce many of the comments made by other hon. Members: airports such as Southampton and Exeter, which are operating at 10% of the capacity of this time last year with the same running costs, are still paying the same business rates to local authorities and the Government while they are not operating at full capacity.
I really hope that the Minister will raise with the Treasury the prospect of extending the business rate relief that has been made available in the devolved Administrations. That would show some fairness in the industry and make a vital difference, going forward. Southampton is paying £1.5 million a year in business rates and it has not had that relief. For an airport that is fighting for survival, taking that figure off the balance sheet would be appreciated.
We have all acknowledged that the aviation industry is facing a fight, nowhere more than in Southampton. I am asking the Minister to speed up the support around testing and business rate relief to the industry, so that airports around the country such as Southampton can survive, and we can have a vibrant regional airport offer when the pandemic finishes.
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
I am afraid we are still running out of time, so for the next speaker I will have to reduce the time limit to three minutes.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) for securing today’s debate; I fully agree with much that he said.
With Heathrow in my constituency, I have a natural interest in protecting the livelihoods of my constituents who work at the airport and in the supply chain. Before I stood down as shadow Chancellor, one of the last conversations I had with the Chancellor was about securing an aviation strategy and bringing various partners in the sector together to do that. I regret that no effective co-ordinated strategy has been forthcoming, and in the absence of that strategy, we have seen the law of the jungle rule that sector. As a result, many of my constituents are experiencing real uncertainty, stress, distress and hardship, as they lose their jobs and have their wages cut.
Companies such as British Airways and Heathrow Airport Ltd have seen the pandemic as a crisis not to be wasted—an opportunity to secure long-held ambitions to reduce wage levels and withdraw hard-won benefits in the terms of employment secured in negotiations over the years. Many employees feel as though they have been treated like chattels rather than loyal employees for decades.
Although the pandemic might be with us for the next year in some form, with the potential of effective vaccines in sight, covid is likely to have a relatively temporary effect. That is why the aviation trade unions were willing —indeed, proposed—temporary measures, including temporary reductions in wages and job numbers to tide us through the pandemic. Instead, Heathrow Airport Ltd and British Airways are demanding permanent pay cuts and the permanent erosion of conditions of employment. That has provoked palpable anger among workers at Heathrow. As my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) said, we now face a strike before Christmas, which would not be necessary if management recognised their responsibilities.
Whether it is Heathrow’s brutal treatment of my constituents or Rolls-Royce’s appalling treatment of the Barnoldswick community, we must all call upon these companies to withdraw their threats to their employees and get back round the table to negotiate a sensible way forward. We also now need the Government to live up to their responsibilities to bring together all the partners in the sector, employers and trade unions, and then bring forward a programme for the immediate and long-term future of aviation. It should include the support that airport and aviation communities need immediately. I think there is a consensus building on many of the measures that hon. Members have set out today, but there also needs to be support as part of the just transition to an environmental aviation policy. That will mean, in some instances, ongoing financial wage support and retraining and educational opportunities to assist people into alternative employment, and, in my constituency, investment in the west London area to rebalance our economy for the long term. What we need, in short, is an aviation community strategy.
I feel a sense of desperation among my community about what is happening to them at the moment. I believe that desperation will feed through, unfortunately, into internal levels of distress. We are already seeing a rise in mental health problems within our community now, and we need action from the Government. Eight months on, after first mooting an aviation strategy, now is the time for further—and decisive—action from the Government.
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) for securing the debate. Planes transporting people to places across the UK, Europe and further afield have been a regular sight in the skies above East Devon for decades. Earlier today, I checked the number of arrivals and departures at Exeter airport. There were no flights and no connections. Passenger numbers have dropped by 95%. That should be a stark wake-up call for the levelling-up agenda. We cannot level up every region of the country if we level off regional aviation.
Everyone who flies to and from Exeter airport contributes to our local economy. Many of the remaining jobs at the airport are highly skilled, retaining local talent and bringing investment to our area. The current problems faced by the aviation sector are not solely issues stemming from the pandemic; they have firm roots in the consolidation of airport slots in London and the south-east. The lack of capacity at major hub airports in the UK and the air passenger duty regime penalise domestic air travel. Air passenger duty needs to be reformed to give the smaller, regional airlines mentioned in this debate a lifeline, and to help new, rebranded airlines such as Flybe, to get back in business.
I have repeatedly called for the Government to scrap business rates for airports for 12 months—a call that I have heard again this afternoon. It feels like groundhog day for me. I cannot fathom why my call remains unanswered. It would cost £680,000 to scrap Exeter airport’s business rates bill for a year—a drop in the ocean compared with the business rates bills for major supermarket chains, for example. I raised the issue at Prime Minister’s questions last week. The Prime Minister confirmed that the Department for Transport is looking at bespoke support for particular regional airports, to keep them going in these tough times. I support that move; I just hope it is not too late.
Regardless of whether additional support is forthcoming, it will take time for passenger confidence to return. The global testing taskforce is working with the industry on solutions to safely reduce self-isolation periods with testing. Hundreds of thousands of jobs at airports, airlines, travel agents and many more businesses depend on solutions that were needed yesterday. We all recognise the need for a cleaner, greener aviation industry, but we need the industry’s jobs and expertise to help deliver that aim. I fear that without further support for the aviation sector, that hope, those jobs and our regional airports remain at risk on our watch.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. I thank the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) for securing the debate.
We in Luton are proud of our airport and its aviation industry. Thousands of local jobs depend on the airport and its supply chain, but the industry has been hit by a double whammy. Coronavirus has taken foreign travel off the table for millions of people and, coupled with the Government’s unforgivable lack of sector-specific support for workers and the industry, that risks ripping the heart out of my town’s economy.
It is not just pesky Labour MPs on this side of the Chamber who are crying out for support, but the industry, workers, charities in Luton who rely on our airport’s support, and Luton council, which is intrinsically linked with the airport. We in airport towns are all worried about what will be left for our constituents and their jobs in 12 to 18 months’ time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) and I have raised the issues faced by aviation workers in our town whenever we have been able to—we will never stop fighting to save the jobs of the people who we represent. Every time, however, we have received the same stock answer, which I am sure the Minister has in front of him again: the Government
“have confirmed that we are prepared to enter discussions with individual companies seeking bespoke support as a last resort, having exhausted all other options.”
I am pretty sure that everyone in the room has received that response. Will the Minister tell us what discussions have taken place and how many jobs have they saved? What are the criteria? Have any green commitments been secured for that support?
Does saving thousands of jobs not represent value for taxpayers’ money? Is this about saving the jobs of my constituents or saving the pay checks of their bosses? How many more times will those of us in the Chamber with airports in their constituencies have to come here to ask the Government to support the industry, as the Governments of France, Germany and Spain have done, only to receive platitudes but no action?
The Government should know full well that this is exactly the sort of behaviour from politicians that the public hate: all talk, no action. In fact, despite the Government’s promises to do whatever it takes to get people through covid, they clearly have a blind spot when it comes to airport workers and airlines. Where is the response to job losses in Luton? Where is the plan for testing at airports, for which the industry has been crying out for months? The Government’s travel corridor policy is failing.
There is still time for the Minister to prove me wrong, and I hope that he does. I hope that he acts to save thousands of jobs in my town of Luton and in all the towns represented here today.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) for securing this important debate. I congratulate the Minister on his role—I listened to his first speech at the Despatch Box, and wish him a long and successful career on the Front Benches. Today, the privilege is all mine.
I am lucky enough to be the Member of Parliament for the constituency that is home to Birmingham airport. It is often referred to as a regional airport, but it is actually a global hub. It is the single greatest economic asset that we have in the west midlands. To understand its importance, we must understand its context and the cost of losing it.
It is no secret that we in the west midlands were experiencing an economic renaissance pre-covid. The airport, and therefore my constituency, were and are right at the heart of that. In normal times, the net impact of the airport is about £1.5 billion of gross value added, and it is responsible for 31,000 jobs. Those figures were set to rise to £2.1 billion and 34,500 respectively by 2033. Our region has consistently had a trade surplus with the United States and is the only region in the country to have a trade surplus with China.
Pre-covid, 35 airlines flew all over the world from the airport, which served around 13 million passengers and was set to serve 18 million by 2033. In short, the airport is a key economic accelerator for the region, providing the air connectivity that is vital to the expansion of international trade, investment and employment, and to the growth of inbound tourism and outbound leisure destinations.
Covid, however, has been absolutely devasting. The number of airlines operating out of the airport has been greatly reduced. Since March, about 800,000 passengers have been through the airport and the current lockdown has, of course, prevented the airport from staging a recovery. The Government have made significant steps through the job retention scheme and that has obviously been helpful, especially because recruitment in the aviation sector is so difficult: that takes time, especially with helping the workforce maintain security credentials.
As we have heard, the need to protect our aviation sector is more acute than it has ever been. Many of our airports have fixed costs such as security and rates, as we heard. My airport pays about £5.6 million a year. There is also air traffic control. I ask the Minister to do everything he can to help find innovative solutions to support our airports, whether it be business rates relief working with colleagues in the Treasury, or a testing regime that protects passengers and the UK without disincentivising travel to the UK. That is all important because of what our airports represent. They are more than just buildings, hangars and hubs for big flying buses, they are communities, supply chains and jobs. They represent our vision as a nation, our ambition, and our dreams. They represent how we see ourselves and our place in the world. As we see light at the end of this long covid tunnel with vaccines and faster testing, we will be able to start that long but necessary journey to recovery. I promise to work with the Minister to help our aviation sector get back on its feet, and I encourage him to do so.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) for securing a debate on such an important issue. It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Meriden (Saqib Bhatti).
In March, the Government promised an aviation plan. We have had a change of minister, but eight months later—with redundancies rising and the widespread use of abhorrent employment practices—we are still waiting for the plan. I ask the Minister this: when will the plan be published? Among all the uncertainty, the aviation industry has adopted some absolutely abhorrent employment practices which I and many others believe should be banned in the UK, namely “fire and rehire”.
As a member of the Transport Select Committee, I have had the opportunity—as have other colleagues here today—to question Mr Álex Cruz, who was chief executive of British Airways until recently. The initial pandemic response of British Airways was to threaten to fire all of its 42,000 staff and rehire about 30,000 of them on permanently reduced terms. The inferior terms and conditions left some workers facing huge wage cuts of between 55% and 75%. In his evidence, Mr Cruz reassured the Transport Select Committee that an agreement had been reached with the unions, and that there would be no need to issue new contracts. Frankly, I believe Mr Cruz misled the Committee, because 850 British Airways cargo workers forced to sign new contracts or be fired have received pay cuts of 25%. British Airways have threatened to outsource that part of their business, while attempting to renegotiate and weaken the collective bargaining agreement with Unite. In response to that, those staff will start balloting for strike action tomorrow, I believe, and I stand with them in solidarity as a member of Unite the union against the imposition of drastic cuts to their wages and living standards.
I ask the Minister, who previously served as a colleague on the Transport Select Committee chaired by his Conservative colleague and my friend the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) this: does he agree that the Government should seek to minimise job losses in aviation while protecting pay and employment rights? I sympathise with the aviation industry: it has been hit hardest by covid and has been left in uncertainty. Loyal and skilled staff should not, however, pay the price for Government failure and the pandemic, and the disgraceful practice of “fire and rehire” must be banned.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) for bringing the debate. I also thank the Minister for listening to our reasons, and for meeting me late last week on this subject and for the support he is giving us. I wrote a longer speech, but I have decided not to read it as the last time I wrote a long speech I missed the ending, which was the main ask. I am going to start with the asks first, and if I overrun it does not matter too much, does it? The asks are for regional airports to be helped with business rates, because they are struggling and that would help, and for the Minister to continue speaking to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care about the testing that is desperately needed at airports. If we can get testing sorted out at airports, then we can get planes in the sky again.
Now for the reasons why. The airport industry in the UK is the third largest aviation industry in the world, and it is super important. It is 4.5% of our GDP. It is a great industry within our country, but it is struggling. Doncaster Sheffield Airport in Don Valley, which I represent, is no exception to that and it is really struggling. It is a shame because it has fantastic potential. Only a month ago, Wizz Air made Doncaster Sheffield Airport the second place to fly their planes from. They have two aircraft there and I went to the usual MP’s ceremonial ribbon-cutting event. It was wonderful to be there, only for us to go into lockdown a fortnight later, which made things really difficult.
I know it is not the Government’s fault and I have been a big fan of what the Government have done. The furlough scheme has been fantastic and has helped a lot of industries, including the airline industry. I am sure the Minister knows, but I want to get over to him how important the industry is, how important Doncaster Sheffield Airport is to Don Valley, and Doncaster as a whole, and how important it is for the country as we come out of covid. We would be grateful for anything that he can do to help this industry.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I, too, congratulate the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) on securing the debate. It is surprising that we have to have a debate on this issue, so long after the problems in the aviation and the aerospace industry were apparent.
It was clear from the first day of this crisis that here was an industry that required specific attention to be given to it. We have had a strategy for the hospitality industry, but we are still struggling with a response for an industry that is important for regional connectivity, investment in regional economies, businesses in regional economies and trade, because a lot of trade is now carried in passenger planes.
In highlighting the problems with the aviation industry, it would be remiss if I were not to mention that some of the responses from the industry itself have been less than satisfactory, especially the way in which it has treated some of its employees through hire-and-fire schemes. It would be wrong if we did not mention the impact that has had on many loyal workers.
A number of issues have been mentioned today, but I want to highlight three things to the Minister. First, there is the need to give people the confidence to get back into planes, so that we do not have to keep giving bail-outs to airlines or airports. We have had a good discussion about the testing regime that is required and what is needed to put that in place. I hope the Government will look at that as a priority.
Secondly, I want to highlight how we encourage people not only to have the confidence, but to get moving back into the aviation industry. I know it is not the Minister’s remit, but, as the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Paul Holmes) pointed out, a substantial piece of work has been done on the impact that a temporary reduction in air passenger duty would have on getting people flying again. The Government’s argument has always been that that is costly, but given the fall in numbers at present there is not a great deal of revenue coming from air passenger duty anyway. If we can get people flying again, get the country connected and get airlines moving, that is a bonus.
The last point I want to make is about duty-free shopping. It is surprising that at a time when airports have problems tax-free and duty-free shopping has been removed. It is a major revenue raiser and in Northern Ireland there will be nothing in those airports. I should like the Minister to address that.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) for securing the debate. The right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) is right: we have been here before. I remember my right hon. Friend saying, in a debate on, I think, the Minister’s second day in his job, that he had not intended to speak about areas of his old portfolio, but that he was driven to do it by the plight of the aviation sector. Yet here, as the right hon. Gentleman said, we still are.
It is right for us to recap the matter. Looking at aviation from the UK perspective, we have the largest aviation network in the Europe and the third largest in the world, contributing £22 billion to the UK economy. It employs—or employed—230,000 people with employment for an extra five people created off the back of each one of those workers. We have been a leader and a success story in aviation, but from there we have gone to being a laggard at opening up our skies again and getting passengers flying. That is what the aviation industry needs.
When the Transport Committee, which I have the honour of chairing, delivered a report on the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on the aviation sector, we called for financial support measures for the aviation industry, but we can see that there is pent-up demand. When the air bridge was opened up to the Canaries, bookings went up by 112%. Unfortunately, that was a few weeks before the November restrictions, so they collapsed again, but it shows that the demand is there, if only we can find a testing mechanism to allow passengers to fly with confidence.
It is not as if that mechanism is not out there. I received a spreadsheet from an aviation company: I would call it a spreadsheet of shame for the Government. It showed 30 countries that have already delivered testing, either before the passenger reaches the airport that they are going to transfer to, or once they have arrived. If those other countries can demonstrate, with science, that that can be done safely, why on earth can the UK not do the same thing, when we have been the leaders and pioneers in aviation? That is absolutely what is required.
The Minister, for whom I have much respect, was a member of the Select Committee so I know that he is passionate about the issue and that he believes in what I am setting out. My big question is whether No. 10 and No. 11 are really listening. The combined Department of Health and Social Care and Department for Transport aviation taskforce was supposed to report to No. 10 by the end of October with a proposal for bringing in testing. I do not believe that it did so. We still have not heard anything and while we cannot do anything right now, during November, there is so much negativity that we need to show real signs of opening. Perhaps the Minister can pass on that I would like No. 10 to ensure we get early indications of what the testing mechanism would be. Let us unlock our skies again. The industry is a great one, and it needs to come back with Government policy and support.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) for securing this important and timely debate. I also thank the Unite and GMB unions for campaigning so passionately and effectively on the issue, since the covid pandemic began, to safeguard the future of all those working in the aviation sector. As many colleagues have said, the livelihoods of 230,000 people employed in the sector—the third largest in the world and the biggest in Europe—are threatened. To challenge, slightly, something that was said by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), who chairs the Transport Committee of which I am a member, the sector actually contributes £28 billion to the economy.
That is why it is astounding that eight months since the Chancellor stood at the Dispatch Box and promised a financial support package for the aviation sector, that has yet to be delivered in a substantive way. In that time we have had wave after wave of redundancies, despite the furlough scheme, and one airport operator even described that as little more than a drop in the ocean in relation to fixed costs. The Government’s failure to provide the rescue package has meant such disgraces as the 13,000 redundancies at British Airways, and the firing and rehiring—things that are totally out of step with British values and the way our companies should behave. That is why the Transport Committee report damningly branded British Airways a “national disgrace” for its behaviour. The Committee Chair spoke of standards falling “well below” those expected of an employer.
It is simply unacceptable that the Government have not stepped in to do more to drive this level of change. For the Government to stand by when companies take advantage of these situations is deeply frustrating, because we know that there are options on the table that could be taken, such as prioritising loans or taking stakes in companies. Businesses that receive such support should then be prohibited from paying dividends, undertaking share buybacks or making capital contributions—potentially, even executive pay could be capped. We need to show that the needs of ordinary British workers are the priority for this Government and our country.
There are many examples from around the world of Governments backing the aviation industry. The US injected $45 billion into the sector. Another good example is France, where Macron’s Government unveiled a series of historic rescue packages but also put in place important mechanisms to tie parts of those packages to very clear decisions that airline bosses had to make to bring forward plans to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, to transform the fleet and to treat their staff, including their long-term employees, far better. By the way, it is vital that such efforts to tackle climate change are not lost while all the focus is on retaining jobs.
Consideration should be given to publicly financing smaller airports—there are many near me, such as City airport—and air traffic control, as well as specific routes within the UK’s aviation sector. Time is running out, and the Government really must act now.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Edward, and I congratulate the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) on securing what has been an interesting and very welcome debate. I agree with a huge amount of what was has been said by Members from all parties.
The stark truth is straightforward and simple: the UK Government have essentially abandoned the aviation sector to its fate. To be clear, when I refer to the aviation sector, I include its large and varied supply chain, including the strategically important aerospace sector. I say “abandoned” because the Government appeared at the start of the pandemic to be in lockstep with the industry. The Secretary of State for Transport came to the Dispatch Box and said that he had saved Flybe; the Chancellor promised back in March that there would be sector-specific support for the aviation industry; and the Secretary of State stood in the same hotel ballroom as myself and the Minister’s predecessor, looked industry representatives in the eye, and said:
“I understand the enormity of what you are facing, and this Government will stand by your side.”
The new Minister—he is still relatively new, but he has an extremely difficult job to repair broken relationships and a near-broken industry—is not responsible for making any of those promises, but he is now responsible for trying to deliver on them. I know what he will say in his closing remarks about the aviation sector having had access to x millions, loan-funding from the Treasury and, of course, access to the furlough scheme, but that is not enough and it is not what was promised. How many jobs in the sector might have been saved if the Chancellor had been clear from the start that furlough would continue throughout the winter period, as many of us had called for? We will never know.
Going into this crisis, the UK had the third biggest aviation sector in the world. I would be very surprised if we come out of it in the same lofty position, such has been the difference in the levels of support given to the sector by other Governments across the world. Plenty of other countries recognise the massive and strategic importance of the sector, including the Scottish Government, which rolled out support including full business rates relief for a full year. I know that many in this Chamber have called for that to be replicated in England. The Scottish Government have also worked with Highlands and Islands Airports to invest in infra- structure and economic stimulus as we come out of the pandemic, and they have worked with the aerospace response group, industry and trade unions to preserve aerospace, manufacturing and related sectors—protecting jobs in the short term, while expanding in the long term.
However, the blunt fact is that the Scottish Government have gone just about as far as they can with the limited powers they have. I know that the Prime Minister thinks devolution is “a disaster”, but it is a fact, and the fact is that the UK Government hold the bulk of the powers—legal and financial—that can make a difference in the aviation industry.
Instead, we have seen the Government watch as the aviation industry teeters on the edge of a cliff, and then give it a shove, with their baffling decision—I accept that it is not a Department for Transport decision—to propose scrapping the VAT retail export scheme and the airside extra-statutory concession scheme. In combination, those schemes created thousands of jobs, not only at the airports themselves but in retailers across the country.
For Glasgow, the airside concession is worth £8.6 million in revenue, which will now be lost, and 170 retail jobs will be put at risk, at a time when between 1,500 and 2,000 of the 5,000 jobs based at Glasgow airport have either gone or are under threat. Across the UK, the scrapping of both schemes is estimated to cause £1.5 billion of losses at a time when the industry is on its knees. It is beyond irresponsible to slash one of the few remaining income streams that offers a glimmer of hope for many airports. I hope the Treasury sees sense and reverses course in the coming weeks, and I hope that the Minister will confirm that he is lobbying the Treasury to do just that.
That is not to say that I think all parts of the aviation industry have been behaving entirely reasonably. It would not be a speech of mine if it did not mention fire and rehire; I agree wholeheartedly with every single word that the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris), my colleague on the Transport Committee, said on the issue, and for that reason I will curtail my remarks—not least because I spoke for 15 minutes on the issue yesterday in a debate that I secured.
When I come out in public to support the industry, it makes my life and the lives of everybody else who advocates for it much more difficult when companies such as Menzies Aviation and, of course, British Airways engage in such disreputable behaviour against their own staff. I would have little objection to making Government support conditional on those companies’ complying with the idea that they must treat their staff with dignity and respect, instead of working out the cheapest way to shove them out the door. I again ask another Government Minister, in his closing remarks, to confirm whether he thinks the practice of firing and rehiring should be legal and whether he thinks action should be taken.
While passenger numbers have recovered slightly over recent months, even the latest statistics from August show the scale of the challenges now and for the immediate future: Exeter, Cardiff, Norwich and Southampton are all down more than 90%, Glasgow is down 82% and Edinburgh is down 79%. The best-performing airports are those that provide a lifeline service such as the Isles of Scilly or Tiree, but even their passenger numbers are down significantly. If action is not taken soon, we face a crisis of connectivity, threatening not just regional airports, but rural communities for whom air service is essential. That would be an economic disaster not only for the communities served by those airports, but nationally: regional aviation is worth £4 billion to the Scottish economy, which is the same as its value in London.
In September, the First Ministers of the devolved Administrations—before the Prime Minister decided devolution was a disaster—jointly wrote to him asking for urgent intervention to support the aviation and aerospace sector. I am interested to know whether the Minister can confirm that they have even received a response. Certainly we have heard nothing publicly from the Prime Minister or his colleagues on what he and the Government intend to do to preserve a sector that is fundamental to what is left of our manufacturing base.
My constituency has already seen that base butchered, with 700 jobs axed at Rolls-Royce in Inchinnan and the remaining 600 or so of the workforce deeply anxious about the plant’s very future. The Government’s response in my Rolls-Royce debate was to commend the company for carrying out redundancies voluntarily rather than by compulsion. Our workers and our industry deserve a lot better than that. The Scottish Government continue to try their level best to support the sector, which also includes companies such as Spirit AeroSystems and GE, among many others. I mentioned earlier that there is an aerospace response group that meets fortnightly, but there is also a separate specific Rolls-Royce working group, which includes the company itself, trade unions, a Government Minister and officials.
Over the past 20 years, the UK proportion of the Rolls-Royce global workforce has been slashed. In the year 2000, 43,700 out of 53,000, or 82%, were based in the UK; with the latest job cuts in the system, that figure is now down to 17,000 out of 46,500, or 36%. Over the past decade and more, the UK Government have funded Rolls to the tune of well over £3 billion, and around 12% of Rolls-Royce profits have been generated as a result of UK Government grants and tax breaks. I do not mind the Government’s supporting companies such as Rolls-Royce—in fact, I welcome it—but the Government must exert a bit more influence on this offshoring issue if they are to continue to support the business so well.
It would be remiss of me not to mention climate change and its impact on the sector before I conclude. There is some great work being done by many in this area, including by the FlyZero project and the Aerospace Technology Institute. Given the perilous financial state of the aviation and aerospace sectors, I have some concerns that, without more Government support, the UK will struggle to maintain its position as a global leader in this field. I echo calls for increased funding for the institute itself and towards developing and manufacturing sustainable fuels. Much as I have urged the Government to increase incentives for motorists to switch to ultra-low emission vehicles, I also ask them to consider a scrappage scheme for older aircraft, which would have the double benefit of decreasing carbon emissions and providing a needed boost to our aerospace sector.
In previous debates on aviation during the pandemic, I have asked the Government to act and said that it was not too late to intervene; I fear that we are rapidly approaching the point when it will be too late. It is time for the Government to act, and to act now.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. It is normal to thank the Member who secured the debate, but I have to apologise to the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) instead. When he was Secretary of State for Transport, I asked him on the Floor of the House what first attracted him to build a high-speed line from his home in the south-east of England to his season ticket seat at his beloved Old Trafford in Manchester. That is the last time I will be flippant today.
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing this much-needed debate. It was entitled “Aviation Industry”, but that is the last thing we have talked about—we have talked about the pandemic. I would love to discuss how the sector could evolve to honour our commitments to the Paris agreement; to investigate the scope for even more highly skilled, highly unionised jobs; to discuss airspace modernisation, which is needed in this country; and to talk about how Britain can continue to be a leader of nations. Frankly, there will be no aviation sector in the UK if the Government do not get a grip of the pandemic and provide the appropriate and necessary support that the business needs.
As has been pointed out, the UK is already a world-class leader in aviation. The Prime Minister wants to look for new world-class industries—that is great, but my advice would be to protect the ones we have first. During the first four months of the pandemic, there were 99% fewer passengers. The current lockdown measures mean that, again, many airports are experiencing zero scheduled passenger arrivals or departures. Many hon. Members have defended their airports today. If airports are not turning over a million passengers, they are not really making a profit, so national infrastructure could be wiped out over the next few months if we do not do something.
Before the introduction of the second lockdown, UK airports were already projected to lose at least £4 billion by the end of the year. There will clearly be consequences such as shorter operating hours, fewer routes, long-term job losses and the risk that some airports may close their doors for good. UK aviation has now faced nine months of losses. While the rest of the economy began to open during the summer and early autumn, international quarantine measures prevented air travel from reopening and destroyed consumer confidence in flying.
Decisions such as letting all those people in in the first place, then introducing a global travel ban, and now the hammer of quarantine are killing the industry. The Department for Transport has to talk to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has to talk to the Department for Transport. They both have to talk to the Home Office at the same time. We need a co-ordinated approach from the Government.
Emerging from the most drastic and sustained reduction in passenger numbers that the aviation system has ever seen, UK airports are in a critically poor state to perform their role as enablers of growth and prosperity. A few weeks ago, there was a story about geological activity in another Icelandic volcano. A decade ago, the ash cloud shutdown was over in less than a week and cost the sector more than £1 billion. A new eruption would not do anywhere near the lasting damage that the Government are currently doing by not intervening in the aviation sector.
Aviation sustains 1.6 million jobs around the country. The International Air Transport Association tells us that 300,000 jobs are at imminent risk. The biggest impact of the failing industry will be in local airport communities such as Hounslow, Luton, Crawley, Manchester, Liverpool and Leeds—so much for the levelling-up agenda in our country. Those communities have grown dependent on their airports, which drive much of the local economy. Heathrow is famously the biggest business rates payer in Europe. As has been pointed out, in England and Wales, the Government have refused to give the resources and business rates relief to airports bleeding cash, as has happened in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
The sector brings £22 billion a year into the economy and is a critical part of its fabric. We have all seen the impact of cuts and what they have meant for staff, with some 4,500 jobs lost at easyJet; bases closing at Newcastle, Stansted and Southend; 12,000 job losses at British Airways; 3,000 jobs lost at Ryanair; 4,500 jobs lost at Virgin Atlantic; and more job losses at Heathrow, Manchester, Gatwick, Stansted and our smaller regional airports. The country cannot get back to economic health if we erode the foundations of our economy.
It appears that everybody is calling for a sector deal for aviation. It was not that long ago that the Chancellor reflected that the Government would have to make such an intervention. We are led to believe that there was a sectoral deal ready. I have also asked the Minister about that at the Dispatch Box. Where is the plan that we are all expecting?
This has been a terrific debate and I pay tribute to Members who have participated. The hon. Member for South Antrim (Paul Girvan) spoke eloquently about regional connectivity and the importance of airways to Northern Ireland. I disagree on everything politically with the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith), except aviation and the respective Chagossian communities that serve our airports, which is Manchester in my constituency.
I could not agree more with the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), because I spend most of my holidays there. The sooner we get connectivity up and running, the better for me and my wife. As the hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) pointed out, the aerospace sector in Bristol is dependent on getting aviation running. There were Members who supported Heathrow. My hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) made an eloquent speech. The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Paul Holmes) defended Southampton airport.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) made a really good political point. He knows that my politics is about human dignity. We undermine people’s human dignity when we cut their terms and conditions in the face of a pandemic, when they have gone over and above to help keep that industry going. The hon. Member for East Devon (Simon Jupp) made such a good point: how come Tesco gets rates reductions but our airports do not?
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), who continually makes good speeches, stood up for her constituency airport. My hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) and the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) asked where the plan was. We are eight months in and we need that leadership. The hon. Member for Meriden (Saqib Bhatti) talked about Birmingham airport and defended it excellently. The Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), has been a clarion voice in standing up for the industry.
The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) said that we are probably now going to listen to the Minister give a list of business loans. Sir Edward, you will get this reference. It will be like a litany of saints, a beatification, on a Roman balcony. There will be one after the after, but what we do not need is lists. We need leadership and we need it now.
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
Thank you for mentioning everybody who spoke in the debate. That does not often happen in wind-ups and it is rather a good habit.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Robert Courts)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I shall do my best to acknowledge as many Members as I can in my remarks.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) for securing this debate on the future of the aviation industry, and everybody who has contributed in what has been a wide-ranging and fascinating debate. Every single Member here is passionate about aviation, which was made very clear in the course of the afternoon.
We have heard from a number of hon. Members about the critical role that aviation plays in connecting the whole of the UK and the world. I thank my right hon. Friend for all his tireless work when he was Secretary of State. That was a point that he was keen to make clear during his time, and we have seen that reflected today.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will be pleased to see—as will my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith), to whom I will return in a moment—that work started in May on upgrades to the Gatwick airport rail station. That is a £150 million project, which my right hon. Friend announced when he was Secretary of State. That expanded, modern station will provide an impressive gateway to a global Britain, and I thank him for his work on that.
I have listened carefully to the points that have been made. I will endeavour to address as many of them as possible. However, as the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) and my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) rightly said, it is not always possible for Back Benchers to make all the points they would like in their speeches or for me to acknowledge all of them, but I will do my very best.
These are incredibly challenging times for the aviation sector. We all realise that, and none more so than this aviation Minister. I would like to record at the outset how crucial the sector is to the UK and its economy, as was said eloquently by the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman).
Before the covid-19 outbreak, the UK’s aviation sector was growing rapidly. Air transport and aerospace together contributed £22 billion to GDP and supported half a million jobs. The hon. Member for South Antrim (Paul Girvan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) referred to the aerospace sector. This country and their constituencies excel in it, and they are right to draw attention to that. Aviation supports the economy through trade, aerospace, investment and tourism and by providing regional connectivity. It is the Government’s fervent desire and utmost intention that the aviation sector recovers quickly from the dreadful pandemic that it and the country have been through.
I want to dwell for a moment, in response to hon. Members’ calls, on the support that the Government have given to the sector. We should remember, despite the cynicism of the hon. Members for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) and for Wythenshawe and Sale East, that the response has been unprecedented. It has enabled businesses across the industry to draw upon an unprecedented package of cross-economy support measures, including the Bank of England’s covid corporate financing facility, which has helped airlines’ liquidity. The sector drew down £1.8 billion of support by September 2020. The aviation sector as a whole is the largest beneficiary of CCFF, accounting for approximately 18% of the total amount of CCFF paid out by November.
As hon. Member know, on 5 November the Chancellor announced that workers across the UK will benefit from the increased support of a five-month extension of the furlough scheme—the coronavirus job retention scheme. It will now run until the end of March 2021, with employees receiving 80% of their current salary for hours not worked. My hon. Friends the Members for Meriden (Saqib Bhatti) and for Don Valley are right to point out how significant that support is. Overall, we estimate that the sector has received about £2.5 billion to £3 billion of support through the CCFF and the job retention scheme.
Hon. Members made a number of other points. The hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) asked me about conversations with individual companies. I hope she will understand that I cannot comment on any commercially confidential matters relating to individual companies. The Government have heard the broader requests for further support and are considering them carefully.
The House has powerfully reminded us that the impact of redundancies on employees, their families and their broader communities is serious. We heard a number of powerful speeches. The hon. Members for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) and for Ilford South (Sam Tarry) referred to Heathrow in particular, and other hon. Members also made powerful contributions. I see it myself from the correspondence that I receive from hon. Members and people up and down the country, and I understand that the impact on those who work in the aviation sector is very significant indeed. We must always remember that, ultimately, it is people who stand behind this.
My predecessor and officials have met unions regularly—I hope that the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) will be pleased to hear that—and I will meet them again shortly. I have spoken directly to companies that are considering redundancies and changes to terms and conditions, and I have offered my support and that of the Government for engagement efforts with staff where that is appropriate. I encourage unions and employers to sit down, speak to each other and find a solution where appropriate. The Government recognise that the aviation sector is home to highly skilled, highly trained staff, and their retention is vital. I thank all hon. Members who drew attention to that point.
On quarantine and travel corridors, I recognise the frustration of hon. Members, holidaymakers and businesses about the matters arising from the health measures that we have introduced and changes to the travel corridor exemption list. We must not lose sight—I know that hon. Members do not—of the reason why we have had to make those changes; it is simply to protect the health of the nation.
The right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) rightly talks of confidence. That is why we took the action that we did with the introduction in July of travel corridors, which were a major step forward in safely reopening international travel while retaining the ability to act quickly if public health were at risk. We continue to keep that policy under review, and it is clear from the steps we have taken that it is an evolving policy. We update the exemptions list weekly to reflect the changing health situation in each country, and we continue to evolve that policy as new and enhanced data becomes available. That allowed us, on 7 September, to introduce the islands policy, under which island destinations can be considered separately from the mainland. That provides increased flexibility to add or remove them, as distinct from the mainland, as infections rates change. Unfortunately, as right hon. and hon. Members will realise, the incidence rates in this country are growing, which is why we had to take the steps that we have taken from 5 November.
I want to say a few words about testing, which has obviously been a major part of the debate. There has been some powerful advocacy, and none more so than from my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley. He represents Gatwick airport, and his constituents who work there, with power and dedication. They could have no finer voice, and I thank him for everything he has said in the debate and outside.
On testing at airports, we have previously explained, and I want to explain again for the record, that we cannot currently endorse testing passengers immediately on arrival—in other words, at airports—as a means of avoiding the 14-day self-isolation period. The reason for that is that the long incubation period means that a significant proportion of infected but asymptomatic passengers might receive a negative result but go on to develop the virus over the following days.
However, we are taking action. My right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell referred to the global travel taskforce that we have created, and I want to explain to the House what that is considering. It is looking at how a domestic testing regime for international arrivals could be implemented in order to boost safe travel to and from the UK, and to allow UK residents to travel with confidence. It will consider what steps we can take to facilitate global business and tourist travel, including through bilateral agreements and multilateral forums. We will continue to explore with key international partners issues such as global common standards, testing models, measures around enforcement, exemptions and other border management measures. Beyond that, we will explore what steps we can take to increase consumer confidence, ensure that current measures are being properly adhered to, and restart international travel safely.
I want to inform the House and the Chair of the Transport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle, who asked the specific question—
Robert Courts
I will in a moment. I want to inform everybody that the taskforce will report back to the Prime Minister very soon.
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
Can you give some time for the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) to sum up?
Robert Courts
There are many points that I would like to make—I am conscious of the time, Sir Edward, and I am grateful to you for reminding me—about recovery, but they have been made very well by right hon. and hon. Members. There are a number of points around decarbonisation that I would like to have addressed. Given the time, perhaps we can have a debate about that on another occasion.
I thank everybody who has taken part in the debate, and I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell once again for securing the debate. We are all aware of the scale of the challenge facing the aviation sector and, indeed, the entire country. The combination of the steps that we are taking on public health, the work that we are taking forward on testing and travel corridors, and the unprecedented economic support provides a strong foundation for the recovery of the sector. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden encouraged me to work together with the sector. I will do so tirelessly, and I will work with every Member who has spoken in the debate.
Chris Grayling
I applaud all the contributions to the debate from Members from all parts of the House, and I hope that our comments are listened to more widely than simply in this room. I do not seek to challenge the Minister. He is new to his job, and he faces some of the same challenges as others in similar positions in Departments across Government. These are not decisions that are being taken in the Department for Transport, but there is an expectation in this room that action will come more quickly than the official Government line has suggested.
I do not understand why a 72-hour test prior to departure, coupled with a check-up test on arrival in the UK, represents a greater risk than the 14-day quarantine. Given the urgency of the situation that the aviation sector faces, I do not really understand why the global taskforce has not reported already. I hope it will be understood clearly elsewhere in Government that that must happen, and it must happen now.
However, those are not things that I level at the Minister. He has been a great champion of the sector, and I know he will be a very effective aviation Minister. I know that he will do everything he can to unlock the challenges that the industry faces and put it back on a path to recovery. The message from everyone in this room to the Government is this: we cannot afford to let the sector carry on dying on its feet. Every action possible must be taken across Government to enable the industry to recover. Whether we are a former Minister, a Select Committee Chair or member, or an Opposition spokesperson, we will all be watching carefully. This will not be the last time we raise the issue, if the problem is not solved.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
I suspend the sitting for two minutes to allow for safe exit.
Asylum Seekers and Permission to Work
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered asylum seekers and permission to work.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests for the support I received for research capacity in my office in relation to work on asylum seekers, refugees and migrants. The Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy project provides research capacity to me and other Members of Parliament on this issue, and it does a fantastic job generally.
While I am thanking RAMP, I want to thank everyone involved in the Lift the Ban campaign: Refugee Action, Asylum Matters, the Refugee Council, City of Sanctuary UK, Ben & Jerry’s, UNISON, which is the country’s biggest trade union, the Salvation Army, and Church of England and other faith groups. I would also like to thank other RAMP principals, including the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), for attending this debate. I know he wants to contribute, and that is very welcome. There is no politics involved in getting this right, in my opinion.
Who does this issue affect? An asylum seeker is someone who has applied for asylum, is legally entitled to be in the country and is awaiting a decision on whether they will be granted refugee status. After a claim is made in the UK, an asylum seeker is granted the right to work after 12 months in a limited pool of occupations. That is important, because the shortage occupation list, which is administered by the Government, is a system more akin to a Stalinist economic plan in the Soviet Union than global Britain in the 21st century.
I will give a bit of the history—come with me in my Tardis. In December 2018, the Home Secretary stated that a Home Office review of the policy on asylum seekers and work would be taking place. Since then, any questions that have been posed or letters that have been written to Ministers have all been met with the response that work is ongoing. In all that time, we still do not have a full idea of the remit, the process that is being followed or when it will report.
On 25 July 2019, in a debate about priorities for Government, the Prime Minister told my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green):
“The Home Office is currently reviewing that matter, and we will make an announcement shortly.”—[Official Report, 25 July 2019; Vol. 663, c. 1493.]
Shortly? Priorities for Government? That was on 25 July last year. We know that a week is a long time in politics, but 64 weeks after the Prime Minister told us that it was his priority to deliver the review and he would make an announcement shortly, we still have no news.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is absolutely astonishing that the Government are taking so long to look into something that would have an economic benefit for the country? Estimates tell us that up to £42 million could be contributed to the economy by people who are currently left without any dignity and living on a pittance, when they have skills that they could bring to our country.
Neil Coyle
That is beyond astonishing. I am baffled and bewildered as to why it is taking so long. I do not shy away from acknowledging the fact that migrants of all kinds have always made a strong economic contribution, and they have strengthened our community and our society for the better. They should be better treated by our Government, who have delayed on this for far too long.
On 11 June this year, in the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill Committee, the Minister announced that a new service standard for asylum claims was being developed. He said that it was
“intended to try to bring back some balance to the system…UK Visas and Immigration is engaging with stakeholders as part of these plans and considering any insight that those stakeholders offer as it tries to shape a new service standard”.––[Official Report, Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Public Bill Committee, 11 June 2020; c. 124.]
I hope the Minister who is here today will tell us what that will look like, who has been involved and when it will report. I hope that he will also tell us when what the Prime Minister promised in July 2019 will finally be delivered. I assume that those things will be together, but let us see what the Minister says.
On the numbers of people affected, the Refugee Council reported at the end of June this year that 38,756 people have been waiting for more than six months for a decision. That is a massive increase on the figure for this time last year. It is a record-breaking rise, and a record-breaking failure in the Home Office. From the end of June this year, almost 17,000 applications have been waiting for more than 12 months for an initial decision. That is astonishing, and it is pathetic. Any business with such a level of delivery would be shut down. It is a complete failure and a dereliction of duty in the Home Office. We should not forget that an application does not just represent one person; there can be a whole family on one application.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
I understand that the hon. Gentleman is driven by compassion for genuine asylum seekers, but does he not agree that what he proposes would feed into the business plan of the traffickers who bring economic migrants to our shores, causing the misery that we have seen both at sea and in the backs of lorries?
Neil Coyle
It is completely the opposite, I am afraid. Asylum seekers could make, and want to make, an economic contribution to this country, and that is to be welcomed. People are forced to use illegal measures to get into the country because of the delays and our terrible system. If we were more compassionate and stuck with the UK tradition of helping people, rather than turning a blind eye or crossing the road, we would be in a better position morally and economically.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I, too, need to draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a RAMP principal. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the introduction of safe and legal routes—we very much welcome the Government’s commitment to doing that—by which people can establish their claims is key to the United Kingdom’s ability to disrupt traffickers and those who bring people into the country in very high-risk ways, which are a matter of legitimate public concern?
Does the hon. Gentleman also agree that the introduction in 2002 of the ban on asylum seekers working reflected a prevailing concern, in the then Labour Government and in Parliament more widely, about the economic impact? At the time, the United Kingdom was preparing for the accession of further countries into the European Union. However, according to the research that RAMP has shared with us both, 67% of businesses believe that now is the time to lift the ban. Does he agree that we need to recognise that times have changed, and that safe and legal routes and the changing economic climate make a case for doing so that simply did not exist when the Labour Government introduced the ban in 2002?
Neil Coyle
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution, and I completely agree that times have changed. These people, however, are often professionals; they have skillsets that we should be seeking to use to benefit our economy.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I was speaking to the hon. Gentleman outside about the fact that of six Syrian families that came to Newtownards, all of the menfolk were skilled carpenters and wanted to work. One of the things that held them back was language. Does he feel it is important that we encourage those people who have skills whenever there is a market for them at the same time, as there certainly was in my constituency?
Neil Coyle
I agree, the Government should prioritise English language training to overcome the language barrier. We have seen a drop in the availability of English language teaching and training, and that needs to come back.
The point about it being time to change is really important, because Lift the Ban’s research showed that one in seven of the people seeking asylum have experience of working in health and social care. We have a shortfall in those sectors, and in any normal year we should be welcoming people and getting them into those jobs as quickly as possible. In the context of a global pandemic, there is simply no excuse for denying this workforce a chance to get on with those jobs, which we need more than ever. I hope today the Minister will talk us through how he will be fast-tracking those with health and social care backgrounds, in particular, into jobs.
We need more nurses and medical practitioners, and people with that skilled background are going through an inhumane process—state-sponsored destitution on £5.66 a day or £39.62 a week. I hope that the Minister will listen to campaigners and tell us when that rate will be increased, and why it has not yet been increased to help people protect themselves, their families and the broader community in response to covid-19.
There is evidence that this policy has left people vulnerable to exploitation and criminals. Even in Home Office-run hostels, gangs target these people because they know they are desperate for cash and income. This is a Home Office policy—the Department responsible for law and order and tackling crime has a policy that results in an increase in crime.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
I will be brief. Britain, our country, has a proud history of supporting people fleeing war and persecution, and the use of language is very important. It is important to remember that asylum seekers are people; they are fellow human beings and they need to be treated with respect, dignity and fair process. Does my hon. Friend agree that the reason so many hon. Members on Opposition Benches are alarmed by inaction by this Government is that this Government and the Home Office were the architects of the hostile environment that led to so much damage to the fabric of society?
Neil Coyle
I think that there is cross-party support for this, and I will come back to the subject of the broader public.
Before I leave the subject of occupations, the Government’s list of approved proficiencies includes classical ballet dancer or skilled orchestral musician—so those are okay, but for other professions, where we desperately need people, people are being delayed in getting into those jobs. I hope the Minister will commit to overhaul the shortage occupation list system; he will have public support for that. British Future found that 71% of the British public supports the right to work after six months—public opinion will be on the Government’s side should they introduce the policy.
I want to talk about the situation in Southwark. We have 189 dispersed asylum seekers housed across the borough, and the council has a commitment in its refreshed plan to making Southwark a borough of sanctuary, working with community groups and partners to help and support refugee and migrant asylum seekers in the borough, and campaigning to end the hostile environment, which the Government told us they wanted to end. They told us they were dismantling the hostile environment, and yet here it is alive and kicking and damaging people’s lives, leaving people destitute.
I want to celebrate the work of the Southwark day centre for asylum seekers, which does a tremendous job and has very strong links to this House; the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) are both patrons of it. People from the centre tell me that the majority of the people they see do not have the right to work and are dependent on charities and faith groups. Churches and mosques are picking up the slack because we have an irresponsible Government leaving people without support. Some of the people they are supporting are not even covered by the asylum support scheme and live beyond destitution. They have confirmed that 40% of the asylum seekers they are helping wait longer than 12 months for a decision—40% of the people they see. I see these people in my casework and surgery sessions—not face-to-face at the moment, although I do make exceptions, so if anyone does need to see me, we can do in a covid-secure way in my constituency office.
David Simmonds
I promise to be super brief. I was reading a quote about how cash benefits have been regarded as
“a major pull factor that encourages fraudulent claims”—[Official Report, 14 June 1999; Vol. 333, c. 16.]
from asylum seekers. That was from Jack Straw, when he was overseeing this policy as Home Secretary. Does the hon. Member agree that one strength of recognising that times have changed and introducing the right to work is that it would prove to our constituents that asylum seekers are not scroungers, but people with skills valued by British businesses who are here to make a tax-paying contribution, rather than expecting to subsist off the taxpayer?
Neil Coyle
I agree 100% and that echoes the point made earlier that these are people who want to contribute, to make a difference and to improve our country as well as their own lives. I have two quick examples from constituency casework. One woman who applied for asylum in 2014, was initially refused, and reapplied in 2017 has still had no response and no decision. She fled Eritrea due to political repression and has physical injuries as a result of the beatings that she took there. Her current application has taken more than three years and remains undecided. The second is a man with post-traumatic stress disorder from his experience in Iran, where he was born, who received a refusal in 2019, after waiting more than a year initially. He submitted a fresh application, including more medical information, has still not received a response and is left destitute. This is an issue—the longer people wait and are out of work, the harder it is for them to contribute when permitted by the Government. Of course, there are also mental health issues and other implications for those left marginalised and isolated on the periphery of society. These are people who could be contributing, as other Members have mentioned.
It is estimated that the current policy costs the taxpayer almost £100 million a year—for an awful, inhumane and incompetent approach. The CBI and TUC back the Lift the Ban campaign. It would generate income and reduce bureaucracy, help raise additional income tax and national insurance, and cut emergency accommodation and other costs. Of course, there are stronger and long-term savings as people integrate and contribute more. Compared globally, we perform badly. Before people can work in France, Spain and the USA it is six months, in Germany it is three months, and in Italy two months. In Canada and Australia—Ministers often hold up the Australian immigration system—there is no wait. People can get into work as soon as they arrive. Why are we not using the Australian model? Why is the Minister still sustaining the damage of this policy to our economy and those people’s lives?
In conclusion, what the campaign asks for is a change and for the ban to be lifted to ensure a more humane approach that tackles this long-term isolation and marginalisation; one befitting the UK’s proud history of support and allowing people who face persecution and repression abroad to enter; and one that is in our economic interests, helping us to tackle covid so that people can protect themselves, the NHS and the wider community. Without that change the Home Office, the Department responsible for safety in this country, leaves those people and our whole community unsafe.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
As I have made some interventions already, I shall be brief. As a Conservative, I believe the case is now robustly made for a change in position. We can consider the history and accept that it is right that Government Departments should implement different policies to respond to the concerns that the public, voters, businesses, and everybody in the community has in a given period.
I was reflecting on an article published in The Guardian about how the wider issue of immigration and this point specifically had become so toxic over the years. It referred to the proposals put forward by a Labour Government, for example, that the children of asylum seekers should be taught separately because they were “swamping” the classrooms of this country. Barbara Roche, who was the Immigration Minister for a number of years at the time when the current legislation was established, talked about needing to be much tougher to deter people. That was probably a response to a prevailing concern with the accession of the Visegrad countries into the European Union and a lot of coverage in the media that said that that was going to lead to large numbers of people arriving in the country with the right to work. There was understandable concern in some communities about the impact that would have on their local areas. The Government wanted to demonstrate that they were concerned, and that they were going to be tough and take effective measures to make sure that impact was mitigated.
Of course, as we have heard from the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle), we face a period in which covid, Brexit, and changes in legislation on borders and free movement all add up to a very different picture. The polling done by British Future identifies that many people in these communities have, over time, come to see that asylum seekers and refugees in their local area can bring valuable skills and should be able to use those skills in paid work, rather than subsisting for a long time on very meagre amounts paid for by the taxpayer.
It seems to me a very Conservative thing to expect people to pay their way. When people arrive and could be working in our hospitals, our care system or, frankly, in any kind of job that their skills and experience make them fit to do, we as Conservatives should enable them to do it, rather than having taxpayers pick up the tab for their costs while we make a decision on their long-term futures. That view seems to be gaining a high degree of traction.
Although I absolutely accept that there is a compassion argument at the heart of this issue, we need to recognise that that argument is not attached to any particular political viewpoint. Governments have to make decisions in the light of the circumstances that they face and in the wider interests of the country. It was, once upon a time, in the wider interests of the country to apply those restrictions to have a borders and immigration policy that commanded public confidence.
When so many businesses around the country say that they are struggling to recruit workers, particularly skilled workers for certain types of job—the farming industry was talking about that over the summer with preparations for harvesting, and for local authorities recruiting staff for social care is a major challenge, with significant upward pressure on wages—there is an opportunity to bring people with those skills in to make that contribution and become tax-paying, economically active members of our society, rather than subsisting on the taxpayer. That is why I think it is time to make the case for a change in that policy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)
It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) on securing the debate and getting through his speech in record time—he cantered through it and got a great deal of content into a relatively short time.
I will start by addressing some of the points made by hon. Members. A lot of emphasis was placed on the contribution that migrants can make to our economy, but of course, we have a legal route for those who are able to make an economic contribution to get into the United Kingdom. We have a new points-based system coming into force in just a few weeks, and anyone from anywhere in the world is able to apply under that scheme. If they meet the criteria, which are quite generously drawn, they can get a work permit and come here to work and make the contribution to which hon. Members have referred. That route exists and will be in full operation very shortly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) said that if there were safe and legal routes, people would not have to come and claim asylum in this way. There already are a number of safe and legal routes. I have already mentioned the work visa route, but for people who want to reunify with their family, we have family reunion rules, under which 7,500 people came into the United Kingdom in the year up to March.
We also have a refugee resettlement scheme, which is, I suspect, the scheme used by the six or seven gentlemen mentioned by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), whereby we go directly to countries of danger, particularly Syria but to others as well, and bring the most vulnerable people directly into the United Kingdom. Under those rules, we choose who deserves to come in, rather than people entering illegally. In the last five years, up to March 2020, 25,000 people—half of whom were children—have come into the UK under that resettlement route, which is the largest of any European country. Those safe and legal routes most certainly do exist.
Mr Goodwill
I can confirm that I have been to the refugee camps in Jordan and seen how those most in need are selected. Indeed, we delegate that job to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, so it is not us choosing them but a well-respected international body choosing those who can come and who do not need to resort to paying the people smugglers—that is, if they have the money to pay them. Those most in need do not have the money to pay the people smugglers.
Chris Philp
My right hon. Friend, who of course has considerable expertise in this area, is absolutely right. The UNHCR, over the last five years, has chosen the people who are most in need, whereas those who come here, for example, in small boats across the English channel are not necessarily those most in need; they are those who can afford to pay people smugglers, or those who are fit and strong enough to force their way across the English channel. They are not those most in need; they are effectively pushing their way to the front of a queue and potentially displacing people whose need is greater—those people who have come over, for example, on the family resettlement route.
That brings me to the point about the current policy, introduced, as we have been reminded, by the last Labour Government. Many of the reasons that the last Labour Government chose or had regard to in introducing this policy do, I think, apply today. The first point is that we have legal routes—very clear legal routes—for coming to this country to work and make a contribution. If somebody can enter the country clandestinely, for example on a small boat, which is dangerous and unnecessary—it is unnecessary because they could quite easily claim asylum in France, a safe country—and immediately start working or start working after a very short time, that undermines the points-based system and the legal route that we have created. What is the point of having a legal route if it can be immediately circumvented in the way that I have described?
Christine Jardine
Does the Minister accept that, in the current circumstances, if someone is in this country legally, has come through the safe routes and followed all the procedures, they are not allowed to work, yet they could be making a contribution to society? Will the Government not take that into account?
Chris Philp
Well, of course, people who come in through the family reunion route can work straightaway; people who come in under the resettlement programme—those 25,000 people, including the constituents of the hon. Member for Strangford—can work straight away. We need to speed up our asylum decision making; some fair points were made there. Clearly, the pandemic has made that considerably more difficult, but we need to work to speed up those decisions, which is in everybody’s interest. It is in the interest, clearly, of the person seeking asylum, so that they know where they stand; that is only fair. If they do get a positive decision, it means they can start working; that is only fair to the taxpayer as well.
Chris Philp
I have to just finish, because there is very little time remaining. I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me for concluding.
I also am concerned about the possibility of creating some measure of pull factor, because if people know that they are able to come here on, for example, a small boat or the back of a lorry, or on an aeroplane, without proper documentation and immediately, or very nearly immediately, start working, that will act as a further encouragement to come to the UK and add to the 35,000 asylum claims that we have already. Particularly in the case of people who are in safe countries such as France—pretty much all the small boat arrivals come from France—they are in a safe country where they could, if they wished, claim asylum.
I will just say that the shortage occupation list is rather wider than was represented. It does include nurses and medical practitioners. I commend that scheme to people with those skills who want to work.
Neil Coyle
Will the Minister look at those who have health and social care backgrounds and fast-track them on the SOL, so that they can work sooner and while our services so desperately need them?
Chris Philp
We conducted a review of that back at the beginning of the pandemic, and the numbers that I was given were very, very small, but I will say that the professions that are on the shortage occupation list and can be applied for include medical practitioners, psychologists, nurses, speech and language therapists, occupational therapists—and even actuaries and architects. Paramedics are on there as well. There are quite a lot of medical professions on the shortage occupation list already. A review is ongoing. It will report as soon as we are able to complete it, and I will of course report back to the House when that happens, but in the meantime I completely take the point about speeding up and making sure that we make these decisions quickly, for all the reasons that we have discussed this afternoon.
Question put and agreed to.
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
If Members can exit, I will suspend the sitting for two minutes. Have a good evening.
Moorland Burning
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of moorland burning.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I am grateful for the opportunity to debate the important issue of moorland burning. I hope no one in this House would dispute that we are in a climate and nature emergency. That means we have not only a moral imperative to ban this destructive practice, but environmental, ecological and existential imperatives to protect and restore our precious peatlands.
The UK peatlands contain an estimated 3,200 million tonnes of carbon, more than the forests of the UK, France and Germany combined. There is no way that the Government can tackle the climate crisis without ensuring that our peatlands continue to store that colossal quantity of carbon. It would be a catastrophe if it were released and, yet that is exactly what is happening.
While upland peatland should be a net carbon sink, continued mismanagement means that the UK’s peatlands are a net source of emissions. When they could and should be being used for carbon sequestration to safely store carbon, our peat bogs are instead releasing huge quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds reports that that is equivalent to the amount of carbon dioxide released by 140,000 cars a year. The cause is moorland burning.
Between the 1940s and the present, there has been a sevenfold increase in burning on peatland in England alone. In Great Britain, between 2001 and 2011, burning increased at a rate of 11% per year. The more we allow that to continue, the greater the acceleration in the climate crisis we will see before our eyes. We will also see impacts on our environment.
Britain’s blanket bogs make up 10% to 15% of the world’s entire resource. Burning peat bogs dries out peat soil and lowers the water table, changing the flora and fauna to advantage species such as grouse, and transforming these rich, biodiverse habitats into distorted ecologies suitable for only a few animals and plants. We have a duty to preserve their vast biodiversity.
The dried peat soil also negatively impacts our water quality by releasing soil carbon into watercourses, which degrades their quality and increases the expense of cleaning our drinking water. That is because the burning harms the sphagnum mosses, which hold water in the peatlands. While the mosses recover, grasses and heather replace and out-compete them, which means that the water runs off down the hills, taking carbon from the peat with it and leading to polluted water. Burnt bogs are consequently less able to slow water flow, which leads to heavier flooding after rainfall.
I am sure my South Yorkshire colleagues will remember the terrible flooding our region suffered last year: 90% of the homes in the village of Fishlake near Doncaster were flooded last November, and, unfortunately, over a year on, some still have not been able to return to their homes. Funding for flood defences is a pressing issue, particularly when the south-east gets double the funding per person of Yorkshire and the Humber and more than five times that of the north-east. We need the Government to deliver fairer funding for flood defences, but we also need to move the debate away from mitigating the effects of the climate and environment emergency to tackling the causes. That means locking carbon in the ground by restoring our upland peat bogs, slowing the water flow, soaking up heavy rainfall and preventing the next flooding crisis before it occurs.
Peatlands also play a vital role in UK water security and must be protected to preserve the UK’s water supply in the coming years. Researchers at the University of Leeds estimate that 72.5% of the storage capacity of reservoirs in the UK is peatlands-fed water. That demonstrates the crucial role that peatlands play in our water security.
In January, the Committee on Climate Change recommended that peat burning should be banned by the end of 2020. The Government have routinely committed to ending the burns, but we have yet to see any legislative progress towards that. Instead, the Government have asked landowners only to sign voluntary agreements not to burn, and they simply are not working. For the sake of our environment, the Government must announce an immediate ban on this destructive practice and restore our peatlands to their natural bog habitats, so that they can deliver for biodiversity and carbon sequestration.
But that is only the first step. Announcing a ban is not the same as enacting one. For example, in my constituency, the moors at Stanage and Strines are both sites of special scientific interest, which means they should be protected areas, yet both regularly see burning. Due to the lack of proper resourcing and maintenance, too many of our protected areas are protected in name only. This Government’s record on maintaining existing areas of environmental protection shows a sustained failure to protect those protected sites.
In 2010, 43% of SSSIs in England were in favourable condition; by 2020 that had dropped to 39%. The condition of SSSIs in England is actually worse in our national parks and areas of natural beauty than outside them. That is a direct consequence of under-resourcing and underfunding conservation—yet another devastating consequence of the last 10 years of austerity. The Government’s own figures show that public sector spending on biodiversity in the UK fell from £641 million to £456 million between 2012 and 2017—a drop of 29%. The RSPB argues that the Government’s approach to achieving nature targets has completely failed due to
“neglect of basic monitoring and compliance, a reliance on voluntary approaches and unwillingness to regulate, and dwindling public resources for action”—
a damning summation.
As well as committing to banning peatland burning and giving a firm date on which that will come into effect, Ministers must commit to properly resourcing conservation bodies so that they are able to monitor and clamp down on any illegal burning and ensure that peatlands are rewetted and restored. That is why I am so pleased to support Labour’s plan for a national nature service.
An expansion of spending on maintaining or restoring our peatlands is vital if we are to maintain our zero carbon commitments, but it is also a way of providing the employment stimulus we need in the wake of the pandemic; protecting and maintaining our peat bogs and our natural environment in all its diversity goes hand in hand with creating good-quality public sector jobs.
We should take inspiration from Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Civilian Conservation Corps between 1933 and 1942, whose workers planted 3 billion trees and paved the way for America’s system of national and state parks, which were also a central part of the new deal. The national nature service should be at the heart of the green new deal for workers, creating a zero carbon army. We need to manage our moorlands effectively and to lock CO2 into the ground. At the same time, that would provide a host of secure jobs and benefit many people, including young black, Asian and minority ethnic workers, who have been hit hardest by the employment crisis. It would also help to diversify the conservation sector.
Nobody in this debate supports the deregulation of moorlands. The idea that setting fire to large swathes of our countryside is a responsible form of regulation and management is completely incredible. It releases millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, making the climate emergency worse. It destroys habitats and damages the ecosystem and ecologies. As fires rage on our uplands, they increase the threat of floods from our lowland rivers.
We cannot rely on the good will of landowners to stop the burning—just ask the residents of Hebden Bridge and the Calder valley. We all saw on our TVs the damage done to those communities by last year’s flooding, and many now attribute those floods to heather burning on Walshaw moor. Instead, we need to restore and re-wet our peatlands, using them as one of the many natural solutions to the climate crisis. To do that, we must end the year-on-year cuts to spending on the environment and set out a plan for investing in nature. That means having a national nature service to create well-paid, secure, unionised jobs. We need to lock CO2 into the ground and to protect biodiversity and our natural environment’s fragile ecologies. We also need to ensure that those who seek to burn protected peatlands face the full weight of the law.
I hope the Minister will take this opportunity to outline the timetable for bringing forward legislation. It is time to end the fires, floods and climate chaos. It is well past time we banned the burn.
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
May I remind colleagues that there are five minutes for the Opposition Front Benchers and 10 minutes for the Government. This debate is due to finish at 17.32 pm. I am not putting a time limit on speeches, but we have eight other speakers apart from the Front Benchers and the mover of the motion at this point. Please bear that in mind.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Two thirds of the North York Moors national park—that glorious countryside that many of us will have seen on the television programme “Heartbeat”—lie in the Scarborough and Whitby constituency, and 79% of the North Yorkshire moors and Pennine special protection areas are managed as grouse moors. It is vital—I agree with the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake)—that we preserve that peat.
The North Yorkshire moors are not, in the main, blanket bogs. They are dry heathland peat, and different ways of management need to be conducted on different types of moorland. It is also vital that we preserve these fragile habitats, and if we are to preserve them, they do need managing.
Heather moorland is rarer than rainforest, and 75% of Europe’s heather moorland is in the United Kingdom. Of the upland SSSIs, 60% are on moorland, which has, for decades, been managed in traditional ways.
I remember, as a child, crossing the North Yorkshire moors and seeing people cutting peat for fuel. Indeed, the legendary Saltersgate Inn had a fire that never went out, because, apparently, a Revenue man was buried under the fireplace and it was the only way of preventing him from being discovered. Sadly, the Saltersgate Inn is no more.
It is important that we look at all ways of managing peat, particularly in terms of arable degradation—as a farmer myself, I understand that. We should also look at the way horticultural peat is harvested and—the Republic of Ireland is phasing out its power stations—at how we do not use peat for power.
I must make the point that the North Yorkshire moors are not a natural environment. They are a fragile environment. In the middle ages, the moors were covered in trees, which were cut down for fuel and used to smelt the iron stone found under those moors. Only in the Victorian era did management systems come in that encouraged sheep farming and grouse. That involved cool burning the heather in the winter period, between 1 October and 15 April, when the fire was unlikely to get into the peat itself. That involves burning small patches of the moorland to create a patchwork of different stages of heather, some of it very tender and young. It is the tender, young heather that the sheep and grouse can feed on. The old, woody heather is no good for the grouse and is certainly no good for sheep. It is also no good, by the way, for ground-nesting birds such as the golden plover, the lapwing and the curlew.
If the hon. Lady wants to come and see what happens to moors if they are not managed in that way, she should come to Troutsdale moor just outside Scarborough, which has not been managed as a moor for about the last 30 years and has reverted to scrubland. There are none of the birds that we want to preserve on the North Yorkshire moors. If there were no sheep, who would mend the stone walls? According to her, it would be a unionised army of nature service people, but the farmers are the people who should be farming on the moorland and managing it.
If we did not manage the moorland in the way we do, we would see wildfires. Burning creates firebreaks. We have seen in the United States and Australia how, when they stopped back burning, fires got out of hand. In 2019, there was a record number of wildfires. In 2020, that record was broken, with 110 fires.
Indeed, Saddleworth moor—a moor that has not been managed in the traditional way that we use in the North Yorkshire moors—had three weeks of fires, which produced the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide as 100,000 car years and cost £20 million. That fire got into the peat, as such wildfires do, which is what damages it. I must make the point that controlled burning does not burn the peat; it burns the vegetation and allows the sphagnum moss, which forms more peat, and the young heather to regenerate.
Mowing is not practical on most of the moorland because of the topography and the amount of stones; indeed, that encourages the growth of sedges, which can release large amounts of methane, which has a carbon factor 96% higher than CO2. That is recognised by the North York Moors National Park Authority, for which it is policy to support the traditional rotational cool burning of heather to maintain the moorland in the way that wildlife, and economic activity such as grouse shooting and sheep farming, need.
I say to the Minister that we need more science before we make any decisions. The science is unfolding. We also need to understand that some people are against the burning of moorland because they are against grouse shooting. That is a perfectly respectable position to have, but they should not use it to destroy the very fragile environment of the North Yorkshire moors. If we do not have a managed moorland, we will have no grouse, no sheep, no lapwings, no curlews and no birds of prey.
When the Minister responds, I hope she will understand that we need to do more work. We do not want to destroy this very fragile managed environment, which has been kept this way for many years, and sacrifice it for some political campaign that is to do with a lot of other things, not just managing moorland.
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
Hon. Members know that I try to avoid formal time limits, so I will edge towards an informal time limit of four minutes.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under you as Chair, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) on securing this important debate. Before moving on with my remarks, I will be the first to take up the offer of the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill) to come and visit his moorland to compare and contrast the differences required in managing that with what is perhaps required in my part of the world, and he has already touched on some of those elements.
Nearly a quarter of England’s blanket bog habitat is located in Yorkshire—I am pleased to see the region well represented in the debate—with about 50% of the country’s peatlands in the Pennines. Its wellbeing is, therefore, crucial for us in Calderdale on a number of fronts. If we manage our moorland and peat bogs responsibly, as we have already heard, they lock in water, which protects us from flooding, and carbon, which helps us to mitigate the extreme weather that presents such a challenge to us in a steep-sided valley. Kept wet, they will also protect us from the damaging wildfires that we have already discussed.
We have suffered devastating floods twice in the last five years—first, in December 2015 and again in February this year. In addition, there have been several significant wildfires in the same period, so the integrity of the moorland in the upper catchment is essential if we are to manage the different risks.
We have had an ongoing challenge with burning, largely undertaken by those involved in the grouse shooting industry to engineer grouse breeding habitats. I am pleased that in July, Calderdale Council supported a ban on burning in an attempt to restore the peatlands, alleviate the pressures on our fire service, enhance biodiversity and contribute to the package of measures that we need to have in place to mitigate flood risk.
It is frustrating, however, that although the potential for carbon storage is enormous, the Committee on Climate Change has estimated that 350,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide are emitted each year from upland peat in England, the majority of which is due to burning on grouse moors. I welcome its recommendation that legislation to address that should be forthcoming before the end of the year.
Last year, I visited one such moorland restoration project above Dove Stone reservoir with the RSPB, which is restoring and cultivating nature’s great super sponge, sphagnum moss, and aiding natural flood management alongside the work on leaky dams and gullies. Like the RSPB, I am really keen to know when we might see the publication of the England peat strategy, as part of the delivery of the 25-year environment plan.
The Minister will be aware that where water run-off is increased and hastened due to burning, it washes peat into our reservoirs, which has to be cleaned out of the water supply. On a related point, I will take the opportunity to remind to the Minister that I have tabled an amendment to the Environment Bill—it is up for debate in Committee next week, if I am not mistaken—that would require the Secretary of State to make regulations to grant the Environment Agency additional powers to require water companies and other connected agencies to manage reservoirs to mitigate flood risk. I will write to the Minister on that point ahead of the Committee discussion next week.
I finish with a final plea to the Minister. Moorland restoration was one of several issues that we were hoping to discuss at the promised Yorkshire floods summit. Inevitably, given coronavirus, the summit was delayed. The Minister did seem genuinely taken aback to hear that West Yorkshire and North Yorkshire were surprised that it was a South Yorkshire-only summit that took place recently. I have the letter from the Secretary of State sent to me on 1 April this year, deferring a number of issues that I had raised until what was called the “Yorkshire roundtable” could be arranged. I very much hope that we can convene that further discussion without delay.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Many years ago, I joined the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. I did so because I understood it was a charity whose purpose was to protect birds. It is not the royal society for the politicisation of birds, but is quite clear that the RSPB has long had a campaign, motivated primarily, I suspect, by its hatred of grouse shooting. I do not shoot myself, but I live in the countryside and I see how shooting shapes the countryside and preserves it. In particular, I salute the work of gamekeepers. The fact is that the evidence does not support this campaign of the RSPB.
The recent call from the RSPB to stop burning peat—a rather emotive phrase in itself—seems to deliberately confuse controlled and uncontrolled burning. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill) has made clear, the press release makes six references to burning peatland and blanket bog, all in connection with management practices and consents that are actually for the controlled burning of heather, the surface vegetation, and not peat, which is the underlying soil. Controlled burning of surface vegetation is permitted only in the winter, when it is cold and wet. It is deliberately limited to small areas—the heather and grass burning code suggests a maximum of 30 metres by 600 metres, with cut margins as firebreaks surrounding them and a firefighting team of gamekeepers in attendance with fire fogging units and leaf blowers to extinguish flames quickly.
I was inspired to come along to this debate by the excellent article by Lord Botham. I always knew he was a great cricketer and I once saw him do his wonderful century, but I did not know that he was such a fine campaigner for rural issues and rural people. It is about time that people such as Ian Botham were allowed to speak up for those of us who live in the countryside.
Grouse moors are not the emissions problem. Farming and forestry produce far higher levels of greenhouse gas emissions per hectare than grouse moors. There is a risk to wildlife of not burning, as Lord Botham said in his article last week:
“For years the RSPB has been attacking the ancient practice of burning heather during damp winters. Britain’s gamekeepers use such controlled activity to reduce the risk of summer wildfires—just like indigenous people in Australia and North America.”
Olivia Blake
Is the hon. Member aware of some the most recent research, which shows that 68% of wildfires in the higher uplands have actually been caused by so-called controlled cold fires?
Sir Edward Leigh
I suggest to the hon. Lady that any research that comes from the RSPB or related organisations should be treated with a great deal of scepticism. I suspect that they have a political agenda. The fact is that the RSPB distorts the science on burning. The Times reported how it does so. A dozen top scientists—a dozen, I say to the hon. Lady—wrote that RSPB press releases on burning bore “only passing resemblance” to the science.
The RSPB is a charity. It has to act like a charity and not like a political organisation. It is all very well to argue, “Ban the burn”—an emotive phrase, but that is to try to simplify something that is highly complex in reality. The royal society—it is a “royal society”—makes no distinction between two different things: the controlled burning of heather for wildlife management and the burning of peatland. Shooting requires careful land management that protects the growth and survival of many species of birds. Rural people have spent decades in careful custodianship of the land and the wildlife that lives in it. Despite that, they find themselves the target of RSPB campaigns that would do serious harm to the environment.
Farmers and gamekeepers must be central to the preservation of wildlife in this country. They live and work in the countryside. There is simply no way around that; nobody else has the resources to protect our countryside. As Lord Botham pointed out, the seed gamekeepers put out for pheasants also feeds lapwings, yellowhammers and corn bunting. I live in the countryside, in a cottage on a shooting estate, and I see how the gamekeepers preserve our wild birds.
What about thinning out the canopy of trees, so that the branches do not close in and deprive bushes and shrub life of much needed sunlight? Will the RSPB do that? No. Will Members of Parliament do that? No. Gamekeepers and farmers do that. Without managed burns, we increase the risk of uncontrolled wildfires, as has already been argued. As a result, nature and biodiversity suffer, plant life dies and habitats for species wither away. The richness of countryside is dulled, if the knowledge of people who work in the countryside is doubted.
Grouse managers aim to burn the surface biomass, heather and other plants, not peat. Controlled fires are excellent for that, but without them there is a danger of wildfires. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby said, that cannot be denied. Wildfires, by their nature, are uncontrolled; they can become very hot and spread the fire to burn the underlying peat, rather than just the surface. The bigger picture here is a massive gap between rural England and urban England. Such a simplistic statement as, “Ban the burn”, shows an ignorance and neglect of rural issues.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) for excellently setting out the science for us today. The Minister has a clear choice to make. We need progress and we need decisions, because we have been here many times before, not least as we are heading into COP26, where this kind of issue will be on the table.
The Minister knows that I frequently speak about flooding—York floods—but the frequency and height of the flooding is worsening. Two weeks ago, we had our second flood this year—the river rose to 4.22 metres—following one in February. We have had others since the devastating floods of 2015, when 453 households and 174 businesses in my constituency flooded.
In 2017, I held a debate in this Chamber on the research carried out by the University of York to improve moorland management. I made the case that ending moorland burning would improve our climate and biodiversity and vastly reduce flooding and the need for expenditure downstream on floodwalls and barriers. Last weekend, yet again, I met with businesses and heard their stories once more about the devastation that flooding brings. I spoke to people who still experience stress every time those rivers rise. One, already struggling after the lockdown, was no longer able to get insurance. There was a flood in February at the start of the lockdown. York’s economy has been devastated this year because of this. The cost is there for all to see.
I say to the Minister, it is five years since we heard promises that these issues would be addressed. We do not need more surveys, questions and debates; we need action. The research undertaken by the University of York looked at the restoration of blanket bog vegetation for biodiversity, carbon sequestration and water regulation. The evidence was powerful, proving strongly that mowing, not burning, moorland curbed water run-off and could remove 20% of excess flow, dropping the flood level in York by 40 centimetres. That would be really significant to our city.
With further investment in slow the flow schemes, planting and adjustment to farming, even greater gains could be made. That would militate against the soil degradation and loss of absorption that burning and the consequential drought bring. It would improve air quality, water quality, soil quality and biodiversity. It would cut costs and improve our climate.
Currently, York is having to build higher and higher barriers, at the cost of £45 million. That is not what our city wants. We want to stop the water coming down at its current pace. The national flood resilience review said that upper catchment management would be covered in the next comprehensive spending review, which is due a week today. I trust that I will see lines in the Budget that will enable proper upper catchment management, or will that be another broken promise? Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us this afternoon.
On 16 February the Secretary of State for the Environment came to York; he announced that a York flood conference would take place this year in the city. He cannot come to York and make promises to the people of my city, who have experienced flooding, and then walk away when the floodwaters go. Since his visit, we have been flooded again. We need that conference. The flooding in York is not caused by rain falling in York; the water comes down the Ure, the Nidd and the Swale from West Yorkshire. Therefore, we urgently need to talk as Yorkshire together, to make sure that we get the right mitigation in the right places, and that starts on the moorlands.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Pritchard.
I agree with much of what my right hon. Friends the Members for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), and for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), have said. No one wants to see peat burning, but that is not what is actually on the table here. This process is about heather being managed as part of a perfectly reasonable package of measures that are taken in our uplands, including in my constituency of North West Durham. That package also includes cutting and huge amounts of re-wetting of areas.
I will pick up on a point that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) made when she said we really need to manage the countryside effectively. I agree, but heather burning is an effective part of that management. I totally understand her concerns and those of the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) regarding flooding, and I hope that, like me, they will welcome the Government’s recent commitment to huge amounts of tree planting in our upland areas, as part of the Government’s10-point plan.
Controlled heather burning from October to April is not the key issue. Heather moorland is vital for my local rural communities in Weardale, in neighbouring Teesdale and in Northumberland. It is vital to the local community, to my hospitality industry, to my rural pubs and to my rural jobs, including those of my rural gamekeepers, and to a huge amount of part-time employment for large numbers of local people.
What are the real issues at stake? I ask that question because when I took the Environment Secretary up to the moorland above Rookhope earlier this year, we saw what had happened in the 20th century, when huge amounts of grips were put into the ground to dry large areas of peatland. There had been mass-scale erosion. That was an attempt to overmanage the countryside from one side, which totally drained large areas of peat, causing huge amounts of erosion. It leads exactly to the problems being discussed today. I am all in favour of large areas having those grips removed, to allow blanket bog to return, but it must be part of a managed countryside where everybody is able to work and where the peat is able to return to areas that have been drained. That is part of the bigger picture.
Some of my hon. Friends mentioned the biodiversity elements. We have seen in a report from the Scottish Government how managed burning can really help the relationship between key species, even leading to some returning to our upland areas, which is a really important point.
This is not about the UK Government or the Scottish Government, and it should not be about party politics, but I believe that unfortunately that is where some of this debate is going. I really fear yet another cheap politicisation of our countryside by those who are more interested in ideological and identity politics than they are in protecting our communities, or indeed in the issues that they talk about relating to flooding and other things like that.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I put on the record very clearly that I am a country sports and conservation enthusiast. They both come together; I see no difference in them. I spoke to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) before the debate, and she knows where I am coming from. We speak together about many things that we agree on, and we have done that recently, but on this we have to agree to disagree. I say that very respectfully.
In the short time that I have, I will describe some of my experiences. I have planted some 3,500 trees on my land and created pond habitats for wildlife. That is something I am extremely passionate about. I am not an expert—far from it—but I am aware of the benefits of age-old practices of land conservation such as burning. We recently watched with horror the Australian wildfires on the TV. They were horrific to watch, and the impact on wildlife and nature was gross, but when the rains came the green shoots were brighter and stronger. I sincerely believe that there is a strong case for land management in a way that is considered and well planned. It should not be like the wildfires in Australia, but well planned in the 30-metre stretches that the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) referred to.
All types of moorland need some land management to maintain the protected and rare habitats and the species that thrive in them. Without any form of management, that jewel of England would be lost. Vegetation and moorland have been burned for thousands of years, and the peat below slowly locks away carbon. The ultimate aim is to protect the carbon store. Thankfully, a large proportion, though not all, of our moors are being managed as grouse moors. That safeguards them from non-native commercial forestry, peat cutting and intensive agricultural modification.
Some 90% of English grouse moors are within the national parks, and 79% of the North York moors and Pennine special protection areas are managed as grouse moors. Some 60% of England’s upland sites of special scientific interest are also grouse moors. Grouse moors contribute more than £100 million to the UK economy directly, and more than 30 million people visit national park grouse moor landscapes annually. The visual quality of those areas is always listed among the top reasons to visit, according to national park visitor data. Why is that? Because they are managed in the correct fashion.
The latest evidence shows that controlled burns can provide protection against devastating wildfires while sequestering carbon, offering a nature-based solution to our climate change emergency. Traditionally, grouse moorland has been managed for the benefit of our native wild grouse, but the mosaic of vegetation for the birds has revived the plover, the lapwing and the curlew.
Safety protocols are in place to protect wildlife, human health and monuments, and specific content is available from Natural England on burning in protected sites. There is also a detailed heather and grass burning code produced by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Natural England alongside partner organisations. It clearly identifies the use of burning as a conservation management tool with widespread controlling vegetation to reduce the risks posed by wildfire.
I am very aware that Natural England has stated that only 2.36% of England peatland emissions come from grouse moors, so let us put this in perspective. The vast majority of emissions come from other practices, from both upland and lowland peat draining agriculture and forestry.
I believe, and I say this respectfully, that there is a need to carry out controlled and regulated burning to secure this wonderful area of wildlife for future generations. I want to pass on my love of shooting and the conservation of my land to my grandchildren. It is my desire that future generations match science with practice so that the moors are kept in all their natural glory for generations to come.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I previously worked as a chartered surveyor.
I will focus my contribution on conservation. I speak with some authority on the subject, having been directly involved in many moorland restoration schemes before entering this place, through interactions with landowners, farmers, conservationists and bodies such as Natural England.
As a tool among many, burning plays its part as a conglomerative measure to achieve ecological and conservational benefits. Let me explain why. The process of burning small areas of heather removes older growth and allows plants to regenerate and thrive. New heather, mosses and grass shoots follow, and they, along with the new green flushes of new growth, allow plants such as bilberry to grow, which are key to providing food diversification for many animals such as deer and mountain hares. New growth shoots are liked by many bird species, including red grouse and the golden plover, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill) said. It is important to note that the golden plover, like many other bird species, is often found nesting at higher densities in areas of recently burned heather.
Of course, the burnt areas also act as valuable firebreaks, and evidence upon evidence has been put before us that where dead woody undergrowth is allowed to build up, wildfire risk is dramatically increased. It might be asked why cutting should not be the preferred method for controlling heather growth. The simple answer is that, more often than not, the topography does not lend itself to that technique. It is expensive in labour resource, and often it does not have the desired positive effects that I have outlined. It is also important to note that controlled burning is a precise and professional operation. It is much more than having a box of matches and some dry weather. It involves planning, teamwork and, often, specialist kit. Land managers must understand and comply with strict burning codes, and burning is all undertaken within controlled burning seasons, which run through the wet months from October to April. Why is there a burning season, it might be asked. It is because rank vegetation is burned off when peat is holding water and before the bird nesting season starts. Those controlled, or cool, burns, as they are known, do not burn the peat or the understorey of mosses.
It is my view that heather burning plays its part as a conglomerative measure to achieve ecological and conservation benefits. We should always take an evidence-based approach, and the evidence is clear. When it is carefully managed, burning is good for moorland management and for conservation.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) for bringing the debate today and giving Members the opportunity to discuss a critical but often overlooked element of the fight against climate change and efforts to rebalance land use.
A key issue that I want to highlight is the effect of muirburn on peatlands and peat bogs, which are critical for preserving biodiversity, minimising flood risk and fighting climate change. Peat acts as a carbon store, storing more carbon than all other vegetation types in the world combined. As a result, 6% of manmade CO2 emissions come from damage done to peatlands. In Scotland’s case, peatland covers more than a fifth of the entire country and stores about 1.5 billion tonnes of carbon, so it is crucial for the environment that steps are taken to protect it from deterioration. I am pleased to say that the Scottish Government have acknowledged that and the important part that peat plays in the ambition to become a carbon-neutral country. They have put 25,000 acres on the road to recovery, with a pledge of £250 million for peatland restoration over the next decade.
Unfortunately, irresponsible muirburn on grouse shooting estates can pose a major threat to the stability of peatlands. Research by the University of Leeds found that burning grouse moors degrades peatland habitat, releases climate-altering gases, reduces biodiversity and increases flood risk.
Mr Goodwill
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in 2019 the wildfire of Scotland’s flow country, which was on overgrown moorland, resulted in 22 square miles of UNESCO world heritage site being damaged and 700,000 tonnes of CO2 being released, which doubled Scotland’s CO2 production for six days?
Owen Thompson
I am not saying that there is no need for land management; I am saying that we need to tackle the irresponsible land managers to make sure that that sort of thing does not happen.
Muirburn also poses a particular risk, in allowing fire to spread to highly flammable underground peat, which causes the carbon to be released, as the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill) has ably helped me to highlight. Anyone who has cooried in beside a fireplace knows how flammable peat is. It has been over a year since the Government stated that they intended to phase out the burning of protected blanket bog—a promise repeated by Ministers over the past 12 months. We have yet to see legislative progress on that, so I would welcome assurances from the Government that it continues to be treated as a priority. I also urge the Government to follow the Scottish Government’s lead and match spending commitments for the restoration of peatlands and peat bogs. Furthermore, Scotland has banned muirburn in peatlands during the pandemic, and with the second lockdown I suggest that that might be considered for the rest of the UK.
Perhaps it is time to consider broader issues to do with land use in general. On some estimates, between 12% and 18% of Scotland’s land is used for grouse shooting, making it extremely hard to ensure that muirburn is carried out responsibly and is not damaging the peatlands. We hear from some quarters that such threats to the environment are far outweighed by economic benefits. Industry figures show that grouse shooting adds very nearly 3,000 jobs to the Scottish economy, at an average salary of £11,500 a year, creating a total of about £30 million in employment. For an industry that requires more than 10% of Scotland’s entire land mass to function, however, £30 million and 3,000 jobs below the minimum wage would appear, by some suggestions, to be disproportionate. Comparing that with the £770 million from forestry and timber processing and the £180 million from forest tourism, it seems that grouse shooting’s economic contribution is slightly out of proportion.
I therefore welcome the Scottish Government’s decision to investigate these and other issues in the Werritty review. The Scottish Government are giving careful consideration to the review’s recommendations regarding introducing licensing for grouse moor businesses. If they decide to do so, they have pledged to introduce it more quickly than the five-year timescale recommended.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) for securing the debate. She spoke passionately, much as she did in her maiden speech, about the impact of peatland burning on the climate, the local environment and flooding.
Labour is calling on the Government to restate and act on their commitment to the legislation that they promised over a year ago. It is imperative that rhetoric on climate leadership is more than simply rhetoric, and they have an opportunity to put words into action. As part of our plan for nature, Labour is calling on the Government to help restore degraded peatlands to their natural state by ending the harvesting of peat and the burning of moors or blanket bog. A comprehensive independent review into habitats and fire risk caused by grouse shooting management arrangements, with a view to new regulatory controls, has been a long time coming.
We have had a very good debate, and there are obviously a wide range of different opinions, from those of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) to those of the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), who spoke with characteristic expertise about moorland management. As my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) mentioned, Natural England recently published its position statement, which restates its commitment to end burning and to restore our upland peatlands in order to conserve wildlife and carbon. The restoration of those areas to bog habitats is also supported by the RSPB, the Campaign to Protect Rural England, the majority of academics, environmental non-governmental organisations, and many northern councils and Mayors.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) mentioned that peatland also plays an important role in water and flood management, and I commend her for all the work that she has done on this issue. Our peatlands form a significant and vital part of the UK’s carbon storage. They contain more carbon than the forests of the UK, France and Germany combined but, through the burning of peat bogs, we are releasing huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere each year—the equivalent of driving over 140,000 cars a year. In January, the Committee on Climate Change recommended that peat burning should be banned by the end of 2020 as a “low-cost, low-regret” action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
We are facing a great challenge ahead of us. We need immediate and decisive action to ensure not only that we meet our international obligations, but that we are world leaders in the efforts to tackle the climate emergency. Research by the University of Leeds has found that the burning of grouse moors not only releases climate-altering gases, but degrades peatland habitat, reduces biodiversity and increases flood risk. The Government have implicitly acknowledged the damage that burning is causing by including the restoration of peat and moors in the flood and coastal erosion risk management policy statement, and rightly so. Peatland prevents flooding downstream. It absorbs and holds back large amounts of water when there is heavy rainfall, and it releases water during times of drought.
In conclusion, we need to better manage our natural environment, not just oversee its decline. We need to improve biodiversity and reduce our carbon emissions, and we need to protect our communities that are increasingly under the threat of flooding. The Government must follow through on their commitments. It is not enough to state good intentions; we need action.
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
The debate will finish at 5.32 pm. If time allows, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) might want to respond to what the Minister says.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
Thank you for calling me, Mr Pritchard; it is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I am not sure whether I should say this, but what a fiery, hot topic this is. There are obviously diverse views on all sides, and the debate has been extremely well attended. We have heard some excellent and informed speeches, and I particularly thank the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) for securing the debate, for her interest in this subject, and for the passion with which she speaks about subjects such as climate change.
I take issue with the comments about biodiversity and the degradation caused under this Government. If the hon. Lady were following proceedings in the Environment Bill—members of that Committee are here —she would realise how committed the present Government are to the environment. It is right at the top of our agenda. Not only do we have measures in the Bill bringing forward biodiversity net gain, conservation covenants and local nature recovery strategies, but we have the £80 million green recovery fund, which the Prime Minister has topped up this week. That provides the green army that the hon. Lady was asking for, and all the jobs that go with it, to deliver the green recovery. We are all right behind that and the 10-point green plan, announced this week. I want to cover that at the beginning, as it directly relates to what we are talking about.
Moorlands are made up of a mosaic of habitat types. One of the habitats of greatest interest is blanket bog, because of its peat-forming habitats. It generates layers of peat that can grow up and be metres thick, and it covers much of our uplands. Such bogs are an iconic and important part of our landscapes, as many hon. Members explained. They are one of our largest terrestrial carbon stores, a haven for rare and common wildlife, and have natural water-holding and water-cleaning properties.
Restoring and better managing our peatlands is absolutely essential for the nature recovery, which I have just referred to, and tackling climate change. The Committee on Climate Change has highlighted the particular need to restore blanket bogs, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam said. That is why we are committed to publishing an English peat strategy that sets out our direction for restoration, protection and sustainable management. We will be providing millions of pounds to kick-start that restoration from another fund of money helping towards biodiversity, the £640 million nature for climate fund.
Among other things in that strategy, we commit to putting our peatland into good hydrological order and condition by restoring it, with a commitment to 35,000 hectares’ being restored by 2025, which is not very far away. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), who has great expertise, said, other issues must also be addressed, such as lowland peat and horticultural peat. There are a whole raft of measures in the strategy,
Blanket bogs make up around a third of England’s peatland area. They have formed over thousands of years and have created a massive store of carbon. Currently, only 18% of our protected blanket bog habitat is in good condition. That is a legacy of many things. Members might take issue with me, but it is because of a combination of draining, overgrazing, burning and gradual degradation. While upland degraded peats are responsible for only around 5% of greenhouse gas emissions from England’s peatlands, it is important that we restore and sustainably manage these areas for the other multiple benefits that they provide, as well as the carbon issue.
The impact of rotational burning of vegetation on blanket bog continues to be hotly debated by academics, scientists, land managers and everybody involved on all sides. This summer I received a dossier of the most recent scientific studies from the Uplands Partnership, which includes the Moorland Association and the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust, an organisation I know a lot about. In my past as an environmental reporter, I often met those organisations and reported on things that they did. I have looked closely at the issue and have met with our chief scientific adviser. I have taken advice from the Science Advisory Council. I have been at pains to analyse all the copious data, much of it conflicting.
At the moment, the scientific data from the experts, from DEFRA and from Natural England is that, on balance and in general, in the UK the burning of vegetation on blanket bog moves the bog away from its original wet state, and risks vulnerable peat bog habitat’s becoming drier and turning into a heathland habitat. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby is itching to intervene on me. He was absolutely right about the importance of science, as were others. That is why it is so important to look at all the data, and keep looking at it.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) also referred to the need for the correct science; I support him on that, and on his support for bird life and Botham. His life, of course, started in Somerset.
Mr Goodwill
We absolutely support any measures to re-wet some of our uplands, but, of course, the Minister needs to bear in mind that if we do make it more boggy, land managers would not be able to cut it with a tractor without getting bogged. The need to burn, combined with having a wetter moorland storing some of that water, is vital. As somebody who has got a tractor bogged on many occasions, I can attest to the difficulties on very wet land.
Rebecca Pow
I thank my right hon. Friend for that, and I can agree because I, too, was brought up on a farm and drive a tractor, and have got many a tractor stuck. I know what he is talking about.
Since 2015, Natural England has been working with landowners and managers, as he knows, to help phase out rotational burning where possible. That has included a range of methods. Some estates have signed voluntary commitments to suspend burning—the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam was slightly dismissive, saying that that had not worked, but actually there have been some real successes with that approach. Some estates have agreed to phase out their long-term plans at estate level, and some have consented to try cutting where it is possible.
Natural England has successfully removed 47%— 189 out of 402—of the consents to burn on protected land and, where estates hold long-term consents to burn, many have suspended the practice to enter into new, extended agri-environment schemes. However, that course of action is clearly not protecting every blanket bog site.
Rebecca Pow
I am going to plough on. I am very aware that moorland management communities are concerned about the restriction of burning—it has been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden)—not least because of the wildfire risk on the land. Fires sweep through, cause severe damage and release fine particulate matter—I am also the Minister for air quality, so I am well aware of the dangers of fine particulate matter and the impacts on local air quality—and, obviously, we want to mitigate that.
Natural England and DEFRA officials are considering all the evidence around all the different practices in relation to wildfire risk, to try to come up with the most appropriate technique to mitigate that risk. Some of the clearest evidence to date points to improving the resilience of the peatlands to return them to their wet state.
We must also remember that those who farm and manage our uplands have massive opportunities coming their way, through the new environmental land management scheme, to engage in many other projects and undertake work that will keep the wildlife there, will help to keep the moorland wet and will help to drain, control and hold the water to deal with flooding. That was eloquently mentioned by the hon. Members for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and for Halifax (Holly Lynch), and I am happy to meet the hon. Member for York Central at some point to discuss her particular issues around peat and the uplands—apologies if I have not done that yet. I thought I had met her over the summer.
We are watching Scotland eagerly to see what will happen up there and how things go; we will be taking stock of that.
Rebecca Pow
No, I will plough on. My officials are continuing to work out how and where we might be able to phase out rotational burning, but all these other options must be taken into account.
Next, I wanted to touch on this issue of flooding; winter is coming and we have had a very wet year. Blanket bogs are a natural sponge; they sit at the top of river catchments and are important for holding water, but that is only possible when they are kept in good condition—that is one of the key things. We have done a great project working on Exmoor—not far from me—where the water company is doing exactly that, and it is having really good results. is an important part of flood control, to which we have contributed £5.2 billion—more money than ever before. Nature-based solutions are a big part of the new systems coming down the track.
Jim Shannon
I am sorry, I did not realise the time. I just want to ask the Minister very quickly whether she might have conversations with the likes of the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and the Countryside Alliance to gauge the opinion of those who manage the moors, to come up with a policy that everyone can agree on.
Rebecca Pow
Thank you so much for raising that. I do talk to all those people. I have been out with gamekeepers to look at the land. We have to get this right; we do not want to make enemies. We have to work together. There have got to be ways. We will release our peat strategy soon and there will be some detailed information in there. It will cover all things relating to peat and these other sections, as well as the land managers. The Government have made a commitment to do something about this. We do have to do something about climate change, do we not, Chair?
Rebecca Pow
Yes; sorry. And we have to do something about our carbon storage, our wildlife protection, our clean water and our flood control.
I will wind up now. I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam for raising the topic and I thank everyone for their input. It is a fiery and a heated topic, and there will be more water coming under this bridge.
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
For the purposes of the record the Chair is neutral in all debates, but without telling anybody, of course we need to tackle climate change. I have probably broken the rules.
Olivia Blake
I thank everyone who has taken part in today’s rowdy debate. I want to quickly clarify a few points, if I may, about the body of scientific evidence. I will quote from the International Union for Conservation of Nature peatland programme’s position statement. The first point states:
“The current body of available scientific evidence indicates that burning on peatland can result in damage to peatland species, microtopography and wider peatland habitat, peat soils and peatland ecosystem functions.”
The second point, which is what I have been getting at, states:
“Healthy peatlands do not require burning”
to be maintained. I am not saying for one moment that our moorlands do not need to be maintained, but that the practice of burning creates a self-reinforcing circle. We burn the heather, it comes back, then we burn it and dry it out, and then it comes back. That is why the number of fires has been increasing year on year. Finally, just on identity politics—
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
Order. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. Have a good evening.
Written Statements
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Green Industrial Revolution
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Alok Sharma)
The Prime Minister has today set out a 10-point plan to drive a green industrial revolution in the UK—an innovative and ambitious programme of job creation that will support levelling up, and up to 250,000 jobs across the UK.
As we rebuild, we must build back better, greener, and faster. Our 10-point plan sets out ambitious policies and significant new public investment to allow the UK to forge ahead with eradicating its contribution to climate change by 2050. It presents a vision for the UK that is greener, more prosperous and at the forefront of industries for the future. Covering clean energy, buildings, transport, nature and innovative technologies, the plan will mobilise £12 billion of Government investment to create and support up to 250,000 highly skilled green jobs in the UK, and unlock three times as much private sector investment by 2030.
In doing so, we will position the UK to take advantage of export opportunities in new, global emerging markets in low-carbon technologies and services, providing jobs and reinvigorating our industrial heartlands, including in the north-east, north-west, Yorkshire and the Humber, the midlands, Scotland and Wales.
The plan builds on the UK’s strengths and covers the following 10 areas:
1. Offshore wind: Generating more power with offshore wind by 2030 than households in the UK are currently using, quadrupling how much we produce to 40 GW by 2030, supporting up to 60,000 jobs. We have also committed to invest £160 million into modern, integrated portside offshore wind infrastructure, providing high-quality employment in coastal regions.
2. Hydrogen: Working with industry, aiming to generate 5 GW of low-carbon hydrogen production capacity by 2030 for industry, transport, power and homes. This will be supported by investment of up to £500 million for low-carbon hydrogen production across the decade, with £240 million committed to 2024-25. We will also support trialling homes using hydrogen for heating and cooking, starting with a hydrogen neighbourhood in 2023, moving to a hydrogen village by 2025, with an aim for a hydrogen town—equivalent to tens of thousands of homes —before the end of the decade.
3. Nuclear: Advancing nuclear as a clean energy source through large scale nuclear and developing the next generation of small and advanced reactors. We have committed £525 million to help develop large and smaller-scale nuclear plants, and research and develop new advanced modular reactors, all of which could support 10,000 jobs.
4. Electric vehicles: Backing our world-leading car manufacturing bases, including in the west midlands, the north-east and Wales, to accelerate the transition to electric vehicles, and transforming our national infrastructure to better support electric vehicles. Following extensive consultation with car manufacturers and sellers, the Government confirm that the UK will end the sale of new petrol and diesel cars and vans by 2030, 10 years earlier than planned. However, we will allow the sale of hybrid cars that can drive a significant distance without emitting carbon until 2035. To support this acceleration, the Government have announced: £1.3 billion to accelerate the rollout of chargepoints for electric vehicles in homes, streets and on motorways across England; £582 million in grants for those buying zero or ultra-low emission vehicles to make them cheaper to buy and incentivise more people to make the transition; and nearly £500 million to be spent in the next four years for the development and mass-scale production of electric vehicle batteries, as part of our commitment to provide up to £1 billion, boosting international investment into our strong manufacturing bases including in the midlands and north-east.
5. Public transport, cycling and walking: Making cycling and walking more attractive ways to travel and investing in zero-emission public transport of the future. We will start this transformation with £250 million for local measures to increase cycling and walking this year, as part of our commitment to invest £2 billion in cycling and walking over this Parliament.
6. Jet zero and greener maritime: Supporting difficult-to-decarbonise industries to become greener through research projects for zero-emission planes and ships. We will run a £15 million competition to support the production of sustainable aviation fuels in the UK and invest £20 million into the clean maritime demonstration programme to test new fuels in shipping.
7. Homes and public buildings: Making £1 billion available next year to make new and existing homes and public buildings more efficient, supporting 50,000 jobs by 2030, alongside a target to install 600,000 heat pumps every year by 2028.
8. Carbon capture: Becoming a world-leader in technology to capture and store harmful emissions away from the atmosphere, with a target to remove 10 MT of carbon dioxide a year by 2030, equivalent to all emissions of the industrial Humber today. We have announced an extra £200 million of new funding to create two carbon capture clusters by the mid-2020s, with another two set to be created by 2030. The total investment of up to £1 billion will help to support 50,000 jobs, potentially in areas such as the Humber, north-east, north-west, Scotland and Wales.
9. Nature: Protecting and restoring our natural environment, planting 30,000 hectares of trees every year by 2025, whilst creating and retaining thousands of jobs. This will include starting the process to designate more national parks and areas of outstanding national beauty, create more green jobs with £40 million for a second round of the green recovery challenge fund and £5.2 billion for a six year programme of flood and coastal defences.
10. Innovation and finance: Developing the cutting-edge technologies needed to reach these new energy ambitions and make the City of London the global centre of green finance. To accelerate the commercialisation of innovative low-carbon technologies, systems and processes we will launch the £1 billion net zero innovation portfolio. The portfolio will focus on 10 priority areas that correspond with the 10-point plan.
This 10-point plan ensures that our recovery from covid-19 will generate jobs and bolster the economy, whilst continuing to drive down emissions. It sends a clear signal to industries across the British economy to invest in the UK’s cleaner, greener future.
The plan marks the beginning of the UK’s path to net zero, and we will continue to build on it. Over the next year we will continue to bring forward ambitious proposals across the economy to cut emissions and secure long-term growth for the whole country, with the energy White Paper, and a net zero strategy, in the run up to the international COP 26 climate summit in Glasgow next year. The summit will bring together world leaders, climate experts, business leaders and citizens to agree ambitious action to tackle climate change.
Ahead of the summit, this 10-point plan demonstrates the UK’s significant and continuing commitment to tackling greenhouse gas emissions and sets the foundation to drive a green industrial revolution in the UK.
[HCWS586]
Victims Code: Consultation Response
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
This Government are committed to strengthening victims’ rights and ensuring that comprehensive support is available at the right time. One of my key priorities is that victims clearly understand and receive the rights provided by the code of practice for victims of crime (victims code). This has never been more important than it is now, when we are facing the huge challenges that coronavirus has brought. The criminal justice system and the sector have been tested, but we have continued to respond robustly to the needs of victims.
In fulfilling a commitment made in the cross-government victims strategy, I am today laying a revised victims code, as well as publishing the Government response to the consultation on improving the victims code, which closed on 28 May 2020. To ensure that there is enough time for criminal justice agencies to implement the new code, I will tomorrow be laying a statutory instrument that will bring it into force on 1 April 2021.
We received over 500 responses to our two consultations on the code, which we have carefully considered. I would therefore like to place on record my sincere gratitude to those who took the time to respond and for providing their personal experience, knowledge and candour about what works well and what does not. These views have informed the key changes we have made to the code.
For the first time, the code has been structured so that victims are its primary audience. With its focus on 12 clearly defined overarching rights, we aim to ensure that victims will both understand and be aware of the level of service they can expect to receive from criminal justice agencies. Simplifying the code is a vital step in our efforts to rebuild victims’ confidence and trust in the criminal justice system and their engagement with it, knowing that they will receive the right support at the right time.
We know that victims find having to engage with different contacts frustrating, potentially exacerbating the trauma they may be experiencing. We have made the frequency and method of communication a more victim-led process and have amended the code to make it clear to service providers that they must try to minimise the number of different people victims have contact with. Where possible, they should offer a single point of contact for information.
We have also included information about the ability to access support; without the need to report incidents to the police; at any time during the investigation and prosecution; if the case is stopped or at the end of the case. While the code retains existing eligibility categories for access to enhanced support and information, we have made clearer that service providers have the discretion to offer these enhanced rights to victims who fall outside the scope of the existing categories.
We have introduced an opt-out framework for the victim contact scheme, for victims of a sexual or violent offence, where the offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 12 months or more. All eligible victims will now be automatically referred to scheme which gives vital updates on offenders as they serve their sentence, including their potential release from prison. We have also listened closely to victims of unrestricted mentally disordered offenders, who told us of their difficulties in trying to get information about an offender’s management and potential release from hospital. To help alleviate their trauma, they will receive a new right to be assigned a victim liaison officer, rather than having to contact hospitals directly. This means these victims will be treated in the same way that victims of restricted offenders are, ensuring consistency in the level of information and the way it is provided to them.
For the first time, we have also specifically referenced the support available to victims of foreign national offenders and included information on the role of coroners, as well as for families bereaved by murder or manslaughter abroad.
Recognising that for many victims the impact of the crime may not be immediately apparent, we have redrafted the code to provide agencies with more discretion on when a victim personal statement (VPS) is offered, and revised information so that victims better understand the process and are fully aware of the wider implications of making a VPS. Victims will also be able to request a copy of their VPS for them to refer to in future.
By the time the new code comes into force next spring, we will have embedded the necessary operational adjustments with criminal justice agencies, supported with victim-focused practitioner guidance, to provide clarity on roles and accountabilities. We will continue to work closely with police and crime commissioners and local criminal justice partnerships to improve compliance with the code and also produce a child friendly version of the code to help children better understand their rights and the support available to them.
As Victims Minister, I believe that the revised victims code both demonstrates our continued commitment to supporting victims of crime at a time when they may need it most as well as give them a louder, clearer voice in the criminal justice system process. The code will also form the basis of our forthcoming consultation on a victims law.
[HCWS585]