House of Commons
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(4 years, 1 month 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
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Grundy (Leigh) (Con)
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)
The Government are firmly committed to our manifesto pledges to uphold our high environmental, food safety, and animal welfare standards. Under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, our current standards are taken into UK law, and the Secretary of State has now placed the Trade and Agriculture Commission on a statutory footing.
James Grundy
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government’s actions in strengthening the Trade and Agriculture Commission firmly dismiss the rumours that UK food standards would be compromised as a result of Brexit?
Greg Hands
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Placing the Trade and Agriculture Commission on a statutory footing will ensure that public and industry interests are advanced and protected in Britain’s agriculture and trade policy. As the National Farmers’ Union said:
“This significant commitment to primary legislation on food standards, both in the Agriculture Bill and the Trade Bill, is exactly what we have been calling for.”
Anthony Browne
The farmers of South Cambridgeshire are some of the most efficient and environmentally friendly in the country, but they have concerns that they might be undermined in any trade deal by imports that are produced to lower animal welfare or environmental standards. They strongly welcome the Government’s decision to put the Trade and Agriculture Commission on a statutory footing—a move also welcomed by farming and environmental groups across the country. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what role the commission will play during trade negotiations, to ensure that standards are maintained?
Greg Hands
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He is a reliable supporter of farmers in his constituency. The Agri-food trade and agriculture group will feed in during the negotiations. He also asked about the TAC, and I wish to use this occasion to praise its chairman, Tim Smith, for the excellent work that he has done so far, and in very good time.
Damian Hinds
Colleagues across the House welcome the news about the Trade and Agriculture Commission’s statutory footing. It will be a strong voice for our farmers, and it will also provide expert independent advice for this House as we consider the impact of each trade deal on agriculture. When does the Minister expect those amendments to be tabled, and for the Trade Bill to resume its progress?
Greg Hands
We plan to table that amendment to the Trade Bill on Report in the House of Lords. The scheduling of business is obviously a matter for business managers, but we intend the Bill to be completed by the end of the transition period.
Duncan Baker
I represent a rural constituency, North Norfolk, where farming is the lifeblood for so many. My farmers are delighted about the Trade and Agriculture Commission’s statutory footing, and that move has also been applauded by the National Farmers Union. Will the Minister reassure my constituents that the commission will protect animal welfare and farming standards, and help to allow the farming sector to assess the deals that come forward for that important sector?
Greg Hands
I know from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State how important farming is in Norfolk, in both her constituency and that of my hon. Friend. Farming has a strong voice on the Trade and Agriculture Commission, and the NFU, NFU Scotland, NFU Cymru, the Farmers Union of Wales, and the Ulster Farmers Union are on it. It puts UK farming at the heart of our trade agenda, and allows the sector to help advise on our future trade deals.
Virginia Crosbie
I thank the Minister for his answer. The extension of the Trade and Agriculture Commission has been incredibly welcomed by farmers across Ynys Môn, and it shows this Government’s commitment to upholding our high food standards. What feedback has the Minister received from Welsh farmers regarding that move?
Greg Hands
My hon. Friend is a strong and passionate voice for Ynys Môn farmers, and the feedback has been extremely positive. Putting the Trade and Agriculture Commission on a statutory footing has been welcomed by NFU Cymru. Indeed, its president, John Davies, said that this
“is a milestone moment and one that should be welcomed by all those who care about our food, environment and high standards of production.”
Robbie Moore
Latest figures show that the UK’s agrifood sector is now worth £122 billion to the UK’s economy, and there is plenty of room for growth. As we set out into the world as an independent global trading nation, will my right hon. Friend confirm that, even though we have the weight of the Trade and Agriculture Commission in place, UK agriculture will be at the forefront of his mind as we go forward in future trade negotiations?
Greg Hands
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and—crucially—we would never want UK agriculture to be sidelined from our trade agenda. We need and have UK agriculture fully on board, to take advantage of selling our fantastic British food and drink produce to foreign markets. Already, for the first time in many years, we are selling beef to the US, pork to Taiwan, and we have secured better agrifood protection in our recent UK-Japan trade deal.
Mrs Drummond
According to blind tasting, French champagne has nothing on sparkling wine from the south downs. Hambledon, Wickham, and Exton Park are vineyards that produce brilliant wine in the Meon Valley, and we have some of the best produce in the UK. Will our free trade agreement support that burgeoning industry?
Greg Hands
I look forward to tasting some of this Meon Valley wine, although I have to say that 9.39 in the morning might feel a little early. Our commitment to promoting British wines is very strong. Among the potential 70 geographical indicators in the UK-Japan comprehensive economic partnership agreement deal are: English wine, English regional wine, Welsh wine and Welsh regional wine. We are in regular contact with WineGB and the Wine and Spirit Trade Association to help to promote this vital industry.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
After listening to these Whips’ questions, I think I would like some English wine as well, Mr Speaker.
I had a long and detailed discussion with NFU Scotland on Monday. In its words, it is “really worried” about future trade deals. Fundamentally, the UK is a high cost, high food standard regime. It argues that it simply cannot compete with low-cost competition with lower food standards elsewhere. Is it not now time for the Government to change tack, and include chapters on food, animal welfare and standards in trade agreements?
Greg Hands
I studied very carefully the hon. Gentleman’s amendment during the passage of the Trade Bill. In many ways, he had an even more extreme amendment than the Labour party in terms of trying to dictate our trade partners’ domestic production standards. That would have killed off a huge amount of our trade with the developing world. He mentions NFU Scotland. I thought I would go directly to the source. I am reading here from The Scottish Farmer, which I recommend he reads. NFU Scotland president, Andrew McCornick, said in The Scottish Farmer only last week, on putting the TAC on a statutory footing:
“This is a huge step forward.”
Stewart Hosie
Putting an organisation on a statutory footing is one thing, but protecting food standards is something different. I think the Minister’s answer is what Americans call doubling down on a previous mistake. Let me give an example. UK egg producers simply cannot compete with imported eggs produced where the density of laying hens may be twice that permitted in the United Kingdom. The only way they could do that would be to massively lower food production and animal welfare standards, something we know from the recent Which? survey the public are implacably opposed to. Is it really the Government’s intention to be on the wrong side of food standards, the wrong side of animal welfare, the wrong side of the farming industry and the wrong side of public opinion?
Greg Hands
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. He mentions the Which? survey. I was delighted to be the guest speaker at the launch of the Which? survey, “The National Trade Conversation”, where we discussed many of these aspects. To be absolutely clear to him again, our commitment that there will be no lowering of standards on animal welfare, food safety and the environment is absolute. I urge him again to get with the trade agenda and listen to NFU Scotland, which says it will
“strive to ensure that the best interests of farming, food and the drink and the public continue to be front and centre of any trade deals.”
That is exactly the right approach being taken by NFU Scotland. I urge him and the SNP to get on board with that positive approach for the first time, please.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Government say that they want to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, but some of its members allow growth hormones, genetically modified food in animal foodstuffs and insanitary conditions for animals. The CPTPP is already in operation, of course, and trade is permitted between its members on the basis of lower animal welfare and food production standards. How does the Minister plan to renegotiate the CPTPP to exclude the lower animal welfare and food production standards it contains, given that existing members of CPTPP say that they will not allow new members to change the agreement?
Greg Hands
The Secretary of State and I have told the hon. Gentleman time and again at the Dispatch Box that nothing in any trade agreement prevents this country from carrying out its own domestic regulation. We have been absolutely clear that a lot of the production methods and food standards he describes will remain illegal in this country after 1 January. He mentions CPTPP. I urge him to get on board with a positive agenda. Joining CPTPP, a trading group of 11 countries, including Canada, Singapore and Japan, will be a fantastic opportunity. I am not expecting him to support it, because of course he never supported trade deals with those countries in the first place, but I might hope he could reconsider now.
Mr Speaker
Let us head to the Chair of the International Trade Committee up in Scotland, Angus Brendan MacNeil.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) [V]
A very good morning to you, Mr Speaker, on the day you have been waiting for: the day of the first report on the UK-Japan comprehensive economic partnership agreement from my Committee. I am sure that you are looking forward to reading it. Indeed, we are hoping to have a debate in your Chamber, Sir, before the end of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act process—just to let you know.
On food and farm standards, yesterday we heard from Tony Abbott, the former Australian Prime Minister and now adviser to the Board of Trade, who said that when he had an important deal to do with China, he took the state premiers of Australia with him. I wonder whether the Ministers at the Department for International Trade will consider doing the same for important trade agreements, taking the Welsh Minister, Jeremy Miles, the Northern Irish Minister, Diane Dodds, and the high-flying Scottish Minister, Ivan McKee, who might indeed be leader of the Scottish National party and First Minister one day. We need that to happen given that the UK Government are ready to burn particular sheep farming in Wales and Scotland by being outside the 45% tariffs. It is not just our standards, but the standards of our neighbours that are really going to matter for farming.
Greg Hands
I thank the Chairman of the Select Committee for that, and I look forward to reading his report. When it comes to the devolved Administrations, we all need to respect the devolution settlement, which is that trade policy is a reserved matter and the UK Government carry out their negotiations on behalf of the whole United Kingdom. It is also right, however, that we consult the devolved Administrations, which is why, since May, when I took over the role of interaction with the devolved Administrations in this Department, I have had six meetings with Minister Ivan McKee. We have the quarterly ministerial forum for trade. I have already described how NFU Scotland, two farming unions of Wales and the Ulster Farmers Union are on the Trade and Agriculture Commission. We also make sure that our trade advisory groups include representatives from the devolved Administrations. Our commitment is clear to negotiating the best possible deals for the whole United Kingdom, while making sure that voices from Scotland and the other devolved Administrations are very much included.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)
Our deal with Japan secures opportunities for businesses in the north-west, which currently export goods worth £380 million to Japan. We have agreed an SME chapter that will make it easier for SMEs to cut the red tape on customs and ensure they have access to a dedicated website of opportunities.
Antony Higginbotham
Burnley has a significant engineering sector, creating highly specialised parts for aircraft and cars, so will my right hon. Friend tell us what impact the UK-Japan deal will have on those businesses in Burnley?
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the aerospace and automotive industry is incredibly important for Burnley. That is why it was important that we saw all the tariff benefits that were previously negotiated retained in the new deal, as well as additional benefits, such as a new data and digital chapter that goes far beyond what the EU has agreed and really helps to support our advanced manufacturing sector.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has repeatedly claimed that the deal that she signed with Japan goes far beyond the original EU-Japan deal, so I return to the question that I asked her two months ago: will she tell us, in billions of pounds and percentages of growth, what the forecast benefits are for UK exports in GDP from her deal, compared with the forecast benefits of retaining the existing EU-Japan deal?
Elizabeth Truss
It is interesting that the right hon. Lady is interested in the difference, because the Labour party did not support the original deal with Japan. If it was down to Labour, we would not even have this deal in the first place. We have been very clear about the additional benefits that we have secured: better provisions on digital and data, better provisions on business mobility, a better position on intellectual property, better protection of British geographical indicators—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) is shouting, “How much is it worth?” from a sedentary position? Why, when we have left the EU, do Labour Members constantly seek to compare us with the existing EU provisions? It is almost like the Labour party never wanted us to leave in the first place.
Emily Thornberry
What is going on? The Secretary of State claims that the UK-Japan deal goes far beyond the EU-Japan deal but will not quantify the difference. Why not? If she will not publish the exact figures at this point, will she at least do one basic thing and simply state on the parliamentary record whether the growth in our exports and GDP is forecast to be higher as a result of the UK-Japan deal than it was under the EU-Japan deal?
Elizabeth Truss
I think it is extraordinary that the right hon. Lady is asking me to carry out economic analysis on behalf of the EU. She has not asked me about the Australia-Japan deal and whether that is better or about the deal that China has with Japan or any other deals. Why is she me asking me about the EU? We have left the EU, and it is no longer our responsibility to do economic calculations for it. I have been clear, however, that this deal goes further and faster and brings in additional economic benefits.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)
We are determined to reach a deal with Canada before the end of the year. It is a fellow G7 member and one of the top 10 economies in the world. It will help our trade, from cars to beef, fish and whisky, in a trading relationship already worth £20 billion.
Elizabeth Truss
What we are negotiating at the moment is the vital continuity agreement, but I do hope that, in the future, as Canada is a member of the trans-Pacific partnership that has advanced chapters in areas such as data and digital, we will be able to go much further and build a much deeper relationship.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
With just days to go, and with not just this continuity agreement still to be completed, British exporters such as our car manufacturers simply do not know whether they will face tariffs potentially as high as 20% in markets as diverse as Mexico and Vietnam and beyond. Is it not the truth that the Secretary of State has focused too much of her time chasing new deals with the Trump Administration and others and taken her eye off protecting the free trade that we already have?
Elizabeth Truss
The Government have completed trade deals with 52 different countries covering £146 billion-worth of trade. That is a massive achievement. Unlike the Labour party, we are not prepared to agree to any deal put on the table; we will work hard to get a deal that is in Britain’s interests. There are deals ready to go with the countries the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, but I am not prepared to do a bad deal to push things forward. We are pushing all those deals forward, and we are making good progress.
Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Graham Stuart)
Latest Office for National Statistics figures report that the UK’s inward foreign direct investment stock reached £1.5 trillion in 2018—a new record. According to the United Nations conference on trade and development, the UK held the highest FDI stock in Europe in 2019. The Financial Times FDI report highlights that last year the UK had more greenfield FDI projects than any other country in Europe at 1,271; by comparison, Germany had 702 and Spain 658. We are looking to go even further to improve our high value investment offer, which is why the Prime Minister launched the Office for Investment just last week.
Mark Eastwood
I congratulate the Minister on the impressive inward investment results so far. What is he doing to boost investment and broader trading relationships between the UK and the Asia-Pacific region and, in particular, those with Pakistan, which is of interest to a number of businesses in my constituency?
Graham Stuart
There can be no greater or more persistent champion of UK-Pakistan relations than my hon. Friend. The Government remain committed to increasing trade and investment with the Asia-Pacific region. We have signed a free trade agreement with Japan, are negotiating FTAs with Australia and New Zealand and hope to be able to apply for formal accession to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, as already discussed. At the end of the transition period, the UK will put in place its own generalised scheme of preferences, and my hon. Friend will be delighted to learn that Pakistan will continue to receive the same market access to the UK next year. The scheme will help British and Pakistani businesses to continue trading seamlessly after we end the transition period.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)
We have made good progress on our US deal, agreeing the majority of text and the majority of chapters. We are working with both sides of the House in the US for a deal that benefits both our two nations.
Andrew Gwynne [V]
But if the Secretary of State’s global Britain is to mean anything, we must not put all our eggs in one basket. I think it fair to say that, in recent times, the Secretary of State has bet everything on securing a trade deal with the Trump Administration. She might want to conclude a deal with Canada, but the Prime Minister there said that the Secretary of State had lacked the “bandwidth” to focus on getting a deal with his country. Does she intend to ignore that criticism and continue making a deal with the US her dominant priority? If so, what confidence does she have that the Biden Administration will feel the same way in terms of their own priorities for trade?
Elizabeth Truss
We have now secured trade deals with 52 countries. We have secured a deal with Japan that goes beyond and above the EU’s agreements, we are working on accession to the trans-Pacific partnership and we are negotiating with Australia and New Zealand, so we are by no means entirely focused on the US, but it is our largest single country trading partner. I am always struck by the anti-Americanism among Opposition Members. They simply do not understand that these deals are incredibly important for British business. As for the comments from overseas Governments on our trade negotiations, it is interesting that Labour Members simply like to repeat their “lines to take”. Maybe they need to think of some of their own ideas.
Mr Dhesi
We are all aware, sadly, that the Prime Minister has a litany of racist, sexist and homophobic remarks, but to the detriment of our national interest, it seems that some of his foul-mouthedness has now caught up with him. In particular, his derogatory remarks on President—
Mr Speaker
Order. Unfortunately, this has to be linked to the question that has been asked.
Mr Speaker
Right, well the hon. Gentleman had better get there quickly, please.
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry, this has to be linked to the trade question. This is completely off beam. I am sorry, but we have got to stick to the question. As important as this matter is, and the hon. Gentleman quite rightly wishes to get it in, this is not the question to do so—
Mr Speaker
I am going to make that judgment, and the judgment so far is that it is not. We are wasting time for other Members.
Helen Hayes
One of many sources of hope at the US election result is that after four years of climate change denial, President-elect Biden is talking about the global climate crisis and the action we must take to address it. Will the Secretary of State support him in those endeavours by guaranteeing to put climate change co-operation and green technology at the heart of any US-UK trade deal?
Elizabeth Truss
I am absolutely delighted to hear somebody on the Labour Benches being in favour of a trade deal. That is a real step forward. Of course we will have strong environmental provisions at the heart of our trade deal with the United States. I remember that Labour Members did not support a trade deal with President Obama, and they do not support a trade deal with the current Administration, but I am delighted to hear that they are supporting a trade deal with the new Administration. I look forward to working with them to ensure that the climate change provisions are excellent.
Sir Mark Hendrick [V]
A new US President and Congress will not ratify a trade deal if we scupper the Good Friday agreement; our banning of Huawei infrastructure has angered China, and now this Government are prepared to break international law in the way we leave the European Union. How many major global trading partners are this Government prepared to upset before they do more harm to our economy than covid-19 has done already?
Elizabeth Truss
We have already done trade deals with 52 countries and we are on course to do many more, and we are absolutely committed to the Good Friday agreement.
Dame Diana Johnson [V]
As one of the MPs for the Humber energy estuary, where we are doing pioneering work in areas such as carbon capture, it is heartwarming to hear American President-elect Biden talking about the global climate crisis and the action needed to address it, and seeing this as a way of generating the jobs of the future. Will the Secretary of State expand a little on what she thinks can be put into any trade deals in terms of this country’s green technology and making sure this creates the jobs needed on both this side of the Atlantic and the other?
Elizabeth Truss
In the new UK global tariff we have reduced the tariffs on 100 green goods, and we want to encourage more other countries to support that. Of course we are committed to working with the US, and next year we will have the presidency of the G7. That is a really good opportunity for us to pursue that agenda of tackling climate change, alongside our COP26 commitments, and of course we will be looking at putting these in all our trade deals.
Matt Western
Although we would all want a successful outcome to any trade negotiations with the US, will the Secretary of State confirm that, according to the Government’s own best-case scenario, any US deal with the UK will account for growth of only 0.16% over 15 years? Will she confirm what this will translate into if we do not get a deal with the EU? What loss in growth will we sustain?
Elizabeth Truss
Our assessment suggests that a £15 billion increase in trade will result from a US deal and also that we will see tariffs of half a billion pounds taken off fantastic British companies, be they in ceramics or the car industry, which will help to boost that growth. But the EU deal and the US deal are not in contradiction to each other; we should be aiming to do both. The problem is that the Labour party seems willing to agree any deal with the EU and willing to agree no deal with the US. What Conservative Members want is a good deal for Britain.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
President-elect Biden has spoken powerfully about the need to end support for the war in Yemen and to stop selling arms that Saudi uses, in his words, for “murdering children”. Will the Secretary of State revisit her policy on arms sales in the light of the new President’s statement or will she choose to remain in lockstep with the blood prince bin Salman instead?
Elizabeth Truss
I am proud that we have one of the most rigorous defence export regimes in the world, and those are decisions we make on the basis of our values in this country.
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Graham Stuart)
I talk regularly with businesses, business representatives, and ministerial colleagues about how we can make exporting easier for businesses across the country. That is why I was delighted to announce our new Scottish trade hub in September, which is staffed by expert trade advisers and dedicated to helping Scottish firms to grow internationally. I am pleased to say that our work to reduce barriers to trade and increase exports is paying off; the UK overtook France in 2019 to become the world’s fifth-largest exporting nation. All nine of the other 10 largest exporting nations in the world saw their exports fall last year, according to UNCTAD, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development—the exception was the UK.
Douglas Chapman [V]
Around 250,000 businesses export to the EU and not to the rest of the world. Many of them are small, not VAT-registered and difficult to reach, and to continue to trade they will need to go through a long and tedious process to acquire an economic operator registration and identification number. As the party that wants to reduce red tape, what action are the Government taking to reduce the administrative burden to ensure that SMEs can continue, or start, to export into Europe but do not suffer disproportionately from a madcap Brexit?
Graham Stuart
We are working to engage with businesses, and I recommend that all businesses that have not done so go to gov.uk/transition and look at the practical steps they need to take to prepare for the end of the transition period. From my engagements with Scottish businesses, though, it is clear to me that it is the relentless pursuit of Scottish independence, rather than the support for Scottish business, that they find the concern. I want to ensure, by using the power of the Union and our global reach, that we can boost Scottish business; otherwise, if follow the path of independence, we know that would lead to a shrinking of Scottish business and a loss of opportunity for Scottish people.
Martyn Day
Rod McKenzie, the Road Haulage Association’s policy director, gave evidence to the Scottish Parliament in which he highlighted a no-deal Brexit scenario in which lorry drivers would be forced to rely on European Conference of Ministers of Transport permits, of which the UK has been allocated around 4,000, despite more than 40,000 being required. In effect, that would stop the best part of 90% of companies trading with Europe. What assurances can the Minister give today that traders and hauliers will experience minimal disruption?
Graham Stuart
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have been working flat out to engage with businesses, to provide easements on the customs regime up to July next year and to make sure that we minimise the challenges as we end the transition period. Of course, the issue that Scottish businesses raise with me is that the biggest threat to their trade is not any friction as we move to the new settlement on the EU border, but the fact that 60% of all Scottish exports go to England, Wales and Northern Ireland—more than to the rest of the world combined. It is that, and the threat that the hon. Gentleman poses to Scottish business in that way, that really worries them for the long term.
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mr Ranil Jayawardena)
We are committed to making sure that our ambitious global trade policy works for every corner of our United Kingdom. Trade unions and civil society are crucial to that, so I am delighted to have expanded our engagement to include a dedicated trade union advisory group and a series of civil society and think-tank roundtables from across the political spectrum, which I will chair.
Edward Timpson
I recently had a meeting with Jonty Cliffe and Claudia Bayley, the chairs of the Cheshire Young Farmers Club, and they were concerned to make sure that the views and priorities of all young people who work in agriculture and affiliated industries were fully integrated and taken into account by the work of the Trade and Agriculture Commission. I have raised this issue with the commission’s chair, Tim Smith, but will my hon. Friend also discuss it with the commission to make sure that those views and priorities are taken into account, because those young people are the future of British farming?
Mr Jayawardena
That is a great and typically thoughtful question. The TAC includes representative bodies from the length and breadth of Britain, so I encourage young farmers and others to continue to share their views with those bodies, which work proactively to provide insight to us and the TAC. Indeed, as my hon. Friend says, many young farmers—such as Jonty and Claudia in the Cheshire Young Farmers Club in my hon. Friend’s county and Tom Janaway in the National Farmers Union in mine—are already actively involved in sharing their views.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)
The UK-Japan agreement locks in the benefits of the EU-Japan deal, including provisions on climate change such as those that reaffirm our respective commitments to the UN framework convention on climate change and the Paris agreement; those that promote trade in low-carbon goods and services; and those that support co-operation on trade and climate.
Christine Jardine [V]
Although I am disappointed with some aspects of the Japan trade agreement, such as the provisions on data, I am heartened that there is no investor-state dispute settlement clause in the new UK-Japan FTA, as ISDS has been used by large corporations to sue Governments over environmental regulations on issues such as water pollution, deforestation and fracking. Will the Minister confirm that, to protect our natural environment, the UK will not seek such an arrangement with either Japan or any other new trading partners after Brexit?
Greg Hands
I thank the hon. Lady for that question. I ought to add first of all that we really welcomed the announcement that Japan made on Monday, in advance of COP26, that it will be seeking to become carbon neutral by 2050. On her question about ISDS, I will be frank. This country is already party to ISDS with dozens of agreements, but let us recognise that the UK has never lost a case brought against it in ISDS. It is something that is there as much to protect British businesses trading abroad as it is for foreign investors in this country, so her alarmism about ISDS is misplaced.
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)
The UK-Japan CEPA will benefit farmers and food producers in Wales through lower tariffs than would have been the case without an agreement. It also allows more UK goods to access preferential tariffs than under the EU-Japan agreement, thanks to new rules of origin. New protections for more iconic Welsh food products may also be possible, including for Welsh lamb and coracle-caught sewin.
Fay Jones
Twelve Welsh geographic indicator products have been protected in the UK-Japan deal on which I warmly congratulate the Department. I am particularly pleased to hear the Minister mention Welsh lamb. Can he reassure me that those products will be respected and protected in future trade deals, particularly with the US and Australia?
Greg Hands
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is the potential inclusion of around 70 geographic indicators, 12 of which are from Wales—she is quite right—including Welsh beef, Welsh lamb, Welsh wine, cider, perry, Caerphilly cheese, Carmarthen ham and others. One of our key objectives is to be able to sell Welsh lamb into the United States—British lamb overall is not currently allowed into the United States—but we will be fighting to get an improvement in Welsh lamb exports around the globe.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)
We have made good progress. In under two years, we have agreed trade deals with 52 countries, covering £146 billion of trade, accounting for 74% of the value of total trade with non-EU countries that we set out to secure agreements with.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
We learn from The Telegraph that the Minister has rejected the Ghana deal because it was a “a substantial departure” from the EU deal, but she says that the Japan deal goes far beyond the EU deal. What is it? Are the Government exercising new British sovereignty to produce far-reaching new deals, or are they just rolling over and accepting the same deals that we already had?
Elizabeth Truss
The answer to the hon. Gentleman is that we are seeking to roll over the Ghana deal, as we are other deals, but with Japan, we have gone through the process of producing a scoping assessments. [Interruption.] No, we were very clear that Japan was a deal that would go further and faster than the EU deal, alongside the new deals that we are negotiating with the US, Australia and New Zealand. There is a deal on the table for Ghana to agree to. It has already agreed to the same deal with the EU. There should be no block on Ghana being able to get tariff-free, quota-free access to the UK, and we are very happy to talk to its representatives at any time of the day or night.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)
This Government have a strong history of promoting our values globally, including human rights. While our approach to agreements will vary between partners, our strong economic relationships allow us to have open discussions on a range of issues, including on human rights. We will not compromise our high standards in trade agreements.
Cat Smith
In September, the UN said that the Saudi airstrikes in Yemen had led to
“a consistent pattern of harms to civilians”
unlike our own Government who said in July that there was no such pattern and therefore it was lawful to resume arms exports. Can the Minister tell me how his Government have looked at the same evidence as the UN and arrived at such vastly different conclusions?
Greg Hands
May I remind the hon. Lady, as the Secretary of State said earlier in response to a question from the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), that the UK has one of the most rigorous arms control regimes in the world? We follow the consolidated criteria at all times. On trade agreements, I ask her to judge us on our deeds and not always on our words. In terms of the trade agreements that we have rolled over, there has been no diminution of human rights clauses in any of those agreements.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Graham Stuart)
The Department for International Trade is working closely with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and others to ensure that businesses are prepared for 1 January. We have delivered specialist webinars and support tools to ensure that industry understands the changes required to keep trading effectively with the EU as well as to start trading under preferential conditions, such as those with Japan. Looking forward, we are aiming to produce the world’s most effective border by 2025, simplifying and digitising border processes so that exporters across the country will be able to sell their products around the world more easily once our free trade agreements are agreed and in place.
Joanna Cherry [V]
A report published this month by the National Audit Office estimates that the number of HM Revenue and Customs declarations that will need to be processed from 1 January will increase from the current annual volume of 55 million to 270 million. That is a huge increase. What discussions is the Department having with other Departments to ensure that this huge increase in the administrative burden does not discourage exports to Europe and the world?
Graham Stuart
The hon. and learned Lady is quite right; there are a lot of challenges. That is why, across Government, we have been making such an effort to work with other Departments to make sure that we do everything possible to inform business and to facilitate the border, including investing hundreds of millions of pounds in improving customs processes and others.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)
Last week, we announced that the UK will be continuing our trade preferences scheme for developing countries in 2021. It is important that developing countries continue to receive the same market access under our unilateral trade preferences as they do at the moment. We remain firmly committed to the principle that trade helps to lift the poorest out of poverty, and early next year we will be launching a consultation on how we can improve the preference scheme and help to use trade as a tool for development. We will aim to have the new scheme finalised by the end of 2021.
Greg Smith
With all our minds on both the health and economic recovery from the covid pandemic, may I ask my right hon. Friend what discussions she has had with her Israeli counterpart to further trade co-operation beyond the continuity deal, not least given the incredible and ground-breaking Israeli innovations to combat covid-19, such as through remote monitoring of patients and thermal scanning?
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend is right. It is vital that we use trade as a way of motoring growth post this terrible covid crisis. We are working on negotiating a cat’s cradle of trade deals around the world to support British business. Of course, Israel is one of those priorities. It is very advanced in areas such as data and digital. There is strong scope for a world-leading agreement, and we are in discussions about that.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) [V]
From 1 January, the Secretary of State will be responsible for our trading relationship with other European countries. With or without a deal, the services sector is concerned that its interests have been marginalised throughout the negotiations with the EU. This does not just affect financial and legal services, but engineers, technicians and others. Will the Secretary of State commit to securing—as a start—mutual recognition of qualifications to enable all these crucial sectors to work across Europe?
Elizabeth Truss
I am committed to having a positive relationship with the European Union. I speak to my counterpart, Valdis Dombrovskis, about issues concerning global trade. Of course, we want with every part of the world good trade deals that uphold our standards and facilitate increased trade in areas such as services, data and digital, but the important principle is that we cannot do that at the expense of the UK’s sovereignty. Those are the negotiations that are currently being conducted by Lord Frost.
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con) [V]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Graham Stuart)
What an excellent question. It is the reach, power and financial heft of this United Kingdom that has allowed us to be the only top 10 global exporter to increase exports last year and allowed us to attract more foreign direct investment than any other country in Europe. Shorn of the UK’s assets, businesses—and, more importantly, workers—in places like Scotland would be impoverished as a result. We seek to ensure that we use every part of the power of this United Kingdom to support jobs and investment in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that there is no change in the effect of the existing EU trade deals when it comes to human rights and the role there of the UK agreements. I would urge him to look at those agreements and study the reports that have been produced comparing the agreements with the original.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
Greg Hands
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. In fact, I am meeting the overseas territories on this very subject next week. You in particular, Mr Speaker, will be impressed by the Secretary of State meeting Fabian Picardo, the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, only last month on this. Getting our overseas territories participating in the UK independent trade agenda is very important. We recognise fully the constitutional responsibilities we have for the OTs and we work closely with them to ensure that their interests are represented.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Elizabeth Truss
We are working very hard to secure a good deal with the European Union and negotiations are ongoing. However, it is important that our farmers have as many markets as possible. That is why we have worked hard to get the lamb market open in Japan in 2019, we are working hard to get lamb into the US, which is the second-largest importer of lamb in the world, and we are working hard to get more lamb into the middle east too.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend is correct. That is why we want to join trade areas such as the trans-Pacific partnership with very strong provisions reducing the level of bureaucracy required, and liberal rules of origin that help our manufacturers. That is also what we are looking to negotiate with the United States. It is important that we get the advanced digital and data chapters that the EU was not prepared to sign up to but which provide so much value for advanced manufacturers in being able to sell their products around the world.
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)
Elizabeth Truss
I can absolutely assure the hon. Gentleman of that. I was delighted that the first cargo of British beef to leave for the United States of America for 24 years left from Northern Ireland.
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con) [V]
Greg Hands
We follow RCEP quite closely, but we are looking forward to making our application to join the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, or TPP-11, trading group in the new year. This is an excellent trading group. Its 11 countries are a mix of like-minded western trading nations such as Japan, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, as well as more developing nations such as Vietnam and Peru. There are great opportunities for all of us, including my hon. Friend’s Morley and Outwood businesses.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab) [V]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mr Ranil Jayawardena)
I thank the hon. Lady for that question, which is important, because we must apply anti-dumping measures in a clear and accurate way. The Department has assessed which of the existing anti-dumping trade remedies should be transitioned, and evidence has been provided by British producers of bicycles, which thus far has indicated that there are not sufficient British sales to transition the measure, but we will review any further information. That information would need to demonstrate that the British market share of British-based producers of the product in question was above 1%.
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)
Elizabeth Truss
I thank my hon. Friend for his invitation to the Board of Trade. It is likely that our next meeting will be held in Northern Ireland, but I will certainly be looking to Workington for a future meeting to see the fantastic work being done in advanced manufacturing.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Elizabeth Truss
Given that the Scottish National party voted for even fewer trade deals than the Labour party, and are even more anti-trade than the Labour party, I am delighted to hear that there seems to be some kind of turnaround and that under a Biden Administration, the hon. Gentleman will back a US trade deal.
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
East Midlands airport is the UK’s biggest pure cargo airport. It has lots of potential for growth. It has become a hub of investment for freight and logistics in recent years, and must surely be at the heart of our plans to make the most of our global trade. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be a brilliant site for an inland freeport? Will she put a word in with the Chancellor?
Elizabeth Truss
I thank my hon. Friend for his assiduous bidding on behalf of the east midlands. The bidding for freeports opened on Tuesday, and bids need to be submitted by 5 February 2021. I point out to him that these trade deals we are negotiating will just mean more and more trade coming into the freight hub, with or without freeport status, but I will of course mention what he said to the Chancellor.
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 a few minutes.
DHSC Answers to Written Questions
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care if he will make a statement on his Department’s performance in answering written questions from right hon. and hon. Members.
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
Parliamentary questions are a key element of Parliament’s ability to scrutinise Government on behalf of the people of the United Kingdom. As the House would expect, we take them very seriously, and as you, Mr Speaker, and hon. Members will know, I take seriously all aspects of my and the Government’s accountability to this House. Prior to the pandemic, my Department had an exemplary record of providing accurate and timely answers. In the last full parliamentary Session, despite receiving more PQs than any other Department, we had the highest response rate in Whitehall. However, as hon. Members will be aware, DHSC, its Ministers and officials have been at the forefront of responding to this pandemic, with the attendant additional workload that has brought.
As such, it is a matter of regret that we have been unable to sustain previous PQ performance, for which I rightly apologise to you and the House. However, it is explicable in the face of a trio of concurrent challenges. The first is volume: between March and October this year, we received over 8,000 written parliamentary questions across both Houses. This compares with 4,000 for the equivalent period last year. The second challenge is timeliness: we have met a rapidly, almost daily, changing situation, and answers drafted by officials are sometimes out of date shortly after they are drafted. We have been prioritising accuracy of response to Members over speed, but this can mean that responses have to be redrafted, with attendant delays.
The third challenge is policy input: despite increasing the administrative resources to respond to parliamentary questions, it remains the same policy officials who are responding to the pandemic operationally and drafting regulations and are the only people with the requisite policy expertise to input into parliamentary questions and responses.
That said, Mr Speaker, although we continue to field exceptional volumes of parliamentary questions, I want to reassure you and the House that we are not making excuses in providing these explanations, and are taking every possible step to recover our performance. We have instituted a parliamentary questions performance recovery plan and are delivering against it by increasing resource where we can and clearing the backlog, focusing on the oldest parliamentary questions first.
More broadly, throughout this challenging time the Secretary of State and Ministers have sought to make themselves regularly available in the House to be questioned and held to account. Between March and October, the Secretary of State made 18 statements and answered seven urgent questions. We have also seen seven general debates on covid since March, and that is not including junior Ministers’ appearances in the Chamber. This is not an alternative to written parliamentary questions, but it is an important reflection of our accountability to this House.
To conclude, written parliamentary questions will continue to be a top priority on which I am briefed weekly. I thank you, Mr Speaker, and hon. Members for your and their patience and recognition of the exceptional circumstances of recent months. In the weeks and months ahead, we will work hard to restore our leading performance, which hon. Members have a right to expect.
Sir Christopher Chope
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question, which was born of extreme exasperation. I thank my hon. Friend for his response, his contrition and his apology, and for his offer to do better in the future.
If other Departments can answer 90% of named day questions on time, why cannot the Minister’s? Will he set a date for the clearance of the backlog to which he referred and guarantee future compliance with the rules and the spirit of the rules? This is not just about timeliness; it is about the quality of the answers. Since this is the week of resets, will the Minister now tell his ministerial colleagues and officials to abandon their tactic of, basically, dumb insolence towards those of us who ask challenging questions?
Does my hon. Friend accept that these questions and answers increase public trust in our democracy, and should be a catalyst for improving public policy? If his Department is in the lead in suppressing liberty in this country, is it surprising that there are more questions to his Department than to others? Because issues of liberty are at stake, surely it is all the more important that these questions are answered quickly.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As he will be aware, other Departments, while they have heavy workloads, are not leading the response to the pandemic. In response to his final point, he will not be surprised that I do not characterise it in that way. Instead, I would characterise it as the Department of Health being in the lead in saving lives and protecting the NHS in this country.
My hon. Friend asked two other substantive questions. I think his language was a little intemperate in respect of the serious efforts that officials undertake every day to try to provide accurate and timely answers. There is no suggestion that they seek to stonewall or to avoid responding. They do their best, but it is difficult and the situation changes day by day. Where answers are deemed to be inadequate, hon. Members often revert to me directly or table their questions again, and we endeavour to fulfil our obligation to provide accurate answers.
On my hon. Friend’s question about recovery, we have set a trajectory for each month in order to recover performance over the coming months. Of course, that depends to a degree on the workload of officials in responding to the pandemic, as well as in providing answers, but I do not see it as an either/or; we intend to recover performance in parallel with tackling the pandemic.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his response and for the hard work he and his Department put in. However, as he acknowledges, the performance here, like in so many other areas, is just not good enough. We know it is tough, but there comes a point when it begins to look like departmental scrutiny is being used as a cover for evading giving answers.
This morning, I looked at the Department’s response times to my own written questions over the past six months. I have had to wait over one month for an answer 29 times, over two months 11 times and over three months four times. I was actually thinking of putting in a question asking for the average response times to questions, but then I thought I would just be waiting a long time for that answer as well. I have even had to wait five months for the answer to what I thought was a pretty simple question asking what tests for covid-19 had been used. One hundred and sixty-eight days later, I received the utterly unrevealing answer:
“A large number of different tests have been used throughout the programme.”
I was lucky; my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) waited 18 weeks for an answer to a question on tests, only to be told:
“The information is not held in the format requested.”
Why did it take so long just to say that? Do Ministers even read the answers that they sign off?
This is not just about the time; the quality of the answers that we get back also needs improving. On dozens of occasions, I have been told that the Department does not hold the data, or no real attempt is made to answer the question that was asked. I accept that sometimes that information may not be easily acquired, but too often it looks as though the Department wants to keep us in the dark. I remind the House that the ministerial code requires Ministers to be
“as open as possible with Parliament”,
even when that may be inconvenient to them. In the spirit of openness, will the Minister also look at restarting NHS England and NHS Digital publications?
In conclusion, we all understand that the Department is dealing with many pressing issues, but scrutiny is important. Accountability matters, and if the pandemic is used too often as an excuse for standards to slip, that is how we go from questions not being answered to major policy changes being announced by media leaks, until we end up with the shameful spectacle of spivs and cronies pocketing millions from PPE contracts. Government must do better.
Edward Argar
I was going to say that, as ever, I was grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his tone, right up to almost the end of his remarks. On his substantive points, when it comes to accountability to this House, he will know from our regular double acts at this Dispatch Box and in Committee that I and fellow Ministers do not shy away from our accountability to this House in all its forms.
On volume, as I have said, during the same period last year we received 4,000 written questions; this year, the figure has been 8,000. That cannot be addressed by increasing administrative resource alone, because the technical expertise of policy experts is required to provide accuracy in the answers that the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members seek. The same policy officials are dealing, day to day, with all aspects of the response to the pandemic.
The hon. Gentleman talked about accuracy, and he is right about the importance of accurate and timely answers. Given that we have answered 8,000 parliamentary questions between March and, I believe, October, some may, sadly, not live up to his expectations. I know that he will hold me and other Ministers to account when that is the case.
In answer to another of the hon. Gentleman’s question, yes, I and other Ministers read not only the answers and the questions, but the background to those questions. If we do not, we will quite rightly end up at the Dispatch Box, being asked those questions again and being challenged on the Floor of the House. In view of that, and in view of our obligations to the public and under the ministerial code, it is absolutely right that we take the answering of written parliamentary questions very seriously.
On the hon. Gentleman’s final point about NHS Digital and the publication of data and so on, I am happy to take that away and look at it for him.
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), who is a fellow member of the Procedure Committee. I was pleased to hear the Minister say that the Department takes the answering of questions seriously, because the answering and the monitoring of written questions and correspondence from MPs will help Ministers to identify problems in the implementation and roll-out of their policies.
The Procedure Committee, which I chair, has shown some leeway to the Department in recognition of the pressures that it faces, but I invite my hon. Friend to come to the Committee in the next few weeks to explain how he is going to address the backlog.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. As a former member of the Procedure Committee, I recall when she kindly appeared before the Committee to answer questions on parliamentary questions at the Home Office. I look forward to the reversal of the position in the coming weeks.
Edward Argar
I would say that she gave exemplary answers, which fully satisfied the Committee. I have received the letter that she recently sent to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. We are grateful for the pragmatic and reasonable approach that her Committee has adopted. She will, quite rightly, want to scrutinise performance, and I look forward to appearing before her Committee to answer detailed questions on the matter.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
I am grateful for the Minister’s answer at the beginning of the debate. I initially thought that it was perhaps a tad unfair to single out his Department in the circumstances. In my experience, others have been worse—I hope his Treasury colleagues are listening. However, I will confine my remarks to his Department. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), the SNP health spokesperson, was delighted yesterday to receive an answer to a named day question that she tabled on 22 June. It referred her to a table of data that, unfortunately, was absent from the answer. Perhaps the Minister could ask his colleagues to get that table over to her, rather than her having to wait six months for a response.
Edward Argar
I am again grateful for the tone that the hon. Gentleman adopts. We have adopted in our recovery plan an attempt to deal with the oldest questions first, to try to get as up to date as we can. If he or the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) lets me know the detail of that question, I will be happy to look into what he raises and to get that table to her.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
No one could underestimate the challenges that the Department of Health and Social Care faces at the moment. I thank my hon. Friend for the way in which he has engaged with me and other colleagues during this time. However, there are clearly operational challenges as a result of this pandemic. My hon. Friend talked about the review that the Department is undertaking. Will he ensure that he shares the lessons learned from that not only with Members but across Government? We will have to look at being diverse in our operational structures, particularly within Government, to ensure that we expediently answer Members’ questions.
Edward Argar
I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. Perhaps the best mechanism by which lessons learned can be shared will be through my written response—in due course—to and my appearance before the Procedure Committee, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley). If appropriate, Mr Speaker, I will of course share that response with you and with the Leader and shadow Leader of the House.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
On the plus side, because I have the Minister’s and the Secretary of State’s mobile numbers, when I really want an answer, I just text them. To be fair to them, they have been phenomenally helpful at key moments. I think many hon. Members feel that. At the same time, to be honest, the comms strategy this year has been a complete mess and a disaster. I urge the Minister to go back to the Department and say that Parliament should not be used only for accountability but to try to speak to the people of this country and to get across clear messages in a timely fashion. In that regard, will he tell us when he will publish the national cancer recovery plan, because lots of people have major anxiety at the moment about when their cancer will be treated?
Edward Argar
I am always pleased to receive messages and inquiries from the hon. Gentleman. He raises two important points. The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill) is working on the national cancer recovery plan at pace. I am happy to revert to the hon. Gentleman when I have had an opportunity to speak to her. On his broader point, he is right that it is important that we in this House recognise that, in our democracy, people consent and comply because they are persuaded. It is important that we use this House and all the mechanisms within it to persuade and bring the public with us.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con) [V]
We have all had enormous increases in constituency correspondence during the pandemic, so I can only imagine what it must be like at the Minister’s Department. However, in looking at how his Department responds to MPs’ questions, will my hon. Friend reassure the House that any changes will not come at the expense of his Department’s excellent parliamentary engagement and briefings for Members with Ministers and scientific experts that allow us to question advisers on detailed scientific and medical matters?
Edward Argar
My hon. Friend highlights that the workload from constituents has increased for all Members. I recognise that. It is important that we do our bit in trying to answer questions in as timely a fashion as possible, to assist colleagues in the House with responses to constituents. In response to his second point, he is absolutely right. As I alluded to, it is not only through attending the House and through its mechanisms that Ministers have been accountable; as a Department, we have sought to use multiple channels—briefings to colleagues, WhatsApp and a whole range of newsletters and other mechanisms—to get messages out and to communicate with colleagues and answer their questions.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his departmental response to covid-19 and many issues. As one of the Department’s most prolific questioners, I am aware of the pressure on the Minister’s Department to respond to a vast array of complex medical and social issues. Perhaps to assist the Minister, his team could work closely with the health trusts to provide up-to-date data in a timely manner.
Edward Argar
The hon. Gentleman is indeed a prolific questioner, but his questions are always welcome and to the point. He highlights an important aspect that affects the response of the Department, which is that a significant number of questions, and the information required to answer them, is not held within the Department but by various health trusts, NHS England or other external bodies, which can occasionally introduce additional slight delays in the system. We are working closely with them to minimise that and get answers as quickly as we can to hon. Members.
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) for raising this matter and I recognise the importance of parliamentary questions for their role in parliamentary scrutiny, but it is only right that we recognise the substantial weight on the shoulders of the Department of Health and Social Care as it leads the charge against this pandemic. I personally have been blown away by the readiness and willingness of Ministers to engage through a whole range of communications, including Zoom, email and WhatsApp. I am grateful, in particular, for their engagement when it looked as though Bishop Auckland residents might have been teetering on the edge of tier 3 over the summer, which we thankfully avoided. Can my hon. Friend confirm that efforts are being made to clear the PQ backlog, but that other communication channels will remain open for MPs and their engagement?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I pay tribute to the officials in the Department, who are working hard to clear the backlog and do take this very seriously. As I say, we are trying to clear the older PQs first, and then get back up to the performance we had before. She is absolutely right to highlight the other methods of communication. I may not be the most technological Minister in this House, but we have been seeking to use every means we can to try to answer colleagues’ questions and to give them the information they need.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
In my time in this House, I have campaigned alongside women and families affected by sodium valproate. Many of the victims of this scandal have felt for decades that Governments have tried to push it under the carpet, so can the Minister understand the frustration and suspicion that these victims feel when written parliamentary questions about the Cumberlege review, which was published on 8 July, continue to take a long time to answer—and when those answers come, they are very poor—and their frustration that since July there has been no progress, beyond the apology in this House, in implementing that review? Can the Minister update the tens of thousands of victims of the Primodos, surgical mesh and sodium valproate scandals and assure them that their campaigns for justice remain high on his Department’s agenda?
Edward Argar
Again, I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the tone she adopts on what is actually a very sensitive and very important issue. I can reassure her that that issue does remain very high on the Department’s agenda. At risk of tempting fate, if she wishes either to write to me or to table a question to me, I will endeavour to get it answered very quickly so she has something on the record on that.
Mr Speaker
Let us head up to Harrow East with Bob Blackman and see if his replies have landed.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can my hon. Friend also look at the quality and at the repeat questions that have to be asked to clarify the answers that are given to written parliamentary questions? In my case, I have had to submit often detailed letters to Ministers because WPQs basically do not supply the information required. Some that are now coming back after six months of waiting have been about, for example, offers to supply PPE to the national health service and people who have had tests but not actually got the results—and I could go further. The reality is that the quality of the answers to WPQs as well as the quantity have not been good enough, so will he look at those two aspects, please?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who landed his question very effectively. He is absolutely right to talk about the balance between speed and accuracy. In some cases where the issue is complex, a letter may be more appropriate for getting detailed information, rather than the short factual response to a parliamentary question. Sometimes the delay can be because Ministers—this goes to the point made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders)—on reading the question and the answer, and looking at it as a constituency MP as well, may realise that they want to send it back for redraft because it does not answer an hon. Member’s question. That can cause delays, but we endeavour to provide accurate answers as swiftly as we can.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I absolutely understand and appreciate the pressures on the Minister’s Department. However, it does grate that I regularly hear, in debates in this Chamber, Conservative Members saying how quickly and easily they can get direct responses from Ministers. He himself referred to a WhatsApp group a few moments ago, and I suspect that that is for Conservative Members. For those of us on the Opposition Benches, written questions and letters are often the only means to scrutinise, secure detailed information and hold the Government to account. Over a third of replies to my questions have been delayed for more than a month, and the longest delay was 190 days. I have had replies to letters outstanding for up to five months. Do my constituents have any less of a right to a response? Does the Minister have any advice for me as an Opposition spokesperson about how I can get more timely and detailed information?
Edward Argar
I am a little bit surprised by the hon. Lady’s tone, because she and I regularly speak, and she has very easy access to me around the House, which she regularly uses, as do all Members. She has been on various briefing calls and other calls where we answer data questions and any question that Members wish to ask, and this House is for that purpose. Her constituents have exactly the same right to answers as anyone else, and they get exactly the same response as those of any other Member. Although this urgent question is about written parliamentary questions, I would flag that the Department has received more than 63,500 pieces of correspondence so far this year, compared with just 30,000 in the entirety of 2019. We have increased resourcing for that team, as we have for the PQ teams, and we are getting through the backlog as swiftly as possible.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) [V]
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in terms of support for my local party association. I have recently tabled written questions on suicide prevention on the railways; earlier in November, a person in my constituency sadly died after being hit by a train. Will my hon. Friend pay tribute to Land Sheriffs, a Harlow-based security company which, through its railway security programme, has intervened and prevented close to 300 suicides on the railways across England?
Edward Argar
As my right hon. Friend mentioned, he has recently tabled a number of written questions on this issue, which I look forward to responding to in a timely fashion. I am happy to pay tribute to Land Sheriffs in his constituency for its impressive work in helping to tackle and prevent suicide on the railways. I know that the Minister for Patient Safety, Mental Health and Suicide Prevention will be very interested to hear about its work.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) [V]
I thank the Minister for his answers today. I understand the pressure on his Department—I really do—but of the 28 questions that I have tabled to the Department of Health and Social Care, 86% were answered late, and if those due today are not answered, that figure will rise to 88%. I have to say that the quality of some of the responses is pretty poor too. Will he consider starting up the NHS England and NHS Digital statistical publications that were paused during the pandemic, so that we can get some of the information ourselves?
Edward Argar
I think the hon. Gentleman has four parliamentary questions outstanding. By his timely intervention, he may find that when I get back to the Department this afternoon, I will ensure that the figure does not rise to 88% overdue. His substantive point is the same one made by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, which I said I will take away and look at.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
I understand that since the start of the pandemic the Secretary of State has made 16 oral statements in the House on coronavirus and there have been seven urgent questions and five general debates on the topic. It is, of course, important that Members receive timely responses to inquiries, but does my hon. Friend agree that there have been significant opportunities for Members to raise concerns on the Floor of the House and to seek answers from Ministers?
Edward Argar
I think it is fair to say that no one could accuse Ministers in the Department or the Secretary of State of not being willing to be accountable to Members in a multitude of ways. But of course, it is not an either/or, so we will endeavour to continue to perform well in attending this House and also to improve performance on written parliamentary questions.
Mr Speaker
Some might argue that it is the number of urgent questions we have allowed in order for debate.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP) [V]
Openness and transparency around the sharing of data is key to ensuring that the public and the business community buy into the draconian measures that we have introduced in the fight against covid. I genuinely thank the Minister for his and the Department’s efforts in ensuring that we get timely information, but on 21 October, I asked the Health Secretary for data relating to positive cases among those who had not been in the UK 72 hours before their test, and I still have had no answer. Will the Minister agree to provide that data, which will be key to informing the full reopening of our airports, getting our airlines flying again and kickstarting our aviation sector and its supply chain?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. My understanding is that there are, I think, five outstanding written answers due to her, dating from November. She mentions one from October, so I will check whether that has been answered overnight. If not, I will go back to the Department and look into that particular written question.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
May I thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing so many urgent questions and statements, which allow so many Back Benchers to ask questions? I am very grateful for that.
All Departments have had a higher volume of questions, not least the Department of Health and Social Care, because of the health pandemic. What assessment has my hon. Friend made of the uptake of other forms of communications that have been made available?
Edward Argar
My hon. Friend rightly raises the other methods of communication with right hon. and hon. Members and the other ways they can access information—not as an alternative to written questions and scrutiny in this Chamber— which appear to have been extremely popular with Members on both sides of the House. We intend to continue to make such briefings and access available to all right hon. and hon. Members.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) [V]
Does the Minister accept that questions are sometimes tabled to Departments in response to issues raised by our constituents, and that by failing to engage with Members in this way—I understand all the reasons why it is taking longer—it is ultimately the public who suffer the consequences?
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. I refer her to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood). We recognise both the increased workload on hon. Members from their constituents and the importance of timely answers to written questions in helping them to discharge that obligation to them.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) [V]
I thank the excellent Minister for his response, but may I suggest that the covid situation is allowing the Government to dodge issues they do not want to answer? On the Floor of the House, I asked the Secretary of State how many tests with false positives and false negatives there are. He dodged that question, so I tabled a named day question on 21 October, asking for his estimate of how many tests with false positives and false negatives there are. Yesterday, I received a response saying that they had no idea. They must have known they had no idea on 21 October, so it seems to me that that delay had more to do with not wanting to put that information out than any other reason. Can we have accurate and timely answers, not politically motivated delays?
Edward Argar
It is always a pleasure to see my hon. Friend and to be questioned by him, both at this Dispatch Box and in other forums. I have to say to him that I do not think it is a fair reflection to suggest that the Government or others are dodging answers. We are at this Dispatch Box regularly. We do answer questions regularly. I will look into the particular question he raises, but often to answer we require information from external bodies or other NHS bodies, which can take time.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The Minister emphasises other means of engagement to written questions, delays to which I too have experienced far too often. In April, I wrote to the Minister for Care, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) with the concerns of a constituent of mine over personal protective equipment for care homes. I received a response in October. Will the Minister acknowledge that those kinds of delays undermine the confidence of my constituents in the Government’s public health measures? Will he commit, which I do not think he has done so far, to putting in place the capacity and resources to respond to constituents’ concerns in a timely manner, in whichever format they are expressed?
Edward Argar
I hear what the hon. Lady says, but we have already put in place that capacity. We have doubled the capacity for parliamentary questions and I have significantly increased capacity for correspondence. The only thing I would say on correspondence, which she alluded to, is that at any normal time we have 850 pieces of correspondence open. Reflecting the volume that comes in at the moment, that is about 10,000. We have increased the capacity in the Department, but, of course, as long as volume remains high it will always be a challenge to keep up with that demand. We are doing our very best.
Mr Speaker
I thank the Minister, because he has been courteous in the way that he has dealt with this matter. He certainly has had the short straw.
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 a few minutes.
Business of the House
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House please give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
The business for the week commencing 23 November will include:
Monday 23 November—Motion to approve the draft Heavy Commercial Vehicles in Kent (No. 1) (Amendment) Order 2020 and the Heavy Commercial Vehicles in Kent (No. 2) (Amendment) Order 2020, followed by a motion to approve the draft Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 and the draft Common Organisation of the Markets in Agricultural Products (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2020, followed by a motion to approve the draft European Union Withdrawal (Consequential Modifications) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
Tuesday 24 November—Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Bill, followed by a motion to approve the draft Prohibition on Quantitative Restrictions (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, followed by motion to approve a money resolution relating to the Prisons (Substance Testing) Bill, followed by a motion relating to the appointment of members to the independent expert panel, followed by a motion relating to the Committee on Standards 11th report of Session 2019-21.
Wednesday 25 November—The Chancellor of the Exchequer will deliver the 2020 spending review alongside the Office for Budget Responsibility’s latest economic and fiscal forecast, followed by a general debate on the UK-Japan comprehensive economic partnership agreement.
Thursday 26 November—Debate on a motion relating to the final report from the Climate Assembly UK on the path to net zero, followed by debate on a motion relating to the Work and Pensions Select Committee report on the DWP’s response to the coronavirus outbreak. The subjects for these debates were recommended by the Liaison Committee on behalf of the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 27 November—The House will not be sitting.
Valerie Vaz
I thank the Leader of the House for the business for next week and note that the motion on virtual participation was objected to last night following the urgent question that you granted, Mr Speaker. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept the amendment and, if he finds time for a debate in the House, that there will be a free vote—no proxies—and that all Members can take part equally.
That is just a small step, but what we need is the giant leap to return to where we were. Yesterday, Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister did exactly what you did not want—we had Prime Minister’s questions by Zoom. When the Leader of the Opposition had to isolate, we had the deputies taking part. Perhaps the First Secretary of State and the Prime Minister are scared of our deputy leader, but worryingly, Paul Waugh of The Huffington Post tweeted that the Prime Minister would be taking part in a debate virtually next week. I am not quite sure what the debate is. I am assuming it is the Climate Assembly UK debate, which is listed for Thursday—he definitely did that—so I am not quite sure whether the Prime Minister is designated as clinically extremely vulnerable, or maybe he is just politically extremely vulnerable.
Our colleagues have important issues to raise. We now have two classes of MPs and, as the Leader of the House said in response to the urgent question, we have privacy issues around that. The Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), has received advice that the Leader of the House is in breach of article 10, on free speech, of the Human Rights Act 1998—article 14 gives effect to that. I know that the Government do not like the words “Human Rights Act” but if the Leader of the House looks very carefully, he can trace exactly all those human rights via the convention back to Magna Carta of 1215.
I wish the Leader of the House would look at the issue of interventions, because hon. Members have been to Westminster Hall to sit in on the debate, and they were told that they could not take part, or even sit there or intervene, because they were not on the call list. Please could he look at that? Will he look again at restoring a hybrid Parliament now that we are in the middle of a pandemic—with 52,000 deaths—complete with remote voting?
Could we have a statement on the EU negotiations? I understand that they are proceeding at a rapid pace. Will he look at establishing a new protocol on the press conferences that will come from No. 10? I am sure you will agree, Mr Speaker, that it is important that we hear from the Prime Minister here first on issues and matters arising in the House, rather than elsewhere, because we have to hold Ministers to account, as the Leader of the House has frequently said.
Accountability and transparency are so important. Exercise Cygnus took place in 2016. The report was only published on 18 October and, as Lord Sedwill said, some recommendations were implemented, but we do not know. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate so that we can look at the recommendations and where we are? Many people throughout the country have made sacrifices, and we need to know whether we are implementing those important recommendations.
Last week, I asked about the procurement process, and the Leader of the House said that the Government will have turned out to have behaved impeccably. Has he read the National Audit Office report, “Investigation into government procurement during the COVID-19 pandemic”? It found that the Government were not transparent about suppliers of services when they awarded £18 billion-worth of contracts. It said there were two lanes, with a super-highway for those with special political contacts. Again, I reference “My Little Crony”, the excellent graphic by Sophie Hill. The NAO also said that decisions should be “properly documented” and made transparent if taxpayers’ money is being spent appropriately and fairly but that standards of transparency in documentation were not consistently met. May we have a debate in Government time on that report?
Twenty-one million pounds goes to a middle man, rather than to our frontline staff. The NAO report found that £350 million went to PestFix on false PPE, when our teachers and frontline staff were desperate for that PPE. Perhaps the Leader of the House can look at this ahead of the spending review. My constituent’s daughter, who is an A&E nurse, contracted covid on the second occasion she was working, saving our lives, and she says she has to stump up £300 a year to park—to pay to park to save our lives.
I want to ask about Nazanin, Anoosheh, Kylie and Luke Symons. We must keep their names alive and absolutely in the public domain. Iran is in the middle of a horrendous pandemic. More importantly, they need consular access, so will the Leader of the House please ensure that they get that? Will he also ensure that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office makes a complaint on behalf of Nazanin? She was used in a game of name that spy. That is a horrendous thing to do when it is not true.
Finally, there is some good news. I congratulate Lewis Hamilton—Lewis Hamilton the seventh. I also congratulate Marcus Rashford on his new book club initiative with Macmillan Children’s Books. We also celebrate UNICEF’s World Children’s Day. Let us all work to make the world a better place for all our children.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Before I come to the right hon. Lady’s specific questions, I have been asked to make right hon. and hon. Members aware that the 18-month review of the independent complaints and grievance service is under way, and it is important that as many people as possible take the opportunity to give their views about the scheme. Alison Stanley recently launched an online survey, and I encourage every member of the parliamentary community to take part. The deadline for giving views is 4 December. Please do take part in the survey and send any contributions to Alison Stanley directly.
May I of course join the right hon. Lady in celebrating World Children’s Day? As I have six of them, I do my best to promote children as far as I possibly can. It is a cause that I think I can show the House I am fully in favour of. I am grateful for her once again raising the issue of people illegally detained and the difficulties in getting access to consular representation. Every week after business questions, I write to Ministers highlighting the issues that have been raised, which obviously includes that on a weekly basis. We are therefore ensuring that it is kept at the forefront of Ministers’ inboxes, and they are doing what they can, though it is not easy with regimes such as Iran.
I turn to the various questions that the hon. Lady raises about a range of issues. I would like to make it clear that during the pandemic funding is being provided for NHS staff to get free hospital parking. I understand that London’s King’s College Hospital said that it was going to have to increase charges, but it will not now implement that until after the pandemic. It is important that people are treated fairly, and the Government have provided the funding for that.
As regards procurement, the issue is that a great deal had to be done and procured extremely quickly. The Government would have been much more criticised had we not ensured that the equipment needed was provided. So 32 billion pieces of PPE have been provided since the beginning of the pandemic. It is important to recognise that the normal time for a tender is three months, and often it runs to six months. Had these normal procedures been followed, we would not have been getting any additional equipment until October. So are right hon. and hon. Members who are complaining about procurement saying that the Nightingale hospitals should not have been opened until October? It is a ridiculous proposition. Speed was of the essence and speed is what was provided. [Interruption.] The speed that was provided was what was necessary, and it is worth pointing out that the vast majority of contracts of more than £120,000 in value have been published. This is important because transparency will ensure and will show that things are handled properly.
The right hon. Lady raises questions once again about virtual participation. She said that there should be a vote with no proxies. That would make it very difficult for Members. The reason for having so many proxies is to ensure that the Division Lobbies are not overcrowded and that the estate remains as covid-secure as possible. That has been the fundamental principle of what we have been doing. The House has gone to great efforts, Mr Speaker, particularly under your leadership, to be a covid-secure workplace, not just for Members but crucially for those employed directly by the House and for members of staff at the point when they were coming in.
Virtual participation is allowed in a number of areas such as Select Committees and interrogative proceedings, but it is not allowed in other areas, except—we hope, if certain people do not object to it—in debates, for people who are extremely clinically vulnerable. The question we have to face is whether we should be treated in the same way as our constituents. The Government advice is that those who are extremely clinically vulnerable should not go to work, but that if people need to go to work, they should. We are in that position. We need to come into work to do our job fully. People have to ask themselves whether they feel they do their job fully when they are entirely remote. I think that they will feel that they do not. They cannot attend Public Bill Committees; they cannot attend Delegated Legislation Committees—
Mr Rees-Mogg
That is not true. There are not the resources to do it across all these various forums. The resources are limited, and it is a question of how they are shared out. We are ensuring that the bits that need to be done physically are, and that MPs are here to meet other MPs, to see Ministers, to go to Westminster Hall, to do the great variety of things that amount to the fullness of the role of the Member of Parliament. Fundamentally, we should be in the same boat as our constituents. MPs do themselves and their reputation harm when they argue that they should have special treatment, as if we were some priestly caste.
With regard to the right hon. Lady’s point about human rights and freedom of speech, pull the other one it’s got bells on. We have freedom of speech in this Chamber. It is protected by the Bill of Rights. It is fundamental, and that is one of the reasons for coming together in this Chamber.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
Pharmacists have remained open during this pandemic, not only in Carshalton and Wallington but across the country. Pharmacists tell me that they are ready to do so much more than they can currently provide, including covid vaccinations. May we have a debate about expanding the role of community pharmacies and ensuring that they have the funding model that reflects the work they do?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend raises an important point. Pharmacies have shown themselves a bedrock of local communities this year. Their doors have remained open and the pharmacists within welcoming and wise. They have been a model of public service, and I commend community pharmacies for the essential work that they have done throughout the pandemic. The drive to vaccinate the nation will require a great national effort, and my hon. Friend makes an important point about the role of pharmacists in distributing and administering the vaccine. He is right to raise it, and I will pass his suggestion on to the Secretary of State.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) [V]
The Leader of the House confuses matters with references to MPs as key workers. Of course our democracy cannot be compromised by covid. Members must represent their constituents and hold the Government to account, but we do not need to be in this place to do that. His continual references to “coming to work” show that he does not understand the distinction between work and place of work. It seems that he is unable to grasp that many Members are working remotely. We should help them to do that. Indeed, that is precisely what we are exhorting every other employer in the land to do. A majority of Members want to participate in debates without putting themselves and the public at risk, and they should not have to divulge confidential medical information to do so. When will he listen to his own Back Benchers, the Procedure Committee and the Liaison Committee and switch the virtual technology back on?
Let me turn to another matter. Does the Leader of the House agree with the Prime Minister that devolution north of the border has been a disaster, and that it was Tony Blair’s biggest mistake? Does he understand the insult that this is to the Scottish public? The Prime Minister may claim that he is referring to the SNP Government, but that Government only exist because the people of Scotland have voted for them—not once, not twice, but three times. The truth is that the Prime Minister is attacking the democratic decision of the people. Donald Trump would indeed be proud. The exposure of this level of disrespect from a British Prime Minister presents us with a grave constitutional problem. We need to have an urgent debate on devolution, not just, as I have argued for the past six months, to review its efficacy in the light of covid, but to clarify whether the British Government respect their own constitution. In May, the Scottish electorate will vote again. Now that the Prime Minister’s contempt for devolution is clear, a great many people will realise that the only way to protect the limited powers we have is to grasp the political power and capacity that comes with independence.
Mr Rees-Mogg
As I have set out before, I and the whole House have the greatest sympathy for people who are extremely clinically vulnerable and are advised not to come into work and for making provisions for them to participate. I have sympathy with people who are in difficult circumstances that do not fall into that category, even if the guidelines do not actually provide them with the security that they may be asking for. I have much less sympathy for members of the Scottish National party who do not actually like coming to Parliament in the first place.
As regards what the Prime Minister said about devolution, let us look at the SNP Government’s record, because it is a tragic record of failure. Schools were once the pride of Scotland, but schooling in Scotland has gone down under the SNP’s reign. Scotland has fallen to 15th in reading, from sixth in 2000. For maths, it is 31st—nine places lower than England—and down from 17th in 2006 and fifth in 2000. They have therefore failed in terms of schools. They have also failed in terms of the economy; before the pandemic, Scotland’s economy was forecast to trail the UK for the foreseeable future. They have failed in terms of policing; crime is on the rise, and most areas of Scotland have fewer police officers on the frontline since the SNP forced the police merger through.
Before the crisis, the SNP was causing the NHS to suffer. The £850 million waiting times improvement plan was a failure; Scotland’s public sector watchdog said that the NHS was under increasing pressure in 2019; and the SNP has failed to tackle Scotland’s chronic shortage of GPs. After years and years of SNP grandstanding on welfare, the party is failing to deliver on its own welfare promises, and SNP Ministers even had to hand back responsibility for one benefit to the Department for Work and Pensions.
The failure of devolution is the failure of the Scottish National party, and—just to add to the fun of it—its members are also mired in some discussion about who can remember who sent texts to whom, but it might be ungracious of me to delve into the inner workings of the relationship between very fishy Scottish figures.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
As was referenced earlier, lifting our spirits from the gloom of lockdown, on Sunday, Lewis Hamilton secured his seventh Formula 1 world championship, having smashed through all the other records, with 94 race wins—seven of which were here at home, at Silverstone—and 97 pole positions. He is without doubt the most successful British sportsman. As he won the Turkish Grand Prix, he said:
“That’s for all the kids out there that dream the impossible. You can do it too”.
With that in mind, will my right hon. Friend join me in sending the congratulations of this House to Lewis Hamilton for all that he has achieved, agree that it is high time that he was honoured with a knighthood and schedule a debate on ensuring that children are encouraged to take up science, technology, engineering and maths subjects to become the engineers of the future and take up motorsport in Lewis Hamilton’s tyre tracks?
Mr Speaker
May I just say that knighthoods are not a matter for the Leader of the House? He has many duties, but that is not one of them.
Mr Rees-Mogg
One of my children thinks that Mr Ben Stokes ought to have a knighthood, too, and I point out to him that this is also not a matter for me.
The right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) also wanted to congratulate Lewis Hamilton. What a fantastic performer he has proved to be, and what a model for the nation. He is, statistically, the most successful Formula 1 driver in history and it puts him among the greatest sportsmen that this nation has ever had. I must confess: is there not a little bit of all of us, when we are driving, who rather wish that we were Lewis Hamilton? When we are stuck at a red traffic light and the M4 stretches out for miles in front of us, we think, “If only we could put our foot down a little and go a bit faster.” So I admire him, I congratulate him and I am even a little bit jealous of him.
Mr Speaker
He might have to convert to electric as well. Let us go to the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab) [V]
I am not sure where the Leader of the House would put his six children in a Formula One car.
Next Thursday, we have two debates suggested by the Liaison Committee, and the Leader of the House has been kind enough to tell us what they are. I will just explain to the House that this is a time swap for estimates day debates, which are chosen by the Backbench Business Committee on behalf of the Liaison Committee. Although we are slowly but surely getting through the backlog of applications since the reopening of Westminster Hall, we still have a queue of about 20 as yet unallocated debates, so we hope that the recent flow of time for Backbench Business continues for the remainder of this Session.
Before coming to this House, I was for 27 years a member of Gateshead Council. I care deeply about the welfare of Gateshead Council, its staff and all the people that it serves. We keep hearing from Ministers about how much money has been allocated to local authorities in response to the pandemic. In Gateshead we have received, I understand, something like £22 million, but the expenditure on managing the pandemic is something like £70 million, a shortfall of £50 million or so. Can we do something about redressing this imbalance of expenditure over income as a result of the pandemic for local authorities around the country?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding the House about the swap for estimates days with the Liaison Committee.
On council funding, I just remind the hon. Gentleman that, so far, £7.2 billion has been provided to local councils in additional expenditure, plus £24 billion for local businesses, and another £3 billion included in that sum was announced recently, so there is a very large flow of funds going through to councils to support them in this very difficult period, which means that councils are getting the money that they need.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con) [V]
In addition to previous generous support, the Government have recently granted Crawley Borough Council a further £5.6 million in funding for the latest period of covid-19 restrictions, yet this local authority, which unfortunately has a record of financial mismanagement and reserves of well over £20 million, is complaining that it is not enough. Can we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government about ensuring that such irresponsible councils are audited?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend raises a really important point. I have just set out the very large amounts of money that are being made available, but some incompetent councils are not spending that money well. It is noticeable that they are often socialist-run councils that are not doing things properly, and he is right to ensure that they are held to account. Last year, the Government commissioned Sir Tony Redmond to undertake a comprehensive review into the quality of external audit, and the Government are considering its findings and will respond in due course.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab) [V]
The Leader of the House, being a father to six children himself, will hopefully be aware that on Tuesday we marked World Prematurity Day. He may not, though, be aware of the specific struggles that thousands of families up and down the country who have incredibly poorly babies in neonatal care are currently going through. I can truly say from my own experience that those days, weeks and months spent worrying about your neonate are truly some of the most agonising you will ever go through as a parent. Parents with children in neonatal care should clearly be able to take specific leave from their jobs and should not be financially out of pocket because of doing so. Will the Leader of the House therefore please commit to a debate in Government time to address this issue and ultimately give hope to parents in their time of absolute desperation?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I have the greatest sympathy for what the hon. Lady has set out, and I have some direct knowledge of the issue—not with my own children but from children who are closely connected to me. It is a very difficult and troubling time for parents and they deserve support. In the first place, I urge the hon. Lady to seek an Adjournment debate, but I think the sympathy of the whole House is with the argument she has made.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
The Guardian newspaper has applied for the release to the media of character references that were provided to a judge solely to assist in sentencing during a criminal trial. If allowed, this would be a fundamental change of practice, with far-reaching consequences for the criminal justice system. Will my right hon. Friend allow time for an urgent debate on this vital matter?
Mr Rees-Mogg
It would obviously be wrong for me to comment on a specific case, but my hon. Friend raises a concerning point. If people have, in a generality, given evidence to a trial on the understanding that is confidential, it risks people not being willing to give such evidence in future if what is believed to be confidential turns out not to be. A just system requires certainty, whatever degree of certainty that is. In individual cases, I understand that it is a matter for the trial judge, under rule 5 of the criminal procedure rules, but I will of course refer this matter to my right hon. and learned Friends the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney General.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
As we head into phase 4 lockdown in Glasgow on Friday, this is a really difficult time for small businesses such the Velvet Moon gift shop in Finnieston, the magical Big Top toy shop in Charing Cross, independent cafés such as Canary Girl Coffee Co, and the brand-new Cùrlach hairdressers in Govanhill, so may we have a debate on what we can all do to support small businesses and their owners as we head towards the festive period?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The magical Big Top toy shop sounds like a wonderful place to visit, full of treats. I wish I were going to be in Glasgow in the run-up to Christmas and have the opportunity to visit it, but I fear that will not be possible on a number of counts. The hon. Lady raises a matter of concern to Members from all parties and throughout the various parts of the United Kingdom. A great deal of support has been given to businesses—overall, there has been £100 billion in business support via bounce back loans, grants, rate reliefs and VAT deferrals—but the current level of closures is very difficult, particularly for small businesses. If the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), is still on the line, he will understand that many Members would like to debate this important subject.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
It is National Lorry Week, and there are very few people in this country who have not relied on the transport industry’s keeping calm and carrying on doing the pandemic. Whether it is food, goods, machinery or medicine, if we need it, the transport industry delivers it, often while we are sleeping. In the Stroud constituency, companies such as Cullimore, Smiths, Howard Tenens and many more employ thousands of people in Gloucestershire, and they have my thanks. Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Transport to make a statement on this vital industry—which is dealing with covid, drivers’ facilities and Brexit planning, and doing so much to reduce its carbon footprint—and to celebrate the Road Haulage Association’s “HGV Heroes”?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend is right to raise the fantastic work that lorry drivers do. “HGV Heroes” is a great title for them, because they have continued to work throughout the pandemic and have been absolutely essential in ensuring that we are supplied with the necessities of life. National Lorry Week is a good thing to celebrate. Although when one is stuck behind a convoy of lorries on the M4 thinking that one wants to be Lewis Hamilton, one may not be as sympathetic as one ought to be, they are actually essential to the lifeblood of our nation: they keep the wheels of the economy turning and the engine of growth functioning.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
May I also congratulate Lewis Hamilton on his extraordinary achievement, but since the Leader of the House and I enjoy disagreeing, I have to say I absolutely do not feel tempted to speed when I sit behind my wheel. Speeding belongs to the racetrack, not on our roads.
Last week marked the 25th anniversary of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, and we have made a lot of progress since towards equality for people living with a disability. However, the pandemic has greatly disadvantaged people living with a disability, and we risk going backwards on the progress we have made, so can we have a debate in Government time about disability discrimination since the pandemic started?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am delighted that the hon. Lady wants to celebrate the great achievement of my noble Friend Lord Hague, who was the Minister who piloted the Disability Discrimination Act through Parliament 25 years ago. It was a landmark piece of, it has to be said, Conservative legislation. It would be a good thing to debate the success of this legislation and the Conservatives’ commitment over 25 years to end disability discrimination—I think that is something all parties wish to see. I cannot promise a debate in Government time, but the hon. Lady knows how to go about applying for debates in other ways.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con) [V]
Last week, our nation came together to give our thanks and to honour the extraordinary sacrifices of those who gave their today for our tomorrow. Rutland and Melton is home to a great number of our armed forces and a thriving veteran community, and it is a deep privilege to represent them every single day. Does my right hon. Friend share my concerns around a sinister anti-poppy campaign that offensively seeks to recast poppies as a sign of nationalism and warmongering when, in fact, poppies are a sign of our gratitude for our safety and security and a universal symbol of human virtue and loss?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The growing popularity of the poppy appeal in the past 20 years has been a wonderful expression not only of popular patriotism, but of an understanding that the first world war was the war to end all wars. The poppy was the symbol of regrowth after disaster. It was not there to be something to be jingoistic about. People who think that it is are misunderstanding it and are joining in a rather unpleasant anti-British culture that sees the sacrifice made by our ancestors as being jingoistic, rather than as something actually to safeguard liberty, freedom and hope.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) [V]
Last week, the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood published our report on access to treatment for people with bleeding disorders. Sadly, we found that many patients were not included in decisions about their treatment, and we found a lack of diagnosis and access to treatment for girls and women. As the Leader of the House knows, this group was at the centre of the scandal that is currently the subject of the NHS infected blood inquiry. Improvements to treatment need not wait for the outcome of Sir Brian Langstaff’s inquiry, though, so can we please have a debate on how the Government might take forward the 19 recommendations in our report?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Lady has campaigned on this issue so effectively for a long time and has been enormously successful in her campaign, and rightly so, because the contaminated blood issue is one of great seriousness and difficulty for the people who were affected. I cannot promise her a debate, but as I have said to her before, if there are specific issues she would like taken up with Ministers from these sessions, I will unquestionably do so on her behalf.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) [V]
I hope the Leader of the House will agree with me that the greatest achievement so far of the Prime Minister, among many achievements, is to implement the decision of the British people to leave the EU. This Tuesday, Lord Frost indicated that the trade deal may well be landed. If that is the case, will the Leader of the House guarantee a statement on that day and, later in the week, a debate on the trade deal or, if there is not a trade deal, on what will come next? Let us be able to celebrate what is a fantastic achievement by our Prime Minister.
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Paeans of praise should be prepared for our Prime Minister in celebration of his achievement in getting us out of the European Union and delivering on what was promised to the British people and what they voted for, but my hon. Friend asks me to guarantee something based on something that is theoretical, and a guarantee based on something that is theoretical is not really a guarantee, so I cannot give it.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
Surely, in reality, the most important issue facing the country and this House is the renewal or otherwise of the lockdown, so I am surprised and slightly concerned that it is not clear when that will be debated. Many MPs on all sides want to move on from risk avoidance to evidence-based risk management. Many sporting and leisure venues have invested in helpful and costly improvements, and whether they are football and rugby clubs, racecourses, betting shops, bingo halls, casinos, airports, shops, gyms, pubs, clubs, restaurants or cafés, they all need some degree of change, help and actual opportunity. Can we have an urgent focused debate and a vote on proper alternatives, rather than the usual all-or-nothing, take-it-or-leave-it approach?
Mr Rees-Mogg
One of the things the right hon. Gentleman asks for is not possible, because statutory instruments are introduced on the basis of take it or leave it. The law has to be clear, and it has never been possible to amend statutory instruments. On his broader point, I am glad to say we have the most freedom-loving Prime Minister that we could have. In at least 100 years, there has been no other Prime Minister who is more freedom loving, and therefore the desire to get back to ordinary ways of living is very strong, assuming that it can be done in a way that is safe for the nation at large. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Government have made a commitment that any matters of national significance will be brought before this House before they are introduced. I cannot give the timings on that, because the decisions have not been made, but the basic choice of the House is that any new statutory instruments will come before this House for a vote if they are of national significance.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is justly and naturally proud of the county of Somerset—it is, after all, the cheese capital of the south-west—but he will know that while his half-naked ancestors were sitting about watching what happens when you leave milk out for a very long time, the men and women of Wiltshire were building some of the wonders of the ancient world, such as Avebury, Stonehenge and Silbury Hill. Does he agree that, for the sake of both our counties, the Great West Way, which is the tourist trail between London and Bristol following ancient routes—including the Kennet and Avon canal, where the speed limit is only 4 mph—deserves all our support? Does he share my hope that next week’s spending review will include a commitment to fund new tourism zones, of which the Great West Way should be the first and the greatest?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend is right to say that Wiltshire is a great county, because in 878 it was on the right side of the battle of Edington, where Alfred defeated the Danes and where the good people of Somerset, Wiltshire and Hampshire came together for that historic victory on which this country is essentially founded. He is wrong, however, to highlight the ancient monuments of Wiltshire, because there is a much better one in Stanton Drew. It is of greater antiquity, greater beauty and greater interest, and I would suggest that people go to Stanton Drew rather than to Stonehenge so that they do not have to worry about the A303. However, the Great West Way is a fantastic route—you can make a detour off it to go and visit Edington, where the battle may have taken place. The Government are supporting it via the £45 million Discover England fund, so let Somerset, Wiltshire and Hampshire rejoice in our shared and distinguished history.
Mr Speaker
Just for the record, the hon. Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) might want to know that the Leader of the House last week said how important it was to see Stonehenge, as he travels past in on the A303.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab) [V]
As you know, Mr Speaker, we have a public health emergency in Hull, with the highest covid infection rate in the country, but my city is being left in the dark with no contact from Ministers and we are being hung out to dry without any additional financial support. Could we please have a statement as to why no Government Minister has picked up the phone to our council leader, Councillor Stephen Brady?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I know this matter came up in the debate yesterday and that the Paymaster General, my right hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), responded to say that
“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”—
the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson)—
“ and any other people, whether colleagues in this place or the local resilience forum.”—[Official Report, 18 November 2020; Vol. 684, c. 430.]
So I believe that this is in hand, as of yesterday.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
May we have an early debate, in Government time, on the regulation and prevention of online harms? This afternoon’s Backbench Business debate, which was already the amalgamation of two approved Backbench Business Committee debates on the subject, has had its time substantially truncated by Government business on the Order Paper today. This is a matter of considerable concern to colleagues in the House—the debate was heavily subscribed—and to people outside it, and of course the Government’s online harms Bill is still long-awaited.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Online harms continue to be a priority of the Government, and we are firmly committed to making the UK the safest place to be online. My right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and the Home Office are working to introduce legislation next year. We will also be publishing our full response to the online harms White Paper consultation. My hon. Friend will have further opportunity to raise this issue again during the Backbench Business debate on the regulation and prevention of online harms, and I am sure there will be other opportunities in due course.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
The Leader of the House will be aware of the National Audit Office report on government procurement during the pandemic, which, although acknowledging the exceptional circumstances that did apply, identified many problems with the processes that had been undertaken and highlighted the need to maintain public trust in the process. I accept that there are regular general debates on covid-19 in the Chamber, but this report surely merits a more detailed exploration by Members. Will he therefore make time, in early course, to allow a full debate in this Chamber on that report and its content?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I refer to what I said earlier: there has been an extraordinary success in procurement, which had to be done quickly and everybody wanted it done quickly. For example, the vaccine taskforce has secured agreements for 350 million doses of seven leading vaccines; 300,000 people have signed up to the vaccine registry to accelerate this development; and, through Test and Trace, nearly 36 million tests have been completed and we have the capacity to test half a million a day. I believe that 80% of contracts over £120,000 have been published so far, so that there is transparency. There is always a choice; everyone knows that if they have a leak at 2 o’clock in the morning and call the plumber out, it costs more than if they book the plumber to come in three months’ time. We were in the situation of having a leak at 2 in the morning, so it was inevitably expensive.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con) [V]
Does the Leader of the House agree that given the nature of our role, MPs who can attend Parliament in person should do so and that any motion to extend remote participation to debates should be based on clinical vulnerability, in accordance with the Government guidance, rather than personal choice? Our fantastic broadcast team, Parliament’s house staff, teachers, postmen, supermarket workers, delivery drivers and our NHS workers leave home to go to work, and so should we.
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. Members of Parliament are key workers and should not be treated any differently from other key workers, many of whom have been continuing to come into work since the start of the pandemic. It is the Government’s strong view that Parliament best serves the UK public when MPs are present in Westminster carrying out their essential functions. Just as hospitals and schools provide essential services in health and education, Parliament performs an essential constitutional role, making and changing legislation, debating key issues and scrutinising the work of government. The House authorities have made every effort to ensure that the physical proceedings in operation are in line with Public Health England guidance and safe for Members and the staff of the House. Our approach has evolved as the pandemic has evolved, and we are pleased that this latest change, if it is accepted by the House, will allow those who are clinically extremely vulnerable to participate.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
I have a number of constituents whose landlords have backtracked on their word, having said that they would give rent relief but now saying that it is only a rent deferral. They have even been taken to court because the law is weak and the advice is unclear. Can we have a proper debate about housing and whether the Government will fulfil their manifesto commitment of bringing forward a renters’ rights Bill that will ban section 8 and section 21 evictions once and for all?
Mr Rees-Mogg
It is worth setting out what the Government have done. During the first wave, evictions were banned for six months, protecting 8.6 million households. We then doubled the eviction notice period from three to six months, meaning that if someone is served notice today, they can stay in their home until May in all but the most serious cases. Tenants are being protected, but obviously there needs to be a balance between landlord and tenant.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
I understand that the housing target standard methodology is being tweaked, but does my right hon. Friend agree that in central London, it needs to be not only tweaked but radically changed? In my local authority, the housing target goes from 450 to almost 3,300—a sevenfold increase. Will he make time for a debate about how we can get more housing, which we urgently need, in a way that is achievable and practical?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful that my hon. Friend agrees that we must increase housing supply, so that a new generation of young people have the opportunity to buy their own home. The current formula for local housing need is inconsistent with our aim to deliver 300,000 homes annually by the mid-2020s, and we are committed to reviewing it at this year’s Budget. We will amend planning rules so that infrastructure, roads, schools and GP surgeries come before people move into their new homes. We want to get the balance right when determining local housing need between meeting our target of building 300,000 homes, tackling affordability challenges in the places people most want to live and renewing and levelling up our towns and cities.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
We have heard a lot from the Prime Minister about Captain Hindsight, but whether it is the economic response and the risk of a cliff edge, testing or the crisis in schools, the Opposition have actually shown a degree of foresight and provided good advice to Government. Will the Government now engage constructively with advice to solve problems, or do we have to resort during our debates and exchanges to calling the Prime Minister General Chaos and the Health Secretary Major Blunder?
Mr Rees-Mogg
That was very funny; we do all split our sides with laughter. It is worth pointing out the amazing amount that Her Majesty’s Government have done—seven Nightingale hospitals built, the number of ventilators up to 30,000 from 9,000 in March, 32 billion pieces of PPE provided, 500,000 virus tests on 15 November, 12 million testing kits going to 14 million care homes and £200 billion of taxpayers’ money spent to support the economy. There is an amazing record of hard work being done to help us through this difficult period, and advice is welcome from all sources, however eccentric they may be, including the hon. Gentleman.
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will know that the east midlands has amazing economic potential, and one way in which we can fulfil that potential is the building of a freeport alongside East Midlands airport. That will bring skilled jobs to our region and major investment, and it is supported by Conservative colleagues across the region. Can we have a debate in Government time on the strength of the application that the east midlands is putting forward?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am tempted, but I am limited by what I am allowed to say. The Government have published a bidding prospectus for freeports in England, setting out how ports can apply for freeport status and further details on our proposals for the policy. The bidding period will close on 5 February, but I wish my hon. Friend’s application for a freeport every success. It is a really exciting policy development. Mr Speaker, you are a kindly gentleman, and I am sure you will look favourably on an application for an Adjournment debate, so that my hon. Friend can praise his area at greater length.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
Mr Speaker, I am sure that you, like me, are an avid reader of Martin Lewis’s Money Saving Expert website. Will the Leader of the House join me in commending to our constituents the availability of tax relief for those working from home? Can we have a statement or something else from the Government encouraging our constituents to apply for that tax relief, as many of them are working from home and could do with a bit more money in their pockets?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that important point. It is the job of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to raise the right amount of tax—neither too much nor too little—and therefore it has a duty to help people to claim any reliefs that are available to them. The lack of people claiming pensioner credits was raised with me the week before last, and the hon. Gentleman’s point about people claiming their entitlements to tax relief is also important and deserves wider publicity.
Mr Speaker
In order to allow for the safe exit of Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for a few minutes.
Integrated Review
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson) [V]
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will update the House on the Government’s integrated review of foreign, defence, security and development policy.
Our review will conclude early next year and set out the UK’s international agenda, but I want to inform the House of its first outcome. For decades, British Governments have trimmed and cheese-pared our defence budget. If we go on like this, we risk waking up to discover that our armed forces—the pride of Britain—have fallen below the minimum threshold of viability, and, once lost, they can never be regained. That outcome would not only be craven; it would jeopardise the security of the British people, amounting to a dereliction of duty for any Prime Minister.
I refuse to vindicate any pessimistic forecasters there may have been by taking up the scalpel yet again. Based on our assessment of the international situation and our foreign policy goals, I have decided that the era of cutting our defence budget must end, and it ends now. I am increasing defence spending by £24.1 billion over the next four years. That is £16.5 billion more than our manifesto commitment, raising it as a share of GDP to at least 2.2%, exceeding our NATO pledge, and investing £190 billion over the next four years—more than any other European country and more than any other NATO ally except the United States.
The Ministry of Defence has received a multi-year settlement because equipping our armed forces requires long-term investment, and our national security in 20 years’ time will depend on decisions we take today. I have done this in the teeth of the pandemic, amid every other demand on our resources, because the defence of the realm and the safety of the British people must come first. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Defence Secretary, who believe in this as fervently as I do. Reviving our armed forces is one pillar of the Government’s ambition to safeguard Britain’s interests and values by strengthening our global influence and reinforcing our ability to join the United States and our other allies to defend free and open societies.
The international situation is now more perilous and intensely competitive than at any time since the cold war. Everything we do in this country—every job, every business, even how we shop and what we eat—depends on a basic minimum of global security, with a web of feed pipes, of oxygen pipes, that must be kept open: shipping lanes, a functioning internet, safe air corridors, reliable undersea cables, and tranquillity in distant straits. This pandemic has offered a taste of what happens when our most fundamental needs are suddenly in question. We could take all this for granted, ignore the threat of terrorism and the ambitions of hostile states, hope for the best, and we might get away with it for a while, before calamity strikes, as it surely would. Or we could accept that our lifelines must be protected but we are content to curl up in our island and leave the task to our friends.
My starting point is that either of those options would be an abdication of the first duty of Government: to defend our people. My choice—and I hope it will carry every Member of the House—is that Britain must be true to our history and stand alongside our allies, sharing the burden and bringing our expertise to bear on the world’s toughest problems. To achieve this, we need to upgrade our capabilities across the board. We have already united our international effort into a new Department combining aid and diplomacy, led with grip and purpose by my right hon. Friend the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Secretary. Next year will be a year of British leadership when we preside over the G7, host COP26 in Glasgow, and celebrate the 75th anniversary of the first United Nations General Assembly in London. We are leading the world towards net zero with our 10-point plan for a green industrial revolution. We are campaigning for our values, particularly freedom of religion and the media, and giving every girl in the world access to 12 years of quality education.
But extending British influence requires a once-in-a-generation modernisation of our armed forces, and now is the right time to press ahead, because emerging technologies, visible on the horizon, will make the returns from defence investment infinitely greater. We have a chance to break free from the vicious circle whereby we ordered ever decreasing numbers of ever more expensive items of military hardware, squandering billions along the way. The latest advances will multiply the fighting power of every warship, aircraft and infantry unit many times over, and the prizes will go to the swiftest and most agile nations, not necessarily the biggest. We can achieve as much as British ingenuity and expertise allow.
We will need to act speedily to remove or reduce less relevant capabilities. This will allow our new investment to be focused on the technologies that will revolutionise warfare, forging our military assets into a single network designed to overcome the enemy. A soldier in hostile territory will be alerted to a distant ambush by sensors on satellites or drones, instantly transmitting a warning, using artificial intelligence to devise the optimal response and offering an array of options, from summoning an airstrike to ordering a swarm attack by drones, or paralysing the enemy with cyber-weapons. New advances will surmount the old limits of logistics. Our warships and combat vehicles will carry “directed energy weapons”, destroying targets with inexhaustible lasers. For them, the phrase “out of ammunition” will become redundant.
Nations are racing to master this new doctrine of warfare, and our investment is designed to place Britain among the winners. The returns will go far beyond our armed forces, and from aerospace to autonomous vehicles, these technologies have a vast array of civilian applications, opening up new vistas of economic progress, creating 10,000 jobs every year—40,000 in total—levelling up across our country, and reinforcing our Union. We are going to use our extra defence spending to restore Britain’s position as the foremost naval power in Europe, taking forward our plans for eight Type 26 and five Type 31 frigates, and support ships to supply our carriers.
We are going to develop the next generation of warships, including multi-role research vessels and Type 32 frigates. This will spur a renaissance of British shipbuilding across the UK, in Glasgow and Rosyth, Belfast, Appledore and Birkenhead, guaranteeing jobs and illuminating the benefits of the Union in the white light of the arc welder’s torch. If there is one policy that strengthens the UK in every possible sense, it is building more ships for the Royal Navy. Once both of our carriers are operational in 2023, the UK will have a carrier strike group permanently available, routinely deployed globally, and always ready to fight alongside NATO and other allies.
Next year, Queen Elizabeth will lead a British and allied task group on our most ambitious deployment for two decades, encompassing the Mediterranean, the Indian ocean, and East Asia. We shall deploy more of our naval assets in the world’s most important regions, protecting the shipping lanes that supply our nation, and we shall press on with renewing our nuclear deterrent. We will reshape our Army for the age of networked warfare, allowing better equipped soldiers to deploy more quickly, and strengthening the ability of our special forces to operate covertly against our most sophisticated adversaries.
The security and intelligence agencies will continue to protect us around the clock from terrorism and new and evolving threats. We will invest another £1.5 billion in military research and development, designed to master the new technologies of warfare. We will establish a new centre dedicated to artificial intelligence, and a new RAF space command, launching British satellites and our first rocket from Scotland in 2022. I can announce that we have established a National Cyber Force, combining our intelligence agencies and service personnel, which is already operating in cyberspace against terrorism, organised crime and hostile state activity. And the RAF will receive a new fighter system, harnessing artificial intelligence and drone technology to defeat any adversary in air-to-air combat.
Our plans will safeguard hundreds of thousands of jobs in the defence industry, protecting livelihoods across the UK and keeping the British people safe. The defence of the realm is above party politics, and we all take pride in how British resolve saved democracy in 1940, and in how British internationalism, directed by Clement Attlee, helped to create NATO and preserve peace through the cold war. The wisdom and pragmatism of Margaret Thatcher found a path out of confrontation when she met Mikhail Gorbachev in 1984. In each case, Britain tipped the scales of history and did immense good for the world. Now we have a chance to follow in this great tradition, end the era of retreat, transform our armed forces, bolster our global influence, unite and level up across our country, protect our people and defend the free societies in which we fervently believe. I commend this statement to the House.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement.
Under my leadership, national security will always be Labour’s top priority. Britain must once again show global leadership and be a moral force for good in the world, both in how we tackle present and emerging security threats, and in how we build a fairer, greener and more secure world. So we welcome this additional funding for our defence and security forces, and we agree that it is vital to end what the Prime Minister calls—with, I have to say, a complete lack of self-awareness—an “era of retreat”.
This is, however, a spending announcement without a strategy. The Government have yet again pushed back vital parts of the integrated review, but there is no clarity over their strategic priorities. Then there is the question of money. How will this announcement be paid for? Such is the Government’s handling of the pandemic that the UK has had the sharpest economic downturn of any G7 country. Next week, the Chancellor will have to come here and set out the consequences of that. Can the Prime Minister tell us today: will the commitments that he has made require additional borrowing and tax rises—if so, which ones?—or will the money have to come from other departmental budgets? In particular, at the election last year, there was a very clear Conservative party manifesto commitment
“to spend 0.7 per cent of GNI”
on international development. A straight question, Prime Minister: are the Government going to keep to that manifesto commitment? He must know that if he breaks it, that will not only undermine public trust, but hugely weaken us on the global stage.
The Prime Minister spoke of an “era of retreat”—a really interesting phrase, after a decade of Conservative government and under-investment in our armed forces. I remind the House that defence spending has fallen by more than £8 billion in real terms over the past 10 years. Over the same period, UK regular forces have decreased by a quarter, and on top of that, the National Audit Office estimates that there is a black hole of up to £13 billion in the MOD equipment plan. The additional funding announced today is on foundations that have been seriously weakened over the past 10 years.
Let me come to a point that is very important to our armed forces personnel. Can the Prime Minister tell us whether there will be any further cuts to the size of our armed forces over the period of this spending review?
There are a number of other holes in the Prime Minister’s plan. With less than six weeks to go until the end of the transition period, there is still no clarity about the direction of our post-Brexit foreign or trade policy. The Government have not yet rolled over existing trade agreements with 15 countries—deals worth up to £80 billion of trade a year. The Prime Minister speaks of tackling global security threats and improving cyber capability—that is all welcome, and we welcome it—but four months after the Intelligence and Security Committee published its report concluding that Russia posed, in its words,
“an immediate and urgent threat to our national security”,
can the Prime Minister tell us why he has still not acted on that or followed through on the Committee’s recommendations? When will he do so?
There was very little beyond warm words about how the UK will lead the global efforts against the biggest threat we face: the international climate emergency. The COP26 conference is a once-in-a-generation opportunity, but the Committee on Climate Change says that the UK’s domestic measures
“are not making adequate progress in preparing for climate change.”
Yesterday’s announcement—another press release without a strategy—will do nothing to address that.
This is a time of huge global uncertainty. It is time for Britain to emerge from a decade of decline. I know that the Prime Minister is always keen to talk about the bits of government that he enjoys—big announcements, space programmes, moonshots—but this statement shows that the Government still lack a clear strategy, a coherent vision for Britain in the world or any idea of how the promises that the Prime Minister makes will actually be delivered.
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
Of all the humbug that I have heard from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that really takes the cake. This is a man who campaigned until December last year to install in government a Prime Minister who wanted to scrap our armed services and pull out of NATO, and his own record of support for our armed services is very thin indeed.
I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman now welcomes this package, although his comments scarcely do it justice. This is the biggest package of support for our armed services since the end of the cold war. It bears absolutely no relation to discussions about overseas aid. This House and this country should be incredibly proud of what Britain does to support people around the world. Under any view, this country is, has been and will remain one of the biggest contributors to aid of any country on earth. I am proud of that, and I am proud that this package will help to deliver 40,000 jobs around the UK.
The Conservative party fundamentally believes in defence of the realm, supporting our armed forces and ensuring that the country as a whole is strong and able to project our strength around the world. It is notable that, in government, we have instituted such extra protections for the armed services as wraparound childcare for armed services families and, by the way, protection for our veterans and their families from the misery of continual vexatious prosecution by well-paid lawyers long after the alleged crimes were committed and with no new evidence provided. The Opposition, under the leadership of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, refused to vote in favour of the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill, which will give veterans that protection and reassurance.
I do not think I have heard so much phoney stuff from the right hon. and learned Gentleman in all the time that we have faced each other. This is a guy who campaigned actively to install in government somebody who wanted to break up our armed forces and pull out of NATO. I do not know what he was thinking. He never mentioned his support for the armed services then, and frankly I do not attach much credence to it now.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
I welcome the commitment to significantly upgrade our defence posture, for which the Prime Minister knows I, the Defence Committee and others in this House have been calling for some time. I also welcome his honesty in recognising that the UK, and indeed the west, has become too risk-averse in standing up to some of the threats we face. I recall my frustration as a Foreign Office and Defence Minister in wanting Britain to play a more assertive and proactive role on the international stage, not only with our hard and soft power but with our thought leadership. However, there was ever less appetite to do so, so I very much welcome this statement today.
Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that, as we take on the presidency of the G7, we will work closely with the new US Administration in boosting western resolve to confront a growing number of hostile competitors, including China, who have for too long been allowed to pursue their own destabilising and competing agendas?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend; he is completely right. This package will encourage and bolster our friends and alliances around the world and enable the UK to project global influence into the future. That is why it is a multi-year package. I do not think that anybody around the world will doubt, after this announcement, our commitment to NATO, to the transatlantic alliance and to the security of our friends and allies around the world.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the leader of the Scottish National party.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement.
In the SNP, we support a refocusing on the contemporary threats that we face. We need to readjust our defence capabilities for the modern world and it is especially important that a focus is given to issues such as cyber-security, but what we do not accept are the priorities of this Government and the threat of the disbanding of historic regiments such as the Black Watch. Disbanding the Black Watch would show that the promises made to Scotland during the Scottish independence campaign have been broken, buried and forgotten by this Government. We were promised 12,500 personnel stationed permanently in Scotland; the number remains well below 10,000. Such broken promises not only mean fewer jobs in Scotland, but undermine Scotland’s security interests. Billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money are still being spent on Trident nuclear weapons. Scotland remains overwhelmingly opposed to weapons of mass destruction on the Clyde. We need to respond to today’s challenges rather than on vanity projects.
The SNP also has serious reservations regarding such a windfall to defence spending during these unprecedented times of hardship for so many. This review will reportedly see the UK as Europe’s biggest defence spender, when just three weeks ago this Government refused to provide free school meals for children during the holidays. We have learned that the UK Government are considering cutting the overseas aid budget by billions of pounds. The Prime Minister may use the term “global Britain”, but on these Benches we believe the Prime Minister has his priorities all wrong. The Tories have closed the Department for International Development, one of the most successful Departments of Government, in order to politicise instead of focusing it on sustainable development goals.
In our submission to the integrated defence review, we have put forward sensible suggestions on how to meet the modern-day threat picture, but not to the detriment of our historic regiments in Scotland. I ask the Prime Minister today: will he rule out scrapping the Black Watch—[Interruption]—and cuts to international aid spending? [Interruption.] It is an absolute disgrace, in the face of the threats, that we get contempt yet again from the Defence Secretary and his colleagues on the Tory Benches. It is shameful, and he really ought to grow up and show some respect to the regiments of Scotland.
With independence, Scotland can have a foreign policy that reflects our values and interests and a defence capability that matches capabilities to threats. With our submission to this review, we are looking to play a constructive role in informing UK policy, but we will be setting out how Scotland can play a full role as a normal, law-abiding and values-driven independent country on the world stage.
The Prime Minister
I can certainly give the right hon. Gentleman that guarantee. Once again, he seems to be a veritable geyser of confected indignation. Of course we are going to guarantee the Black Watch. DFID will remain in East Kilbride, as long as he does not continue with his ambitions to break up the United Kingdom; and even if he does, DFID will remain in East Kilbride.
It is preposterous to listen to the Scottish National party talking about its desire to support defence spending when everybody knows fine well that it is thanks to UK-wide investments that we are able to deliver not just the Black Watch and DFID in East Kilbride, but a fantastic programme of shipbuilding in Govan and Rosyth. Under his plans, it is not just that there will be no deterrent; there will be no shipbuilding and there will be no Black Watch in the land of the SNP. That is the reality.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
May I say to my right hon. Friend that this statement smacks not only of promises kept, but of promises exceeded? I congratulate him on that. Does he accept that in an era when global cyber-attacks threaten our entire way of life—from the economy to the NHS—we need to spend more of our defence budget on assets that we cannot see as well as on updating our core assets, and that that needs to be clearly explained to the British people? In this war of the invisible enemy, does he believe that cyber doctrine has evolved to match our capabilities, especially on existential threats, in order to provide adequate deterrence?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is an expert on what he is talking about. I can tell him that the National Cyber Force is working on doctrine that is currently evolving, but we will deploy our cyber capabilities, as I am sure he and the House would expect, in accordance with international law to protect the British public and our citizens.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD) [V]
We all owe an enormous debt to the brave men and women of our armed forces and security services for their work in keeping our country safe. We will give the review the study it merits, but I immediately welcome the extra investment in cyber-security so that Cheltenham’s GCHQ and the amazing people who work there can continue to ensure the UK remains a world leader in this crucial aspect of modern defence. With data and cyber so important to modern defence, the Prime Minister will know that access for our security services and police to European crime databases is vital to keeping the British people safe. Can the Prime Minister guarantee that we will retain direct, real-time access to all European databases after 1 January?
The Prime Minister
We will make sure that we have all the co-operation. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point, which is a very important one, and I agree with him on what he says about GCHQ and Cheltenham. I am assured that we will be able to maintain all the co-operation and collaboration we need to protect our people and our citizens, not just with our European friends and partners, but with Five Eyes and other allies and friends around the world.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has delivered for our armed forces today and he deserves the support of the whole House, particularly as he seeks to improve the procurement mechanisms of the Ministry of Defence. Will he bear in mind the wise words of General Mattis, the former US Defence Secretary, who told Donald Trump that the more you cut aid, the more I have to spend on ammunition? Britain’s development leadership—standing by our promise to the poorest by keeping the 0.7%, which was a manifesto commitment—will stand my right hon. Friend in very good stead as he assumes the chairmanship of the G7 on 1 January and promotes the important values of global Britain.
The Prime Minister
I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s points. He has done extraordinary work to champion the poorest and neediest around the world. This country, as I say, can be very proud of our record on overseas aid. We will continue to lead the world on that under this Government. What I can say is that this statement is about our defence and security, and there is no read-across to any other issue. This is driven by our need to protect the British public and keep the world as safe as we possibly can, and to unite and level up across our Union with 40,000 more jobs.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Prime Minister for his commitment to the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Will he confirm that while the goal is speed, readiness and resilience, as opposed to mass mobilisation, for the British armed forces to remain the best in the world the training of personnel must be a top priority to ensure that while we are ready for technological warfare, we also remain ready for physical forms of war? How will the review of recruitment procedures secure that very goal?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. The defence review will ensure that we remain full spectrum capable. I think that is the phrase the House should use: full spectrum capable.
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con) [V]
I strongly welcome and support my right hon. Friend’s statement. We live in difficult times, but, as he states, the defence of the realm must always remain a top priority. The announcement will be warmly welcomed by so many British businesses who rely heavily on our defence industry. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that this will safeguard jobs, helping us to build back and level up opportunity across our nation?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is completely right. We will use this defence package and spending review not just to modernise and update our armed forces in a truly revolutionary way but to drive jobs across the whole of the UK. It is a very exciting prospect.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
If this boost for defence spending is the first fruits of the departure of Dominic Cummings, it is most welcome, especially in ensuring that we can continue to work effectively alongside our long-term allies and partners including the United States—even more so with the welcome arrival of President Biden. Will the Prime Minister ensure that, wherever possible, spending is directed to firms in the UK and that orders are pulled forward to get British industry moving? He can start with the fleet solid support ships by telling the Ministry of Defence to send out the invitations to bid not in some ill-defined spring as the MOD says, but early in 2021. That would be a welcome Christmas present and new year message not only for our shipyards but for our engineering and steel industries and their communities.
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman speaks for many in what he says about the fleet solid support ships—he certainly speaks for me. This is a great moment for shipbuilding in this country. Be in no doubt of the ambition of my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary, the shipbuilding tsar who is now leading a renaissance in shipbuilding. I am sure he heard the right hon. Gentleman’s points loud and clear.
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)
I welcome in the strongest possible terms the incredible announcement from the Prime Minister. Before joining this place, I worked for a County Durham start-up in research and development and saw at first hand the incredible value that R&D brings to society, particularly when tech is developed that can be applied to other uses. I have no doubt that investing in military R&D will lead to advancements for civilian applications in areas such as aviation and autonomous vehicles. Indeed, the technology that allows us to see the Prime Minister beamed on to our screens today first came from a military communication innovation. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that this package of funding will be underpinned by a strong commitment to military research and development?
The Prime Minister
I can indeed. There is big, big chunk of this package specifically dedicated to research and development in cyber, AI and drone warfare—all the warfare of the future. The victors of the future will be those who are able to master data and new technology in the way that this package supports.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab) [V]
I really welcome this commitment to our armed forces. The Prime Minister spoke in his statement about defending our people and keeping the world safe, which I would argue are development objectives, thinking specifically about climate change, food security, creating stable Governments and investing to end violence against women and girls. How will he ensure that development remains front and centre of the UK’s new international policy following the integrated review? Will he please quash rumours and confirm his manifesto commitment to the 0.7% both now and going forwards?
The Prime Minister
As I have said several times to the House, we can all be proud of our record on overseas aid, and that will continue, but it is also by investing in our armed services that we can do some of the greatest things for the poorest and neediest people around the world. I have often found, when travelling around the world to countries in real distress, that the single export they crave the most is the help, reassurance and security that comes from the British armed services. That is one of the reasons why helping to keep our world safe is a huge part of this agenda.
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
Our armed forces have played a crucial role in our response to the pandemic, not least in setting up and scaling the mega lab in Milton Keynes. Looking beyond Milton Keynes to the world, does the Prime Minister agree that this investment sends a huge message to our friends and allies around the world that Britain is serious about security, and to those who would do us harm and threaten the security of our people and our nation that Britain is serious about defending our people, our businesses, our economy and our values?
The Prime Minister
That is exactly the purpose of this announcement. It is a long-term plan that allows us to reform our defences. They must be reformed and they must be improved, while allowing us to project force and stability around the world. That is what it is designed to do. It simultaneously creates tens of thousands of jobs across the whole of the United Kingdom. So it has a big economic benefit as well.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab) [V]
I welcome the commitment to additional future funding, but we should not forget that British boots are on the ground in Afghanistan today. A consequence of President Trump’s threat to reduce troop numbers would be that the UK needed to play a greater role in building peace, security and resilience. So does the UK stand ready to meet that challenge and ensure that the people of Afghanistan are afforded the opportunity of a more peaceful and prosperous future?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman and I recognise and admire the service that he has given to this country in our armed forces. He is completely right to point to the issue of a proposed potential American draw-down in those areas. We are watching it very closely, and we will be working with our American friends in the new Administration to do whatever we can to protect the stability and security of those troubled countries.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Ind) [V]
Thankfully, the Prime Minister is fulfilling his leadership election promise on defence spending. Given that the National Cyber Force formally announced today involves offensive cyber operations, I welcome the fact that the ISC will provide oversight of this joint MOD-GCHQ venture. Is my right hon. Friend fully satisfied that the ISC is now properly constituted to conduct this scrutiny impartially and independently?
The Prime Minister
Yes. I believe that the Intelligence and Security Committee is well equipped to provide exactly that further layer of scrutiny of cyber operations.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP) [V]
The Prime Minister has outlined his ambition for a space control to secure space launch capability from the UK, but concerns have been raised by some in the UK-based space industry about the recently published US-UK technology safeguards agreement, which has not yet been scrutinised by this place. What guarantee can the Prime Minister give the UK-based industry that it will be central to any space programme, and will he meet me to discuss this in more detail?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman raises an important and interesting issue. I will do my best to ensure that his concerns are addressed and that the House is able to look at all the technology safeguard measures that we are putting in place. That is obviously right.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
First, may I hugely welcome this announcement? It is a fantastic statement of resolve for the UK at home and abroad. It does more than guarantee the future of the Black Watch. It invests in businesses from Arbroath all the way to Abergavenny. It is a fantastic statement of the defence capability of our nation—of a whole United Kingdom. It also raises questions. This spending package is enormously important because it allows the planners to think about the future confident in the money that they will have to spend. Will my right hon. Friend commit to bringing forward as soon as possible the integrated review so that we have a strategic approach to that spending? This time, we cannot outspend the communists; we have to out-think them.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is spot on. What this package does is set out much of the basic structure of the integrated review. We can start to see the tools that we will be using, but we will shortly be completing the review. He is absolutely right in his fundamental point that this is about having smarter forces to outwit our foes. Every time the UK has been asked to do that, we have always historically risen to that challenge. This will give us the tools to do it.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) [V]
As a Scottish MP, I have no doubt as to the vital role that Scotland plays in the defence of the realm. When we think about the recruitment of personnel, as the Prime Minister mentioned, establishments such as Rosyth and RAF Lossiemouth are great examples. On 7 September 1921, the Cabinet met outside London for the very first time in history. This was to consider the Irish crisis and it met in the Town House in Inverness. May I suggest that the UK Cabinet meet again in the Inverness Town House on 7 September next year? This would be to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the 1921 meeting and to enable the Prime Minister and the Cabinet to review the defence of the UK by visiting places such as RAF Lossiemouth, and perhaps also to learn about the great role that our armed forces played, and play right now, in beating the covid pandemic?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly important point about the role of our armed services in beating the covid pandemic, which I should have made earlier on myself. I was up in Scotland—actually in Lossiemouth—talking to members of our armed services who are doing the testing and helping to fly patients from remote islands to hospitals. It was wonderful to see the way that the UK armed services have helped during this pandemic, Mr Speaker/Madam Deputy Speaker—I am sorry but I can hardly see you down there with the TV screen here. What I can say is that I will keep very closely in mind the hon. Gentleman’s invitation to come to Inverness for a Cabinet meeting next year. We will study that with interest.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) [V]
It was a great pleasure in the previous business to praise the Prime Minister for his leadership in delivering Brexit. It is also great to be able to praise the Prime Minister’s leadership in delivering this multi-year settlement for our wonderful men and women of our armed forces. Would he like to thank all those officials and civil servants in the Ministry of Defence and all the armed forces who have worked many hours to help deliver this multi-year settlement? In particular, would he like to thank the Secretary of State for Defence whose robust work on this has helped to ensure that we have come to this point and delivered for our armed forces?
The Prime Minister
It is always a pleasure to thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence whom I have known for many, many years and is a good friend of mine. He is supported, as my hon. Friend rightly said, by thousands of brilliant officials, to say nothing of the members of our wonderful armed services who have helped to make this package what it is. I believe that it will deliver for our people and deliver for our country for years and years to come.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
In the mid-‘90s, the UK was one of the largest contributors to UN peacekeeping missions in terms of troops and personnel. Now we have only 600 personnel worldwide whom we contribute. Will this budget turn that around and take us back to our proud tradition of peacekeeping troops, and will the Prime Minister commit to ensuring that the 0.7% is not devalued at all in this wider review?
The Prime Minister
One reason why I am so excited about going up to 2.2% of our spending on defence, as the hon. Gentleman points out, is that it will allow us to do more on peacekeeping. By the way, he is right to draw attention to the fact that the UK could do more on peacekeeping. I am proud of what we are doing, for instance, in Mali, but this programme, this investment, gives us the scope to do even more.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con) [V]
This is a hugely important announcement, which, as a member of the Armed Forces Parliamentary Trust, I know will be much welcomed by our armed forces. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it will in fact strengthen our global influence and secure jobs across a range of supply chain industries, some of which are located across the Dudley borough and the Black Country?
The Prime Minister
Yes, indeed. This will be big for the Black Country. The west midlands, once again, is at the cutting edge of technological change and the new industrial revolution. The technologies that we will need and that are foreseen in this spending package will certainly drive jobs in the west midlands and around the whole UK.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
Britain is the penholder for Yemen at the UN Security Council, with the responsibility to support the peace process and a real opportunity to show global Britain at its best, but will the Prime Minister tell us why his Government have resumed indefensible arms sales to Saudi Arabia, which has credibly been accused of human rights violations that may amount to war crimes?
The Prime Minister
Under the consolidated guidance, we have some of the strictest rules about exports of weapons to any country in the world. Everything is closely overseen and scrutinised by our lawyers, and, indeed, judicially reviewed. I am content that we are doing everything in accordance with the law and in accordance with humanitarian law.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I very much welcome this increased commitment to invest in our armed forces, though to pay for it by reducing the commitment to global peace, which our overseas aid budget represents, would be a mistake. How is the Prime Minister going to ensure that jobs are created across the country through this investment? Innovative, high-tech businesses in Newcastle tell me that it is easier to secure a contract with the American Department of Defence than with the British Ministry of Defence, so what is he doing to improve procurement opportunities for small businesses?
The Prime Minister
I am interested that the hon. Member says that, because, as I recall, one cannot even sell rulers or paperclips to the US military under the Pentagon’s procurement policies; but I may be in error. The hon. Member makes an important point about the need to source as much as we can from the UK. That is obviously what we are going to do. It is a big opportunity to buy British, to stimulate jobs and technology, and to drive jobs across the UK, and I have no doubt that Newcastle and the north-east will be big beneficiaries.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con) [V]
May I say to the Prime Minister that this is the best and most intelligent defence statement that I have heard in a quarter of a century in the House of Commons? Will he assuage, however, two concerns that I have? The first is that it appears that the numerical size of the armed forces is still on a downward trend. The evidence of recent wars—most recently in Nagorno-Karabakh—is that the route to success is through both novel technology and conventional forces. How are we going to cope with that? Secondly, since the era of the Duke of Wellington, the MOD has not been very good at managing big, expensive projects. What are we going to do about that?
The Prime Minister
First of all, it is important to understand that there are no redundancies in this package. My right hon. Friend is right about the need to maintain full spectrum, and that is what this does. We also have to fight the wars of the future—to adapt and change. That is what this package allows us to do; it permits us to modernise. My right hon. Friend’s final point is a very important one. We are going to be following this with a very beady eye. There have been historic over- spends and historic mistakes in procurement—some painful episodes that we do not need to go into, in which investments have not turned out well. We are setting up a unit to ensure that we get value out of this massive package.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
There is much to welcome about the investment in our armed forces in this statement. The Prime Minister will be aware that in the last month, we have seen atrocities against civilians in Nigeria, jihadis on the rise in the Sahel and Mozambique, attacks on democracy in Uganda and Tanzania and now a spiralling conflict in Ethiopia, with huge refugee flows, attacks on civilians and the destabilising of the region. On that specific issue, will the Prime Minister say what he is doing now to seek an urgent de-escalation in Ethiopia and humanitarian access? More widely, given his statement today, what role does he see for us as a partner for peace, development and security in Africa, not least given the crucial role that the 0.7% commitment has played, as the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) set out so clearly?
The Prime Minister
We have made representations to the Government in Addis Ababa to de-escalate in Ethiopia. We continue to make our points with them. This package will help us to step up our commitment to Africa and, as the hon. Gentleman may recall, when I was Foreign Secretary and now under my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, we are opening up embassies, opening up UK representation across Africa, and this package will help us to support that.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)
I thank both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor for finding a way to provide this long-term financial stability for defence, despite the huge financial pressures that covid has brought upon us this year. Getting our defence funding on a sound footing affords us the chance to ensure that it can be genuinely resilient, so does the Prime Minister agree that ensuring that we get going at pace on the shipbuilding commitments he has set out is critical not only for the next generation of Royal Navy ships to be in service as soon as possible, but because the UK, in building ships and boats across the four nations of the Union that they defend, can lead the world in adapting to green maritime technologies?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is completely right because not only are we massively expanding shipbuilding with the two frigate production lines that I have described, the five Type 31s at Rosyth and the six Type 26s in Govan, and we are also committed to the Type 32, but we want to be in the lead globally—as she and I have discussed, and I thank her for all the work she has done to champion shipbuilding and the Royal Navy—in clean, green marine technologies so that our ships are also emitting less carbon. That is perfectly feasible.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) [V]
The Prime Minister has announced an additional increase of just over £4 billion a year in the defence budget. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Defence admits that it already has a £6 billion budget shortfall in its equipment plan. That shortfall could rise to as much as £13 billion over the lifetime of the plan, so will the Prime Minister tell us what he thinks the MOD’s equipment budget shortfall will be at the end of the four-year period covered by his statement today?
The Prime Minister
As I say, this is the biggest increase in defence spending since the cold war. It gives us a long-term ability to reform, but it also delivers more ships, cyber, artificial intelligence, drone technology and the future combat air system, which will be absolutely vital to this country—all of it creating 40,000 jobs across the UK, so this is a big step forward for our whole country.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
I warmly welcome this statement from the Prime Minister and his continuing commitment to strengthening our defence capabilities. I am sure he will agree that is vital that other NATO members also fulfil their obligations with regard to spending 2% of their GDP on defence by 2024. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that other members of the alliance fulfil their obligations to increase their defence spending?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is completely right, and we never tire of telling other NATO colleagues that they need to increase their defence spending for the good of the whole alliance. We will continue to make that case, but we are doing the most powerful thing—that is, setting a fantastic example ourselves with 2.2%. This is something that will not only help to drive jobs and prosperity in the UK and protect the people of the UK, but help to make the world safer.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
In June this year, the Prime Minister abolished the Department for International Development, telling me and the House that there had been
“massive consultation over a long period”—[Official Report, 16 June 2020; Vol. 677, c. 678]—
with aid organisations prior to making the decision. Since then, around 200 aid organisations and his own Secretary of State have contradicted that. Can the Prime Minister provide evidence that this consultation took place prior to making the decision, or will he finally apologise for misleading the House?
The Prime Minister
We are in daily contact and communication with the aid organisations that have benefited from the many billions of pounds that the UK contributes to international development—more than virtually any other country. We will continue to do that, and we will continue to work with those organisations on the ground.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I am sure the hon. Lady meant “inadvertently” misleading the House.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) [V]
I welcome this statement and the increased investment. The Prime Minister has rightly set out the importance of spending this money wisely and efficiently and buying as much from British suppliers as we can. Can he bring forward revised public sector procurement rules that apply right across public spending, so that we can achieve both those welcome objectives?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an interesting suggestion. As I said in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), we want to make sure that this money is well spent. We are going to scrutinise it very carefully. Normally, defence spending is outwith most OJEU—Official Journal of the European Union—procurement rules, but we will make sure that we procure all this in the UK in so far as we possibly can and use it to drive jobs and growth, and that means spending it wisely.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
With the Conservatives having been in power for over a decade, it is ironic that the Prime Minister has just referred to coming out of an era of retreat and decline, since he has helped to facilitate huge cuts to spending on defence and our brave armed forces. The Government rightly sanctioned Russia for its annexation of Crimea and the appalling chemical weapons attack in Salisbury, so why has the Prime Minister failed to address the deep systemic failings in dealing with threats to our national security identified by the Russia report?
The Prime Minister
I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is pretty indistinct from here because of the size of the screen, but I think that that was a question from the Labour Benches. It seems extraordinary that complaints about not being tough enough on Russia are being directed at the Government from Labour, which was led until only a year ago by somebody who regularly appeared on Russian TV and took Russia’s side in the Salisbury poisonings. We remain absolutely determined to protect this country from threats from all quarters, particularly from those who wish us ill. That is why we are investing in cyber and our security in the way we are today.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con) [V]
This is a fantastic announcement. The Prime Minister will remember that in the leadership campaign last year, I said that we should move towards spending 3% of our GDP on defence, so we think exactly the same on this. May I urge him not to listen to any voices in his ear that say the way to fund this is a temporary cut in the 0.7% aid commitment? We spent a decade winning the argument for that, and even a temporary cut will create an enormous clamour of people who say that we should not go back to it. In a year when 100 million more people have gone into extreme poverty, I know that he would not want to send the wrong signal out to the world about our values as a country.
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend and I think alike on so many of these issues, and we think alike on this, too. This country can be immensely proud, and he can be immensely proud of the leadership he showed as Foreign Secretary on aid and development and in championing the needs of the underprivileged around the world. The UK, under any view, continues to do that. Look at what we just did with the GAVI summit for global vaccines, raising $8 billion or $9 billion to spread vaccines around the world. We lead the world in investing in epidemic preparedness and in so many other ways. We will continue to do so, and the people of this country will continue to be world leaders in giving aid. I remember my right hon. Friend’s campaign to increase defence funding—I listened to it very carefully. I thought he was right at the time, and I am glad that we have been able to fulfil his expectations now.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP)
When the major threat is terrorism, largely homegrown and driven by inequality and prejudice, and with other budgets being cut, inequality rising and prejudice increasing, how will all the king’s soldiers and all the king’s weaponry put further victims together again?
The Prime Minister
I could not quite hear that question, Madam Deputy Speaker, but the hon. Gentleman seemed to be saying that terrorism is somehow caused by injustice in this country. I do not believe that to be true.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con) [V]
I very warmly welcome this material increase in the defence budget and, in particular, the multi-year nature of the settlement. A significant challenge in defence budgeting is the stop-start nature of political decision making on multi-year projects, so this statement will help to modernise the equipment plan and get it back on track, which is welcome. Does the Prime Minister agree that the United Kingdom can now fully take into account the UK prosperity impact of defence procurement, and will he do what he can to ensure that state aid issues and the opportunity cost of making in the UK are fully recognised by the Treasury?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend makes a really important point. This is a big moment for us, because we can ensure that that these colossal investments do drive jobs and growth in this country, and that is what they are going to do. That is why I am so thrilled about the announcements for shipbuilding in particular, but this is not just about shipbuilding; it means new jobs in new technology in all kinds of ways across the whole country.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP) [V]
I can only assume that Conservative Members are awfully punch drunk on the numbers, because what the Prime Minister has effectively done is to rip up the integrated review by announcing the spending before the review. Surely, the review is supposed to inform the spending. Let me ask him a specific question about a specific promise. At the last independence referendum, his party promised 12,500 armed forces personnel permanently based in Scotland. Will that promise be met by the time of the next independence referendum?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman asks a very interesting question about a hypothetical political event that is at least a generation away. What I can say is that there is absolutely no threat to the Black Watch, to DFID in East Kilbride or to any of the other fantastic investments that this package brings to Scotland. It is a fantastic thing for our country and for our Union.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con) [V]
This announcement is extremely welcome and one that I know, as an ex-soldier, will be well received by our superb armed forces. My right hon. Friend will know that the integrated review offers the opportunity to consider Britain’s foreign policy assets in the round, including its world-class soft power capabilities. Will he therefore confirm that when the review is published, it will reflect the recommendations of the recent British Council all-party parliamentary group report and include a soft power strategy at its core, with a central role for Britain’s primary soft power assets, including the British Council?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for that question, because he is right to highlight the importance of soft power. Studies have shown that we are among the biggest wielders of soft power in the world—we are a soft-power superpower. That soft power has many components, of which the British Council is one, but a robust, self-confident defence policy that allows us to project strength around the world is also hugely valuable. Hard power leads to soft power.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. Like many people throughout Newport West, I welcome the election of Joe Biden as President of the United States and Kamala Harris as the first woman Vice-President. Will the Prime Minister tell us how he explained, in his first phone call with President-elect Biden, the actions of his Government’s undermining of the Good Friday agreement?
The Prime Minister
What I said to President-elect Biden was how much I congratulated him and Kamala Harris on their election and how much we look forward to working together on a number of issues. On Northern Ireland, I made the point that we both share the strong desire to uphold the Good Friday agreement and the stability of Northern Ireland and that that was the purpose of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, but more importantly we talked about what we were going to do not only to advance the cause of free trade, international democracy around the world and human rights, but to tackle climate change. It was a very good phone call.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con) [V]
In welcoming the statement and strongly supporting the central purpose of the integrated review of defence, diplomacy and development to better defend free societies, I trust that my right hon. Friend’s Government will continue to show global leadership in supporting the rights of all people to that most fundamental freedom to be themselves and to live their lives as they wish. Does the opportunity of the integrated review enable my right hon. Friend to make real the rhetorical commitment to LGBT+ people globally, with the relatively modest sums needed from the integrated budgets to deliver British leadership in programmes that can make a massive difference to the lives of hundreds of millions of people around the world, so that they can enjoy the freedom to be themselves that Britons have? I wrote to the Foreign Secretary on this issue on 4 September and 12 October; does the review now enable him to say yes to that request?
The Prime Minister
Yes, it does. My hon. Friend raises a very important point that is close to my heart. I argue with countries around the world that repress LGBT rights and do not see things the way that we do in this country that they are making not just a profound social and moral mistake but an economic mistake. Our attitude to those issues and the way we have advanced LGBT rights in this country is of huge value to the lives of people in this country—to people’s happiness and their willingness to come to live here, invest here and make their lives here. It makes a huge difference. That is the point that I make to friends and partners around the world, and we will continue to do so under this review—that is certainly part of it. I seem to remember that when I was Foreign Secretary, one of the first things I did was to make sure that all our embassies around the world felt able to fly the multicoloured LGBT flag wherever they wanted to.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab) [V]
I am really pleased to hear the Prime Minister recognise the excellent work that the armed forces have been doing throughout this pandemic. I am hoping that the Prime Minister will make some of those excellent armed forces personnel available to Hull and East Riding to assistance us during the awful time we are facing right now with our health emergency.
The Prime Minister
Yes, indeed. The hon. Lady makes a really good point and a good request, because we are looking at what we can do with our armed services to ramp up and roll out the lateral flow mass testing—the rapid turnaround test that people, I hope, are starting to be aware of. We are looking for places to trial that in addition to what we have done in Liverpool, and the armed services will certainly be playing a part in that.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con) [V]
I wholeheartedly welcome not only the Prime Minister’s commitment to increasing defence spending but the investment in new military technology. I have companies in my constituency such as Drone Defence in Retford who specialise in innovative drone technology. May I invite the Prime Minister to visit Drone Defence and show our commitment that British companies such as this will be at the forefront of this investment? Does he agree that this is not just an investment in our nation’s defence but also in local high-skilled jobs?
The Prime Minister
I am absolutely thrilled to hear about the company my hon. Friend raises, Drone Defence. I understand that it has also been able to take on some new young employees through the kickstart scheme, and that is great. These are exactly the kinds of cutting-edge companies that we are going to be supporting, but also many, many other types of industry and business across the country. I certainly look forward to coming to see him in Bassetlaw, where I think we have good news on the hospital as well.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
We will have a three-minute suspension to allow safe exit and entry of hon. and right hon. Members.
Sport Sector: Financial Support
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)
For millions of people up and down the country, sport is so much more than a pastime. Sports clubs, large and small, enrich lives both on and off the pitches, the courts and the grounds, and they play a vital role in their communities. The value that sports clubs bring to their communities has been clearer than ever during this pandemic, and it is right that we support them.
Earlier this year, in May, we announced a £16 million emergency bail-out for rugby league to prevent the sport’s collapse, and the Treasury’s multi-billion-pound support packages, including the furlough and loan schemes, have been a lifeline for countless sports clubs and organisations across the country, helping them to stay afloat when their doors remained closed. Sport England has announced separate emergency funding of £220 million for grassroots clubs, and we recently announced a £100 million scheme for leisure centres. Together, that support has acted as a significant buffer to the pain.
However, we know that the decision taken in late September not to re-open the stadiums from 1 October has had major consequences for sports clubs large and small. It was the right decision, given the rate at which coronavirus was spreading across the country, but clearly, not being able to generate gate receipts deprives many organisations of a major source of income. The vast majority of those sports operate on tight financial margins and have been forced to make serious cost reductions such as locking down grounds, furloughing their staff, cutting wages, and halting excess payment. It was clear that if we did not act, a number of clubs would go to the wall, with real consequences for the grassroots game. That is why, over the past few weeks, we have been working tirelessly with the sports sector to understand the real pressures it is facing.
We promised to stand by the sports sector when we made the decision to postpone the return of fans, and today I am pleased to announce a £300 million sports winter survival package to see major spectator sports through this difficult period. The majority of that funding will be given through low-interest loans, with flexible repayment terms and grants where organisations are unable to repay loans. The package will focus on those sports that have been severely impacted by the restrictions announced in September, and it is the largest package announced by any Government for its domestic sport sector in the world.
I stress that these are provisional allocations of funding. They were made on a needs-based assessment process, and reflect the submissions made by the individual sports. Recipients will still need to apply, and the funding process will be overseen by an independent decision-making board, and supported by Sport England. That funding will include a top-up for rugby league of up to £12 million, as well as cash injections of up to £28 million for national league football and women’s football, up to £135 million for rugby union, and up to £40 million for horseracing. There is also up to £6 million for motorsport, up to £4 million each for netball, basketball, and ice hockey, up to £1 million for greyhound racing, up to £5 million for tennis, and up to £1.6 million for badminton.
Today’s provisional allocations are not the end of the story. The door is open for any sport to apply where there is a need. That includes cricket and other sports that are not on the initial list of allocations. Full details of the application process will shortly be announced by Sport England, with the first tranche of support expected to be distributed to clubs and bodies before the end of the year. In the meantime, if any individual club is facing imminent collapse, we will work with it through its national governing body. Based on the information that sports have given us, this package will help them to survive until the spring.
Of course, we would all prefer to see fans back in the stadiums. Spectator sports need spectators, and with the real progress that we are making on vaccines and testing, that goal is now firmly within our sight. Until then, we have stepped in to protect not just individual clubs and organisations, but entire sports and the communities they serve. I commend this statement to the House.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for sight of his statement, and for the accepting manner in which he has dealt with the pestering from me and from other Members on this subject. Through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I also thank all the civil servants at the Treasury and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport for their hard work on this support package for sport. That work is not unnoticed, and we thank them for it. However, as I mentioned, getting to this point has taken cross-party pestering, and meanwhile, sports are hanging by a thread.
I know that, for the Treasury, sport in the context of the UK Government’s spending is almost a rounding error. It is a comparatively small commitment on the very, very big Treasury spreadsheet, but that fact is irrelevant to how important sport is to families in all our constituencies. It plays a huge role in the life of our country and, given its place in keeping us healthy, we needed a swifter response than this. That is particularly the case when we see how sport has been messed about. In August, with eat out to help out and the Prime Minister saying that he wanted to see “bustle”, sports were told that it was full speed ahead towards the reopening in October until No. 10 executed a sharp about-turn, and since then the pace has been slow to glacial. So in order to speed things up, I would like to help the Minister with some questions that will hopefully prompt action.
In two weeks’ time, the current lockdown arrangements will come to an end, and we hear rumours of a return to the tier system. Can the Minister please clearly explain what that means for grassroots sport? There are so many people who rely on swimming, their football team, their rugby game, their running club or their round of golf for their mental and physical health, and the lack of sport is doing our country damage. It cannot go on for much longer, and that is especially true when it comes to our nation’s children, so will the Minister please tell us when children can return to training? Robbie Savage speaks for the nation when he counts down the days in frustration to when we can play sport, and we need answers.
Next, we need to know that the money the Minister has announced just now will reach sports quickly. The cultural recovery fund did not reach cultural organisations quickly enough, so can we ensure that we have no repeat of that experience? Will he commit to coming back to the House next month to explain the detail of the effect of this funding? Will it reach disability sport effectively, and will it support women’s and men’s sport absolutely equally, by penny piece? What measures will he put in place to ensure that that happens?
We live in uncertain times, and the once predictable sporting calendar has been shifted all over the shop, so will the Minister commit to keeping the situation under review? I think I heard him say that he had an open door for anyone who needed help. That is a good thing, and I welcome it. In relation to that, he has explained that these funds are in response to the cancellation of the very slow piloted return of spectators that we were expecting from 1 October. We had an extensive debate on this only last week in Westminster Hall, so can the Minister bring us up to date on that? What is the truth of the rumours that spectators will return, but only in line with the as yet unannounced tier system? There are also rumours concerning the number of spectators. Is it true that the cap will be 1,000 people? While we are on the subject of Members’ concerns, we have another Westminster Hall debate coming up next week on the governance of football, and I expect to see many Members there. If the Minister cannot give us full details of the fan-led review of football at the Dispatch Box today, I suggest that he does so next Wednesday.
Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, I know it will not have escaped your notice that the Government started this crisis accusing premier league footballers of not doing their share, and ended the summer U-turning on child poverty in response to the heroic campaigning of a premier league footballer. That should be a lesson to the Government. Sports people have been messed about month after month, and the British people want better. My final question to the Minister is this: in the face of a deadly virus, nothing matters more than public health, so where is the comprehensive plan for wellbeing right across the UK? This funding announcement today is a panicked response to a bad situation made worse by Government incompetence, and the country deserves better.
Nigel Huddleston
I thank the hon. Lady for the gracious tone that she adopted—at the beginning of her speech at least—and she has also given me the opportunity to express my thanks to the Treasury team, DCMS officials and all those involved, including the sports, the governing bodies and the individual clubs who have worked tirelessly to get us to this point. That is perhaps an indication of why this has taken so long. It has taken several weeks to gather the necessary amount of information in the forensic detail required, but that was right because it is the disbursal of public money that we are talking about. In terms of the total amount, the Treasury estimates that around £1.5 billion, perhaps more, of public money has gone into sports, because we are talking not just about this fund but about the £200 million from Sport England and all the additional money that has gone into the various support schemes such as furlough, grants and reliefs over a period of many months.
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to highlight the priority in terms of reopening. It is a shared goal across the Chamber to open as soon as it is safe to do so. That goes for grassroots and elite sport. As the Secretary of State has said, he wants to ensure that grassroots sport is at the front of the queue when it comes to reopening.
I can confirm, as I mentioned in my statement, that we hope for the money to be going out within weeks, and certainly for some of it to be disbursed before Christmas. There will be an appropriate proportion for women’s sport, and of course the total package will also support women’s sport. The hon. Lady has heard me say again and again—I will repeat it today—that with anybody receiving Government money, I expect an appropriate level to go to women’s sport. There is specific money for netball, as well as women’s basketball and women’s football, in the package.
Governance is not necessarily the major topic of today, but we will come to it again and again, and it is a priority. I am very happy about the hon. Lady mentioning that she effectively supports the Conservative party manifesto, which of course had a commitment to a grassroots review of football. We will continue that, and I welcome her joining us in that effort.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con) [V]
This announcement is very welcome. Rugby league, rugby union and the national league have all expressed to me their concerns about their survival during the latest lockdown period. Will the Minister explain whether the apportioning of money to individual sports clubs will be on the basis of lost ticket sales, revenue, or a combination of lost ticket sales, revenue and hospitality? The Minister has mentioned need. How will “need” be defined? How long will it take? Furthermore, this is not a one-for-one replacement for lost revenues, so what proportion of revenues across the major sports contained in the package does the Minister envisage will be covered?
Nigel Huddleston
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for his comments and look forward to working with him over the coming weeks. In terms of the allocation of money, it is in the name: this is a winter survival package. It is not meant to be a full pound-for-pound compensation for lost revenue. The focus is from the point at which we were unable to open sports stadiums on 1 October through to spring. Therefore, while there may be hopes of and aspirations for a greater package, we needed to focus on what was needed to ensure that sports clubs can survive, and that is the focus of this effort. We are confident the package will do that. It is a substantial sum of £300 million and will make a huge effort in that direction.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. I have spoken many times in this place about the power of sport and the crucial role that sports clubs, be they amateur, semi-pro or professional, play in our local communities. The Minister was absolutely right to lead with that point.
I am disappointed that the Government have decided to go down the loans route, rather than having 100% grant funding. While I welcome his commitment to the national league and to women’s football, the continuing omission of support for the senior professional men’s game is disappointing. Scottish football does not have the megabucks TV deal that the English game enjoys and is almost three times more reliant than most European football on ticket sales as a share of revenue, with gate receipts making up nearly half of all revenue. Does the Minister recognise that even if a small number of fans can return to stadiums, financial support is still needed for these clubs?
If the Government pursue a reopening strategy at any future point allowing the return of fans in low infection areas, what provision will be made to devolved nations that have different lockdown rules and permissions for fan return? Will the other UK nations be forced to follow in England’s footsteps, or will support for the industry from the UK Government respect devolved decision making?
In September, I asked the Minister to commit to full engagement with the Scottish Minister for sport, Joe FitzPatrick. Will the Minister confirm that he has spoken to his counterpart in Edinburgh to explain the ramifications of this announcement for the Scottish Government’s finances? The Minister will be aware that the Scottish Government have still not received clarity on the Barnett consequentials from previous announcements. He should also be aware that the Scottish Government do not have the powers to borrow to finance a similar loan scheme in Scotland—an aberration that the Treasury could and should fix.
To conclude, will the Minister please provide clarity to this House and to Scottish Ministers about what Barnett consequentials will flow from today’s announcements, so that the Scottish Government can provide similar support in Scotland and Scottish sport is not disadvantaged?
Nigel Huddleston
The mix of loans and grants will of course be driven by need and the ability to repay. Of the £300 million package, we estimate at this moment that £250 million will be loans and £50 million will be grants. However, the loans will be on preferential terms and will therefore have features of a grant in the early stages, such as payment holidays, so immediate repayment will not necessarily be expected. We all have skin in the game here, and the incentive is to get sport back up and running and on its feet and paying back some of those loans, because then we all benefit.
I can confirm that there are Barnett consequentials to this, as there are for other support packages. I cannot provide the hon. Gentleman with the details at the moment. I actually talked to Minister FitzPatrick this week, and I am sure we will do so again. How the money is spent is a decision for the devolved Administrations; sport is a devolved matter.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con) [V]
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this excellent package of financial support for some core professional sports. I particularly welcome the settlement for national football, and I hope he will ensure that its distribution is based on gate receipts rather than league position.
I will focus specifically on rugby union. The Minister will be aware that, while the professional game has resumed, grassroots rugby has not, thus putting many clubs, which are small businesses themselves, in a challenging position. We have healthy, well-supported rugby club rivalries across Kent, but I fear that we are losing players and potential talent as a consequence of their not being able to play for most of this year, which threatens the viability of clubs due to the lack of supporters. Will he therefore tell the House what conversations he has had with the Rugby Football Union about the trickling down of that money to local rugby clubs and about the safe resumption of rugby at grassroots level, so that clubs can sustain themselves for the future?
Nigel Huddleston
It is great to see my hon. Friend and I wish her well in her recovery. On the rugby union package, we are in constant dialogue with Bill Sweeney about the entire package and about both the grassroots and professional game. The money announced today will have trickle-down effects and will benefit the grassroots game. Any professional club that is helped and saved with this package will often share facilities with the grassroots game, so it will help. As my hon. Friend knows, Sport England has provided £220 million of support, and we share the goal of getting grassroots sport up and running as soon as possible. Dialogue will continue on rugby union, and I look forward to talking to my hon. Friend about it further.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) [V]
I very much welcome this statement, as will sports clubs locally. Will this new package be backdated for sports clubs that faced regional lockdowns? I also highlight the important role that broadcasters played during the pandemic, and could continue to play, with more sports fixtures universally available, free to air. Has this not shown the importance of the listed events regime?
Nigel Huddleston
The hon. Gentleman raises a range of issues. We have encouraged free-to-air broadcasting, and we are pleased that sports that have never been broadcast before, such as Premier League football on the BBC, were broadcast during lockdown, and we are pleased with the various moves by the Premier League and others to make sure that their games are more accessible. This package runs from 1 October through to the spring, and that is the focus of the package.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I welcome the Minister’s statement. He mentions leisure centres. I also put in a plea for the great outdoors, because many of our open spaces—parks and the like—are supported and maintained by community groups and councils, and they need funding to provide that. I also welcome his continued efforts to allow spectators to watch sports. League Two Grimsby Town play their home games in my constituency, and we fans are desperately keen to see at least one or two games before the end of the season.
Nigel Huddleston
It is not a question from the hon. Gentleman without his mentioning Grimsby Town. He never fails me on that. As I said, the goal is to open up and get fans back into stadiums as soon as it is safe to do so. We are working on the detail of the disbursement of the £100 million leisure facility package and will provide that information in due course. He is also right to point out the importance of our great outdoors. Throughout the coronavirus crisis, including during the first lockdown, the one thing that we were able to do consistently—not every country did this—was exercise outdoors. It is really important that people do that, to keep activity levels up. That is an absolute priority of the Government, as demonstrated in the latest lockdown restrictions.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I, too, thank the Government for the support package that has been announced today, but no matter how much financial support there is, we need our supporters back into our stadiums. Bath’s local football and rugby clubs have worked a great deal over the summer to make sure that spectators can be safely brought back to matches. I know the Government are also keen to see that, but we need a clear road map from them on how our fans can return. Will the Minister therefore meet me to discuss the plans of Bath Rugby club and Bath City football club to get spectators back at the earliest possibility?
Nigel Huddleston
I would be delighted to meet the hon. Lady and I am sure we can arrange that soon. She is right to say that clubs have gone to great efforts, and great expense in many cases, to make sure they are secure and have followed the hygiene and coronavirus procedures to a great degree. Recently, we had to press the pause button on the reopening plans. We have not stopped those plans—we have just pressed the pause button—and we want to get back to reopening as soon as it is safe to do so.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con) [V]
As a lifelong Mansfield Town supporter, I want to get back into the One Call Stadium as soon as possible to cheer on the mighty Stags. Having 1,000 fans inside football grounds is not enough to cover clubs’ costs, and we need our clubs to survive. Will my hon. Friend look at having a sliding scale attendance figure for each Football League club, based on its current capacity, which will allow fans to support their teams safely and give clubs a financial boost, which they need to survive?
Nigel Huddleston
It is amazing what people can get away with on video link, isn’t it, Mr Deputy Speaker? I do not think you would allow that scarf to be worn in the House.
My hon. Friend raises valid points about when we will get back, and what the criteria and process will be. All of those are live issues and I would be happy to talk to him further about his proposals.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I will have words with you, Mr Anderson, when you come back to Parliament. Get well soon.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab) [V]
I thank the Minister for his statement. Three weeks ago, a number of MPs met Rick Parry, the chair of the English Football League, to discuss the crisis facing EFL clubs. He told us that 10 clubs were unlikely to be able to pay their wages this month, and if substantial financial assistance was not available soon a number would go out of business. I have not heard anything in the statement today that would give reassurance to the EFL and the clubs.
I am sure the Minister recognises that clubs are not like any other business; if one closes, fans cannot go down the road and simply buy their football from another club. Fans give a lifetime of support to their club and clubs are at the heart of their community. So will the Minister now respond to the letter that I sent him, along with the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), on behalf of the all-party group on football? Will the Minister agree to meet us to discuss the problem of the EFL and meet Rick Parry, its chair, to have a look again at the financial assistance that is going to be needed to ensure that when spectators go back to football they will actually have a team to support?
Mr Deputy Speaker
Before the Minister answers that, may I ask everyone to focus on short questions and short answers, as we are really under time pressure today?
Nigel Huddleston
I can confirm to the hon. Gentleman that I regularly meet Rick Parry and Richard Masters from the Premier League; we met this week, along with other stakeholders. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Premier League has made a commitment that it will not allow any EFL club to go under. At the elite end we have that commitment that no club will go under, and the package we have announced today for football will make sure that the National League does not go under. Therefore, across the whole pyramid we now have this security, but it is up to the Premier League and the EFL to come to a conclusion to those discussions. I encourage them to do so on a regular basis.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
I really welcome the Minister’s announcement that national league clubs up to level 7 will get extra support. Unfortunately, Northern league clubs including Consett, Tow Law Town, Crook Town and Willington in my constituency, along with Northallerton Town in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak), are not quite there at the right level yet. We have had support from Sport England and the Football Foundation, but will he hear representations for support from the Northern league?
Nigel Huddleston
I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. We have talked about football many times, and I appreciate his support. The support announced today is for national league steps 1 to 2 to the tune of up to £11 million and national league steps 3 to 6 of up to £14 million. The more grassroots level is not supported in this package, but, as he mentioned, the route to get support is through Sport England and other packages such as the Football Foundation’s grants, which have helped clubs get back up to speed and ready for reopening. I am happy to continue those conversations with him.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
Football gives hope and joy to millions, just as we saw last week when big Davie Marshall dived to his left-hand side to send Scotland to our first European championships since 1996. For that hope and joy to persist, we need our football clubs in Scotland to exist. Will the Minister explain why £97 million-worth of cultural funding has been made available to Scotland through Barnett consequentials but we have yet to see a single penny of direct funding to support Scottish professional football clubs?
Nigel Huddleston
May I add my congratulations on Scotland’s performance? As I have said, there are Barnett consequentials to this package, as indeed there have been to others, but how that is spent is up to the devolved Administrations.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
I welcome the package. I take note of what the Minister said about the football league, but, as he knows, there is no financial package in place for community clubs in the football league. People may wonder why it is that, for example, the Exeter Chiefs—the premiership rugby team and European champions—will benefit along with premiership rugby from Government support but Exeter City football club, with its lower income and lower fan attendance, has so far got nothing at all. There needs to be more of a focus on those community clubs in the football league. After the end of the lockdown on 2 December, will communities in tier 3 not see grassroots sport return? There is concern about that, and I would be grateful for his reassurance, even if only to say that no decision has yet been made.
Nigel Huddleston
I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. I know what a great champion he is of sport and football in particular. Indeed, I cannot commit to exactly what the tiering system will be—no surprise there—but I repeat the commitment of the Secretary of State, who said that we want to ensure that grassroots is at the front of the queue. As I said, we all have an incentive to ensure that sport opens up and we get stadiums open as soon as possible.
In terms of EFL support, I refer my hon. Friend to the comments I made earlier about the Premier League and EFL needing to come to an arrangement. On the grassroots, we are very reliant on, and grateful for, the work Sport England has done with its £220 million of support for the grassroots game.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab) [V]
I have been contacted by sports clubs in my constituency, many of which, including Bedford Town and Kempston Rovers, are still unclear about what support, if any, they will get to help them through the crisis. While today’s announcement may be a relief to many rugby clubs, I am not confident that it will be enough to save those with a sustainable model such as Bedford Blues. Will the Minister guarantee that all clubs will be better off under today’s announcement than they were under the furlough scheme?
Nigel Huddleston
Perhaps I should it make clear that we encourage all clubs to take advantage of whatever Government support measures may be out there, including the existing scheme. This scheme and announcement is on top of existing schemes. I therefore encourage everybody and anybody to apply for everything they are eligible for. Of course, we are talking about a £300 million package, with over £100 million going to rugby union. Therefore, by definition, they will be better off than they would have been.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con) [V]
I welcome the news that the Government have agreed further financial support for rugby league clubs, which recognises the really important work that clubs such as Warrington Wolves do in our communities. Will my hon. Friend set out more details about that assistance for rugby league clubs? What contribution can his Department give to underwrite the world cup, which, as he knows, is due to be played here next year?
Nigel Huddleston
I thank my hon. Friend. Indeed, we are announcing today an additional £12 million for rugby league, and that is on top of the £16 million that was announced earlier in the year. We will be working with the Rugby Football League to distribute that additional money. Actually, it has done a pretty good job so far, and therefore we will continue with the existing scheme, but topping it up with the £12 million. Like him, I am very much looking forward to having my first visit to a game in an official capacity as sports Minister, and maybe rugby might be one such game, but I hope that is before the world cup.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
There are many volunteer-led, grassroots sports clubs that are really struggling at this moment in time, and equally there are probably a number of would-be developers that are looking at developing their assets. They are in a vulnerable situation, and we need to make sure that this funding gets to the grassroots so that we do not lose the vital sports fields in all our constituencies. What is the Minister doing to ensure that that does not happen?
Nigel Huddleston
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about the availability of spaces and fields on which to play a game or, in fact, all sports. As I have said, the Sport England package of £220 million to help clubs of all sports through coronavirus is important, and today’s package will trickle down and help the grassroots. In particular, it will help sustain clubs where, of course, grassroots as well as professional and league games are played.
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
The Minister knows I care passionately about the sports clubs in my constituency, particularly the rugby clubs. I very much welcome this announcement and his efforts to get stadiums back open again, so that I might be able to go back to Gwernyfed rugby club very soon. He has already mentioned that this decision generates some funding for the Welsh Government. Can he tell me what can be done to make sure that the Welsh Government actually get the money to sports clubs in Wales?
Nigel Huddleston
I thank my hon. Friend, and indeed it is not the first time we have talked rugby in this Chamber. To appeal to the common sense and good will of our colleagues in Wales is the most important thing we can do. There will be Barnett consequentials, but I respect the fact that sport is a devolved matter, and I am sure that they will be listening to this debate. As I have said, there will be Barnett consequentials, and therefore I hope that they will use this money appropriately.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
Community leisure facilities are the most accessible way for people to get fit and active, yet we face the real prospect of sports facilities in clubs in more affluent areas of the country enjoying reopening post pandemic, whereas those in the more deprived and disadvantaged communities remaining unviable. In Newcastle, we are very concerned that the West Denton swimming pool, for example, is at risk of remaining permanently closed due to the financial impact of the pandemic, despite the area facing some of the worst health inequalities. This cannot happen, so will the Minister commit to ensuring today that funding will be given for community leisure facilities post pandemic to ensure that sport remains genuinely accessible for all?
Nigel Huddleston
I thank the hon. Lady. Of course, community facilities and leisure facilities are the responsibility of both central and local government. I know how important they are for local government, and as I say, information on the application process for this £100 million package will be coming very soon. The hon. Lady is absolutely right to mention the importance of making sure that Government money is spread right across the country. The very first sport package we gave out in order to help was for rugby league, and today’s announcement will help clubs right across the country.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP) [V]
I welcome the £6 million announcement for motorsport in particular. There is currently no certainty about the future of next year’s world rally championship in the United Kingdom. Can any of the resource that has been announced today be released to facilitate the bid, which is being supported by racers and by Motorsport UK, for Northern Ireland to host the WRC in 2021? This is not a devolved issue; this is a UK-wide issue. I hope that the Minister can help us, and help Elfyn Evans in what I hope will be his world championship year to race it in Ulster?
Nigel Huddleston
I know what a fan the hon. Gentleman is of motorsports. What he proposes is not the purpose of this package. As I said, this is a sports winter survival package for the specific purpose I outlined earlier, but I am happy to have conversations with him about what he proposes.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
I am delighted that the Chancellor’s money tree continues to bear rich fruit, but while the premier league is cash-rich, lower league clubs such as Southend United have been suffering during the pandemic as a result, dare I say, of poor results and finances. Will my hon. Friend write to me to let me know precisely how much of this money Southend United will get? Will he also look at golf clubs and bowls clubs?
Nigel Huddleston
To be very clear, we are not announcing today, club-by-club, what will be allocated. That is subject to the next stage of the process, working with Sport England and governing bodies to make sure the money is disbursed to individual clubs, but I am happy to follow up with my hon. Friend as that process evolves. In terms of other sports, the criteria we are talking about is the financial challenge caused by the decision not to open on 1 October and what is required by sports to enable them to survive through to spring. Therefore, for any entity that believes it fits that criteria and deserves some money, while the allocations I have announced are provisional, the door is open to other bids.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for this welcome announcement for England. I am sure he will join me in congratulating the Welsh Labour Government on their £14 million funding package for Wales’s sport and leisure sector, which was made in advance of his announcement today. What conversations has the Minister had with the Welsh Government and what funding will flow to the devolved nations after this announcement today?
Nigel Huddleston
As the hon. Lady may have heard, I can confirm that there are Barnett consequentials to the announcement today, and it is up to Wales how it chooses to spend any money. I congratulate the Welsh Government on prioritising sport and leisure. As sports Minister, she would not expect me to say anything else.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
I welcome this package of support. I am keen to get fans back into Portman Road as soon as possible in a safe way.
My particular point is about the Landseer Park BMX track, which lies at the heart of the Gainsborough community. It is unique and has been there for a very long time. It is in a deprived area and it gives young people there something positive to do. The track is deteriorating and there is a campaign to raise money to resurface it, but it is around £60,000 short at the moment. Will the Minister work with me, Tracey from the BMX track and British Cycling to, one way or another, make sure it gets that financial support, so that that unique BMX track can remain at the heart of the Gainsborough community?
Nigel Huddleston
My hon. Friend raises an important point about making sure we have sports facilities of all sorts and ranges available for our constituents. Sport England is the body most appropriate to approach to seek funding. Of course, it has prioritised its coronavirus response recently, but I am sure it will get back to business as usual in allocations as soon as possible. I would be happy to have further conversations about this with my hon. Friend.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Today’s announcement is very welcome for premiership rugby clubs such as Harlequins, as well as national league south football clubs such as Hampton and Richmond, both of which are in my constituency. The Minister is aware that Quins ran the largest pilot event to date with spectators: 3,500 attended a match earlier this year which was proved to be very safe and very secure. We will naturally return, in time, to spectators in stands, which will be a graduated process, so can the Minister provide some assurances to clubs such as Quins and Hampton and Richmond that support will not be withdrawn immediately, because ticket revenues will cover only a small proportion of their costs? Will he see to it that we will not have the perverse situation whereby people are allowed into hospitality suites to watch matches, but not outdoors in the stands where it is an awful lot safer?
Nigel Huddleston
The hon. Lady and I have spoken a couple of times about some of the points she raises. I can give her the reassurance that the pilots that took place earlier this year in her constituency and across the country were not a waste of time. They were fantastic learning experiences and proved very well that we could open stadiums safely, but of course there is a bigger issue in terms of transport to and from stadiums and all sorts of other matters that we need to consider in the context of the current coronavirus environment. I would be happy to follow up on some of the other issues she raises.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
May I ask my hon. Friend—my very good friend—to look at why UK Athletics and England Athletics seem to be allowed to self-assess what they do with the money given to them, especially with regard to the results they achieve? Perhaps we could have a meeting on the matter, to which I could bring some of the affected athletes from my constituency, who feel most aggrieved.
Nigel Huddleston
I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend for a whole host of reasons, but in particular to talk sport. I note the concerns he raises and would be happy to discuss them with him. To be fair, I think we have made huge progress with British athletics. Think back to 1996, which is not so long ago, when we got one gold medal and were 36th in the medal table at the Olympics. We were second, with 25-plus medals, at Rio. We have made progress, but perhaps we can make even more.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP) [V]
Scottish football clubs, such as Forfar Athletic, Brechin City, Montrose and Arbroath in my Angus constituency, are almost three times more reliant on ticket sales, with gate receipts making up approximately 43% of club revenues. The Minister advised my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) that Barnett consequentials will be a feature of this package, but he was unable to say how much it would be or when it would be available. Can the Minister at least advise us when this detail will be made available to Scottish Government colleagues, so that they can, together with clubs, plan how to invest it?
Nigel Huddleston
As I have said, I can confirm that, as with other support packages, there are Barnett consequentials. I am not able to give the hon. Gentleman the details he seeks today, but I will work with Treasury officials and others to make sure that information is forthcoming.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
I welcome this package and congratulate the Minister on securing it from the Treasury. However, we all recognise that it cannot last forever, so does he accept that we need a change of approach for sports participation, with its huge benefits for both physical and mental health?
Does the Minister also accept that we need help for the huge ecosystem of the sport and leisure industries, and their army of employees? They have spent considerable sums on making things safe, and they need the public back through their doors and gates. That includes sports clubs, racecourses and gyms, as well as pubs, clubs, betting shops and casinos. Can the Minister now persuade the Department of Health and Social Care and the Cabinet Office to abandon their risk avoidance and risk aversion strategy, and to adopt an evidence-based risk management approach?
Nigel Huddleston
The right hon. Gentleman makes a pertinent point about the importance of the mental health benefits of sport, as well as its physical benefits. The conversations about what we can open and when are always ongoing, and all opinions are welcome, but we will take an evidence-based approach to those decisions.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
Smaller sports teams such as Radcliffe and Prestwich Heys in my constituency sit at the heart of their communities and are a source of local pride. I look forward to being able to get back to the Neuven Stadium soon. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the winter survival package will support sports teams in Britain’s towns, and not just in big cities? Will he commit to looking further at what support can be given to grassroots football?
Nigel Huddleston
It is always good to talk football with my hon. Friend—it is not for the first time. I know his passion for the subject. As I have said, it is really important that we get grassroots football up and running again as soon as possible. We made great strides in the summer and we want to get back as soon as we can. The package announced today will benefit areas across the country—towns, cities and rural areas will benefit.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab) [V]
I thank the Sports Minister for meeting me to discuss Castleford Tigers, and for listening to us and the thousands of rugby league supporters who have signed petitions and called for this urgent help. The funding he has announced is really important to get clubs through the winter, but as we do not yet know what next year will bring, will he undertake to keep working with rugby league, with grants as well as loans where needed, to guarantee that none of our vital rugby league clubs go under because of covid?
Nigel Huddleston
Yes, I would of course be happy to continue the dialogue. This package is intended to provide help through to the spring. We do not know what the circumstances will be next year—none of us has a crystal ball—but we are all extremely hopeful that vaccines and other measures will enable us to have a much brighter future. We will address the circumstances as they arise.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Minister, thank you for your statement and for responding to questions. We will now suspend for three minutes.
Virtual Participation in Debate
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We now come to the Select Committee statement. Karen Bradley will speak initially about the report for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of her statement, I will call Members to put questions on the subject of the statement as on the call list, and call Karen Bradley to respond to them in turn. Members can expect to be called only once and questions should be brief. I call the Chair of the Procedure Committee.
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I rise to speak to the report issued by the Procedure Committee last night about virtual participation in the debates of this House for those who cannot participate physically. It is the sixth report of the Committee in this Session, and the fourth we have produced on House procedure under coronavirus restrictions.
I must start by thanking the Chair and members of the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time in the Chamber for this statement, and the sponsors and contributors to this afternoon’s debate for their understanding. My final thank you is to the very many right hon. and hon. Members from all parties who have given evidence both publicly and privately to my Committee on this matter. It is that evidence that has informed the Committee and on which our recommendations are based. Those recommendations go much further than the Government’s position on this matter.
I am a great fan of my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House. He is a most courteous parliamentarian and, as a Back Bencher, was one of the greatest champions of the independence of Parliament from the Executive. But his failure to schedule any debate on this subject and his refusal to listen to the views of the House, expressed so fervently on Monday in response to the urgent question secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), when tabling the motion to extend virtual participation in debates is indefensible.
The Procedure Committee was unanimous in its view that virtual participation in debates should be extended to all Members who cannot, for whatever reason, participate in person due to the pandemic. There should not be different tests for those who can participate virtually in debates, those who can enjoy virtual participation in our scrutiny proceedings and those who decide to use a proxy vote. It should not take the image of my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) being denied the right to participate in a debate on the very disease that is keeping her from Parliament to make the Government move. The Leader of the House was right to say that nobody could fail to be moved by that image. It is my view that he should have seen the possibility of that image, demonstrating the complete contradiction in his position on this matter, and never have let it happen. The public will be baffled by a situation in which the Prime Minister can answer Prime Minister’s questions virtually yesterday and make a statement to the House virtually today but cannot take part in a debate until he has finished self-isolating. This is an utterly farcical situation.
I am sure that the Leader of the House, being a traditionalist, does not want to change our procedures too much because of a fear that those changes will become permanent. I have enormous sympathy with that view, but we must acknowledge that things are not as they were. This hybrid House is, to coin a phrase, sub-optimal. We must try to make this House work as best we can for the situation we find ourselves in now and ensure that all Members can do their job today. That requires us to look at the issue strategically, with easy-to-understand and clear rules about participation that reflect today’s reality, as set out in the four reports published by my Committee on this matter.
I must tell the House how much the Committee appreciates the work being done on the House’s behalf by all those across the House service and our digital and audiovisual services to support the work we come here to do. Our corridors are eerily quiet at the moment, for reasons we all appreciate, but I know that the staff involved will have been working non-stop to get the broadcasting systems ready for virtual participation in debate as soon as there was a prospect of the Government allowing it to happen.
Under Mr Speaker’s leadership, we have a House service that is well placed to take a strategic view of our circumstances. If there had been a little more strategic thinking in certain other quarters about how best to equip the House to meet the challenges of the pandemic once it was clear that the restrictions were to be extended well into the new year, perhaps the necessary political signals enabling work on virtual participation to commence could have been sent rather earlier than last weekend. Not for the first time, the Government have looked for tactical fixes rather than strategic solutions that would increase the House’s capacity for resilience now and in the future.
The House must be allowed to have its say on how best we represent our constituents in this place. We are all accountable to our constituents, and they will challenge us if they do not believe that we are representing them properly. Around one quarter of Members are using the ability to participate virtually in scrutiny proceedings. With pandemic restrictions likely to be in place until the spring at least, I ask the Government to stop using short-term tactics that require constant U-turns, and instead let that quarter of MPs take part in debates.
Nobody—not even my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House—has a monopoly on being right. It is possible that the majority of the House agrees with him, not my Committee, but the only way to find that out is to schedule a debate on the matter and allow a free vote, as I think he would have demanded if our roles were reversed. As a Back-Bench Member of this House, there are two ways that I can represent my constituents: by speaking in this Chamber on their behalf and by casting my vote. We are in danger of removing both those rights from far too many Members. I commend my Committee’s report and this statement to the House.
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab) [V]
May I thank the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) for her statement and say that I agreed with absolutely every single word of it? I commend her and her Committee for this report, which is based on the principle that, despite this awful pandemic, all Members should be able to participate in our debates, whether in person or remotely, and I strongly support that principle. I agree with her that it is the role of the Leader of the House to support MPs to do their job and to speak in debates and that it is not for him to set up exclusions.
Is the right hon. Lady aware that the number of MPs who are exercising proxy votes and therefore excluded from debates is 62%? That means that 62% of us are not able to speak in our debates; that cannot be right. Is she also aware that the figure for Scottish Members of Parliament is 78%? Imagine having a situation during this pandemic where 78% of Scottish MPs are excluded from debates. We want and need to hear from them and from our colleagues in Wales and from the regions outside Westminster as well. We do not want a situation where half of the Chairs of Select Committees are not able to speak in debates, even those debates that are on the subject on which they have done inquiries and reports.
We might be essential workers, but we can work remotely. I strongly back the amendment of the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) to the motion of the Leader of the House. I urge the right hon. Lady to back that amendment—I am sure that she will—and to urge all other Members to do the same, so that we can override the Leader of the House and ensure that all Members are able to speak in debates on equal terms at this crucial time.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I gave the right hon. and learned Lady some leeway, as Members may have noticed, but please can people just ask questions now?
Karen Bradley
I thank the right hon. and learned Lady for her comments. It is important that I make it clear that the Government moved their position on proxy votes, so that those who have a proxy vote can now take part in proceedings in the Chamber and I give credit to the Government for doing that. None the less, she is right to say that there is a large number of Members who cannot participate in the Chamber; around one quarter of Members are exercising the ability to participate virtually in scrutiny proceedings because they do not feel that they are able to come to the Chamber. It is that quarter of Members whom my Committee is incredibly keen to see taking part in debates. By the time we get to the end of March, it will have been nearly 12 months that a quarter of Members will not have been able to take part in debates. That is simply not acceptable.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con) [V]
I completely agree with everything that my right hon. Friend has said. I also agree with the Mother of the House. It is absolutely unacceptable that Members are still unable to fulfil their jobs properly in our Parliament. We have this superficial sense that we are all taking part: we are able to ask questions and to ballot for absolutely everything, but we cannot bob, we can barely intervene and far too many people cannot even speak in debates. Will my right hon. Friend please continue to press very firmly that we get some normality back into our Parliament so that we can hold the Government to account properly?
Karen Bradley
I thank my right hon. Friend, who was an esteemed Leader of the House in her day and knows these issues incredibly well. The point that the Committee wanted to get across was that we cannot continue having a situation where so many Members are unable to take part in our debates. As I have said, by the end of March, this will have been going on for nearly 12 months. I urge the Government to give time for that debate and to give the House the chance to have its say. The House may well agree with the Government, but we will never know unless we have that opportunity.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD) [V]
I am my wife’s carer, which I think is well known in the House. If I come down from the north of Scotland to London, catch the virus and have to self-isolate for two weeks, what good is that to my wife? I have to make a choice between my constituents and my wife. Surely the situation that we have at present is extremely dangerous and corrosive to our precious democracy—something that should be an example to the world, but which right now is not.
Karen Bradley
The hon. Gentleman is right about the way in which our democracy is being portrayed. When we introduced our hybrid proceedings in April, we were actually held up around the world as a fantastic example of ensuring full participation for all Members. We all accept that there will be differences in ability between those who participate virtually, and those who are here in the Chamber and can therefore interact in a different way, but that does not mean that we should preclude people who wish to participate virtually from all our proceedings. I know that the House services can make it work, and I want the Government to allow them the chance to do so.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) [V]
Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we have to find a balance between spontaneity and interactivity in debates, and allowing all Members to take part in those debates, the choice should be easy and clear—we should choose to have as many Members taking part as we possibly can, and not restrict a quarter of them?
Karen Bradley
I thank my hon. Friend, a fellow Committee member, who has made such a contribution to the report. I agree wholeheartedly with what he says.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the right hon. Lady for the leadership that she has shown since taking over the chairmanship of the Committee. It must feel like a decade ago, but it has not even been a year. She has shown enormous leadership in ensuring that the reports have all been on a cross-party basis. As a member of the Procedure Committee for the last four years, I think that we have covered more ground in nine months than we did in two whole previous Parliaments.
Let me take her to paragraph 33 on page 11 of the report, where we talk about the issues of hybrid procedures and a mixed debating system. We state in that paragraph that the Clerk of the House has confirmed that we have made significant progress in relation to the availability of the Chamber to be fully hybrid for all debates, but that the Standing Orders for this have not been progressed because there has been no request from the House to do so. To me, this confirms that the House is ready and there is enough capacity. As I said on Monday, it is disappointing that the Leader of the House has suggested that he has now requested the capacity be improved when the Clerk argues that the capacity is there. Does the right hon. Lady agree that if the Standing Orders could be changed to allow for full participation, another Standing Order could be changed to say that those taking part in the hybrid proceedings on the screens could not do things such as intervene, but that, as was so eloquently put last week, that is a small price to pay for allowing Members to take part in all debates, including on Armistice services, when Members were excluded from what should have been truly cross-House debate that brought the House together and showed it at its best?
Karen Bradley
I thank the hon. Gentleman, who is another esteemed member of the Committee; it is very gracious of him to make those comments. His experience as a member of the previous Committee certainly helped me coming back on to the Committee, as I did in January this year as the new Chair. He makes some incredibly important points. The Armistice Day debate was so powerful and did show the House at its best, but by excluding a quarter of Members, who simply could not take part because their own health or the health of their loved ones would be put at risk, simply demonstrates to me, once again, the need for this provision. There is capacity; we have heard evidence time and again that the House service can deliver this. I urge my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to give the House a chance to have its say on the matter.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con) [V]
I also extend my appreciation to my right hon. Friend for her statement. I understand the strong desire to have MPs appearing in the Chamber in so far as it is possible for them to do so, but would it not be sensible for there to be a system whereby Members who are self-isolating, either because of age, health or pregnancy—or indeed, because of a member of their household having equivalent concerns—could verify their status via a doctor’s note? I know that there has been some reticence to have Members disclosing their health conditions, but it strikes me that that would draw parity with employees in any other workplace, who would have to explain the reason for their absence, and would create a justifiable basis for allowing Members to participate remotely.
Karen Bradley
My hon. Friend made a very important point on Monday when she raised the issue of pregnant women. The fact that those women do not fall into the definition of clinically extremely vulnerable means that, as things stand, the Government propose that they will have to come into the House if they wish to take part in debates. I know that the Leader of the House has concerns about that; he has said so to me privately. I hope that he would listen and make sure that he does allow for pregnant women to be able to take part in debates. My hon. Friend makes an interesting comment about the analogy between other workplaces and this workplace. She will know that for other workplaces the Government’s advice is, “If you can work from home, you should.” Perhaps the Leader of the House should listen to that piece of advice as well.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
It would be a good thing if the Leader of the House would actually listen to the statements that are happening at the moment. I add my congratulations to the right hon. Lady on the superb work she is doing on the Procedure Committee in these very difficult times in which we find ourselves. I note that the first questions on this statement came from two very well-liked and effective Leaders of the House—the Leader of the House’s esteemed predecessors to whom he should listen. Does the right hon. Lady agree that the situation we have now has created two different classes of MP? Behind each MP, there are the constituents that they represent, and they have the right, having been elected to this House, to represent them in the same way as any other Member of the House. The Leader of the House appears to think that he can dispense with that principle because he does not want spontaneity in debates to disappear. He must not—does she agree?—let the perfect get in the way of the good. He must recognise that these are temporary issues in a pandemic, and that we all wish to return to this place being the lively, crowded, interesting, challenging place that it is when the green Benches are completely full.
Karen Bradley
I thank the hon. Lady—another esteemed member of the Committee. It is much easier answering questions on a statement from here on the Back Benches than it is from the Dispatch Box where I used to answer questions. It is a much more pleasurable experience. She makes exactly the right points. I think that all of us were able to accept that this was a short-term measure and that maybe we could allow for a little change in our procedures because of that. However, it is not short-term. It is going on until at least the end of March—that is what the Government’s procedures say—and we cannot continue to exclude so many Members from our debates. I agree with what she said.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
As another member of the Procedure Committee, I commend my right hon. Friend for her leadership, for her statement and for the report that she published last night. It is absolutely the right thing to do to bring in this motion and to extend virtual and remote participation for our Members. May I urge her to consider the fact that this can only be temporary and that we must of course return to normality and a fully operating Chamber as soon as possible?
Karen Bradley
You will spot, Mr Deputy Speaker, that Procedure Committee members are very active in the Chamber, and it is great to have a contribution from another member. I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I want to be clear to the Government: anything that they have written in this report is about how we conduct our business today and for the foreseeable future until we can get back to normal, but the Committee is unanimous in wanting to get back to normal, returning to our procedures as they were, as soon as we possibly can. It will then of course be for the Procedure Committee and future Committees to consider the way that procedure happens in this House and things that they may want to change in the future, but the measures we are asking for today are only for the period of the pandemic, not beyond that.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) [V]
I also welcome this report and commend the Chair and her colleagues on the work they have done and are continuing to do on this matter. As she rightly observes, for these proposals to be implemented, they will require the acquiescence, if not the support, of the Government of the day and the Leader of the House. He remains firm in his conviction that unless Members are physically present in this Chamber, they are somehow not truly at work. Why does the right hon. Lady think the Leader of the House is so firm in his view and so resistant to the deployment of technology to allow Members to work remotely and fully?
Karen Bradley
I am not going to try to answer that question on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I am sure he will answer it for himself. I say again that the House wants to have its say on this, and I hope that he will listen to that point.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
I place on record my thanks to the Chair of the Procedure Committee and all its members, who have been absolutely assiduous in their work. With so many reports, the workload has been incredible, and the Committee has informed a very important debate.
I also place on record my thanks to the Broadcasting Unit, which has been absolutely superb. As has been said, we are world leaders in a virtual Parliament, and people are looking at how we do our work. In paragraph 28 of this excellent report, Matthew Hamlyn, the strategic director for the Chamber Business Team, confirms that the resilience of the broadcasting hub has been substantially improved. At paragraph 33, the Clerk of the House confirms that the infrastructure necessary to support mixed physical and virtual contributions is ready to roll. At paragraph 58, the important point is made about hon. Members’ eligibility. We are all equal, and we all have to play our part in democracy.
There is a mention of Mr Speaker reporting by 14 December. There is such important legislation coming through at the beginning of December, not least because it is the most dramatic time for the United Kingdom, as we leave the EU. Important pieces of legislation need to be put through Parliament, and our colleagues will not be able to take part. Is there any way that the Chair of the Procedure Committee can look at that? We stand ready to work with her and with the Leader of the House to ensure that these measures are put in place so that all colleagues can take part in those debates.
Karen Bradley
The right hon. Lady is right when she says that we are a world leader. As we discussed earlier in this statement, the rest of the world looked on in awe at what we in this House were able to achieve so quickly. The other place is using so many of the facilities and procedures that we developed and then disregarded. We decided that we did not want to use them; we wanted to return to some form of normality that simply cannot be achieved at the moment.
I have not yet paid tribute to the Clerk of the Procedure Committee, Martyn Atkins, and I must do so. He is, sadly, moving on. His time with us has been and gone several times over, and he is finally being dragged from us—kicking and screaming, as far as we are concerned. He has turned around reports and dealt with these matters in a way that no one could have anticipated. We may have thought that we had finished with procedural novelties when we left the European Union, but it turns out that covid has introduced more procedural novelties than we could ever have imagined.
The right hon. Lady asks what mechanisms we can use to bring these measures in. The first, of course, is to implore the Government to listen and give time for a debate. If that is not possible, I will speak to the Backbench Business Committee and see whether there is any way we can find time for a debate on the matter to give the House an opportunity to have its say, even if that is not on a binding measure, as it would be if the Government tabled a motion.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Chair of the Procedure Committee for her statement and for responding to the questions. I, too, would like to put on record my thanks to the Broadcasting Unit for performing miracles on a daily basis while the House is sitting. It is quite remarkable what has been achieved in such a short space of time.
We will now suspend briefly in order to sanitise the Dispatch Boxes and to allow Members to leave safely.
Virtual participation in proceedings concluded (Order, 4 June).
Backbench Business
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Online Harms
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House recognises the need to take urgent action to reduce and prevent online harms; and urges the Government to bring forward the Online Harms Bill as soon as possible.
The motion stands in my name and those of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce). I begin by thanking the Backbench Business Committee for finding time for what I hope the House will agree is an important and urgent debate. I am conscious that a great number of colleagues wish to speak and that they have limited time in which to do so, so I will be brief as I can. I know also that there are right hon. and hon. Members who wished to be here to support the motion but could not be. I mention, in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight), the Chair of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, who is chairing the Committee as we speak.
I hope that today’s debate will largely be about solutions, but perhaps we should begin with the scale of the problem. The term “online harms” covers many things, from child sexual exploitation to the promotion of suicide, hate speech and intimidation, disinformation perpetrated by individuals, groups and even nation states, and many other things. Those problems have increased with the growth of the internet, and they have grown even faster over recent months as the global pandemic has led to us all spending more time online.
Let me offer just two examples. First, between January and April this year, as we were all starting to learn about the covid-19 virus, there were around 80 million interactions on Facebook with websites known to promulgate disinformation on that subject. By contrast, the websites of the World Health Organisation and the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention each had around 6 million interactions. Secondly, during roughly the same period, online sex crimes recorded against children were running at more than 100 a day. The online platforms have taken some action to combat the harms I have mentioned, and I welcome that, but it is not enough, as the platforms themselves mostly recognise.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
You may have noticed, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I am ostentatiously wearing purple. I have been missioned to do so because it is World Pancreatic Cancer Day. We have been asked to emphasise it, because raising awareness of that disease is important.
My right hon. and learned Friend is right to highlight the horror of degrading and corrupting pornography. Indeed, the Government have no excuse for not doing more, because the Digital Economy Act 2017 obliges them to do so. Why do we not have age verification, as was promised in that Act and in our manifesto? It is a straightforward measure that the Government could introduce to save lives in the way my right hon. and learned Friend describes.
Jeremy Wright
I agree with my right hon. Friend, but I will be careful, Mr Deputy Speaker, in what I say about age verification, because I am conscious that a judicial review case is in progress on that subject. However, I agree that that is something that we could and should do, and not necessarily in direct conjunction with an online harms Bill.
Digital platforms should also recognise that a safer internet is, in the end, good for business. Their business model requires us to spend more and more time online, and we will do that only if we feel safe there. The platforms should recognise that Governments must act in that space, and that people of every country with internet access quite properly expect them to. We have operated for some time on the principle that what is unacceptable offline is unacceptable online. How can it be right that actions and behaviours that cause real harm and would be controlled and restricted in every other environment, whether broadcast media, print media or out on the street, are not restricted at all online?
I accept that freedom of speech online is important, but I cannot accept that the online world is somehow sacred space where regulation has no place regardless of what goes on there. Given the centrality of social media to modern political debate, should we rely on the platforms alone to decide which comments are acceptable and which are unacceptable, especially during election campaigns? I think not, and for me the case for online regulation is clear. However, it must be the right kind of regulation—regulation that gives innovation and invention room to grow, that allows developing enterprises to offer us life-enhancing services and create good jobs, but that requires those enterprises to take proper responsibility for their products and services, and for the consequences of their use. I believe that that balance is to be found in the proposed duty of care for online platforms, as set out in the Government’s White Paper of April last year.
I declare an interest as one of the Ministers who brought forward that White Paper at the time, and I pay tribute to all those in government and beyond, including the talented civil servants at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, who worked so hard to complete it. This duty of care is for all online companies that deal with user-generated content to keep those who use their platforms as safe as they reasonably can.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
We have covered some important information. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that there needs to be a new social media regulator with the power to audit and impact social media algorithms to ensure that they do not cause harm? Such a regulator would enable that to happen.
Jeremy Wright
I agree that we need a regulator and will come on to exactly that point. The hon. Gentleman is entirely right, for reasons that I will outline in just a moment.
I recognise that what I am talking about is not the answer to every question in this area, but it would be a big step towards a safer online world if designed with sufficient ambition and implemented with sufficient determination. The duty of care should ask nothing unreasonable of the digital platforms. It would be unreasonable, for example, to suggest that every example of harmful content reaching a vulnerable user would automatically be a breach of the duty of care. Platforms should be obliged to put in place systems to protect their users that are as effective as they can be, not that achieve the impossible.
However, meeting that duty of care must mean doing more than is being done now. It should mean proactively scanning the horizon for those emerging harms that the platforms are best placed to see and designing mitigation for them, not waiting for terrible cases and news headlines to prompt action retrospectively. The duty of care should mean changing algorithms that prioritise the harmful and the hateful because they keep our attention longer and cause us to see more adverts. When a search engine asked about suicide shows a how-to guide on taking one’s own life long before it shows the number for the Samaritans, that is a design choice. The duty of care needs to require a different design choice to be made. When it comes to factual inquiries, the duty of care should expect the prioritisation of authoritative sources over scurrilous ones.
It is reasonable to expect these things of the online platforms. Doing what is reasonable to keep us safe must surely be the least we expect of those who create the world in which we now spend so much of our time. We should legislate to say so, and we should legislate to make sure that it happens. That means regulation, and as the hon. Gentleman suggests, it means a regulator—one that has the independence, the resources and the personnel to set and investigate our expectations of the online platforms. For the avoidance of doubt, our expectations should be higher than the platforms’ own terms and conditions. However, if the regulator we create is to be taken seriously by these huge multinational companies, it must also have the power to enforce our expectations. That means that it must have teeth and a range of sanctions, including individual director liability and site blocking in extreme cases.
We need an enforceable duty of care for online platforms to begin making the internet a safer place. Here is the good news for the Minister, who I know understands this agenda well. So often, such debates are intended to persuade the Government to change direction, to follow a different policy path. I am not asking the Government to do that, but rather to continue following the policy path they are already on—I just want them to move faster along that path. I am not pretending that it is an easy path. There will be complex and difficult judgments to be made and significant controversy in what will be groundbreaking and challenging legislation, but we have shied away from this challenge for far too long.
The reason for urgency is not only that, while we delay, lives continue to be ruined by online harms, sufficient though that is. It is also because we have a real opportunity and the obligation of global leadership here. The world has looked with interest at the prospectus we have set out on online harms regulation, and it now needs to see us follow through with action so that we can leverage our country’s well-deserved reputation for respecting innovation and the rule of law to set a global standard in a balanced and effective regulatory approach. We can only do that when the Government bring forward the online harms Bill for Parliament to consider and, yes, perhaps even to improve. We owe it to every preyed-upon child, every frightened parent and everyone abused, intimidated or deliberately misled online to act, and to act now.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
There is a three-minute limit on speeches.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright) and the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) for securing this debate. Today is World Children’s Day, when we are asked to imagine a better future for every child, and I will focus my remarks on an online harm that the Government could act on quickly to protect our children. Commercial pornography websites are profiteering from exposing children in the UK to hardcore violent pornography—pornography that it would be illegal to sell to children offline and that it would be illegal to sell even to adults, unless purchased in a licensed sex shop.
Three years ago, Parliament passed legislation to close this disastrous regulation gap. Three years on, the Government have still not implemented it. Assurances that the regulation gap will be filled by the forthcoming online harms legislation do not stand up to objective scrutiny. This is a child protection disaster happening now, and the Government could and, I hope, will act now.
Children are being exposed to online pornography at an alarming scale, and during the covid-19 pandemic, there is no doubt that the figures will have increased even more with children more often having unsupervised online access. The issue is the widespread availability and severity of online pornography accessible at home. It is no longer about adult magazines on the top shelf in the newsagent. Contemporary pornography is also overwhelmingly violent and misogynistic, and it feeds and fuels the toxic attitudes that we see particularly towards women and girls.
Back in 2017, Parliament passed part 3 of the Digital Economy Act. Enacted, it would prohibit commercial pornography websites from making their content available to anyone under the age of 18 and create a regulator and an enforcement mechanism. It was backed by the leading children’s charities, including the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and Barnardo’s, as well as the majority of parents. However, in 2019, the Government announced that they would not be implementing part 3 of the 2017 Act. In the online harms White Paper in February, the Government said that any verification
“will only apply to companies that provide services or use functionality on their websites which facilitate the sharing of user generated content or user interactions”.
That is not good enough. Parliament has already spoken. We have said what we want to happen. I expect the Government to build on part 3 of the 2017 Act. It is set out and is ready to go to. They should act on it now.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright) on his excellent speech introducing this debate. We need to be clear that the online harms White Paper response from the Government is urgently needed, as is the draft Bill. We have been discussing this for several years now. When I was Chair of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, we published a report in the summer of 2018 asking for intervention on online harms and calling for a regulatory system based on a duty of care placed on the social media companies to act against harmful content.
There are difficult decisions to be made in assessing what harmful content is and assessing what needs to be done, but I do not believe those decisions should be made solely by the chief executives of the social media companies. There should be a legal framework that they have to work within, just as people in so many other industries do. It is not enough to have an online harms regulatory system based just on the terms and conditions of the companies themselves, in which all Parliament and the regulator can do is observe whether those companies are administering their own policies.
We must have a regulatory body that has an auditing function and can look at what is going on inside these companies and the decisions they make to try to remove and eliminate harmful hate speech, medical conspiracy theories and other more extreme forms of harmful or violent content. Companies such as Facebook say that they remove 95% of harmful content. How do we know? Because Facebook tells us. Has anyone checked? No. Can anyone check? No; we are not allowed to check. Those companies have constantly refused to allow independent academic bodies to go in and scrutinise what goes on within them. That is simply not good enough.
We should be clear that we are not talking about regulating speech. We are talking about regulating a business model. It is a business model that prioritises the amplification of content that engages people, and it does not care whether or not that content is harmful. All it cares about is the engagement. So people who engage in medical conspiracy theories will see more medical conspiracy theories. A young person who engages with images of self-harm will see more images of self-harm. No one is stepping in to prevent that. How do we know that Facebook did all it could to stop the live broadcast of a terrorist attack in Christchurch, New Zealand? No one knows. We have only Facebook’s word for it, and the scale of that problem could have been a lot worse.
The tools and systems of these companies are actively directing people to harmful content. People often talk about how easy it is to search for this material. Companies such as Facebook will say, “We downgrade this material on our site to make it hard to find,” but they direct people to it. People are not searching for it—it is being pushed at them. Some 70% of what people watch on YouTube is selected for them by YouTube, not searched for by them. An internal study done by Facebook in Germany in 2016, which the company suppressed and was leaked to the media this year, showed that 60% of people who joined Facebook groups that shared extremist material did so at the recommendation of Facebook, because they had engaged with material like that before. That is what we are trying to regulate—a business model that is broken—and we desperately need to move on with online harms.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright) for securing the debate with the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce). I pay particular tribute to him, because when he was Culture Secretary, he and Margot James, who is no longer in this place, spearheaded this legislation. They are a credit to the House for ensuring that this was a priority for the Government then. I know how important the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman), thinks this is, but some of us—me included—have been talking about this issue for more than three and a half years, and this Bill needs to come forward. The delays just are not acceptable, and too many people are at risk.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) for not only his speech but his chairmanship of the DCMS Committee, which he did without fear or favour. He took on the platforms, and they did not like it. All credit to him for standing up for what he believes in and trying to take on these giants.
In the two minutes I have left, I want to talk about the inquiry of my all-party parliamentary group on social media in relation to child harm, which the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam touched on. The Internet Watch Foundation is a charity that works with tech industries and is partly funded by them. It also works with law enforcement agencies and is funded by the Government and currently by the European Union. It removes self-generated images of child abuse. It removes URLs of children who have been coerced and groomed into taking images of themselves in a way that anyone in this House would find utterly disgusting and immoral. That is its sole, core purpose.
The problem is extremely complex. The IWF has seen a 50% increase in public reports of suspected child abuse over the past year, but the take-down rate of URLs has dropped by 89%. I have pressed DCMS Ministers and Cabinet Office Ministers to ensure that IWF funding will continue, to address the fact that these URLs are not being taken down and to put more resources into purposefully tackling this abhorrent problem of self-generated harm, whether the children are groomed through platforms, live streaming or gaming.
The platforms have not gone far enough. They are not acknowledging the problem in front of them. I honestly believe that if a future Bill provides the power for the platforms to decide what is appropriate and for Ofcom to make recommendations or fine them on that basis, it is a flawed system. It is self-regulation with a regulator—it does not make any sense. The platforms themselves say that it does not work.
In closing, will the Minister please—please—get a grip on the issues that the IWF is raising, continue its funding, and do all that he can to protect children from the harm that many of them face in their bedrooms and homes across the UK?
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
The Prime Minister reminded us today that the first duty of Government is to protect their citizens from harm. Our children need and deserve to be kept much safer from online harm, so I urge the Government not to let the best be the enemy of the good. They committed to producing an online harms Bill to comprehensively address online harms and acknowledged that such a Bill was critically urgent, but they have failed to do so expeditiously. Specifically, the Government have failed to implement age verification, legislation on which was actually passed in part 3 of the Digital Economy Act 2017. I urge the Government to implement age verification, and join colleagues in doing so today. We will never make the internet safe, but we can make it safer by implementing measures quickly to give children some protection from commercial pornography sites, pending the introduction of a more comprehensive Bill.
We need to do so much more to protect children from being drawn into producing material themselves. There is growing concern about self-generated indecent images of children, made when a child is tricked or coerced into sending sexual material of themselves. I commend the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), who, with the Centre for Social Justice, has launched an investigation into child sexual abuse, and I commend his op-ed in The Sun on Sunday last week. It is not often that I commend something in The Sun, but in his op-ed he highlighted the increase in livestreamed abuse in which sex offenders hire traffickers in countries such as the Philippines to find children for them to violate via a video link. I also thank the International Justice Mission for its effective work in highlighting this despicable trade and consumption, in respect of which the UK is the world’s third largest offender. As the IJM says, we need to do more than highlight this; the Government need to improve prevention, detection and prosecution.
Yes, we have made great strides as a country in detecting and removing child sexual abuse material from UK-hosted websites, but livestreamed abuse is not being detected or reported and much more needs to be done by tech companies and social media platforms to rectify the situation. Legislation must require them to act. For example, they could adopt a safety-by-design approach so that a camera cannot be flipped to face a child. Regulation of the online space is needed to ensure that companies take swift and meaningful action to detect the online sexual exploitation of children, and there must be more accountability for offenders who commit this abuse. We should not distinguish the actions of those offenders from the actions of those who prey on children in person. Every image depicts a real child being hurt in the real world. Communities of online offenders often ask for original videos and images as their price of admission, prompting further targeting and grooming of vulnerable children.
The Government need to act urgently to help better to protect vulnerable children—indeed, all children—and to promote greater awareness, including through education. Children need to know that it is not their fault and that they can talk to someone about it, so that they do not feel, as so many teachers who have talked to Childline have said, “I can’t deal with this anymore. I want to die.”
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
Many of us took part in a debate on these issues in Westminster Hall recently. I do not want to repeat all the comments I made then, but I have seen the wide range of online harms in my constituency of Cardiff South and Penarth, and the online harms leading to real-world harms, violence and hatred on our streets.
In that Westminster Hall debate, I spoke about the range of less well-known platforms that the Government must get to grips with—the likes of Telegram, Parler, BitChute and various other platforms that are used by extremist organisations. I pay tribute to the work that HOPE not Hate and other organisations are doing. I declare an interest as a parliamentary friend of HOPE not Hate and commend to the Minister and the Government its excellent report on online regulation that was released just this week.
I wish to give one example of why it is so crucial that the Government act, and act now, and it relates to the behaviour of some of the well-known platforms. In the past couple of weeks, I have spoken to one of those platforms: YouTube—Google. It is not the first time that I have spoken to YouTube; I have previously raised concerns about its content on many occasions as a members of the Home Affairs Committee. It was ironic to be asked to take part in a programme to support local schools on internet safety and being safe online, when at the same time YouTube, despite my personally having reported instances of far-right extremism, gang violence and other issues that specifically affect my constituency, has refused to remove that content. YouTube has not removed it, despite my reporting it.
I am talking about examples of gang videos involving convicted drug dealers in my constituency; videos of young people dripping in simulated blood after simulated stabbings; videos encouraging drug dealing and violence and involving young people as actors in a local park, just hundreds of metres from my own house—but they have not been removed, on grounds of legitimate artistic expression. There are examples of extremist right-wing organisations promoting hatred against Jews, black people and the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community that I have repeatedly reported, but they were still on there at the start of this debate. The only conclusion I can draw is that these companies simply do not give a damn about what the public think, what parents think, what teachers think, what all sides of the House think, what Governments think or what the police think, because they are failing to act, having been repeatedly warned. That is why the Government must come in and regulate, and they must do it sooner rather than later.
We need to see action taken on content relating to proscribed organisations—I cannot understand how that content is online when those organisations are proscribed by the Government—where there are clear examples of extremism, hate speech and criminality. I cannot understand why age verification is not used even as a minimum standard on some of these gang videos and violent videos, which perhaps could be justified in some parallel world, when age verification is used for other content. Some people talk about free speech. The reality is that these failures are leading to a decline in freedom online and in safety for our young people.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
There are so many aspects to this, including misinformation on the pandemic, disinformation and foreign influence operations, harassment, engagement algorithms, the effect on our politics and public discourse, the growth in people gambling on their own, scammers and chancers, and at the very worst end, radicalisation and, as we have heard from many colleagues, sexual exploitation. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for the debate, but this is not one subject for debate but about a dozen, and it needs a lot more time at these formative stages, which I hope the Government will provide. My brief comments will be specifically about children.
When I was at the Department for Education, I heard repeatedly from teenagers who were worried about the effect on their peers’ mental health of the experience of these curated perfect lives, with the constant scoring of young people’s popularity and attractiveness and the bullying that no longer stops when a young person comes through their parents’ front door but stays with them overnight. I heard from teachers about the effect of technology on sleep and concentration and on taking too much time from other things that young people should be doing in their growing up. I take a lot of what will be in this legislation as read, so what I will say is not an exclusive list, but I have three big asks of what the legislation and secondary legislation should cover for children. By children, I mean anybody up to the age of 16 or 18. Let us not have any idea that there is a separate concept of a digital age of consent that is in some way different.
First, the legislation will of course tackle the promotion of harms such as self-harm and eating disorders, but we need to go further and tackle the prevalence and normalisation of content related to those topics so that fewer young people come across it in the first place. Secondly, on compulsive design techniques such as autoplay, infinite scroll and streak rewards, I do not suggest that the Government should get in the business of designing applications, but there need to be natural breaks, just as there always were when children’s telly came to an end or in running out of coins at the amusement arcade, to go and do something else. Actually, we need to go further, with demetrification—an ugly word but an important concept—because children should not be worrying about their follower-to-following ratio or how many likes they get when they post a photograph. Bear in mind that Facebook managed to survive without likes up to 2009.
Thirdly, we need to have a restoration of reality, discouraging and, at the very least, clearly marking doctored photos and disclosing influencers’ product placements and not allowing the marketing of selfie facial enhancements to young children. It is not only about digital literacy and resilience, though that plays a part. The new material in schools from this term is an important step, but it will need to be developed further.
It has always been hard growing up, but it is a lot harder to do it live in the glare of social media. This generation will not get another chance at their youth. That is why, yes, it is important that we get it right, but it is also important that we get it done and we move forward now.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
This vital work is indeed taking far too long, and so much so that the Petitions Committee has launched a new inquiry on tackling online abuse following up our report in the last Parliament and looking at potential solutions for reducing crime and preventing it. Although the Government’s response to our previous report was positive, regrettably its online harms White Paper failed to address most of our concerns in relation to the impact on disabled people. The new inquiry will therefore continue to scrutinise the Government’s response to online abuse and press Ministers on the action that needs to be taken. We would welcome evidence to our inquiry from campaigners, legal professionals, social media companies and members of the public.
I want to address as well some of the most troubling material available online—material that has too often spilled over into the offline world with tragic consequences. From your internet browser today you could access video that shows graphic footage of real-event stabbings before alleging that the attack was, in fact, a Jewish plot. If you were so inclined, you could watch a five-hour-long video that alleges a Jewish conspiracy to introduce communism around the world—10,000 people already have. I could go on. These videos and others like it are easily discoverable on some of the so-called alternative platforms that have become safe havens for terrorist propaganda, hate material and covid-19 disinformation, so it is crucial that when the Government finally bring their online harms Bill forward, it has to have teeth.
The White Paper proposes establishing a new duty of care for users, overseen by an independent regulator, making it clear that fulfilling a duty of care means following codes of practice. The Government have rightly proposed two statutory codes—on sexual exploitation and abuse and on terrorism. Will the Minister now commit to bringing forward another code of practice on hate crime and wider harms? Without such a code, any duty of care for users will be limited to what the site’s terms and conditions allow. Terms and conditions are insufficient, as the Government acknowledge; they can be patchy and poorly applied.
The Antisemitism Policy Trust, which provides the secretariat to the all-party parliamentary group against antisemitism, which I co-chair, has produced evidence outlining how hateful online materials can lead to violent hate crime offline. A code of practice on hate crime, with systems-level advice to start-ups and minimum standards for companies will go some way towards creating a safer world. There is much more in the Bill that needs serious consideration, but as a minimum we need to see a code of practice for hate crime brought forward and given the same status as that for child sexual exploitation and abuse and terrorism, and I hope today that the Minister can give us some reassurance that this will be taken seriously.
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright) on securing this debate and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for it.
There is no doubt that the internet can be a force for good. Over the past few months, we have all enjoyed the fact that we can keep in touch with family and friends. We can work from home. Even some people can participate in certain parts of our proceedings, although clearly not this debate. But the internet can be used for harm. In the limited time I have I want to make just two points. One is about the impact on children and the other is about advertising online.
When I was the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, I initially took the idea to the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), that we should have an internet safety strategy. That is what has become the online harms strategy. The internet safety strategy was born out of my work in the Home Office when I was the Minister for Preventing Abuse, Exploitation and Crime. It was so clear to me through the work that I did in particular on protecting children that the internet was being used to harm children. We have some great successes. The WePROTECT initiative, for example, which has had a real impact on removing pornographic images of children and child abuse online, is a great success, but we must never rest on our laurels. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister, who knows full well about all this, because he was with me when lots of this work was happening in the Department, to deal with the issue of age verification on pornography. I know that it does not resolve every issue. It is not going to solve every problem, but there was a message given to me by children time and again. If there was one thing they wanted to see stopped, it was access to pornography because that was what was fuelling the harm that they faced.
Turning to advertising, I will share with the House that this weekend I will be cooking a beef brisket that I will be purchasing from Meakins butchers in Leek, and I will be putting on it a beef rub. Hon. Members may ask why I am telling them that. I am telling them that because I have been mithered for weeks by my 15 year-old son, who has seen such a beef rub on Instagram. He is not getting his advertising from broadcast media. He is getting his advertising from the internet and he is desperate to try a beef rub on beef brisket, and I will therefore make sure he does so over the weekend.
We have to have a level playing field on advertising. Our broadcast media is about to face real restrictions on the way that certain products can be advertised. This will impact on our public service broadcasters in particular, but we do not see the same level of regulation applied to the internet, and I know for one that the place my children are seeing advertising is on the internet. It is, sadly, not on broadcast media in the way I picked up my advertising. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to make sure he does something on that matter as well.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I want to raise just two points: first, the current epidemic of online frauds; and, secondly, the online sale of the illegal weapons used on our streets in gang violence.
First, the Pension Scams Industry Group has told the current Work and Pensions Committee inquiry that 40,000 people have suffered the devastation of being scammed out of their pension in five years. Much of that is online. Mark Taber told us he has reported to the Financial Conduct Authority this year 380 scam adverts on Google. It is a crime, but after weeks or months the FCA just issues a warning. The Transparency Task Force told us of
“high-profile, known crooks…running rings around the regulators”,
and-:
“Paid keyword search is a highly efficient means for pensions & savings scammers to target their victims.”
Another witness told us that there is
“a big increase in social media scams”.
Which? said that
“we need to look at what sort of responsibilities should be given to those online platforms to protect their users from scams.”
A director at Aviva told us that it
“had to take down 27 fake domains linked to our brand... It is very difficult and it takes a very long time to engage the web domain providers to get it down.”
He called big technology companies “key enablers of fraud”, and he made a call
“to extend the Online Harms Bill to include the advertising of fraudulent investments”.
I think that should be done, and I want to ask the Minister if it will be in the legislation.
Secondly, the Criminal Justice Act 1988 bans the sale and import of a list of weapons: disguised knives, butterfly knives, flick knives, gravity knives, stealth knives, zombie knives, sword sticks, push daggers, blowpipes, telescopic truncheons and batons. But all of them are available online for delivery in the post. That is how most weapons used on the streets in London are obtained. As we debated in the Offensive Weapons Bill Committee in 2018, companies should not sell in the UK products that it is illegal to purchase here.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), said in Committee that the Home Office was working with the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport on these online harms, and looking at
“what more we can do to ensure…companies act responsibly and do not facilitate sales of ‘articles with a blade or point’ or ‘corrosive products’ in their platforms.”––[Official Report, Offensive Weapons Public Bill Committee, 11 September 2018; c. 280.]
What I want to ask the Minister is: will that promise be fulfilled in the coming legislation?
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
Through this pandemic, we have seen what a saving grace the online world has proved to be to us. It is a window, and it has connected us to family and friends, and it has provided important information and services. In fact, I have worked hard to bring together different providers and trainers to close the digital divide that so disadvantages those who are not online. However, at the same time as being a saving grace, it is also a serious threat to our health and wellbeing, our security and our democracy—all of these things. I hope that, through this experience, we have now come to a place where we recognise that there is no longer this distinction between the offline and the online worlds.
That question was very much put at the trial of the man who threatened to kill me in 2017. I can assure hon. Members and all watching that it was real and it hurt. The same pain, the same suffering and the same frustration was felt by one of my constituents in 2016, where again the same question was posed: is there a difference between our online and offline experiences? She was a victim of revenge porn, a really dark and sinister crime. Her frustration and her powerlessness at not being able to bring down images that directed people from across the country to find her and rape her—and how the law did not reach her—was just something extraordinary to me. I therefore hope that that distinction is very much gone. We need a levelling up in our online and offline worlds
I want to focus on children. I applaud the work done to date and I welcome the online harms Bill to come, but unfinished business is my point in this debate. We made a commitment to introduce statutory age verification on porn websites. We supported that in 2016 and we supported it in 2017. It is still supported now. The most recent survey suggested that 83% of parents urged it as mission critical to protect their children. We know that early exposure to porn is harmful. I understand that there are technical issues, but surely these can be overcome. Other countries have shown the way, when we were previously world leading—France, for example, most recently.
More must be expected of our social media giants to maintain safe online environments, but I urge the Minister: we have the legislation, let us use it.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
The huge rise in online scams, hate speech and conspiracy theories has highlighted why the Government have to take action urgently, not just by passing legislation but having a counter-narrative to challenge the fake stories we hear about.
Looking at online hate speech at a recent Home Affairs Committee session, we heard that Facebook had deleted a staggering 9.6 million hate speech posts in the first quarter of this year. Much of that hate was directed towards south and east Asian communities, fuelled in part by President Trump using his position of power to fan the flames of hate by calling covid-19 the China virus. However, those 9.6 million posts are only the tip of the iceberg. There is still hate speech that has not been taken down, where it falls short of being hate speech. This is an area that must concern us greatly.
It is not just the south and east Asian communities who have been targeted. Before lockdown, the blame for coronavirus was already being directed at the Muslim, Jewish, Gypsy, Roma, Traveller and LGBT+ communities. Chinese and east Asian people in the UK endured physical and verbal attacks, while Muslims were accused of ignoring lockdown and spreading the virus by visiting mosques. Conspiracy theories were abundant, and falsely linking those groups to the spread of the virus allowed those conspiracy theories to flourish.
That leads me to disinformation and conspiracy theories. The anti-vaccine conspiracy theories are particularly insidious, because casting doubt in people’s minds will result in people choosing not to be vaccinated, which in turn could lead to them catching the virus and passing it on to others. I will not give credence to any absurd anti-vaccine conspiracy theories by repeating them, but unchecked they could be damaging to the health of the nation.
Last year, I had the pleasure of visiting Ethiopia with the charity RESULTS UK to see how it has almost eradicated tuberculosis by vaccinating the majority of the country over the past decade, so I have seen the impact that a well-administered programme of vaccination can have. There needs to be a strong counter-narrative from the Government. That has been missing in countering both hate speech and anti-vaccination theories.
In conclusion, the Government have been dragging their heels on the online harms Bill, which has been talked about for the past three years. Urgent action is needed to counter hate speech, extremism and conspiracy theories to keep our communities and those who need protection safe. We need a counter-narrative to challenge those threats and we need legislative protection. We need action and we need it now, because people’s lives could be depending on it.
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)
The internet has changed the world. In the past, typical hate crime took place on the street and involved a small number of people: the perpetrator, the victim and perhaps a handful of witnesses. The internet has changed all that. Now, when hate crime takes place online, it is seen and shared by thousands within minutes. The hatred is amplified and echoed in a toxic spiral that incites others to go further and further, sometimes spilling over into real life with devastating consequences. We are seeing the impact the amplification of hate is having in real numbers. In the first six months of this year, the Community Security Trust recorded 789 antisemitic incidents across the UK. In 2019, it recorded a record annual total of 1,813. That is just one particular kind of hate directed at one tiny minority community.
I have seen this at first hand, for reasons I can never quite fathom. Last year, one then Labour councillor decided to start bombarding me with abusive messages over several months, accusing me of eating babies, claiming I was linked to Benjamin Netanyahu, repeatedly sending me messages with images of the crucifixion and images of pigs, songs referring to the Wandering Jew, photos of himself dressed in orthodox Jewish clothing, and repeatedly changing my name to Herr Largaman or Herr Larganberg. These incidents are relatively minor compared with what others have had to face, particularly women and many Members of this House. I pay tribute to the Community Security Trust for the amazing work it does, as well as to the Jewish Leadership Council and the Antisemitism Policy Trust, but the fact that such groups have to exist underlines why this Bill is so important.
We need to grasp the nettle and update our laws to reflect the new reality of the online world, and to make certain that this legislation is sufficiently strong and effective. In particular, I urge the Government to carefully consider the issue of anonymity. Many extremists hide behind a keyboard, masking their true identity to unleash abuse and spread false information. That has been facilitated by the growth of alternative social media platforms that anyone can access and post on anonymously. As a result, we have seen them turn into hotbeds of incitement and radicalisation. Some platforms even allowed the live-streaming of atrocities such as the murder of 51 worshippers at two mosques by white supremacists in New Zealand. It is important that we recognise that there is a place for anonymity, particularly for whistleblowers, victims of domestic abuse and people living under authoritarian regimes, but that there is a sensible compromise, which I hope the Government include in the Bill.
When I worked in financial services, we always had to carry out extensive “know your client” checks, as part of an effort to prevent fraud and money laundering. The same concept should apply to the online world. Firm penalties should be in place for companies breaching the duty of care—a modest fine will barely affect those companies—and there has to be individual liability for senior management in extreme cases. Again, that is not a new concept, as it already exists in financial services and in health and safety.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
In my short contribution, I wish to focus on two areas: the need for this legislation to have sufficient teeth and for clear definitions of what constitutes an online harm, which many of my constituents have been in touch with me about. I hear the criticism and concern that an online harms Bill could be overreaching and damage freedom of expression, but that should not stop the Government going ahead and trying to make the internet a safer place.
One of the best ways the Government could do that is by providing a clearer steer as to what constitutes “harm”. As we have heard, and as I think we are all agreed on in this House, high on the agenda must be a robust set of actions and consequences in place when content relating to terrorism, child abuse and equally abhorrent crimes is not taken down by social media companies. We can safely say that we, as Members of Parliament, know full well what a vile place the internet can be, given that we are sometimes on the receiving end of the most vile and horrific abuse. I was subjected to homophobic abuse during the election campaign in December last year.
Any online harms Bill must therefore be sufficiently defined and powerful enough to consider how we can protect people against some of the harmful content available online. I wish to go through some examples that have been raised with me by constituents. They include the fact that almost a quarter of children and young people who sadly lost their lives to suicide had previously searched the internet for suicide-related content; that one in five children had reported being victims of cyber-bullying; that social media companies were not just ignoring but refusing to take down content from so-called “conversion therapy” organisations, which leads so many lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people to consider self-harm or even suicide; that one in 14 adults were experiencing threats to share intimate images of themselves; that one in 10 women were being threatened by an ex-partner and going on to feel suicidal; that there was a higher prevalence of abuse among those with protected characteristics, be they women, religious minorities, LGBT+, black and minority ethnic or disabled people; that there was the issue of distorted body image among girls; and so much more.
We have seen the unwillingness of social media companies to act, which is why further regulation is necessary in this area, but it must be backed up not only by a regulator that has the teeth to act, but by proper education on safe and proper internet use, as regulation alone will not solve the problem. If the Government do get this right, they have the opportunity, probably a once-in-a-generation one, to make the internet a safer but no less free place to be.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright) on his introduction and on all that he said. In my intervention I referred to the need for a social media regulator, and, as the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) has just said, we need a regulator with teeth. We need a regulator that actually does what it says it is going to do. That is important.
The Conservative manifesto of 2015 was very clear that it pertained not to social media platforms but to pornographic websites, and it committed to protecting children from them through the provision of statutory age verification. Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act 2017 made provision for that and it should have been implemented over a year ago. I respectfully express my dismay and concern that that has not happened.
The non-implementation of part 3 of the Act is a disaster for children as it needlessly exposes them to commercial pornographic websites, when this House has made provision for their protection from some sites. Perhaps the Minister could give us an explanation as to why the Government’s detailed defence in the judicial review for not proceeding with the implementation seems to relate to the protection under paragraph 19, which states:
“US-based browser companies were planning on implementing DNS-over-HTTPS…a new internet standard”.
I have great concerns about that.
I am also troubled by the way in which the Government have moved from the language of requiring age verification for pornographic websites, as referred to in their manifesto, to the very different language of expectation. The Government have said:
“This includes age verification tools and we expect them to continue to play a key role in protecting children online.”
They also said:
“Our proposals will introduce higher levels of protection for children. We will expect companies to use a proportionate range of tools including age assurance and age verification technologies to prevent children from accessing age-inappropriate or harmful content.”
In their initial response to the online harms White Paper consultation, the Government also said:
“we expect companies to use a proportionate range of tools, including age assurance and age verification technologies to prevent children accessing age-inappropriate content such as online pornography and to protect them from harms.”
Quite simply, that is not enough. That should not be an expectation; it should be a requirement. We have to have that in place.
The NSPCC has highlighted some worrying statistics. Instagram removed 75% fewer suicide and self-harm images between July and September 2020, industry compliance to take down child abuse images fell by 89%, and 50% of recorded online grooming cases between April and June this year took place on Facebook platforms. What conversations have the Government had to ensure that Facebook and others design and deliver platforms that put child protection services front and centre, as they should be?
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright), my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) on securing this important debate. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, there needs to be parity between online and real-world abuse. Just because hate is fuelled online, it does not make it any less real or any less hurtful, so there really should be parity. We are taking this seriously and that needs to be reflected in the law. People cannot hide behind a keyboard and expect to get away with it.
In the brief time I have, I want to tell two stories. The first involves a Conservative Member of this House who was in Germany some years ago, where they happened upon a far-right rally. The Member confronted the neo-Nazi group and was told to read a book about how Hitler was, in fact, a British spy—a preposterous conspiracy.
The second story is about a man named Joseph Hallett, who for some time has asserted his right to the throne of the United Kingdom, claiming he was cheated of his birth right by the illegitimate conception of King George V, a claim with no basis. He is known online as King John III, and his story has gained popularity among the QAnon movement, a conspiratorial group claiming special knowledge of satanic paedophile rings at the heart of government. Hallett, the fake king, thinks that the royal family is in hock to the Rothschilds, and anyone with an understanding of antisemitism will know where I am headed with this. He is an author, known by his second name, Greg, and he has written about his mad theories. His tome “Gifting the United Nations to Stalin” blames the Jews for 9/11. What else did he write? The book about Hitler being a British spy, recommended in person by a neo-Nazi to a Member of this House. Hallett has interacted with the QAnon community online. This conspiracy network captures the imagination of the unsuspecting, the naive or the bored, and drags them into worlds of hate.
The hatred is not limited to online spaces. QAnon accounts inspired the German faction known as Reichsbürger—citizens of the Reich—to storm the German Parliament in August. Perhaps it was one of its members that our colleague spoke to. More than 50 5G masts were burned down in Britain following another Q conspiracy. In spite of this, some elected representatives in the United States are voicing support for Q. Dealing with the type of legal but harmful content that Q represents is just one of the steps that will need to be taken through the online harms Bill.
In closing, I call on my hon. Friend the Minister to assure me that the proposed duty of care will not simply consist of a requirement for terms and conditions, which the White Paper professed to be insufficient. Will the Government consider giving a code of practice on hate crime equal status to the two proposed statutory codes on terrorism and child sexual exploitation and abuse, as the Antisemitism Policy Trust, the Community Security Trust, the Jewish Leadership Council and the Board of Deputies have called for? And can the Minister confirm that the Government will ensure that all elements of platforms with user-generated content will be covered?
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
This is an incredibly important issue, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) that we should waste no time in introducing age verification as soon as possible to ensure that our children can use the internet in a safe way and not come across content that would expose them to material that they are far too young to see. Not only would that uphold the law, which is clear in setting out the illegality of under-18s viewing such content, but it would ensure that our young people’s development is not threatened and that children are allowed to be children.
Furthermore, we Conservatives should not forget that a year ago, we stood on a manifesto commitment to introduce statutory age verification checks for pornographic websites. This really matters and the public seem to believe so as well. Research carried out for the British Board of Film Classification in 2019 concluded that 83% of parents believe there should be robust age verification controls in place to stop children seeing commercial pornography online. If we are to respect the views of the public and uphold the public’s trust in this place, the Government must commit to enacting this policy. Statutory age verification checks for pornographic websites is what we promised and there should be no doubt that, as Conservatives, that is what we must deliver.
Equally, it is crucial that this subject is not broadened out by the Government to include other issues such as access to pornography on social media. Having read the debate on 7 October, I think that it is really important that today the Minister does not try to change the subject to accessing pornography on social media. Although that is an important issue, it is not what was referred to in our manifesto commitment in 2019. Of course, while I would be more than happy if the Department also brought something forward to protect children from pornography on Twitter, we must press ahead and look at that specific issue later. There is no reason not to press ahead and deliver part 3 as soon as possible.
In business questions last month, the Leader of the House laid out the Government’s reasons not to implement part 3, yet while I appreciated his time in answering my question, I did not wholly buy into his argument. I therefore appeal to the Government to give the matter more thought after this debate. This is, after all, in the interests of protecting children from pornography between now and the implementation of any online harms Bill. As that is likely to be several years away, it is crucial that the Government reconsider their decision and act on the wishes of the electorate.
Having spoken to stakeholders, I am told that the Government could redesignate the regulator and bring forward an implementation date at any time and that we could move to full-blown implementation of part 3 within a matter of months. As a family man and a committed Christian, I urge the Government to enact part 3. This will protect our children and ensure that the Government hold true to their election promise.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
We have had another excellent, if curtailed, debate today. I thank the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright), the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) and the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) for securing it and the Backbench Business Committee for facilitating it. I do not have time to discuss and praise the various speeches that we have had, but I particularly praise the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam, who opened the debate. I thought his speech was fantastic and immensely powerful; nobody could ignore what he said. Take note, Minister: if an SNP Member and a Tory Member can agree so wholeheartedly, actions surely must follow.
We spend more and more of our time online, whether we are interacting with others or are passive consumers of content—the growth of Netflix is testament to the latter. As we spend more time online, the harms that were historically the preserve of the physical world are shifting to the online world. We have seen the growth in online financial scams and their increasing sophistication.
I have a number of constituents, as I am sure do other hon. Members, who have been scammed out of tens of thousands of pounds and lost everything, in part because the scammers were able to manipulate Google keywords advertising to drive traffic to their site and begin the scamming process. The pandemic and lockdown have seen an increase in those scams, as the perpetrators know people are spending more time online than normal.
Since the start of the pandemic, the level of disinformation around vaccination and healthcare has grown exponentially. Anti-vaxxers have already targeted the newly developed vaccines that we all hope will get us out of this situation. Such disinformation campaigns have always been dangerous, particularly for young people who are usually the main recipients of vaccines, but now present an even bigger danger to public health.
These lies—that is what they are—are propagated via the platforms of social media companies, which should have a responsibility to tackle such anti-science, anti-reason and anti-fact campaigns quickly and directly. It is not good enough for Mark Zuckerberg and the like to parrot free speech as if it were a “get out of jail free” card. Free speech comes with responsibilities; it does not give people the right to place others at risk of illness and death.
Just as children were most at risk from the anti-vaxxers until the pandemic hit, it is children who are most at risk from online harassment and abuse, in particular young women and girls. A recent report by Plan International on girls’ rights in the digital world makes extremely depressing reading. More than a fifth of girls have received abuse on a photo or status they have posted, and nearly a quarter have felt harassed by someone contacting them regularly on social media. The net result of the abuse, harassment and pressure is that nearly half of all girls are afraid to give their opinions on social media, for fear of the response, and 13% have stopped going on social media completely to avoid negative responses. Less than a week before the international day for the elimination of violence against women and girls, those figures are shocking.
A toxic environment is stopping women and girls participating in the online world on the same basis as boys and men. It feeds into a dangerous and violent misogyny that is on the rise on social media, again largely unchecked by the big tech companies until it becomes a big PR issue. It is no surprise that so many executive positions in those companies are occupied by men and so few by women.
For most households, online communication is now a fundamental part of daily life, whether it is streaming content or keeping in touch with family and friends on social media, but too often the regulation of online activities that cause harm seems to be stuck in the last century, when the internet was something we read about in newspapers or heard about on one of our four TV channels. The world has moved on dramatically in the past two decades, but the legislative framework has not. It is especially important that the victims of online harms, whether it be abuse, harassment or financial scams, feel able to report their experiences to the police or other relevant authorities. If big tech will not act, it falls to the Government to protect our citizens.
I understand that the pressures on the Government at the moment are absolutely huge, but so are the risks for individuals and for society the longer these harms are allowed to proliferate. I urge the Government to heed the contributions of Members right across the House and bring forward concrete plans to introduce the Bill as soon as possible.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I thank the Backbench Business Committee, the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright), the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) for stepping in where the Government have failed by bringing forward this debate and for the excellent opening contributions. Indeed, we have heard excellent remarks from all parts of the House in this debate, and I am sorry that I do not have time to do justice to them all—I have just noted how much time I have.
As a chartered engineer, I spent 20 years building out the networks that have become the internet. I am proud of that work and of what it has become. As we have heard, we are increasingly living our lives online, and the ongoing pandemic has accelerated that. For those who are not digitally excluded, social media platforms such as Facebook, Google, YouTube, Instagram and Twitter are all now woven into the fabric of our lives and, together with the vast array of online apps for everything from video conferencing to healthy eating, they are a critical enabler of an active life for citizen, consumer and economic contributor. None the less, as Members have shown so acutely, the internet can be a dark, challenging and inhospitable place. Content is curated by tech platforms that allow the spread of disinformation, sexual exploitation, fake news, extremism, hatred and other harmful content. September saw the highest number of public reports of suspected child sexual abuse material ever received in a single month by the Internet Watch Foundation. On TikTok, the #vaccinesaredangerous has had almost 800,000 views, with almost no misinformation warnings. Incredibly, we have yet to have a debate in Government time on online harms. Hon. and right hon. Members have expressed many concerns in this place in written and oral questions over the years, but Government have done nothing. Regulation has not kept pace with technology, crime or consumers, leaving growing numbers of people increasingly exposed to significant harms, but it did not have to be this way.
In 2010, the then Labour Government saw the growth of new communications technologies and undertook a comprehensive forward-looking review. The result was the Communications Act 2003 and a new regulator, Ofcom, with the power to ensure that these issues were resolved in the public interest. That regulatory framework had a 10-year lifespan—I know because I was head of technology at Ofcom at the time. In 2012, the Conservative-led Government saw the growth of our online lives—social media and big data—and did nothing. The 2012 review of online harms may be the most important review that we never had. It was not until April 2019 that they finally began a consultation since which legislation has been promised repeatedly and yet it comes not, leaving big tech in control of our online lives.
I consider myself a tech evangelist. I believe that tech is an engine of progress like no other. I believe that it can improve the lives of my constituents and enable a more equal, more productive and more sustainable skills-based economy through a fourth industrial revolution, but people need to be protected and empowered to take control of their lives online. The Government need to be on the side of the people and not tech lobbyists. This Government have failed us to a degree that is historically negligent, as this debate shows.
Members have highlighted how Government are failing in their duty to safeguard children from child abuse. Other Members have focused on the economic harms and the existing tech giants business model, which means that Google and Facebook have control of the online high street, even as Amazon unfairly competes the high street in our real-world towns out of existence. Ninety seven per cent of UK consumers consult reviews when buying products online, yet investigations by Which? have repeatedly exposed fake and misleading reviews. How will the Government address these online harms in economic terms and enable real competition? We have also heard about online advertising, which is the driver of the business model. It is unregulated, leaving television companies at a disadvantage and driving more and more extreme content in front of viewers. My understanding is that the Government plan to ban all advertising of unhealthy foods on the internet. Is that the case, and why will the Government not act more broadly to address the failings of the advertising model?
As a constructive Opposition, we have proposals as well as criticisms. Self-regulation has failed—this debate has made that clear—but, robust, reasonable, rational, forward-looking and principles-based regulation can succeed. It is shocking that in all this time, the Government have not established what those principles should be. Our ability to build back from covid depends on a successful vaccine, and we have had fantastic news about that recently, but, as we have heard, misinformation on vaccines as well as on 5G, the holocaust and so on is freely available. That is why Labour is calling for emergency legislation on anti-vax disinformation. Will the Government commit to that?
Labour has made it clear that we need a digital bill of rights and a legal duty of care to give more powers and protection. We need a statutory regulator for online platforms to crack down on the harm, the hate and the fake. We also need a public debate on what our online future should look like, and that is why we launched the consultation “Our Digital Future” to build consensus on the underlying principles. We are now analysing the over 600 responses that we have received, and we will publish our report soon. We are committed to eradicating the digital divide—indeed, the many new digital divides—as a result of which marginalised peoples have become increasingly excluded from the online world.
Many bodies, including the NSPCC, Big Brother Watch, the Carnegie UK Trust, Which? and the Institute of Alcohol Studies have contacted me and asked me to raise their concerns. I cannot do them all justice or spend time talking about algorithms, artificial intelligence, the internet of things and all the other emerging potential harms. Government must set out a clear plan to address these online harms and give people back control of their online lives, if our lives are to flourish online without fear or favour.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Warman)
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright) and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) for securing this debate. [Interruption.] Wait for it; I entirely sympathise with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) in business questions. The little time that the House has spent on this enormous subject today could never have done it justice, and it certainly does not reflect the huge importance that the Government ascribe to better protecting children and adults from online harm, while, of course, balancing that against the precious freedom of expression that we all hold so dear.
We know that we can and must do more in this vital area. Covid-19 has emphasised how much we rely on the web and on social media, and how vital it is for firms to apply to their users as soon as possible the duty of care that has been discussed this afternoon. Platforms can and must do more to protect those users, and particularly children, from the worst of the internet, which is sadly all too common today. The Government will ensure that firms set out clearly what legal content is acceptable on their platforms and ensure, via a powerful and independent regulator, that they enforce that consistently and effectively. Codes of practice will set out what is acceptable, on topics from hate crime to eating disorders, so that the networks themselves no longer make the rules.
I pay tribute to the many fine contributions that we have heard today, and I pay particular tribute to the work of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam, the former Secretary of State responsible for the White Paper. I reassure him that the Government’s forthcoming online harms legislation will establish that new duty of care; that platforms will be held to account for the content that appears on their services; and that legislation will establish a systemic approach that is resilient in the face of a host of challenges, from online bullying to predatory behaviour.
Earlier this year, as my right hon. and learned Friend mentioned, we published the initial response, making clear the direction of travel. We will publish the full Government response to the online harms White Paper this year. We will set out further detail of our proposals, and alongside that we will publish interim voluntary codes of practice on terrorist content and child sexual exploitation and abuse. The full Government response will be followed by legislation, which will be ready early next year. I know that there is huge concern about the time that this is taking, but we also know that it is critical that we get this right, and we will do that early in the new year. Covid emphasises the need to get on with this. We want to introduce effective legislation that makes platforms more responsible for the safety of their users and underpins the continued growth of the digital sector, because, as he said, responsible business is good for business.
The White Paper also set out the prevalence of illegal content and activity online, with a particular focus on the most serious of those offences, namely child sexual exploitation and abuse. Protecting children online from CSEA is crucial. Alongside the full Government response, we will publish interim codes on tackling the use of the internet by terrorists and those engaged in child sexual exploitation and abuse. We want to ensure that companies take action now to tackle content that threatens our national security and the physical safety of children, and that is what we will do.
I am sure that many Members here today have been the target of online abuse or know someone who has. We have heard powerful stories. Close to half of adults in the UK say that they have seen hateful content online in the past year. I want to make it clear today that online abuse targeted towards anyone is unacceptable; as with so many other areas, what is illegal offline is also illegal online.
Online abuse can have a huge impact on people’s lives, and is often targeted at the most vulnerable in our society. Our approach to tackling online harms will support more users to participate in online discussions by reducing the risk of bullying or being attacked on the basis of their identity. All in-scope companies will be expected to tackle illegal content and activity, including offences targeted at users on the basis of their sex, and to have effective systems in place to deal with such content. My Department is working closely with the Law Commission, which is leading a review of the law related to abusive and offensive online communications. The commission will issue final recommendations in 2021 that we will carefully consider.
It is important, though, to note that the aim of this regime is not to tackle individual pieces of content. We will not prevent adults from accessing or posting legal content, nor require companies to remove specific pieces of legal content. Instead, the regulatory regime will be focused on the systems and processes implemented by companies to address harmful content. That is why it will have the extensive effect that so many Members have called for today.
I will deal briefly with anti-vaccination content. As we have heard today, many Members are concerned about this issue. As the Prime Minister made clear in the House yesterday, as we move into the next phase of vaccine roll-out, we have secured a major commitment from Facebook, Twitter and Google to the principle that no company should profit from or promote any anti-vaccine disinformation, and that they will respond to flagged content more swiftly. The platforms have also agreed to work with health authorities to promote scientifically accurate messages, and we will continue to engage with them. We know that anti-vaccination content could cost lives and we will not do anything that could allow it to proliferate. We will also continue work on the media literacy strategy to allow people better to understand what they see online.
Let me briefly address a few points that were raised in the debate. On product safety, the Office for Product Safety and Standards has a clear remit to lead the Government’s efforts to tackle the sale of unsafe goods online, and my officials are working with their counterparts in other Departments to deliver a coherent pro-innovation approach to governing digital technologies, and they will continue to do so. The Home Office is engaging with the IWF, including on funding. On age verification, the Government are committed to ensuring that children are protected from accessing inappropriate harmful content online, including online pornography. The judicial review mentioned by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam prevents me from saying more, but the Queen’s Speech on 19 December included a commitment to improve internet safety for all and to make the UK the safest place in the world to go online.
Tackling online harms is a key priority for this Government in order to make the internet a safer place for us all. I close by reiterating how vital it is that we get this legislation right. This Government will not shy away from ensuring that we do, and that we do so quickly.
Jeremy Wright
I warmly thank all Members who have contributed to this debate, and congratulate all of them on saying so much in so little time. I hope that we have come together this afternoon to send a clear message about how much support there is across the Chamber for identifying not just the problem of online harms, but also the solutions.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for what he has said this afternoon. I am even more grateful for what I know he is going to say after this debate to his colleagues in government. I do not doubt for a moment his personal commitment to this agenda, but I hope that he will be able to say to others in government that there has probably never been a piece of legislation more eagerly anticipated by everyone, on both sides of this House. Although the Government will not get a blank cheque on this legislation—no Government could and no Government should—they will, I think, get a commitment from all parties to a proper analysis and a proper supporting examination of how we might do this effectively. With that encouragement, I hope that the Minister will make sure that this happens very soon.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House recognises the need to take urgent action to reduce and prevent online harms; and urges the Government to bring forward the Online Harms Bill as soon as possible.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Moving very swiftly on, I am going to suspend the House for two minutes in order to do the necessary—only two minutes, because time is of the essence.
International Men’s Day
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered International Men’s Day.
It is right that the House should consider the challenges faced by men and boys across our United Kingdom today, on International Men’s Day. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for its consideration in allocating the time to consider this in the House on the day itself—19 November. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) for his work in co-sponsoring the debate, as well as those across the House who have supported it. I have drastically shortened my speech because our three hours have become one. That is perhaps indicative of the problem of men’s issues being pushed off the end of the agenda: it nicely typifies the problem. I also want to give as much time to colleagues as I can.
In these challenging times, it is hugely important that we have this conversation. We face a difficult situation because of covid and particularly because of the economic impact. We know that there were huge spikes in male suicide and depression following the 2008 economic crash due to losing employment, struggling to provide for families, and struggling to find purpose. It is also challenging because of the general discourse that so often seems to pervade our society that talks of male privilege, of toxic masculinity, and of men as oppressors rather than positive contributors or role models. Men are talked about, all too often, as a problem that must be rectified.
Too often, the constant drive for equality and diversity seeks to drag others down rather than lift everyone up. Just a few weeks ago, I spoke in Westminster Hall about the impact of equalities legislation, which sometimes seems to provide additional help for everyone except men and boys. One of my great passions in the campaigning I most regularly return to in this place is that of working-class boys in areas like Mansfield and in other parts of the country where there is deep and entrenched disadvantage. Figures from education show that these lads are least likely of any group to do well at school, to improve their lot in life, to get to university, or ever to have the opportunity to spread their wings further afield and aspire beyond the borders of the place they grew up in. Working-class white boys often seem to sit at the bottom of the pile.
Across the board in our education system, the advancement of girls has been noticeable. It should be celebrated and recognised that girls are doing much better in recent years. That is brilliant news, and it is the result of countless interventions and programmes of support. However, it also needs to be recognised that, more often than not, boys do not have the same encouragement. No matter the race, geography or social class involved, girls now outperform boys throughout the education system. For example, in GCSE attainment, three quarters of girls’ grades in 2019 were passes, compared with two thirds for boys. We have had reports of record-high gender gaps in university places, with girls a third more likely than boys to access higher education.
That brings me back to the Equality Act 2010, which is so often misinterpreted and misunderstood. If we know that boys are now hugely under-represented at university—a growing problem—where are all the programmes to support boys into higher education? I am not keen on discriminating by gender or any other physical characteristic, but given that the Act pushes for positive action based on these characteristics in order to level the playing field, where is the support for those who are struggling? The figures clearly show that girls are already outperforming boys, so why are we allowing this misuse of our equalities law to exacerbate gender inequality, rather than fixing it, with countless programmes to support girls into HE and none for boys?
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend join me in looking forward to the exciting prospect of the holiday activities and food programme? We must do all within our power to encourage maximum participation from working-class boys in particular.
Ben Bradley
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Representing a constituency and community like mine, where these lads are really struggling, taught me about the need for face-to-face contact and support for the most disadvantaged children. That is hugely important, and I thank her for raising that.
What is the point of the Equality Act 2010 if its usage is based only on what seems popular or politically correct, rather than on reality in order to help those most in need? The reality and the figures tell us that boys need help getting into higher education, more so than girls, so are these interventions actually making this inequality worse? Possibly so. To be absolutely clear, that is not to say that we should not help girls, but simply that selecting who to help based on physical characteristics alone is the very definition of discrimination; that the need for this help should be evidenced if it is to comply with the law; and that boys need help too.
Boys seem consistently left behind by this kind of politically correct agenda. So long as the Equality Act continues to be so wilfully and regularly misapplied across gender, race and every other characteristic, it can do more harm than good. We need to make clear in this place that we should help people based on their actual need, and that the Act applies equally to everybody. Would it not be nice to try to help those most in need —based not on their physical characteristics but on what they need? Or at least to recognise that we all have equal protection under this law? Whether gay, black and minority ethnic, female or a straight white man, those are all protected characteristics.
Men face countless challenges in our society. Three times as many men as women die by suicide, with men aged 40 to 49 having the highest rates. Men report lower levels of life satisfaction, according to the Government’s national wellbeing survey, but are less likely to access psychological therapies. Nearly three quarters of adults who go missing are men. Eighty-seven per cent. of rough sleepers are men. Men are three times as likely to become dependent on alcohol or drugs, are more likely to be sectioned under the Mental Health Act and are more likely to be a victim of violent crime. Of course, men also make up the vast majority of the prison population. These figures really put that male privilege in perspective.
In recent years, it seems like more and more phrases coming into use are designed to undermine the role and confidence of men in our society. I mentioned a few before—male privilege, toxic masculinity, mansplaining, manterrupting, the trend of spelling “woman” with an x to remove the undesirable “man” part. That is wonderfully empowering for some, I am sure, but as I said at the beginning of this speech, somebody seeking equality of fairness does not need to mean they drag down everyone around them. I am fairly sure that bad behaviour is not limited solely to the male of the species, nor is rudeness gender specific.
The outcome of this discourse and this language for many men is serious, particularly in the most disadvantaged communities. There is such a thing as working-class values—values that have lasted for many decades that might be considered old hat or even sexist by the modern establishment. They include holding the door open for a lady and expecting a man to stick around and provide for his family. The idea that a man being a worker and breadwinner is a positive role model for his children is still entrenched and well taught. That is not to the detriment of women or to limit their ambition, but about the promotion of family, of tradition, of strong male role models. These things are important.
Having been brought up with those values, a lot of men from those communities will feel lost if they are unable to find work due to our economic situation. They might feel helpless, or like failures. They are far from it, but they need our support. We might also find that young men looking ahead and seeking their purpose in life might struggle to find it when they are told that those things they thought were virtues—their good manners, wanting to provide for their family, wanting to be a man’s man, wanting to go down to the football at the weekend and have some banter with the lads—are in fact not virtuous but toxic and doing down the women around them; those manners and the way they were taught to respect the women in their life are now sexist; that banter is now bullying.
On family, rather than promoting strong male role models, we often encourage dads to be more like mums, trying to break down tradition, teaching them the opposite of what they were always told growing up and that they have been doing it wrong. We talk of “deadbeat” dads. We have a legal system in the family courts that seems to assume the guilt of many men in a relationship. We have men being alienated from their kids. We talk more and more about how desirable it is to have different kinds of families, with the implication that we do not need those strong male role models. Is it any wonder that so many are struggling to figure all this out?
It is right that people should live by their own choices, and be who they want to be, however they are comfortable. That is true whether someone is gay or straight, black or white, male or female, and it is equally true if what they want is to fulfil the traditional role of a strong father, provider and breadwinner—to be, for want of a better word, a bloke. I fear that we are building up huge problems for the future when we forget the traditional role of men—indeed, sometimes we do not just forget it; we try to eradicate it from our society.
With few of life’s advantages on their side in such an environment, and when society seems insistent on ripping the heart out of things that they experienced growing up and the things they were taught, it is no wonder that so many young men tragically cut their lives short. We cannot continue to talk down the role and purpose of young men when we should be building them up.
Let me move on a little from the gloom and doom and speak about some positive things and actions we can take. I particularly want to play tribute to dads, and to all those dads who are putting their families first and doing the right thing, I say this: thank you. That is often taken for granted, but it is so important. I know myself how difficult it is in this job to balance being a dad with work, and try to keep myself on a level and live up to expectations. It is not easy.
There are countless thousands of dads out there who have a much tougher task than me—dads who might be struggling financially or be battling things like trying to see their kids, or fighting in the family courts to do the right thing. They are trying to be a role model for their kids, although truthfully, we are all making it up as we go along. Some dads might be trying to overcome their own challenges with mental health, work or stress, and they might feel as if they have to hide that away for the sake of their families and children.
I want to say a big thank you to good dads, and to those who are trying their best to be good dads and good men. That can make all the difference for our kids, for families, and for our society. There are places and people that dads can go to if they need help. Those are places such as the Samaritans, Rethink, the Campaign Against Living Miserably—CALM—helpline, Safeline, or a friend or relative. It is good to talk, as they say, rather than sweep things under the carpet.
What more can we in this place do? For starters, we can change the discourse here. Can we look again at equalities legislation? If we are to hold Departments across Whitehall to account, with people dedicated to ensuring—quite rightly so—that women are considered, why not do the same for men? Why have a Minister for Women, but not one for men? Why single out one characteristic for a special mention? Can we ensure that equality means just that, rather than positive discrimination at the expense of certain groups, and ensure that the male is as equally protected as the female? We could do worse in this place to confirm how the Equality Act 2010 should be properly used.
Can we promote the role of fatherhood, and stop shying away from its importance? Yes, families come in all shapes and sizes. I do not wish to detract from anyone who wants to do things differently, but the positive role to be played by an active father cannot, and should not, be ignored. Modern families are all different, but you can guarantee that every one of them has involved a dad in one way or another. The vast majority of families still look like a mum, dad, and kids and we should not shy away from that.
Can we push forward an action plan to look at male suicide? We know the figures are awful, and we should have someone in Government accountable for delivering that plan, including better access to mental health support. Can we review our legal system, which is not always balanced, and our family courts, which too often seem to consider dads guilty until proven innocent? Parental alienation seems to be increasing, and more and more dads feel that they have been let down by the system. Can we reform the Child Maintenance Service—the bane of every MP’s life, by the way—so that it is fairer to all parties and works in the interests of families? Can we have a long-term plan to improve available alcohol addiction services, as those who need them are overwhelmingly male? Can we boost support for new fathers, as well as mothers, at a time when men can often feel totally helpless?
Although, as the name suggests, the Prime Minister’s Race Disparity Unit focuses particularly on race, I am pleased that it includes looking at education, attainment and support for white working-class boys. There are regional, cultural and gender-based inequalities, and the challenge faced by boys in education cannot be denied. The figures show a clear picture of increasing numbers of left-behind boys who grow into troubled young men seeking purpose. That is a huge challenge for our wider society, and I hope we can build on that work and consider it in more detail. I will end with that, Madam Deputy Speaker, so as to give colleagues as much time as I can. I thank the Minister for her consideration today, and I look forward to listening to the thoughts of colleagues across the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
We will have to rush into this with a time limit of three minutes for Back-Bench speeches, and there will not be much time for Front-Bench speeches either.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
As I have said before, there are many areas where men are disproportionately affected that do not get enough focus in the House. This debate should be about highlighting those areas. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) for his speech. Unsurprisingly, I completely agree with him, particularly with regard to the points he made about the disadvantage and poor outcomes, especially in education, of white working-class boys—something that the politically correct lobby has brushed under the carpet for too long.
Just this week, Bradford Council has consulted on its latest equality plan. It has set targets for people in jobs, including one for 65% of its top 5% of employees to be female. I do not believe in quotas and targets. I believe that each job should be awarded on merit and merit alone, but even if we go along with all this so-called equality, where on earth is the equality in that target? The leader of Bradford Council represents a ward in my constituency with a high proportion of white working-class people in it, yet she is completely silent about that in her so-called equality plan, despite the fact that she must know the disadvantage they face.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield brilliantly defended good dads, and I want to echo that message. I know of men who have had their lives ruined because of a relationship breakdown, which has needlessly led to a whole family breakdown and, in some cases, a mental breakdown, too. I have talked about parental alienation before and do not apologise for mentioning it again. It is quite simply abuse, and the many people who have written to me with heartbreaking personal stories show how this happens all too often. It is abuse against the alienated parent—not just men—and against the sons and daughters of the parent. It also affects a whole host of people in the wider family.
I am pleased that the Government have taken some of my points on board and included parental alienation as an example of abuse in the draft statutory guidance for the Domestic Abuse Bill, which is going through Parliament. I hope the Government will continue to look at ways to prevent this, as it would make a huge positive difference to so many if it could be stamped out.
Finally, that leads me on to suicide. Men’s suicide has been a common theme of all the past debates on International Men’s Day, and rightly so. Suicide rates among men are three times higher than for women in the UK. The connection between relationship breakdown and suicide risk in western countries has been studied, and the data from those studies indicates that, unsurprisingly, relationship breakdown elevates suicide risk in both sexes, and more so for men. None of the studies apparently investigated the specific effect on the likelihood of suicide of fathers’ separation from their children, despite charities reporting that it is the overwhelming source of distress. It is quite clear to me that we need to do a lot more to ensure that fathers are not stopped from seeing their children, to save lives. In these covid lockdown times, it is too easy to imagine how this will be causing even more mental health problems and, unfortunately, more suicides.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
As someone who used to work in the national health service, I would like to focus on the health challenges faced by men, and I will look at three primary areas in the short time available to me.
The first is in relation to the coronavirus pandemic. Public Health England’s review demonstrated that, despite making up only 46% of diagnosed cases, 60% of deaths are among men, 70% of admissions to intensive care are men and working-age males diagnosed with covid-19 are twice as likely to die. The Minister is doing cross-departmental work to understand the risk factors associated with this disease, so I hope she will continue to look into the reasons why that disparity exists.
The second health risk I would like to focus on is cancer. Prostate cancer is the most common cancer among men in the UK and the second most common cause of death, with around 12,000 deaths in 2017. In addition, since the early 1990s, testicular cancer incidence rates have risen by nearly 24% among men in the UK. Great strides have been made in this area, including in survival rates—particularly for prostate cancer, which has gone from 76% of people dying within 10 years in the ’70s to just 16% now—but there is still a lot more to do. The NHS long-term plan has an ambitious cancer screening commitment, but that must be coupled with work to tackle the stigma around men’s health, particularly male cancers, and too many men leaving it too late before they seek help.
As Members have already outlined, one of the most chilling statistics comes in the form of mental health and suicide, because it truly is a terrible thing that the single biggest cause of death in men under 45 in the United Kingdom is men taking their own lives. Men account for about three quarters of suicide deaths registered in England and Wales. Middle-aged men in the UK have the highest average suicide rate of any age group.
I again draw attention to the good work of the NHS long-term plan, which is working to design a new mental health strategy and improvement programme, which will focus on suicide prevention. Ministers say that reducing suicides remains an NHS priority, and I urge them to ensure that is the case, because it cannot be right for the most common cause of death for anyone of any age, gender, sexuality, race, religion or creed to be from them taking their own life. I urge the Government to do all they can to ensure that these terrible health statistics are consigned to the dustbin of history as soon as possible.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn), who made a very informative speech. He has touched on many of the points that I wish to raise, but in beginning my comments, I, too, commend my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) for highlighting these issues. He has been an ardent campaigner on this area since he was elected to the House and beforehand. These are issues that we just have to talk about.
I want to focus my comments on three areas in particular: domestic abuse, mental health and the attainment gap, which my hon. Friend articulated so well. I pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) for piloting through the Domestic Abuse Bill, which is currently awaiting Second Reading in the other place. It will ensure that all victims have the confidence to report their experiences of domestic abuse.
We know that 786,000 men have reported being victims of domestic abuse. Looking at the numbers, we find that only just over half of men will report domestic abuse, whereas 88% of women are prepared to do so. There are 37 refuges and safe houses with 204 spaces. Of those 204 available spaces, only 40 are dedicated for men. In Greater London, there are no spaces for men needing refuge from domestic abuse. The Respect Men’s Advice Line has said that some male victims of domestic abuse have reported sleeping in cars, in tents or in the gardens of their relatives to seek refuge from their abusers.
As someone who has seen domestic abuse at first hand, the ability to escape is fundamental to ensuring that people survive. We need to be doing more to ensure that there is provision, because there is clearly a gap, although I pay tribute to those organisations supporting the victims and survivors of domestic abuse.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington articulated the mental health issues perfectly. Some 75% of suicide deaths in England and Wales are men. We need to tackle that, and we must do so across the board. It is not right. We need to look at the fundamental underlying issues that lead to these deaths.
I do not want to repeat the stats that my hon. Friend read out, but I round off my comments by saying this: ultimately, this is about ensuring that we all have access to the services and support that we need. We should value everyone as an individual—as the person they are at their core, irrespective of gender, what they look like or where they come from. This debate highlights that, and my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield has drawn that out once again. I pay tribute to him, and I pay tribute to the fantastic work being done to support men in the areas I have highlighted.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
First, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) for securing this vital debate. I agree with his comments about the underperformance of white boys from underprivileged backgrounds in the school system. The facts speak for themselves and they cannot be disputed. I think it right that the Education Committee, on which I serve, is currently looking at that issue in depth. That is not to say we are not going to look at other issues, but why should we not look at that one issue as well?
I want to talk about men’s mental health, which is getting more attention now than it ever has. The simple fact is that many men who struggle with their mental health do not feel comfortable talking about it. They might think deep down it is a sign of weakness—of course they are wrong, it is not—but they should feel comfortable to talk about it. Awareness of mental health is greater than it has ever been, because there is not a single person in this country whose mental health has not been impacted to some extent. I think even about my own father. If I had spoken to him a year or two ago about mental health, he probably would have said, “Man up—stiff upper lip,” and taken a very masculine approach to it, whereas he is 75 years old and has had to shield himself, and when I talked to him about this very issue not long ago, I never thought that I would hear it but my dad was talking about his mental health. That is a good thing, and we should encourage more of it.
There are great challenges, and the pandemic has brought this issue to light more than ever. Many of the things that men rely on, such as going to watch the football, fishing and golf, have not been possible, particularly during this second lockdown. I wish, though, to highlight something brilliant that is happening in Chantry in Ipswich. Over the summer, the local landlady, Penny, spoke to me about the problem of men’s mental health and how she wanted to do something about it. After a small period—two to three months—she now has 33 members of her men’s mental health support group in Chantry, including Rex Manning, a professionally trained chef from the local area. They have secured an allotment at the Robin Drive allotments, and all the men go down there, become members and talk. Even if they do not feel comfortable talking about their mental health directly, engaging in something like that, which is so good for their wellbeing, really brings people and the whole community together. They make produce with the vegetables, and Rex collects it all together and they all eat it together in the local pub.
Men’s mental health is a very challenging issue, and it is right that we have this debate, but there is a great opportunity here. The pandemic has highlighted mental health more than ever before, but talking about our mental health is not a sign of weakness; it is something that should be encouraged. It is right that we have this debate today, and I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) for securing it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
An hon. Gentleman has, unusually, withdrawn from the debate, which gives us a tiny bit of extra time. I am therefore going to raise the limit on Back-Bench speeches to four minutes.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
Thank you for the good news, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) for securing this very important debate. We both understand the acute disadvantages and difficulties —ranging from health and education to incarceration and suicide—experienced by men in our region of the UK. I welcome the opportunity to draw the House’s attention to this unacceptable inequality and to stand up for men and boys in my constituency.
We do not talk about men’s mental health enough, and toxic masculinity is a severe problem. Tragically, suicide remains the biggest killer for men under the age of 45. Research suggests that men who are less well-off and living in the most deprived areas are up to 10 times more likely to die by suicide than more well-off men in affluent areas—a grim statistic that is relevant to areas of high deprivation such as mine in Rother Valley, with the likes of Maltby and Dinnington. This must be addressed.
Beyond the realms of health, many men suffer from low attainment and reduced opportunities at every stage of life. This is of particular concern to me in Rother Valley. At school, there is an old adage that girls consistently outperform boys at GCSE level, and they have done so for the past 30 years. At higher education level, more than 67,000 fewer men than women accept places at university—a huge gap of 35%. After 10 years of Government reforms, standards are increasing, but for areas such as mine in Rother Valley, this cannot come soon enough. We must continue to put pressure on schools, universities and companies to do more for working-class boys and men. Only this week, I read that in 2016 SOAS did not accept any white working-class boys into the university. That is a disgrace.
It is worth noting that women in Rother Valley are in full support of empowering our local men. They see the everyday struggles of their fathers, brothers, sons, uncles, grandfathers and friends. They do not have the reductive mindset—pushed by many in the liberal metropolitan elite of the Labour party—in which men as a whole species are blamed for gender inequality. Instead, they recognise that while women still face substantial social inequality—and they absolutely do—so do many of our men. For example, 79,000 people are in prison, and 96% of them are male—a shocking statistic. These men cannot be blamed for having privilege that they simply do not possess.
I am in full agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield on this point: I want to lift up everyone, men and women, rather than dragging them down. This fits with my persistent campaign for Rother Valley to be levelled up across the board, in all areas and all sectors, but especially for all people. Growing up in Maltby or Dinnington should not mean that a person has a lesser chance of succeeding professionally, and it should not mean that they lack access to high-quality services and facilities. Unfortunately, too many men and boys in Rother Valley tell me exactly this: they feel abandoned, left behind and forgotten. It is in everybody’s interests that we raise our men’s aspirations and help them to use their inherent talents to reach their full potential. I firmly believe that this Government are doing so for men, boys and everyone, and especially for those in Rother Valley.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
International Men’s Day has been an annual event since 2010, and the UK has the most events of its kind anywhere in the world. It is overseen by the Men and Boys Coalition, a registered charity including over 100 organisations, academics and professionals who believe in a society that values the wellbeing of men and boys.
There are some positive themes: it makes a positive difference to wellbeing, it raises awareness and funds for charities supporting men and boys and it promotes a positive conversation about men, manhood and masculinity, all of which is a good thing. There are some serious themes, too. In 1998, my very closest friend sadly committed suicide. It was a devastating event for me, his family and all of his friends. I am well versed in the mess left behind. We must end the stigma around men’s mental health and commend the truth that it is okay not to feel okay. The simple answer is: please seek help.
International Men’s Day is also about the challenges faced by men and boys at all stages of education, shorter life expectancies, infertility and workplace death. It is about the challenges faced by the most marginalised men in society and homeless boys in care. It is about inner cities and black and white working-class males. It is also about male victims of violence, the challenges faced by men as parents, and survivors of sexual abuse, rape and domestic abuse. That is all relevant.
In this era of identity politics, it is becoming increasingly popular to ridicule men who display traits of traditional masculinity such as self-reliance, personal responsibility, discipline and courage—even fatherhood. Guess what? I do not subscribe to that, because all men matter. Indeed, the UK prides itself on being among the top meritocracies in the world. Equality of opportunity is something we absolutely must strive for, so it is about black and white, gay and straight, male and female. Everyone has a role, and no one should feel ashamed of who they are. It is not about men as a comparative species; it is simply about drawing attention to particular issues affecting men.
Lastly, I have some quick stats. In 2018, almost 5,000 men took their own lives at a rate of 13 a day—17.2 per 100,000—which is the highest rate since 2013. Men also make up 75% of suicides. Girls are now 14% more likely than boys to pass exams in English and maths, while boys are permanently excluded more than three times as often, with 6,000 permanent exclusions. I think much of that is down to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and to autism spectrum disorder, which is a separate issue in itself but one we need to look at closely. Of the 79,000 people in prison, 96% are male. So we have got work to do.
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
It is estimated by the World Health Organisation that globally 800,000 people die every year due to suicide. In the UK, three quarters of suicides are of men. I question why it is that men suffer the most with suicide and think it is often down to the challenges in society and how we, as a male species, do not ask for help.
During my maiden speech, I spoke about the concept of HOPE being an acronym standing for Help One Person Everyday. Sometimes, that one person has to be ourselves, but it so hard to ask for help when that is seen as a weakness. I say to anyone out there right now who is suffering that it is not a weakness to ask for help and support; it is a strength. When I look at the social media narrative and the often divisive debate around masculinity and men, I draw on my belief that we cannot heal divisions by being divisive, we cannot tackle hatred by being hateful and we cannot show our strength only by belittling those who show weakness. The debate that we have in this Chamber today should not be limited to the time we have here. It should be a societal debate about how we tackle these big challenges in society. How do we look at tackling the stigma, not just through medical and NHS support but through the narrative that we provide as politicians and members of the public.
We need to listen to each other. Sometimes when I look at the world, especially through the lens of social media, the web and the media, I feel as if we are in a world full of those shouting and it makes me ask who are those who are listening. Let us all listen to what people are saying. Let us not consider men to be the enemy. We are all part of the important fabric of society. We all have differences. To anyone who is struggling right now, who is thinking the worst thoughts, remember that you are unique. You are one of 7 billion on this planet and you are the only version of you. You need to continue your story. You need to be here for one more day; just give it another few minutes, another hour. Just give yourself a bit more time to find out why you are really here. The power of your story, of overcoming it, will make a difference to others and to those around you and, by God, it will make a difference to your family and friends. If they do not have you here tomorrow, if they do not have the stories of the difficult times as well as the joyful times, we all lack because of that.
So I ask all of us: please ask for help if you need it and ask others if they need help. Remember it is okay not to be okay, as my hon. Friends have said. It is also okay to ask others if they are okay. It is okay to say to them, “Are you really okay?” Ask them more than once. That second or third time might be the chance for them to open up in a way that they never have before. I am so pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) organised the debate today because without it we may not have these voices. Today we might change someone’s life. If, off the back of today, we stop just one person from committing suicide, even if it is over the next hundred years, that will have made this debate worth while.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Watford (Dean Russell). I have always thought since he arrived in the House that he was an incredibly thoughtful person, as that speech typified. Thank you.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) for securing today’s debate. I take this opportunity to welcome to the Dispatch Box my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols). I understand that it is her debut at the Dispatch Box. She is a fellow member of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, so when I finally shut up and sit down I will certainly be cheering her on.
Clearly, the covid-19 pandemic has hugely impacted everyone’s lives. Many of our constituents now face insecurity of employment and financial hardship alongside having to deal with restrictions on seeing loved ones. Never before in our lifetimes have we experienced a pandemic that effectively shut down society, closed businesses and required us all to stay at home. I worry about everyone’s mental health at the moment. I know that continued lockdowns and restrictions can be incredibly tough, especially as we are now heading towards the winter months, full of colder days and darker evenings. Today’s debate is a good opportunity to focus on men’s mental health. We know, as others have said, that men are typically less likely to reach out for help with their mental health. Just over three out of four suicides are by men, and suicide is the biggest cause of death among men under 35. Men are nearly three times more likely than women to become alcohol dependent and men are less likely to access psychological therapies than women. Indeed, only 36% of referrals to psychological therapies are for men.
I know from personal experience that conversations about mental health can be tough, sensitive, private and awkward, but they are so important especially at the moment. With further restrictions and lockdowns, we are all more isolated than ever. A survey in April showed that one in four UK adults had feelings of loneliness compared with just one in 10 before the pandemic. Young people aged between 18 and 24 were most likely to experience loneliness since lockdown began; indeed, before lockdown one in six said that they felt lonely. Since lockdown, young people are almost three times more likely to experience loneliness, with almost half feeling that way. At a time when more of us are feeling isolated and lonely, it is important to reach out to loved ones. A simple text, phone call or FaceTime can make a world of difference.
In terms of men’s mental health, there still exists that stigma around acknowledging that you are struggling and seeking the help we need. For example, in 2016 a survey conducted by opinion leader Men’s Health Forum found that 34% of men were ashamed to take time off work for mental health concerns, compared with 13% for a physical injury. Some 38% of men were concerned that their employer would think badly of them if they took time off work for a mental health concern, compared with 26% for a physical injury. The hon. Member for Mansfield touched on this, but phrases like “man up” and “toughen up” only reinforce the stereotypes that men should be stoic and face such problems alone. That is dangerous rhetoric and it prevents men from pursuing help. I am really glad that all hon. Members who have spoken today have put that on the record.
It is important that men come together and support one another. That is why I am such a passionate supporter of Men’s Sheds, as well as the Menself group in my constituency led by Jim Malcolmson. We should encourage men to acknowledge that the stresses of this unprecedented public health crisis will naturally have an impact on our mental health. Whether due to a loss of employment, financial insecurity or just missing our loved ones, I think we would all agree that this is a very tough time for everyone. My message to everyone, not just to men but men in particular, is please reach out to your loved ones. Let them know that you are always there to listen and take care of one another, because this too will pass.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to respond to this debate on behalf of Her Majesty’s Opposition. As shadow Minister for Women and Equalities, I am conscious that we should seek not to pit the problems of men and women against each other but to aspire to raise outcomes where one is below the other.
We have heard a number of important contributions in this debate. First, I congratulate the hon. Members for Shipley (Philip Davies) and for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) on securing the debate through the Backbench Business Committee. We see that it is now truly an annual occasion after a year’s absence, as it fell during the election campaign last year. Having read, through Hansard, previous iterations of this debate, I am reassured that we are continuing to emphasise these important issues, but concerned to note that they still need to be raised.
The ongoing tragedy of male suicides has continued, with the rate in England and Wales of 16.9 deaths per 100,000, the highest since 2000. That remains in line with the rate in 2018, and makes up about three quarters of suicides. Males aged 45 to 49 still have the highest age-specific suicide rate. A number of colleagues have mentioned charities that work hard in this field, so I commend the work of CALM, the Campaign Against Living Miserably, Rethink, Mind and the other organisations that have been highlighted. I would also like to remind all Members that the Samaritans can be phoned at any time, day or night, on 116 123.
The same messages are given every year and are ever more relevant in 2020, with all its stress and fear. Men should feel able to talk about their problems with friends or professionals. They do not have to do it in public like hon. Members have today, but society must accept and embrace a more open understanding of men’s feelings and concerns. I include in that men who may be gay, bisexual or transgender who feel alone or scared about their very identities. They must be more supportive of each other. I note the news today that the Government are ending the £4 million funding for anti-LGBT bullying in our schools. That is a real step backwards that will prolong harm for too many young boys.
I cannot join Movember, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I praise the Members who are doing it this year and hope that they may continue to brighten the spotlight on men’s health. Most obviously, covid has had a disproportionate fatal impact on men. As further research unearths more about what is still a very new virus, we may find out why. On prostate cancer, the second-biggest killer of men worldwide, I encourage men to discuss it with their doctors at age 50, and black men or men with a family history of prostate cancer should discuss it at 45. On testicular cancer, men should know how to test themselves. It is not taboo to look these things up. Men are more likely to die prematurely than women, including of diseases that are considered preventable. Please do not be too scared to ask questions for fear of some toxic male expectations or image. I thank the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for raising these health issues.
We have rightly heard today about the challenges of boys’ educational attainment and the need for schools and the Department for Education to address this. Whether this means more male teachers, more male role models or closer support and attention to alternative teaching methods, it is a real concern. The literacy gap between boys and girls peaks at 16, when children are beginning to consider their choices for life after school.
Men are still more likely to be victims of violent crime in the UK—men are nearly twice as likely as women to be a victim of violent crime—and among children, boys are more likely than girls to be victims of violence, while more than two thirds of murder victims are male. It is worth mentioning the male victims of domestic violence, and the statistics show that they are less likely to speak out or confide in somebody about it. They must not be forgotten, as was mentioned in a powerful contribution to the debate by the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey).
As the days and nights get colder and wetter, it is sombre to think of the thousands of rough sleepers on our streets. The Government’s actions earlier in the year showed that it is possible to eliminate rough sleeping, but now, once again, there are huge numbers of people forced to choose between a cold winter on the streets of our country or the threat of catching covid in an overcrowded shelter. Government statistics state that 86% of rough sleepers in England are male. I hope the Minister can say what will be done to end this awful situation.
Finally, it is worth remembering that today is International Men’s Day, and we should consider the problems that men and boys face around the world, where they die on average six years before women, thousands are forced into becoming child soldiers, and gay men in particular are all too often oppressed with threats of violent death. Once again, I thank all of the speakers, and I hope that in next year’s debate we will be able to report on progress in these many important areas.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Before the Minister starts, I must commend the House. I said we would have to rush through this and I was expecting the Minister to be on her feet with only five minutes to spare, but the House has been so disciplined, speeches have been so to the point, precise, moving and clever, that I hope other people will learn that brevity is indeed the soul of wit. I am not going to mention the fact that very few women have taken part in the debate this afternoon.
The Minister for Equalities (Kemi Badenoch)
I am pleased to be standing at the Dispatch Box on International Men’s Day. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting a debate on this important subject, and I thank all the hon. and right hon. Members who have made heartfelt contributions. I also welcome the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) to her position as shadow Minister.
International Men’s Day is an opportunity to celebrate men and boys in all their diversity and to shine a spotlight on the issues that affect men—from shared parenting to health and wellbeing. I think it is sad that, on a day like this, it seems to be mainly Members on the Government side of the House who felt interested enough to speak. I recognise that the shadow spokespeople have been here, but it does highlight the fact that this is an issue that many people believe is not important enough to speak on. I hope that next time the hon. Lady will speak to her colleagues across the House for this reason.
David Linden
I just put it on the record that the restrictions on virtual participation may be why there are fewer Members taking part in this debate.
Kemi Badenoch
I understand that, but this is not the only debate that has taken place today, and others have been very well attended. I am afraid I do not accept that position and, like I said, I hope that at the next International Men’s Day debate we will see many more Members participating.
This Government are committed to levelling up opportunity and ensuring fairness for all. As Minister for Equalities, I want to ensure no one is left behind, regardless of their sex or background. Both men and women in the UK benefit from our having some of the strongest equality legislation in the world. The equality hub will consider sex, along with factors such as race, sexual orientation, geography and socioeconomic background, so we can ensure we are levelling up across the country. This will support data-driven policy to reduce disparity across the Union and make the UK the best place to live, work and grow a business. Levelling up is the mission of this Government, and every one of us should be free and able to fulfil our potential.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) mentioned the coronavirus, which, as we all know, is the biggest challenge the UK has faced in decades, and we are not alone. All over the world we are seeing the devastating impact of this disease. We know that men have been disproportionately impacted by covid and that, after age, sex is the second largest single risk factor. However, not all men are the same and not all men will be affected in the same way. My report on covid disparities showed, for example, that the job someone does, where they live, who they live with and their underlying health all make a huge difference to their risk of covid-19. We recognise how important it is that each individual understands how different factors and characteristics combine to influence their personal risk. The chief medical officer commissioned an expert group to develop a risk model to do just that, and the Department of Health and Social Care is working at pace on how to apply the model.
As well as its impact on lives, covid has had a huge impact on Britain’s livelihoods, which give us pride and a way to support our families. Of course, men and women do not exist separately and in isolation; we are part of families, businesses and our communities, which is why the Government’s support is targeted at those most in need and looks at how issues are impacting on individuals, not homogenous groups, so that we ensure a fair recovery for everyone. As a Treasury Minister, I am particularly proud of our comprehensive package to protect jobs, which the International Monetary Fund highlighted as one of the best examples of co-ordinated action globally. As this House has heard time and again, we have given unprecedented support through the coronavirus job retention scheme and the self-employment income support scheme to ensure that people can get the support they need, especially those in sectors most affected by covid-19.
My hon. Friends the Members for Watford (Dean Russell), for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) and for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey) spoke passionately about mental health. The challenges this year have no doubt taken their toll on many people’s mental wellbeing. It is very understandable during these uncertain and unusual times to be experiencing distress or anxiety, or to be feeling low, and we know that this affects many men. Those are common reactions to the difficult situation we all face. Anyone experiencing distress, anxiety or feeling low can visit the Every Mind Matters website and gov.uk for advice and tailored, practical steps to support wellbeing and manage mental health during this pandemic.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
Will the Government also consider research by the Samaritans that talks very much about middle-aged men who are often missed by community-based support when facing a mental health crisis, which can often lead to suicide? Perhaps the Government could factor that in, so that those people, who are not as visible as those most at risk, can also be supported at times of crisis.
Kemi Badenoch
I completely agree with the hon Gentleman on that. We know that some men are less likely than women to seek help with their mental health and that some can be reluctant to engage with health and other support services, and it is right that he highlights that. That is why I say to every man that the NHS is open for business—we really want to stress that. I urge any man, whatever their age or background, who is struggling to speak to a GP to seek out mental health support delivered by charities or the NHS. Services are still operating and it is better to get help early.
This week, the NHS launched its “Help us help you” campaign, which is relevant to the point the hon. Gentleman just raised. It is a major campaign to encourage people who may be struggling with common mental health illnesses to come forward for help through NHS talking therapies, also known as improving access to psychological therapies, which are a confidential service run by fully trained experts. I am sure the Minister for Patient Safety, Mental Health and Suicide Prevention will consider his point and the request made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) for an action plan on men’s mental health and suicide. I also wish to remind people that the “Help us help you” campaigns have sought to increase the number of people coming forward if they are worried about cancer symptoms, including those for testicular and prostate cancer. My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) spoke movingly about his friend who tragically lost his life and urged men to seek the help they need, as did the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden). The current campaign will run throughout the winter to ensure that men feel able to come forward to get tested and treated earlier.
The hon. Member for Warrington North asked about rough sleeping, and I want to answer her question on what the Government are doing. On 18 July, we launched the Next Steps accommodation Programme, which makes funding available to support local authorities and their partners to prevent previous rough sleepers returning to the streets. The programme comprises £161 million to deliver 3,300 units of longer-term move-on accommodation in 2020-21 and £105 million to pay for immediate support to ensure that people do not return to the streets.
On 17 September, we announced local authority allocations for the short-term funding aspect of this programme. Some £91.5 million was allocated to 274 councils in England to help vulnerable people housed during the pandemic, and recently, on 29 October, we announced allocations to local partners to deliver longer-term move-on accommodation. More than 3,300 new long-term homes for rough sleepers across the country have been approved, and that is backed by Government investment of more than £150 million. As the House can see, quite a lot is being done on this issue, which we take very seriously.
I would like to close by taking a moment to celebrate the contribution that men and boys make to our society. My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford) talked about men and boys in his constituency feeling like they have been forgotten. It therefore seems opportune to celebrate our fathers and our sons, our brothers and our friends, and, indeed, our colleagues this week and the progress we have made in supporting them under this Government.
For example, since 2010, we have seen the introduction of shared parental leave, allowing mothers and fathers to share the highs and, indeed, the lows of caring for their new babies. The Government are also committed to making it easier for fathers to take paternity leave, as set out in our 2019 manifesto. Subject to further consultation, we are committed to introducing measures to make flexible working the default for men and women unless employers have a good reason not to. As someone who came back from maternity leave only this year, I can tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that my husband was able to take paternity leave and it made my return to work much easier, having two ministerial responsibilities as well as my work as a constituency MP, so this is a policy that I am very passionate about.
Philip Davies
That is all very well, but will the Minister also look at making it easier for absent fathers to have access to their children and speed up the process through the family courts, which is often a tortuous one that causes so much heartache for so many fathers?
Kemi Badenoch
My hon. Friend is right and, yes, that is something we can look into. I recognise the work that he has done to raise awareness of fathers who feel a sense of alienation from losing access to their children. He will be pleased to see that the draft statutory guidance to be issued under the Domestic Abuse Bill currently recognises parental alienation as an example of coercive or controlling behaviour, no doubt in part due to his representations on this issue. I thank him and my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield again for their tireless work on these issues and for securing this debate.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield for his vigorous campaign to support boys from white working-class backgrounds. He raised many issues about the way the Equality Act is interpreted—protecting groups when, actually, what it protects is characteristics, which we all have. Some of his questions, especially about whether we should have a Minister for men, are above my pay grade, but I will definitely raise this with the Minister for Women and Equalities and the Prime Minister on his behalf. I assure my hon. Friend that the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, which I sponsor, is currently studying how we will improve outcomes for these boys in the towns and regions of our country.
I also pay tribute to the equalities Whip—the Comptroller of Her Majesty’s Household, my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), who, as a Whip, rarely gets chance to speak these days—for his successful campaign to get the HPV cancer jab given to men and boys. We are very proud of the work that he has done.
In conclusion, I am honoured to have taken part in today’s debate on International Men’s Day to mark the progress that we have made and to highlight what more needs to be done.
Ben Bradley
I thank the Minister for her response and for the work that she is doing to get the equalities agenda right, and particularly the hub that she mentioned, which includes socioeconomic and geographical factors for the first time—I raised this in Westminster Hall a few weeks ago, and I am very pleased about that. I welcome the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols), to her place and I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) for talking about reaching out to our loved ones at this very difficult time.
I say a huge thank you to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). I am very sorry that he got only three minutes to speak, because he is as responsible as I am for securing this debate. It is a great shame. He gets half the credit at least that colleagues have paid to me in the Chamber. I thank all colleagues for their thoughtful contributions. I do not have time to go through them all but others have, and there were some very moving, heartfelt ones.
International Men’s Day is one day that we celebrate annually, but this is not a conversation just for one day. It is a chance to raise great role models and huge challenges—things that we can do every day in this House in the very privileged position that we hold. The public discourse—the negative attitudes—that I mentioned pervades every day. The support that men and boys need is needed every day and is available every day. We should all be helping men to reach out and seek help, and continuing to raise the issues that we have discussed today—many of which are around mental health, suicide and our services—at every opportunity in this House, not just on International Men’s Day, but when this day has long gone.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered International Men’s Day.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
What an excellent debate—and accomplished in less than one hour.
Independent Reconfiguration Panel
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
I have lost count of the number of times that I have spoken in this House about the future of St Helier Hospital. Time and again, the hospital has been hurled head first into turbulence, with countless consultations coated in fancy branding repeatedly asking my constituents whether they want their hospital to keep its A&E, critical care and maternity services. The latest plan—almost laughably named “Improving Healthcare Together” proposes to downgrade both Epsom Hospital and St Helier Hospital, moving all acute services south to leafy, wealthy Belmont. The purpose of this debate is to look at whether the Independent Reconfiguration Panel was actually independent when it came to a decision not to look into these proposals.
The panel is a little known but hugely important body that provides checks and balances to the plans of one of the most powerful institutions in our country: the NHS. The NHS employs as many people as the red army, and some would argue that it is built around the same command and control principles—that is, decisions are made and everyone is expected to row in behind them. Communities are hugely affected by proposed NHS changes. As such, their representatives in local government have the power to consider whether they agree with a hospital reorganisation. If they do not, they can refer it to the Secretary of State, who has the power to refer it to an independent panel of experts.
In the case of the “Improving Healthcare Together” programme, my argument is not that the chair of the panel, Professor Sir Norman Williams, is not a man with a hugely important and successful medical career who has brought benefits to thousands, or that he has not made a huge contribution to the NHS. My argument is simply that he could not be regarded as independent, and that through his involvement as a member of the board of St George’s Hospital—which will be profoundly affected by these changes—he should have recused himself. We know that in public life not only do we have to do the right thing; we have to be seen to do the right thing. I will argue that Sir Norman could not be regarded as independent because his connection is far from “tangential”.
Let me turn first to the plans themselves. The programme proposes to turn St Helier Hospital into a glorified walk-in centre, removing its A&E, maternity services, children’s beds and critical care. Some 62% of beds would be lost from the area where health is poorest and life expectancy shortest. The programme’s own analysis unsurprisingly reveals the indisputable link between deprivation and the need for acute services, but ignores the fact that 42 of the 51 deprived areas in the catchment are nearest to St Helier. It is a slap in the face for expectant mums in my community.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate. Does she agree that although moving beds to a nearby hospital may make sense on paper, to ask expectant mothers to add a lump of time to their journey makes no sense, and that community-led care is essential and should be kept in the community?
Siobhain McDonagh
I agree with the hon. Member.
In the plan, it is assumed that mothers in my area want home births. That is a discriminatory assumption that is completely against their right to choose. It takes maternity services away from the mothers who are most likely to deliver a low-weight baby and mothers who are less likely to want a home birth. It also breaks up the continuity of care, with pre and post-natal services being delivered at one hospital and the birth at another.
The programme ignores the intrinsic link between old age and life expectancy in pointing to the higher number of elderly people in Belmont when deciding where need is greatest. The sobering reality is that Mitcham has a far lower life expectancy than Belmont—nine years lower, in fact. There are more elderly residents in Belmont because, quite simply, its residents live longer. To experts, it is yet another example of the Tudor Hart law, or the inverse care law as it is also known: the understanding in health academia that the areas in greatest health receive the most health investment. Or as my mum, herself a nurse, would say, “Much gets more.”
The reality is that the Minister and his Department are being asked to commit £500 million of scarce NHS resources to move acute services to one of the richest and healthiest areas in London, at the expense of one of the most deprived. Surely the Minister can see that that is wrong, if not from a health perspective, then from a financial one. The plans require 22% more capital than the option of rebuilding where health needs are greatest. Improving St Helier would have a higher return on investment, posing far less risk with a significantly lower capital requirement. Our economy is being decimated by the virus. Can the Minister not see that this proposal goes completely against Treasury guidance and value for money?
This was a devastating decision before the pandemic, but have we learned nothing from coronavirus? How can it possibly make sense for south-west London to come out with fewer acute beds and fewer intensive care units than before? Surely the decision to place the only intensive care unit on the same site as a cancer hub now has to be questioned. I do not dispute the extraordinary work of the Royal Marsden or challenge whether it requires an intensive care unit, but these plans were formed long before the pandemic was known about and have to be reassessed in the light of it.
The programme’s own impact assessment in January warned that any unplanned event such as a pandemic could challenge the resilience of the proposed reconfiguration. It described this situation as “unlikely” and yet, astonishingly, just five pages of analysis have been produced on the pandemic’s impact on the plans. It is the wild west, where everything proceeds full steam ahead, no matter the evidence presented—evidence that cannot be dismissed.
We now know that people from black and ethnic groups are most likely to be diagnosed with coronavirus, more likely to require admission to an intensive care unit once in hospital, and up to twice as likely to die than those from white British backgrounds. We know that black women are five times more likely to die in childbirth than white women, and more likely to require neonatal or specialist care baby units. We also know that 64 of the 66 areas with the highest proportion of BAME residents are nearest to St Helier, and that half of those are in the bottom two quintiles of deprivation, increasing their likely reliance on acute services.
It is indisputable: these proposals would negatively and disproportionately impact BAME residents, deprived communities and expectant mums in my constituency. It is no wonder that when they were put out to public consultation, tens of thousands of residents voiced their disapproval, with overwhelming opposition to the downgrading of St Helier. It was also clear from the public response that if these plans went ahead, many residents would not travel to inaccessible Belmont, but would head instead to St George’s—a hospital that is already under immense pressure, with an A&E in the bottom quartile for safe standards.
Why does Sir Norman have a conflict of interest? Because this is a reorganisation of a neighbouring trust that will have a profound impact on St George’s. That is a case that the board of St George’s has rightly and successfully fought, very publicly, so much so that in a letter in March this year, the chief executive of St George’s made it clear that support for the plans was contingent on her hospital receiving capital investment for a new emergency floor to take account of the increased number of emergency care patients that it would receive. That is the kind of change that requires the full consideration, scrutiny and involvement of the board and the most senior staff. I can think of a number of words to describe that relationship: conditional, connected and dependent, but certainly not “tangential”.
In July this year, Merton Council saw these plans for what they are and used its power to call them in for review by the Department of Health and Social Care Independent Reconfiguration Panel. By its name and nature, it is an independent panel of health experts who can cast a fresh, impartial eye for the Secretary of State. The chair of the panel is Professor Sir Norman Williams, who until 30 September 2019 was a long-standing board member at St George’s Hospital. Naturally, I presumed that that conflict of interest would be recognised and he would step aside from judging this proposal. Unfortunately, he did not, with his connection to the plans described as “tangential” and
“not relevant to his role in independently formulating a response”.
This evening, I ask the Minister to consider just how tangential that connection is. In April 2016, Sir Norman became a board member at St George’s, and board meeting minutes and papers reveal that the reorganisation was debated time and time again. The papers from one of his first board meetings in June highlighted the requirement for service change and reconfiguration in south-west London. In March 2017, the chair discussed the upcoming board-to-board meeting with Epsom and St Helier, which would provide an opportunity to discuss the development of joint renal services. Fast forward to October, and the board’s attention was on a joint letter signed by the CEO of St George’s about the importance of considering the future of their hospitals with any reconfiguration at St Helier.
The issue came to the board again in December, following Epsom and St Helier’s indication that it needed to change its clinical model. By the following November, the impact of the proposals on St George’s was so clear that the chair of the board, Gillian Norton, wrote to the programme directly on behalf of her board, including Sir Norman:
“Senior staff within St George’s have spent significant amounts of time over the last 3 months engaging with both the programme team and colleagues in other providers to work through the impact on providers of the shortlisted options…The board agreed that I need to write to you now, formally, to set out these concerns…I understand that a key principle of how programme process has been agreed is that there is no formal requirement to take account of the impact on other providers. I find this difficult to understand in any event given we are a health system but particularly so in the context of the SWL Health and Care Partnership and the expectation that we will work collaboratively.”
I found this letter so extraordinary, after fighting this reorganisation for 23 years, that I wrote back to the board and the chair. Naturally, this issue rightly remained high on the board’s agenda. The papers for the board meeting of December 2018 show concerns from St George’s finance and investment committee about the lack of options explored by Epsom and St Helier, and agreement that the trust should feed this back to the programme. By January 2019, the chief executive spelled out to Sir Norman and the board:
“Any changes to the current configuration of services at Epsom and St Helier are likely to impact St George’s, and it is important these are factored into any future proposals.”
She again used her notes at the February board meeting to state:
“While the location of the new facility is yet to be decided, it’s clear that there are significant estate issues at both Trusts that need to be addressed through capital investment.”
Time and again, the programme was brought to Sir Norman and the board’s attention—in April, in May and in June. This would be a landmark decision for St George’s Hospital. It is completely understandable that it had their full attention.
In July 2019, the programme released the impact assessment on St George’s. It is utterly inconceivable that someone as diligent and respected as Sir Norman would not have been aware of this, particularly as senior staff at his trust had helped produce it—a document released just months before he became chair of the Independent Reconfiguration Panel. That Sir Norman was so heavily involved in these proposals is no criticism. He was rightly fulfilling his responsibility as board member of a hospital that would be heavily impacted by these proposals. He declared his role to the other Independent Reconfiguration Panel members, explaining that he had even had recent discussions with senior consultants at Epsom and St Helier through his role as chair of the national clinical improvement programme. All public office holders are subject to the seven principles of public life, one of which is objectivity. But how could Sir Norman be objective? How could he even appear to be so? In public life, it is important not only to be objective, but to be seen to be objective.
My community has fought tirelessly for St Helier, and the least we expect is transparency, honesty and objectivity from the top. Astonishingly, the panel instead considered that there was nothing more than tangential connections, irrelevant to Sir Norman’s role in independently formulating a response for the Secretary of State. Tangential! If there is any doubt over how interconnected the hospitals are, then be aware that the chair of St George’s also became chair of Epsom and St Helier in 2019. Conveniently, it was on the very same day that Sir Norman became chair of the Independent Reconfiguration Panel. Surely the Minister can see that there is nothing tangential in the evidence that I have laid out today. Not only did Sir Norman already know about the proposals before he was asked independently to judge them, he must have known them inside out, having faced them repeatedly at board level and in conjunction with a whole host of the key personnel involved. It was tangential to the tune of millions of pounds of investment on which his former hospital’s support is contingent.
We must not underestimate the importance of a fresh eye. One of the leaders of these plans, Daniel Elkeles, formerly led the infamous “Shaping a Healthier Future” plan, which proposed similar hospital downgrades in north-west London, wasting £76 million over eight years before the Treasury finally put a stop to it.
I draw to a close now. I must say that I respect the Minister. He found time to meet me in the summer when his time must have been so scarce. I explained my reasoning for calling this debate to his office last week so that he could come prepared. I am not trying to catch him off guard. I am asking that he steps away from party politics and recognises that this connection is indisputable rather than tangential. If an independent panel was asked to review the plans, the panel must be independent. I am asking that he consults his Treasury colleagues on why the most expensive option is being chosen at a time of such economic turmoil. I am asking that he reflects on the powerful shoes he is in and the unique opportunity he has to help to close health inequalities in an area where they are so stark. Surely that would make any Health Minister proud of his work, and maybe then we really could improve health together.
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) on securing this important debate. I recognise her continued interest in local health matters and her championing of her constituents’ interests. She knows that I have considerable respect for her and her work in this House on behalf of her constituents. However, she will perhaps not be surprised that I cannot fully agree with the picture that she painted to the House today.
Before I get into the meat of the debate, let me pay tribute to all the staff at the trust and across our entire NHS for the amazing work they do day in, day out, particularly at this time. I know that is a sentiment that the hon. Lady would share.
As the hon. Lady said, all proposed service changes should be based on clear evidence that they will deliver better outcomes for patients and should meet the four tests for service change: they should have support from GP commissioners, be based on clinical evidence, demonstrate patient and public engagement, and consider patient choice. It is right that these matters are addressed at a level where the local healthcare needs are best understood, rather than emanating from Whitehall. I should point out that in cases where these proposals are referred to Ministers, they are considered impartially and on their merits, and that is what has happened in this case.
Without recounting all the background that the hon. Lady has set out for the House this evening and on previous occasions, in December 2017, the “Improving Healthcare Together 2020-2030” programme was established to address the significant estate quality and finance challenges that Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust is currently facing. NHS Surrey Heartlands and NHS South-West London clinical commissioning groups are the organisations responsible for making decisions about local healthcare. They led the development of proposals for any potential service changes, and it is right that they did so at that local level, including appropriate consultation. As she set out, following a period of sustained engagement and options development, on 3 July 2020 local NHS leaders approved plans that will see a brand new state-of-the-art hospital built in Sutton to treat the sickest patients and most services staying put in modernised buildings at Epsom and St Helier hospitals.
The hon. Lady raised a number of concerns about this decision—in particular, around transport and travel, bed numbers, acute services, and the impact on more deprived communities and health inequalities. As she said, she also raised these issues at our meeting in July, which it was a pleasure to undertake with her. When the decision was made, measures to address these issues were also set out, including extending the H1 Epsom and St Helier hospital bus route into Merton and further south into Surrey, beyond Epsom, and increasing the frequency of travel between the three hospital sites; reviewing car parking on all three sites; increased bed capacity to care for an extra 1,300 in-patients a year; advances in technology and treatment; closer working with community services so that fewer patients will need an overnight stay and will be able to get home sooner; exploring further opportunities for primary care services at Epsom and St Helier hospitals; and expanding child and adolescent mental health services on the St Helier site. Under the proposals, about 85% of current services would stay put at Epsom and St Helier, with six major services being brought together in the new specialist emergency care hospital, including A&E, critical care, and emergency surgery. The capital investment for those proposals is not only to fund the new hospital but to invest in and improve the current sites at both Epsom and St Helier, including funding for the A&Es.
I can reassure the hon. Lady that the Treasury is and will remain fully engaged with not only this proposal but all 40 of the Government’s hospital proposals. As she would expect and know from her long career in the House, the Treasury takes a close interest in any proposals that entail the spending of significant amounts of public money. This is a significant investment in improving healthcare across the communities served by these hospitals, which is why my hon. Friends the Members for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) and for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) have recently set out their and their communities’ strong support for these proposals.
The Independent Reconfiguration Panel was at the crux of the case made by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden. As she set out, the IRP is the non-departmental public body set up in 2003 to provide the Secretary of State with expert independent advice on contested NHS service changes and reconfiguration. There are currently 15 panel members who review referral cases. They have a mix of clinical, lay, patient representative or engagement, specialist and managerial backgrounds. The IRP has provided independent advice more than 80 times since it was established. With reconfigurations referred to the IRP, there is an open and transparent process, which people expect to be carried out to the most rigorous standards of integrity, honesty and impartiality. We must adhere visibly to those standards, and I believe, on the evidence I have seen, that those standards were met in this case.
As the hon. Lady will know, local authorities have a power to refer certain proposals to the Secretary of State where they consider that there has been inadequate consultation, where reasons given for non-consultation are inadequate or where they believe that the proposal is not in the interests of their area and communities. The Secretary of State can then choose whether to commission advice from the IRP, which is normally provided in 20 working days, and Ministers are clear about the need for that advice to be swiftly and efficiently given. Following collection of evidence, the IRP submits its report either with advice not to proceed or containing recommendations to the Secretary of State on specific proposals. I emphasise that the IRP’s role is advisory, and the Secretary of State ultimately makes the decision.
In July—at roughly the same time as my meeting with the hon. Lady, which slightly limited the conversation we were able to have—Merton Council referred the scheme to the Secretary of State, who referred it to the IRP, which provided its advice on 28 October. Following thorough consideration of that advice, the Secretary of State accepted the IRP’s impartial advice, which was that there was no reason to contradict the proposed choice of Sutton—Belmont—as the location for the new specialist emergency care hospital. I know that there have been some noises locally about the possibility of subsequent legal review or legal action, so I will not dwell on that aspect. I do not believe that any judicial review has been tabled at this point, so I feel that I can comment a little further on the issues she raised. I must emphasise that the IRP provides impartial, independent advice.
I turn to the specific points that the hon. Lady made about Sir Norman. It is up front and totally clear in the IRP report that Sir Norman Williams, the chair of the IRP, declared openly to IRP members what was already a matter of public record: that between May 2016 and September 2019, he had been a non-executive director of St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, which neighbours the Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust, and he made it clear to the panel that that was a linkage. However, Sir Norman clearly left some time before the proposals were considered by the panel and, indeed, before the March date of this year that the hon. Lady referred to. As she said, independent panel members considered that matter and the issues that she had raised, and confirmed that in their view the historic connections with the case did not represent a conflict of interest and agreed that they were not relevant to Sir Norman’s role in chairing the formulation of the advice.
I have to say that I think it would be wrong to question in any way the integrity, impartiality or independence of the panel or the chair, who I believe is more than capable, rightly fulfilled his previous role to the best of his ability and fulfils his current role entirely to the best of his ability, recognising and fulfilling the requirement to be independent in the view he takes. I have seen no reason—or no compelling reason—to suggest that his behaviour has in any way contradicted that need for independence and objective guidance.
It is of course right that all reconfiguration decisions are taken in the best interests of patients and the local population, following due process. The people affected by the changes need to be involved in making the key decisions, and the IRP advice concluded:
“Patients and the public will need to be engaged in shaping and understanding the new landscape of services to gain maximum benefit from them.”
I believe that they will be.
I know that the hon. Lady’s constituents are and will continue to be strongly represented by her. I recognise the strength of her views, but I do believe that the process has been carried out fairly, independently and appropriately, in seeking to reach the best decision for the people who use the hospitals.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Supplementary Protection Certificates (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Amanda Solloway)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Supplementary Protection Certificates (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani. Intellectual property forms a vital part of the UK economy. A well-balanced IP system supports our citizens in their creativity and ingenuity, provides incentives for companies to innovate through research and development, and ensures that great research and ideas can be turned into great businesses.
Supplementary protection certificates are an important part of the framework supporting our life sciences industry. The sector is one of the UK’s most valuable industries and is crucial to our success as a science superpower. It has consistently been the largest investor in research and development in the UK, investing more than £4.5 billion in 2018.
Developing new drugs is expensive. The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry estimates that the cost of doing so may exceed £1 billion. It also takes time to reach the point where the drug has been tested and proven to be safe and can be placed on the market. Where a product is protected by a patent, that means that the time during which the holder can benefit from its exclusive rights is reduced. SPCs therefore provide an additional period of protection for patented medicines and pesticides to address that. They give the innovator more time to recoup the costs using those exclusive rights, and they protect some of our most innovative drugs.
The SPC system is also designed to strike a balance between supporting the development of novel drugs and ensuring that those drugs become available more cheaply through competition from generics in good time. It enables the NHS to benefit from innovative new medicines and the wide availability of existing treatments. It is therefore important that any changes to the system recognise and take account of that balance. The SPC system is based on EU legislation, although the right itself is examined and granted on an individual national basis.
The Government have already made a number of changes to the SPC regulations in advance of their being retained in UK law at the end of the transition period. Members of the Committee may recall that we debated some of those changes a few weeks ago. The fixed efficiencies would have existed in the retained EU law when it was brought across.
Why is further legislation necessary? This instrument comes about as an indirect effect of the Northern Ireland protocol. The additional protection provided by an SPC is granted as a result of the patented medicine or agrochemical receiving approval to be sold in the UK market and market authorisation. The connection with the regulatory system is therefore crucial to how the SPC legislation works.
As the Committee knows, the protocol is intended to ensure that there is no hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. To accomplish that, the protocol sets out that certain EU laws, including those relating to the movement of goods, continue to apply in Northern Ireland for as long as the protocol has effect. For medicines and pesticides, that means that marketing authorisations in Northern Ireland must be granted accordance with EU law, whereas Great Britain will follow separate legislation. That will not, however, prevent a product from being marketed on a UK-wide basis.
Given the relationship between SPCs and the regulatory system, further changes are needed to the SPC legislation to ensure that the arrangements arising from the protocol are properly reflected. The Intellectual Property Office has been working with regulatory agencies to understand those arrangements and integrate them into the SPC system. This instrument is the result.
The instrument will ensure that the SPC remains a UK-wide intellectual property right. There will be no separate SPCs for Great Britain and Northern Ireland. If a patented product has been authorised for sale somewhere in the UK, whether in Great Britain, Northern Ireland or the UK as a whole, an SPC may be granted. However, the protection provided by the SPC will extend only to the territory in which the product has been authorised. That preserves the link between the SPC and the approval for the product. Otherwise, the additional protection of the SPC would be provided in the UK where no protection had been given, which would go against the principle of the SPC system.
If another authorisation is granted for the product in a different part of the UK, the protection provided by the SPC can be extended to cover that territory, but the legislation makes it clear that that would be allowed only up to the point that the patent expires and the granted SPC takes effect. That gives certainty for all. It would not be fair for a third party to find that legitimate action, which had been taken in a territory where protection did not extend, suddenly became an infringement at a later date. That is why the scope of protection is fixed in place when the SPC comes into force.
The process of getting an SPC will remain largely unchanged. Applicants will use the same forms and pay the same fees, and have their applications examined by the IPO using the same principles. Applicants will need to notify the IPO of other authorisations if they want to extend their SPC protection. Although the information required will be essentially the same as that for the initial application, we recognise that that is an additional administrative task.
The IPO will ensure that clear guidance is in place to explain the changes and the actions that business needs to take. That work is already in progress. The guidance will be published in the next few weeks, should Parliament approve the legislation. Any changes to the statutory forms will be in place for 1 January.
Giving business the clear guidance and support it needs is important. That relates to another IP issue that some hon. Members and many IP professionals are interested in, namely the IPO’s address for service rules. I am pleased to announce that today, the Government are publishing the response to a recent call for views and will shortly lay legislation to require a UK address for service for new applications and new proceedings before the IPO. That will level the playing field for UK patent and trademark attorney professionals as we leave the EU IP systems.
My officials have collaborated with the major representative bodies on ways to communicate all the changes, such as by taking part in industry webinars. Those bodies have been engaged in the development of the legislation and are in a strong position to help to disseminate our guidance and provide advice to their members.
In conclusion, the instrument will ensure that the SPC system works alongside the regulatory system when the transition period comes to an end, which will give certainty to our innovative businesses in the important field of technology and maintain the fine balance that is critical to the success of the complex area of IP law. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Ms Ghani, and to follow the Minister—not for the first time. I welcome her opening remarks and I share her support for the United Kingdom’s world-beating life sciences sector and the fantastic innovation that it shows, for which we are particularly grateful as we face the pandemic. I agree that patents must recognise the balance between rewarding innovation and ensuring the diffusion of the often life-saving treatments, medicines and products that they protect. I also welcome the levelling of the playing field for IP attorneys, about which we have corresponded.
The UK’s relationship with its closest neighbours following the end of the transition period is yet to be decided. The Government’s ongoing negotiations are causing confusion and uncertainty for businesses across the United Kingdom. The shadow Northern Ireland Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), set out yesterday the immense frustration in Northern Ireland at the Government squandering vital time to prepare for the biggest changes that it has ever known in its trading relationship.
The Opposition wish to do everything we can to ensure effective preparation, certainty and readiness, so we will not oppose the statutory instrument and we welcome the measure of certainty that it provides. I have some brief questions, however.
As the Minister set out, following the end of the transition period and the introduction of the Northern Ireland protocol, the way in which some patent medicines and agrochemicals are regulated will change. New marketing authorisation procedures will therefore be required for those products in certain parts of the United Kingdom. The European Union’s SPCs apply to specific pharmaceutical and plant-protection products. They are designed, as the Minister said, to offset the loss of patent protection by products that occur due to the compulsory and, rightly, often lengthy testing in clinical trial phases, and are valuable intellectual property rights, taking effect when a patent expires.
The draft statutory instrument will change the existing legislation on SPCs and the authority of marketing authorisations across the whole UK. At present, two marketing authorisations are valid in the UK: the European Medicines Agency and the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency. Post-Brexit, marketing authorisations from the EMA will need to be converted into the UK equivalent. However, under the Northern Ireland protocol, Northern Ireland will remain bound by the EU law for the authorisation of medicines and agrochemicals, meaning that there will be separate marketing authorities for Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
Will the Minister provide the Committee with examples of the companies and products that she envisages will take advantage of this situation? Having spoken to the IPO, I know that a limited number of SPCs are granted generally—there are only 70—but the Committee would benefit from some examples so that we can know how the legislation will be used. I note that an impact assessment has not been undertaken, because of the limited impact, but we would benefit from understanding how the Government envisage the SI being used.
The SI will allow an SPC to be granted based on whichever authorisation the applicant has at the point of application. If the SPC enters into force with a marketing authorisation covering only one of either Great Britain or Northern Ireland, the protection provided by the SPC extends only to that territory, as the Minister set out. An applicant may submit an additional marketing authorisation allowing protection to be extended to the whole of the UK.
Ensuring minimum friction between Northern Ireland and Great Britain is of the utmost importance. The Prime Minister promised exactly that just over 12 months ago. My understanding—this follows on from my first question, and I discussed it briefly with the Intellectual Property Office as well—is that the draft statutory instrument could lead to drugs and agricultural products being available in Northern Ireland under different conditions and circumstances from Great Britain, in terms of whether they can be reproduced or generic equivalents can be sold.
A general impact assessment has not been performed, so I would like to know whether the Government have looked at the implications. If drugs are available under different rules, in different circumstances or with the different extent of a patent in Northern Ireland and in Great Britain, is there a possibility of that causing issues, advantages or incentives for trade or movement between Great Britain and Northern Ireland? Will the Minister reassure us that that has been considered?
Finally, will the Minister, representing the Government, provide a commitment to firms that trade in medicines and agrochemicals between Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland that the rules and regulations will not change in how they evolve, in order to provide long-term security to British and Irish businesses? The Labour party will not oppose the draft SI, and we are happy to work with the Government in future to ensure the safety of agricultural and medicine products, as well as frictionless trade between all the nations in the United Kingdom.
Amanda Solloway
I thank the Committee for consideration of the draft regulations. I also thank the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central for her useful comments, as always.
As I have said in earlier debates, intellectual property matters. The IP system exists to encourage innovation and the sharing of information and knowledge. It provides individuals and businesses with the confidence to invest their time, money and energy in developing something new, whether it be a new business, book or piece of technology. The UK IP system is consistently rated as one of the best in the world.
As the hon. Lady will recall from only a few weeks ago, the World Intellectual Property Organisation recently ranked the UK the fourth most innovative country in the world. The Government are committed to ensuring that we maintain and improve our world-leading position. Innovation will be crucial in the years ahead to support our recovery from the impacts of covid-19, especially in life sciences, where treatments and vaccines will be key to bringing us closer to normal.
The hon. Lady asked several important questions about SPCs and the Government’s approach with the draft instrument. I am happy to give some further explanation. On the duration of the rights and whether that will change, the calculation remains the same. SPCs last for up to five years, depending on how long has been taken to approve the product. Between the remaining life of the patent and the SPC, the result is a maximum of 15 years of effective IP protection. That is part of the balance of the system and will not be affected by the amendments in the SI.
On who benefits from the rights, SPCs are granted to the patent holder, which is usually the developer of the original product. SPCs are often held by companies—such as, given that the hon. Lady asked for examples, AstraZeneca and GlaxoSmithKline—but smaller enterprises such as research universities and their spin-off companies also benefit from the protection given by SPCs.
On whether an SPC that provides protection only in Northern Ireland might allow a company to sell a generic product in Great Britain, in most cases we expect pharmaceutical companies to file for authorisations across the UK so that their SPC protection is UK-wide. However, where an SPC provides protection not only in part of the UK—say, Northern Ireland—it could not be used to prevent manufacture or sale of the drug in GB. Other forms of IP protection such as data and market exclusivity might still apply in GB, and any generic medicine would need to be authorised in its own right before it could be sold.
This summer, the Government set out their long-term objectives for research and development through the new R&D road map. We are committed to further strengthening science, research and innovation across the UK, making them central to tackling the major challenges that we face. IP and the Intellectual Property Office have important roles in support of those objectives. The IPO will continue to deliver high-quality rights, grant services, lead best practice in enforcement of IP rights, and retain its central involvement in international discussions on the development of the global IP system. The draft regulations form part of that work, ensuring that the IP system is in a good place to support the Government’s goals for innovation, so that the UK is the best place to develop and grow innovative businesses. I hope that the Committee will support the instrument.
Question put and agreed to.
The Chair
Please will Committee members leave the room promptly by the exit door while observing social distancing?
Petition
Premier League transparency
Financial Services Bill (Third sitting)
Thursday 19th November 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Financial Services Bill 2019-21 View all Financial Services Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 19 November 2020 - (19 Nov 2020)
The Chair
We will now hear from Susan Hawley, from Spotlight on Corruption, who is joining us remotely. I remind colleagues that we have until 12.15 pm for this session. Sue, please could you introduce yourself for the record?
Dr Hawley: Hello. I am Susan Hawley, executive director of Spotlight on Corruption. We are an anti-corruption charity that monitors the UK’s enforcement of its anti-corruption and economic crime laws.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
Q
Dr Hawley: Than you, Pat. We very much focus on, and our expertise is on, the potential of the Bill to bring the UK into greater equivalence with the EU on money laundering and to ensure high standards of corporate governance in the financial services sector. Overall, we support some of the points made by our colleagues, which I think you might be hearing later today—from Jesse Griffiths of the Finance Innovation Lab, for example—around ensuring that there really is strong parliamentary accountability for regulatory changes.
Mr McFadden
Q
Dr Hawley: Absolutely. We really welcome this opportunity, and many thanks for inviting us to give evidence to the Committee. We want to make the case for the urgent introduction, through the Bill, of a “failure to prevent economic crime” corporate offence. We think that could fit in the “Insider dealing and money laundering etc” part of the Bill. We want it to focus particularly on the areas of fraud, money laundering and false accounting.
Just to explain the problem we think needs addressing, fundamentally at the moment, particularly after the judgment in the Barclays case, which was the only prosecution for financial crime following the last financial crisis, there is increasing legal commentary that large financial institutions are beyond the reach of prosecutors for certain economic crimes. Legal attempts to resolve this have failed—in fact, the Barclays judgment has now made it even more difficult for prosecutors to prosecute large financial institutions—and only action by Parliament can change that.
If I may, I will say a little about the reasons why this amendment is needed. We outline in our evidence four broad areas that we think the amendment would resolve. One of them is about the protection of market integrity. The real issue is whether the current state of the law, particularly after Barclays, promotes strong enough corporate governance and deters corporate wrongdoing. The Treasury Committee has already highlighted that it does not—in its words, it is “wrong” and “dangerous”.
The second issue is about fairness and ensuring equality before the law for large and small financial institutions and companies. That is particularly important, we think, in the context of the burgeoning fraud crisis, which is being exacerbated by the pandemic. It cannot be fair or right that small companies face the burden of prosecution in the UK and that large companies can be seen as getting away with it.
The third area is about equivalence, or parity with international standards, on the enforcement of economic crime. The Law Commission—I will come on to the Law Commission later in our evidence, if I may—has announced it is doing a review of corporate crime rules. It has said that one of the reasons for that is so that the UK does not fall behind. We think there is a real danger that the UK falling behind might happen very speedily. It is already quite behind the US—we have seen a lot of commentary from legal experts about how the UK, effectively, outsources its economic crime enforcement to the US, which means that some British institutions are being fined very heavily by the US authorities, and that money is going to the US Treasury.
It is not just the US, but the EU. There is a real emerging issue with the sixth EU anti-money laundering directive, which requires EU states, from early December this year, to have strong corporate criminal liability for anti-money laundering. That liability must include where there is a lack of supervision or control, and the Government recognised when they looked at whether we should opt into this directive—which they chose not to do—that the UK’s corporate liability regime would not fit the directive but would need to be amended if the UK were to opt in. A real issue here is that UK companies might end up operating in the EU to higher standards than they are operating to in the UK, and that might become more of an issue of market access for UK financial services.
The final area is consistency across economic crime. We have seen a “failure to prevent” offence introduced for bribery and for tax evasion. No less harm is caused to society by fraud and money laundering than is caused by the other offences, and it creates real problems for enforcement agencies. Prosecutors have long asked for that “failure to prevent” offence to be extended to other economic crimes. We think its introduction would benefit the UK, because it would see more enforcement—higher fines—coming into the UK Treasury, and it would benefit society, because when companies have in place procedures that prevent economic crime, it helps to reduce the cost of that crime to society.
I will stop there, in case there are any questions. I am very happy to talk about how we think this amendment is compatible with the ongoing Law Commission review.
Mr McFadden
Q
Dr Hawley: Absolutely. We think that the corporate offence is essential, but that does not mean we do not think that individual accountability is very important. There is also a real issue about how senior executives are held to account. If we take LIBOR as an example, I think there were four convictions out of 13 prosecutions for the rate rigging in the UK, and in a lot of those cases people said, “The management knew we were doing this.” That was their defence. If that is really the case, you are not going to change the culture. There are two really important reasons for having a corporate offence, and part of it is about changing the culture. If corporates know that they might face a huge fine, they will put in place procedures to stop that happening. That is really important.
Mr McFadden
Q
Dr Hawley: Under the current law, if there is not a “failure to prevent” offence in a piece of legislation, a company can be held to account only if its directing mind can be found to have intended for the crime to occur. In a small company, the directors are much more hands-on, so it is much easier for prosecutors to pin the blame on someone at a senior level—it has to be at the board level—and therefore prove that the company is guilty. That is not how large corporations and businesses work, and that is what prosecutors have been saying for a long time. They work on a much more devolved basis.
The problem is that the way the law is at the moment, not only does it make it easier to prosecute small companies —small companies bear the burden of prosecution—but it incentivises bad corporate governance in larger companies because it encourages people to insulate the board from knowledge about wrongdoing. That is the point that prosecutors and people in the legal community have been making for some time.
Mr McFadden
Q
Dr Hawley: This is what we write about in our evidence. HMRC, in its consultation on its new “failure to prevent tax evasion” offence, specifically highlighted that these laws encourage bad corporate governance. It says that they provide incentives for senior management to turn a blind eye to wrongdoing in order to shield the corporate body from criminal liability and they disincentivise the reporting of wrongdoing to senior members of corporate bodies. That is not me; that is the Government consultation on the “failure to prevent tax evasion” offence for criminal finances, but that is no different from the other economic crime offences. That is a corporate governance issue that cuts across all these economic crimes.
Mr McFadden
Q
Dr Hawley: In the UK at the moment there are two ways in which companies could be held to account for money laundering. One of them is under the money laundering regulations, and that is a minor offence. To give you a comparative example, if it is an individual being fined for that, they would get two years in prison. The kinds of fines we are seeing are around the £5,000 mark. There have been some higher marks—sorry, that was HMRC’s enforcement at a regulatory level. We have not seen any corporate criminal fines in this space at all. There is no criminal enforcement going on under the money laundering regulations, but that is a different issue. To explain the law, theoretically companies could be held to account, but it is a relatively minor offence. That is very different from holding them to account for the main offences under the Proceeds of Crime Act, which, for an individual, carries a maximum sentence of 14 years. You can see from that that it is a very different type of offence, and the courts would treat it very differently.
Under the EU’s sixth anti-money laundering directive, all states must have corporate criminal liability and must impose criminal and non-criminal sanctions that are proportionate and dissuasive. We are already seeing countries such as Germany taking really strong steps to implement that. It has a corporate sanctions Bill coming up, which has a clause that requires prosecutors to investigate suspicions of corporate crime. It is a very strong Bill. Before that, Germany was the outlier and had no proper corporate criminal liability. We see it in the Netherlands as well, where increasing levels of corporate fines are being imposed for money laundering, and there is a very strong corporate liability framework there as well. In Ireland, the Irish Law Commission has recommended changes to the law on corporate liability. We are seeing a raising of standards across the EU that the directive will bring in the context of money laundering.
Mr McFadden
I have no further questions, although my colleagues might have.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
Q
There is a Law Commission consultation going on. We have fully transposed the fifth anti-money laundering directive in line with international best practice. You gave us some perspectives on Germany and Holland in terms of future orientations, which is something that I imagine we would look at in the context of that review. How would the provisions of the Bill help?
Dr Hawley: Obviously, we have welcomed the leadership that the Government have taken on beneficial ownership and the implementation of the fifth AMLD. My colleagues from Transparency International, who are giving evidence later to the Committee, have done more work on the beneficial ownership side. They are the people to talk in more detail about how the Bill specifically relates to that.
We hope that there will be other legislative vehicles brought forward soon to introduce the property register of beneficial ownership and the Companies House reforms. It is excellent that that consultation has now come out and the Government have taken strong steps towards looking at how Companies House can be strengthened, because, as FATF noted, it was, as you have mentioned, an area of weakness.
I do not want to bang on about it, but FATF also highlighted the lack of high-end money laundering convictions in the UK and questioned whether that was really reflective of the risk within the UK. We are carrying out some analysis into what is happening with regulatory fines in this space. The number of fines seems to be going down dramatically, and we are not seeing an increase in high-end money laundering convictions. To be honest, we are a bit worried that the Law Commission review, which we really welcome, will take too long.
John Glen
Q
Dr Hawley: I am actually saying something different. That review rightly focuses on the identification doctrine that was the primary focus that the Law Commission was given, and it is absolutely right that the Law Commission does that. We monitor bribery cases as they go through the courts, and we have seen that, even with the Bribery Act, there is still an ongoing unfairness. A small company can be prosecuted for a main offence and a “failure to prevent” offence. We have heard directly from prosecutors that they can say to a small company, “Look, if you co-operate with us, we will only prosecute you for failure to prevent. But if you don’t, we will prosecute you with section 1 or section 2.” We also have the fact that a section 1 or a section 2 offence incurs mandatory debarment from public procurement and a “failure to prevent” offence does not. So small companies face the risk of being excluded from public procurement in a way that large companies do not. We think that that is not compatible with the Government’s stated intention of levelling the playing field for small companies in public procurement.
What we would say—and it is something we have always said—is that we absolutely need the Law Commission to look into the identification principle, but we do not think it would pre-empt the review to introduce the “failure to prevent” offence for these crimes, because we already have that offence for bribery and tax evasion. That would complement the Law Commission’s work. We still need the review of the identification doctrine, and that cannot be done by anyone other than the Law Commission.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
Q
“However, there is no corporate offence in the FSA and it is therefore not clear that prosecutors would be able to hold companies to account were similar conduct to reoccur.”
I will be open and honest with you: I do not have a legal background, so perhaps you could elaborate on that further. Either there is the ability to do something or there is not. That ties in with the remarks about Barclays in point 21, which quotes remarks that it
“effectively removes companies with widely devolved management and functioning boards”.
The term “effectively” implies that it could or could not. Can I have a little more clarity on that point?
Dr Hawley: Yes, absolutely. We have checked that with lawyers, and it is the case currently under the Financial Services Act that if you wanted to bring a prosecution for misleading statements on benchmarks—let us hope that will not happen again because financial institutions have learned the lessons from last time—the only way that you could hold a company to account would be under the directing mind principle that I mentioned earlier. You would have to show that one of the directors knew and intended for this to occur. There is no comparative offence, as there is under the Bribery Act, of a failure to prevent misleading statements being made, for which there could be a corporate fine. That would be almost impossible to do if a bank were making misleading statements.
The Barclays judgment has made that even more difficult and narrower. Prosecutors and the Serious Fraud Office can no longer say, “We’ve got the evidence on the CEO and CFO, and we think we can prove it, so we will take this to court.” The court then turns round and says, “No, it’s not just that. You have to show that the board actually delegated authority to these people.” It set a whole new hurdle for how you hold corporates to account. What we are hearing from people is that this is going to lead to a massive decrease in corporate prosecutions, because the grounds for bringing a company to account are so narrow now that they are almost impossible. I cannot say that it would not happen, but I can say that it would be an extremely brave prosecutor to risk public money in the courts to try.
Stephen Flynn
Q
Dr Hawley: The corporate route?
Stephen Flynn
Yes.
Dr Hawley: We do not see any dangers, because, generally, if you can hold the company to account, you are more likely to be able to hold the individuals to account. There is some evidence from the US, where the lack of senior executives going to jail has been contentious.
I think there is a real issue around senior executive accountability. We have seen a series of acquittals in the UK courts, in the Tesco’s case and in the Barclays case. There are some quite serious issues that need to be looked at in terms of how senior executives are held to account. I could argue to bring forward an amendment to address that as well, but that is not what we have done in this written evidence. We are just focusing on the corporate offence, and we do not see any reason why it would undermine efforts to hold senior executives to account. I would be interested to hear those arguments, because I have not heard any coherent arguments about why it undermines individual accountability.
The Chair
It might be helpful for colleagues and our witness to say that we have 18 minutes left and three people who want to ask questions, so people might want to be mindful of that.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
Q
Dr Hawley: We actually have two suggestions. One is to introduce a “failure to prevent” offence for individuals, where, effectively, you are in a senior position and this happens on your watch. That is one way of doing it. The other way is to do what happens with the Competition and Markets Authority, where the court has the power to disqualify a director where there is a corporate offence. That is something that was put down in an amendment to the sanctions and money laundering regulations. Those are two legislative options—one of them a bit more radical than the other. The Competition and Markets Authority one is already there in law; it is just a matter of making it effective for these particular economic crimes.
We also think that there needs to be some more blue-skies thinking about whether, when there is a deferred prosecution agreement, companies should be required to claw back some of the money from the senior executives who were running the company when the wrongdoing occurred, because it is unfair that they get to move on, often with huge financial benefits. We saw that with the recent Airbus case—the director left with a massive golden handshake, and then the company and shareholders were left to pick up the fine. I think there is a way to make how the corporate fine is shared fairer. There are quite a lot of potential ways to do it, and we would be happy to provide a paper on that before 3 December, if it would be useful to the Committee.
Abena Oppong-Asare
Q
Dr Hawley: It is welcome that it has increased. Higher sentences are important, as we see in the US—there are higher sentences for white-collar crime, and people actually go down. To be honest, it is also about enforcement. Actually, quite a few prosecutions for a certain level are better than very few for a high level. It all comes down to regular enforcement, which is something that we very much hope there will be greater thinking about—enforcement resourcing for any of the laws that will be put in place.
Abena Oppong-Asare
Q
Dr Hawley: The basic and essential one is that if you introduce a “failure to prevent” economic crime, it immediately covers that gap; it immediately brings larger companies into the reach of prosecutors for economic crimes. We still think the Law Commission will need to look at how the identification doctrine still applies and carries on creating unfairness, even after you have introduced a “failure to prevent” offence, but it would be an immediate stopgap that would stop that happening. I cannot think of any other way of doing that.
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
Q
I was looking at some of the specialist fraud and financial crime law firms’ response to the Law Commission’s review, particularly how it relates to the “failure to prevent” suggestion. They have called the Government’s desire to look at that in the round a very measured approach, and they have pointed to the fact that there have been lots of developments in regulatory and legal environments since the call for evidence. They have said that, actually, the best approach is probably to wait and see—to review, and to look at the entire issue in the round. Given the complexity and the cost to business, what is your response to that?
Dr Hawley: What has happened since the call for evidence closed is the Barclays judgment. We have also had a judgment in the Serco case, in which Serco was involved in procurement fraud against the MOJ, and it could not be the party to a deferred prosecution agreement—only its subsidiary could—because of these corporate liability rules. How it fits with the regulatory system is a really important question. As you will have seen from our evidence, we think that can be really properly thought through and hammered out at the guidance stage to the “failure to prevent” offence. That is where you would have a really good discussion with the private sector, bringing them in to show how you make those parts fit together.
I would like to add that on the regulatory side, as I mentioned earlier, we are seeing a worrying decline in the number of fines imposed by some of the regulatory bodies, for instance in the money laundering space. Creating a criminal offence—it is important to note that it is not a new criminal offence, but a different way of holding people to account for the same criminal offence—would open up a broader range of people who might bring action against a company. We have seen criticism in the paper, including from some of the law firms, about a lack of action by the Financial Conduct Authority on money laundering regulations, very few investigations and no prosecutions of corporates. If it were a criminal offence, companies might be looking at investigations by the SFO, which would really make them sit up.
I think it is about deterrence and how you ensure that compliance with the regulations is not just a box-ticking exercise, which is the risk if you take only a regulatory approach. What is really interesting about the responses to the Government’s call for evidence is that the vast majority of respondents do not think that where a serious crime occurs, a regulatory approach is appropriate; there need to be criminal approaches. I was really struck by how common that was. I think there is some urgency, if I am honest, particularly in relation to the UK falling behind emerging standards elsewhere, but also with the problem of inequality before the law, which I think could become really heightened when the response to the covid crisis plays out. You might get quite a lot of resentment when large actors are seen as getting away with it.
Julie Marson
Q
Dr Hawley: Since the call for evidence, we have seen the SMCR and the money laundering regulations, but they were kind of around and being introduced—the SMCR in 2016 and the money-laundering regulations were on the books for 2017—so I do not think that there has been anything dramatically new since then. Those were on the cards at the time of the 2017 call for evidence. This does need private sector consultation and it needs to be thought through carefully.
On the consensus about where to go, another problem we are worried about is that that lack of consensus will be replicated in the Law Commission’s consultation, because you have essentially two options—that is how it has been put to me, quite often by prosecutors. You go with the US model, with vicarious liability, or you have a “failure to prevent” offence. There was not really any clarity in the way the call for evidence was worded that would result in a kind of consensus. Quite a lot of law firms think we should have vicarious liability, because that is the strongest form of liability there is.
I worry about coming to the end of the Law Commission consultation with exactly the same result: no consensus about the way forward, let’s not do anything, and then we will be stuck in the same place. Do you see my point with that?
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Q
Dr Hawley: That is not my wording; I think that one of the business press has used that phrase. Do you want me to explain why I think that?
Ms Eagle
Q
Dr Hawley: I am afraid it is widely held consensus that what we do here is significantly inferior to what happens in the US, and I do not think there can be any doubt about that. I could share some research we did in 2019, which very specifically compared only London and New York banks, so that we did not get an unfair comparison because of the much larger size of the US. The level of fines that the US imposes, both criminally and on a regulatory level—that is, the money laundering space—is 22 times higher.
Ms Eagle
Q
Dr Hawley: The law is certainly an issue with fraud, money laundering and false accounting.
Ms Eagle
By the way, without meaning to be rude, you have three minutes to answer this or the Chair will cut you off.
Dr Hawley: Absolutely, it is an issue of the law and of enforcement—law is only as good as its enforcement. We need a fairly wide consensus among the enforcement community, non-governmental organisations and academics in this space. We need a massive boost to economic crime enforcement in this country.
With the FCA, what we hear is it is much easier for them to bring civil actions, and that is what they do. For corporates, they are not using the corporate criminal liability laws that we think need to be used to ensure real deterrence, and that corporate wrongdoing, when it does occur—by the few bad people—is properly held to account and prosecuted. I know the Competition and Markets Authority wants to get rid of its prosecuting function to the SFO. Some people, such as Jonathan Fisher QC, have argued that we need one big super-enforcer in the criminal sphere, because regulators will always have more interest in taking the easier, quicker and cheaper route, taking the regulatory approach rather than the criminal approach.
Ms Eagle
Q
Dr Hawley: It is a really complicated issue, which I am very pleased the Law Commission is looking at. One of the options is vicarious liability. Some people feel a bit uneasy about vicarious liability and say it is too strong, but that is where you need the best legal minds of the Law Commission. However, the immediate gap can be immediately filled by the introduction of the “failure to prevent” offence. Otherwise, large companies are beyond the law; the “failure to prevent” offence brings them within the reach of the law.
The Chair
Order. I am afraid that brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. I thank our witness for her evidence on behalf of the Committee. That brings us to the end of the morning sitting. The Committee will meet again at 2 pm in the same room to take further evidence.
Ordered, That further consideration now be adjourned. —(David Rutley.)
Environment Bill (Eighteenth sitting)
Thursday 19th November 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Environment Act 2021 View all Environment Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 19 November 2020 - (19 Nov 2020)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Before we begin, I would like to remind hon. Members about social distancing. Spaces available to Members are already clearly marked. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if you could send any speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. I also remind Members to please switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings.
We continue with line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room. It shows how the selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or similar issues. Please note that decisions on amendments do not take place in the order they are debated, but in the order they appear on the amendment paper. The selection and grouping list shows the order of debates. Decisions on each amendment are taken when we come to the clause to which the amendment relates.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
On a point of order, may I highlight the terrific leaf-covered suits of the Minister and her PPS and, indeed, the green jacket of the hon. Member for Putney, as part of a tribute to the cause of this great Environment Bill Committee?
The Chair
As the hon. Gentleman is fully aware, that is not a point of order. However, the point has been made and I am sure it will be appreciated by those to whom it was directed.
Clause 93
General duty to conserve and enhance biodiversity
Amendment made: 223, in clause 93, page 95, line 21, after “England))” insert—
“(a) in subsection (1), after ‘conserving’ insert ‘or enhancing’;”. —(Rebecca Pow.)
This amendment adds a reference to enhancing biodiversity to section 41(1) of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006.
Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester for his lovely comment on my suit. As I explained to the Chair earlier, it is my lucky suit. I wore it for both Second Readings—we have had two already—and I thought, as we are doing nature, I should wear it today.
Public authorities can and should play an important role in improving our nature. Under the current duty, a number of public authorities have undertaken projects with the aim of conserving biodiversity, such as changing cutting regimes for roadside verges to allow wild flowers to flourish. The hon. Member for Cambridge mentioned something going on in his own area along those lines, and I am pushing my county council in Somerset to do exactly that.
Such efforts are not consistent across public authorities, nor are they enough when compared with the Government’s wider ambitions for recovering nature and the country’s desire to build back better. They are also not enough to address the drastic decline in biodiversity seen over past decades, which we have referenced several times in Committee. I believe we all agree about the need to address it.
The existing duty was criticised in a House of Lords Select Committee report in 2017, with environmental groups such as Wildlife and Countryside Link giving evidence that the duty was ineffective. We have listened and clause 93 therefore strengthens the biodiversity duty to better reflect the ambition set out in the 25-year environment plan and to give public authorities a better approach to building biodiversity into their core activities. It just needs to be part and parcel of everything in the future. We are changing the nature of the duty away from considering biodiversity every time that a function is exercised, when in many cases it will not be relevant or it will be too late in the implementation process to make the most effective change. We want public authorities periodically to take a strategic look over all their functions, identify where they can make a change that will improve biodiversity as they are developing their policies and procedures, and then take action.
Public authorities must also have regard to local nature recovery strategies, species conservation strategies and protected site strategies—I mentioned those in the previous sitting—when they consider biodiversity. That is an important underpinning for the strategies and is crucial to their implementation.
The strengthened duty seeks to embed consideration of how biodiversity can be conserved and enhanced in the overall performance of public authorities’ functions across England. I urge that clause 93 stand part of the Bill.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Let me start by reassuring hon. Members that my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test is not suffering undue excitement from the previous sitting, but is on a late-running train from Southampton and will join us soon.
May I also thank you, Sir George, for allowing us to sort out the slight procedural difficulty that we had at the end of the previous sitting? It was a long sitting and finished in a bit of a rush. The Government introduced a whole range of important new clauses relating to clause 93, to which I will now be making reference. A huge set of amendments were introduced about species conservation strategies and protected site strategies. Of course, it was not possible to discuss that provision in evidence sessions, and the Opposition were disappointed that that was not possible. It prompts a whole range of questions, and perhaps the Minister can answer some of them in her reply. We are not clear on why the provision was introduced at such a late stage. Although some of it is welcome, there are some questions of detail, which I will go into. It is not clear to us why the provision was introduced at such a late moment.
I have to say that this goes back to the argument that I have been making—you missed the first half of it, Sir George—as I have questioned who was responsible for, in the Opposition’s view, so diminishing the power of the Environment Bill. We think that there is an interaction with the Government’s planning White Paper, and I ask the Minister just to say a little more about the interaction that she thinks that there will be with these proposals.
I draw the Minister’s attention to a piece in The Planner, which I am not sure she is a regular reader of—I confess I am not. The question was raised over the summer of the interaction between the planning White Paper and the good proposals in this Bill and clause 93. One question raised by Huw Morris, one of that publication’s key writers, is this: in a streamlined planning system, how will local plans be assessed from an environmental and sustainability point of view, and how will individual schemes be environmentally assessed to provide the right mitigation? The point is that in the planning White Paper, we have new categories, including of course the growth category, where none of these things will be done in detail. Huw Morris says that the picture gets murkier in growth zones, where schemes will be allowed automatically. With sustainability appraisal scrapped and environmental impact assessments not carried out at the outline stage, how will a development’s green footprint be judged, if at all?
That is a very big question. I appreciate that the Minister might not want to respond immediately, but I hope that she has some opportunity, in the discussions, to give some reassurance to people, because this potentially, in our view, undermines many of the good points that we have talked about. That is why we were so keen to have an evidence session.
In relation to clause 93 and new clause 25 on species strategies and licensing, we have looked at this provision closely and are disappointed that we were not able to examine it more closely in a proper evidence session, because the interaction between some of these suggestions and existing legislation is quite detailed. Strategic approaches to species conservation are clearly essential. We agree with them. It is vital to preserve biodiversity and enable the recovery of nature. As I think we have already said, that is important because 46% of conservation priority species in England declined between 2013 and 2018, and many of those species would certainly benefit from a strategic plan resulting in all relevant public bodies taking appropriate actions to save and restore them.
Sadly, this proposal has to be understood in the context of the net-gain offsetting that we have already discussed, and our fear is that there could be unintended consequences. We are advised that the overall result could sadly be to allow the destruction of habitats and protected species in return for new habitat creation elsewhere. A developer could be licensed to proceed with activities that destroy habitats and species in return for contributing to habitats that support the wider population of that species.
It is a complicated point, but I am sure that the Minister knows what we are driving at. Our worry is that it would allow a developer to proceed without protecting every specimen of a protected species and without always undertaking site-specific survey work. The result would be to speed up development and reduce costs, which seems to us—this is the argument that I am trying to build—to be the effect of the planning White Paper. It seems to be the very opposite of what we are trying to achieve in the Bill.
If the proposal is implemented well, it certainly could be a positive way to contribute to the conservation of certain species, but if it is managed badly or applied to inappropriate species it could sadly become a shortcut to getting round some of the protected species obligations. The evidence for that is provided by conservation organisations that tell us that the implementation of strategic approaches to species protection, such as district licensing for great crested newts, have not been proven effective. The Minister claimed that they had been, but that is not their view.
The Government notes do not give us cause for optimism. In the fourth bullet point of the notes that were issued alongside the clauses, the Government say that there are
“concerns limiting the development and roll-out of such existing schemes: 1) uncertainty about how effective they are and 2) whether they can be considered to meet the high standard of certainty required by law.”
That is the point that we are seeking to pursue.
We are told by environmental organisations that monitoring has been incomplete, that there is little evidence that it has protected the most important newt populations from development, and that the overall benefits for the species are unproven. That could have been probed and tested in evidence, but sadly we have not been given that opportunity. We are concerned that the Government seek to advance on the roll-out of district licensing around the country, with a duty to co-operate forcing the hand of local authorities, many of which are already saying that they are concerned about the effectiveness of the scheme.
We can see the dangers, and we think that high risks would come from extending that kind of approach to other species that have distinct conservation needs. As far as we are aware, no assessment has been undertaken to establish which, if any, other species would be ecologically amenable to this or similar approaches. Can the Minister tell us whether that work has been done? Again, I do not necessarily expect her to have the answer to hand, but if she cannot tell us today, she could write to us.
We are looking for some serious reassurance that the species conservation strategies will not lead to perverse outcomes. We need to ensure that they are delivering gains for nature rather than gains for developers. This may be slightly tedious, and I apologise, but again because we have not had the opportunity to interrogate these matters we think it is important to put it on the record.
Greener UK has raised several legal details with us that we would like addressed. It asked us why the clause has not been worded to ensure that each species strategy is required to identify priorities for the protection of habitats in addition to the existing priorities of creation or enhancement of habitats. Greener UK’s concern is that purely focusing on enhancements, as is currently the case in the clause, would undermine the planning process by undervaluing the need to protect existing habitats, and it wonders why the clause has not been worded to ensure that each strategy must give precedence to the mitigation hierarchy.
That is an important point because, as we said in earlier discussions, offsetting and licensing through species plans should be the very last option rather than considered earlier in the process. Greener UK is particularly concerned that site surveys should still take place when existing data is inadequate to identify impacts on key species. The worry through all this is that this is an attempt to speed up the process for development rather than to protect species.
Site surveys covering features important to species as well as habitats are particularly important for bats and invertebrates. Bat roosts, which are essential to the species’ survival, and endangered insects on private sites, are easily overlooked and are often detected only in pre-development site surveys.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I rise in support of the objections and concerns raised by the shadow Minister about clause 93 and, specifically, new clauses 25 and 26 on species conservation strategies. The strategic approaches to species conservation are essential to preserving biodiversity and enabling nature’s recovery. They should include protecting, restoring and creating habitat over a wider area to meet the needs of individual species. The additional clauses, along with shining a light on species conservation, are welcome. It is clear that current rules are not working and—as already mentioned—46% of conservation priority species in England declined between 2013 and 2018.
I was concerned, however, to read the reports from Greener UK, which is a coalition of 13 major conservation and environmental organisations. It says that the various strategies may be undermined by the way they are written and the way they are enforced, actually resulting in faster development with lower standards. That cannot be the aim of the clauses at all. Were the strategic powers to be managed badly or applied to inappropriate species, they could become the loopholes that developers would use straightaway to put costs before species protection, and to get away with undermining species protection. That would be as a result of these clauses, which cannot be right.
I am concerned that it has been raised by Greener UK that experienced operators of existing licensing systems are not currently providing protection for animals such as great crested newts, so the district licensing does not work at the moment. Has the Minister met those organisations? Has she talked about these issues and the outcomes on the ground?
I ask the Minister to look again at this clause, which must be amended to explicitly state that site surveys should take place when existing data is inadequate. If the barrier is too high to progress with the site survey, it will not be done, except in abnormal situations or when it is too high a bar. It will not be done in all the places where conservation is failing, which is why we are having this decline. Such an amendment would be vital to this clause so it will be enacted in a way that means we can conserve species.
There is no room for error on this. We cannot wait for 10 years then review this, and find out that lots of habitats have been decimated, and that species have not been conserved and have gone because of this. We need to be on it right from the start. What will be the monitoring of the impact of these clauses? Will the monitoring be fast and rigorous, to ensure that the outcome is conservation and protection of special sites, rather than seeing developers riding roughshod over the regulations and using the rules as a loophole for continuing decimation of our important sites?
Rebecca Pow
I thank hon. Members for their comments. As the hon. Member for Cambridge said, he has raised a large number of points in one go. He has given me a large task, and I will write to him if there are points that I miss out, because it was an awful lot to take in at speed.
The hon. Gentleman is right to be asking these questions because we need to make sure that we have got this right. I give him the assurance straight away that new clauses 25 to 27 will not diminish the Bill, but will add to it. That is what we have in mind and there has been a lot of discussion in order to come to that conclusion. We have listened to a lot of comments. That is why clause 93 strengthens the biodiversity duty, to better effect the ambition set out in the 25-year environment plan and to give public authorities a much better approach to building biodiversity into their core activities, so that that is part and parcel of everything rather than being done on an itsy-bitsy, one-off basis.
Daniel Zeichner
No one on the Opposition Benches questions the Minister’s commitment to this, but why was it introduced at a late stage? If she can explain that, it would go some way to assuaging some of our fears.
Rebecca Pow
As the hon. Gentleman knows, this Bill has been in the making for a very long time. It began long before I came along as the Environment Minister. We have spent a whole year working on it, which has enabled us to strengthen it and to work more closely with all the bodies and organisations, particularly Natural England.
The hon. Member for Cambridge talked about Natural England, with whom we have worked really closely. In fact, it will play a big role in all this and we have had full discussions with it. Indeed, Natural England launched a project about 10 days ago. I would have gone, had it not been for the lockdown, so all I could do was a speech. The project was about how nature recovery networks, which is a generic term, and strategies will be pulled together with the protected sites. The launch went well and about 500 people attended the Zoom event, to show how these things will work as we go forward and make sure that in the future biodiversity is embedded into all that we do.
Daniel Zeichner
I will not keep intervening, but my concern is about the section on nature in the 10-point plan that the Prime Minister launched yesterday. There is no mention of net biodiversity gain, which seemed to us to be surprising. That is why we are suspicious. It is difficult, because we have new proposals coming forward from other bits of Government and our worry is that the strength of this Bill has been undermined.
Rebecca Pow
I thought the 10-point plan was brilliant. It put a massive focus on decarbonising and the renewable energy sector, which I know the hon. Member for Southampton, Test is particularly interested in. It was addressing other elements of the whole green recovery. We were really pleased that we got the tree mentioned in there.
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move amendment 142, in clause 94, page 95, leave out lines 28 and 29 and insert—
“(a) all public authorities and persons or bodies exercising functions of a public nature, and”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 186, in clause 94, page 95, line 30, at the end insert—
“(d) Natural England and the Environment Agency”.
Daniel Zeichner
I assure the Committee the going may be slightly lighter for the next period. That was complicated. I appreciated the Minister’s response, but I think there are two takes we can have on this: one is the optimistic take, which she presents, but others are a little more sceptical and suggest that even if the bulldozer is hydrogen-powered, it is still a bulldozer, so we need to be careful.
We welcome clause 94, because it remedies a weakness in the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, which lacked a reporting duty for public authorities with regard to the biodiversity objective. The world moves on and we want to do better, so the clause is good. Those reports will be important in regularly recording the actions that public authorities take to conserve and enhance biodiversity.
I am grateful to the Minister for her letter referring to the burdens on local authorities. She was very swift in writing to me. I am not certain that my council colleagues will be totally convinced, but apparently there is a new burdens doctrine, which sounds slightly severe. In her letter, she was very specific about some elements that will apparently be funded, but I suspect that, with all these measures, whether it is the reporting duty or anything else, many local authorities will ask where the resources will come from to enable them to do it. Nevertheless, we would like it to be done, because we think that these reports will help to improve information on protected sites, priority habitats and priority species.
The clause could helpfully be amended, to realise the full potential of those reports, so I will continue my theme of trying to strengthen the legislation and achieve the outcome that we all want. Extending the range of public authorities that are required to provide reports, providing more direction on report content and expanding the list of topics that public authorities should report on would be helpful. Currently, the requirement to produce biodiversity reports applies only to local authorities in England other than parish councils, local planning authorities in England and designated authorities. We think that it would be beneficial to extend the range of public authorities required to provide reports, to make sure that all bodies that have influence over the natural environment are properly included. Our amendments 142 and 186 seek to do that.
Amendment 142 would make it a requirement that
“all public authorities and persons or bodies exercising functions of a public nature”
have to produce these reports, spelling out how they are meeting the biodiversity objective; and amendment 186 would add Natural England and the Environment Agency to the list of designated authorities required to publish biodiversity reports. We think these amendments would be helpful. We will not pursue a vote, but it would be helpful to hear the Minister’s response.
Rebecca Pow
You will be very pleased to hear that I will not speak for as long as I did previously, Mr Howarth.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his amendments. Importantly, the addition of a reporting requirement strengthens the Bill. The reports will be a valuable source of information, facilitating the sharing of best practice and providing both transparency and accountability.
Clause 94 designates some public authorities and provides the Secretary of State with a power to designate in secondary legislation which other bodies will be required to report. We are clear that local authorities and other planning authorities have important contributions to make to restoring nature, so we have designated those authorities in the Bill. We will require reporting from other relevant public authorities, including Government Departments with large estates and bodies that undertake statutory requirements, such as the public utility companies.
Amendment 142 would significantly broaden the duty to report on action taken under the biodiversity duty, which would not be appropriate for some public authorities that are small and have few resources. Parish councils, which we have mentioned previously, are a clear example of such authorities, but there will be others for which it would not be a sensible use of their limited resources to produce and publish biodiversity reports. I am sure that they will all want to have their say, but they could feed that in to their local authority.
Under amendment 186, Natural England and the Environment Agency would be named specifically in the 2006 Act as needing to produce biodiversity reports. The decisions on which public authority should be asked to report are best considered in detail as we develop the regulations that will flow from the Bill. All interested stakeholders will have the opportunity to engage with us to make sure we get the list of public authorities right. I think it is important that that is done. Consideration and consultation are important parts of the process, and while Natural England and the Environment Agency undoubtedly have crucial roles in our effort to enhance biodiversity, there are other important public authorities. I urge the hon. Member to withdraw his amendment.
Daniel Zeichner
I anticipated that response, but I do think there is a missed opportunity here. Part of the problem goes back to the existing pressures on organisations like Natural England and the Environment Agency. They have to prioritise. The danger is that they will not be able to do some of the things we are asking them to do unless we actually specify and lay them out. The worry that has been expressed to me is that they sometimes struggle to carry out their biodiversity duties. Unless we actually press them and make it an obligation, they are not going to report on it or be able to do it. That is not a criticism of them; they are working with limited resources.
It comes back to the very basic point that it depends on how important one thinks any of this is. We think it is really important. I will gently say that, in the lead-up to COP26, where nature-based solutions are going to be a key theme, we could be setting a lead here by showing how we are pushing nature and biodiversity up the agenda—not at No. 9 on the 10-point plan, but much higher up, which is certainly where we would put it. I think it is a missed opportunity.
On parish councils and other authorities, which we will perhaps come on to a bit later, perhaps I am slightly obsessed by environmental land management schemes because of my role on the Agriculture Bill, but it seems to me that an awful lot is being put on these schemes. I said during the discussions on that Bill that there was a clear opportunity for local input, and it would be local knowledge that made these measures work. There is a role for these authorities, and this is exactly the kind of place where we could set that obligation.
Rebecca Pow
I have been wanting to intervene and give reassurances on that very point that everything in the Bill will also dovetail with the measures in the Agriculture Bill and the environmental land management schemes. That is essential, I am working very closely with the Farms Minister and the Secretary of State to make sure the Bills work together. The environmental land management schemes will deliver much of the biodiversity and nature enhancement, and public goods including clean water, carbon capture and climate change mitigation, in large part through nature-based solutions. The measures in this Bill will help towards that, and the local authority biodiversity reports will particularly help, as well as the local networks that are developed. They show what nature is where, what needs enhancing where, and how different groups of people can join up through catchment-based approaches. I think what the hon. Gentleman wants to happen is what has been designed. Does he agree?
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful to the Minister for giving me the opportunity to say how disappointed we were that the Government did not take the opportunity we offered in our amendment to link the Bills together, not least because they came in the wrong order, being driven by a Brexit timetable rather than an appropriate timetable to do this in the right way. We are not convinced they have been integrated in the correct way. We are only a few weeks away from that new system potentially beginning, and there is a lot of work to do, to put it mildly.
We think that there should be local input from the very beginning, much like the schemes we are losing—economic development, leader schemes and so on—that worked on a local level before. Who knows where the sustainable investment is going? A lot is being lost at the moment. To return to the amendment, we feel that a strengthened reporting obligation would actually help the Government, as we are trying to do, to achieve the outcomes they are seeking more effectively. None the less, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move amendment 141, in clause 94, page 95, line 43, at end insert—
“(e) an analysis of how actions taken have contributed to delivery of priorities identified in the Local Nature Recovery Strategies.”
This is a continuation of the same discussion, in effect, because we are looking at how the biodiversity reports could be improved. In the Bill, in the list of topics that the biodiversity reports should contain, there is no reference to any consideration of local nature recovery strategies. I have already spoken with some passion about the need to link all these things up to make them work. We agree that if we are going to tackle the biodiversity challenge, co-ordination is needed. The local nature recovery strategies are designed to do just that, so tying them into biodiversity reports would help to achieve that core purpose of directing local nature recovery activity.
Our amendment would do that by adding to the clause that biodiversity reports must contain analysis of how the actions of public authorities have contributed to the delivery of the priorities identified in the local nature recovery strategies. Our concern—this is a consistent theme—is to lock in a guarantee that something actually happens. The danger is that often good intentions are parked somewhere within authorities that, quite understandably, have many other things going on, and nothing happens. We need to ensure that things are considered in key decision-making processes and that actions are properly monitored, with decision makers held to account. Again, the amendment is a probing one to tease out of the Government how they think the provision will work. There will be no need to divide the Committee.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the amendment. We intend the biodiversity reports to be proportionate and flexible. Designated public authorities will report every five years on how the measures throughout the clauses dealing with nature and biodiversity deliver the intended improvements for nature. To achieve that aim, we should not be too prescriptive by specifying in the Bill what the reports must contain.
There will be considerable variety across the public authorities designated to report. For many, it might well make sense to frame reports against the context of the relevant local nature recovery strategy. The requirement in the clause to “have regard” to the strategies while determining what action to take will encourage that. Indeed, we anticipate that biodiversity reports will be a valuable source of information for local nature recovery strategies when they are reviewed and republished. This should be a two-way process.
For many public authorities, however, having to specify the contribution to every relevant strategy would be a disproportionate burden. A public authority with national reach would find it challenging to provide a meaningful analysis of its contribution across a very large number of strategies. As I said, the idea is that the report is workable, is flexible, but that people are actually able to do it. A lengthy analysis could prevent the public authority from producing a report that is clear, readable and focused on the most important action that it has taken to help nature recover.
We therefore believe that such detail is best left to regulations and guidance, which allow for greater flexibility and, where suggested, content can be better tailored to individual circumstances. On those grounds, I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment—I think he said it was just a probing amendment.
Daniel Zeichner
Once again, I might have anticipated that response. My concern continues to be that insufficient leverage is being applied to ensure that such things actually happen. That is the only point at issue. Having heard the Minister’s response, I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 94, page 96, line 27, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This is our familiar “may” or “must” discussion. In this case, clause 94 currently outlines that the Secretary of State “may” make regulations to
“require biodiversity reports to include specified quantitative data relating to biodiversity”.
I want to say a little about some of the data issues, because we think that this is rather important. Paragraph 846 of the explanatory notes makes a very good case for the amendment. It says:
“This will ensure key quantitative data is reported in a consistent fashion across all reports, thereby making comparisons across the reports easier. Having such data defined in regulations will also allow for it to be updated in the future as required.”
The Minister will say that that means it is good to have it in the regulations, but we think it should be stated up front.
We believe that good data will make a big difference to how effective public authorities can be in improving biodiversity outcomes. This carries over into some of the discussions around the environmental land management scheme, which is why we pressed very hard for an environmental baseline to be established. Sadly, that was not taken up by the Government, but we think that they will probably have to do it at some point anyway. None of these worthy processes will be possible without good data. Of course, the world has changed in that there are many new and innovative ways of scanning, recording and assessing that may not have been possible a decade ago.
The Secretary of State himself said in his speech on environmental recovery in July:
“We want everyone to be able to access an accurate, centralised body of data on species populations so that taking nature into account is the first, speedy step to a”
planning application. That is a laudable ambition, which we absolutely support, but to do that the Government have to get the data in place. I pay tribute to the army of volunteers who gather data at the moment. We have fantastic volunteers in this country. I suspect that many people here watch and count butterflies, bees, birds and so on, which is all helpful. I have been very impressed by the Bumblebee Conservation Trust—I have already mentioned the ruderal bumblebee—which does excellent work in recording what is happening to bumblebees.
All such organisations require support and the volunteers sometimes need training, because is not always obvious how to gather the data. There then needs to be a process of recording, verification and infrastructure, and there are costs to all of that. Although we have some wonderful not-for-profit organisations and there is a good tradition of volunteering, we feel that it is important that the Government provide support to ensure that we get the centralised, accurate body of data that the Secretary of State referred to. That, of course, will then allow the data sharing, the comparison and the mechanisms that are needed to ensure that we get the biodiversity gains that we are looking for.
I have said on many occasions that we think that local authorities are already struggling to fund, resource and support the kind of work that will be needed to make all these good intentions come to fruition. Fewer than a third of them have an in-house ecologist or biodiversity officer, and we fear that Natural England does not even have the required resources, as I have said, to carry out its current statutory duties in some cases, let alone the extra responsibilities. We think that there needs to be an investment from Government in the right data and environmental information infrastructure to ensure that nature conservation can work.
Again, this is not an issue on which we wish to divide the Committee. However, I would be grateful to hear from the Minister how she proposes to make sure that that fantastic pool of data is going to be put in place and maintained, to ensure that we can make the progress we are all looking for.
Rebecca Pow
I will narrow my comments down because this is a “may” and “must” amendment again. As I have previously explained during discussion of similar amendments from the hon. Member and others, primary legislation consistently takes this approach to the balance between powers and duties. I assure the hon. Member that the Government intend to make the regulations.
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
As a trained mathematician, I fully support the use of data supporting policy and as chair of the Government’s Regulatory Policy Committee, it was my job to ensure that we had evidence-based policy making. However, I do not think it is good enough just to say that there should or must be data unless we specify what that data is. The risk, otherwise, is that we come up with the wrong sort of data.
Given our shared belief in data, I have been doing a bit of data gathering myself—not counting butterflies and so on, but counting “musts” and “mays”. In clause 94, I counted not just one or two—not three, four or five—but six “musts” and only two “mays”. That shows how strong the paragraph is, with the “musts” outnumbering the “mays” by three to one. Do Opposition Committee members welcome that fact?
The Chair
Order. We are straying into the territory of the Shakespearian debate about the use of “thee” and “thou”. Interesting though it is, I am not quite sure it adds any edification to our proceedings. It is for the hon. Member for Cambridge to decide whether that intervention has any influence on him.
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful, Sir George, and I am grateful to my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire. As the chair of the all-party group on data analytics, I, too, can bore for Britain on that. He is right about the “musts” and the “mays”, but a lot depends on where they come in the paragraph. Sadly, there are lots of “musts” and then, quite often, whether something will be implemented or not is followed by a may. There is a hierarchy of “musts” and “mays” that also needs to be taken into account, which shows the difficulties that sometimes arise with using data. It does not always tell the whole story.
Data will be important, particularly as we go down the environmental land management route. I have concerns about that because of the complexities involved. The only way they will be able to work, I suspect, will be through good collection of data. If we are going to move to outcome-based measures—and I think that that is where many people want to get to, finally, on many such issues—it will be essential to be able to measure, record and draw conclusions. I think that we are probably all going in the same direction, and I suspect that we all want the things that are proposed to happen. It is just a question of how quickly they happen, and when. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 94 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 95 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 96
Preparation of local nature recovery strategies
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move amendment 13, in clause 96, page 97, line 27, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This is one of the most exciting provisions. I do not want to be in danger of getting over-excited, but we think that the set of provisions that we have now reached is very important. That is why I must go back to the ninth of the 10 points yesterday, and say that I found the references—and there is a reference to a local nature recovery network—slightly confusing, as it was in the context of landscape recovery projects.
We are in danger of drowning in a sea of acronyms, I fear, and one thing that we would look for from the Minister is clarity about how all those things will work together. We want a coherent framework that will drive an approach that will reverse nature’s decline across the country. We genuinely believe that that can be done, but we feel that the potential for the local nature recovery strategies is constrained by the current wording and, yet again, we are trying to suggest improvements to help the Minister.
We have already touched on some of the weaknesses of the duty in question, and the need for monitoring in biodiversity reports. The amendment has been tabled to underline the point that the full positive impact of local nature recovery strategies will be realised only if authorities are given clear and effective procedures to follow when they are preparing, producing, reviewing and publishing their local strategies. I am afraid that it is again a may/must issue.
Also, it is a concern of ours that in some instances the affirmative procedure will not be used. There is a strong feeling that, were there to be wider discussion, the legislation would be improved. Allowing third parties, including experts in a sector, to have input into the procedures through public consultation, would be only to the good. We seek the Minister’s comments on whether she can make sure that happens.
We worry, also, about the timing. There is no date to begin the preparation of some of the things in the clause and our worry that they could go on the back burner. Will the Minister give some indication of when she thinks they will be in place and implemented, and when the good work is to begin? Once again, we are trying to find out information. We do not seek to divide the Committee—I can anticipate the Minister’s response. I should like to hear what she has to say.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the amendment, but it will not surprise him to hear that we do not believe it is necessary. The backbone of the local nature recovery strategy clauses is a series of duties on the Secretary of State: first, to ensure that there are local nature recovery strategy areas covering the whole of England; secondly, to appoint responsible authorities to lead local nature recovery strategy preparation; and, thirdly, to provide the responsible authorities with the necessary information. The Government are also seeking the power to create regulations to establish the process for preparing a local nature recovery strategy. That is to enable that process to work smoothly and to create consistency in what each responsible authority produces.
I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Cambridge is aware, but just for information, I point out that five pilots are already running on local nature recovery strategies. One is in Cornwall. There were lots of areas where the pilots on the strategies could have run, but on the whole the areas chosen were those that had already done quite a lot of work in this respect and so had lots of good processes and plans and thoughts. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth probably knows about that initiative, given that it covers her patch. I hope that that explanation gives assurances. The work is ongoing, so the lessons will be learned about all that. That will help for the quick roll-out of these things; others will be able to copy what has been done and put them in process.
We have developed local nature recovery strategies to be an important new tool in delivering a wide range of environmental commitments, such as tree planting, peat restoration, natural flood management and the creation of the nature recovery network, which was touched on by the hon. Member for Cambridge. These commitments for this overarching improvement of nature—that is, the nature recovery network—are set out in the 25-year environment plan. The environmental improvement plan clauses in the Bill will establish duties to monitor and report performance against the commitments—it should be remembered that the first environmental improvement plan is the 25-year environment plan; that is how this all knits together—creating ample incentive for Government to ensure that local nature recovery strategies work effectively to help to meet all our commitments. That will very much be part of it.
I would like to provide reassurance that we intend to waste no time in producing the regulations following Royal Assent to the Bill. It has to happen that we get on with these things pretty fast. Changing this proposed power to produce regulations into a duty to do so would serve no purpose. The Government are clearly committed both to the establishment of local nature recovery strategies and to the role that the regulations will play.
I hope that what I have said gives a bit more clarity on the direction that the hon. Gentleman was asking about and I ask him whether he would kindly withdraw the amendment.
Daniel Zeichner
We still do not feel that there is sufficient speed. That is our concern. Pilots are great, but we have seen with the environmental land management scheme that we can go through pilots and pilots and pilots; the question is whether the crisis is being addressed sufficiently speedily. We would like things to move more quickly, but I hear what the Minister says, and on that basis I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 96 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 97
Content of local nature recovery strategies
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move amendment 143, in clause 97, page 98, line 6, at end insert—
“(c) a statement of how the strategy is expected to contribute to achievement of relevant environmental targets.”
We move from pace to content. We would like to say a little about this—we have a number of amendments, which we can probably go through fairly swiftly—because we think that some things could be done to strengthen the content of local nature recovery strategies. Amendment 143 is to underline that we believe that there need to be clearer links between these requirements and the target-setting framework established at the outset of the Bill.
We believe that the strategies should be required to be developed with regard to the need to contribute to delivery of the environmental targets. We fear that, without that, there will be no means to measure how well the nature provisions are contributing to the overall goal of nature recovery. A clear link would ensure that each local nature recovery strategy delivered local and national objectives, as intended.
Local nature recovery strategies need to be the primary means by which ambitious national environmental commitments, priorities and investments are targeted to deliver maximum public and ecological benefits—the whole range, from tree planting to nature-based flood defences. In combination with those clear national priorities and ecological advice, working with local knowledge and expertise, they can be channelled into delivering measurable achievements through the local strategies. That is the way to make these strategies a success.
We think this amendment is helpful, provides clarity and knits the Bill together. From the outset, our worry has been that the Bill is a rather disparate set of measures. Through the amendment, we could tie it all together and make it work better. Once again, the amendment is an attempt to draw out from the Minister the Government’s thinking on the issue, and we will not seek to divide the Committee.
Rebecca Pow
I understand the hon. Member’s intent in tabling the amendment, but I do not think it is necessary. The Government already have ample measures at their disposal to ensure that the local nature recovery strategies play their part in meeting the relevant targets, once those have been determined. As time goes on there will be opportunity for all manner of targets on nature to be set. That link has already been made.
First, as we have discussed, the Bill gives the Government the power to issue regulations setting out how each local nature recovery strategy must be prepared. Secondly, it will enable Government to issue statutory guidance on what local nature recovery strategies must contain, expanding on the detail on the face of the Bill. Thirdly, it will require the Government to provide the responsible authority with information to assist in preparing these strategies. That information includes a national habitat map as well as the location areas that the Secretary of State believes could contribute to the establishment of a network of areas across England for the recovery and enhancement of biodiversity in England as a whole.
In combination, these measures provide the opportunity for Government to set out a national spatial framework for the nature recovery network and to shape how it is reflected in each local strategy. The Bill also introduces a duty on the Secretary of State to meet the long-term environmental targets. All that reporting and monitoring will feed into that, starting from the ground upwards. All these measures will feed into achieving those targets.
The duty will be sufficient to ensure that the Secretary of State will use the tools referred to and provide responsible authorities with clear information on how local nature recovery strategies should contribute to achieving those specific targets. It will ensure that the Secretary of State has every incentive to monitor the effectiveness of these contributions. I urge the hon. Member to remember that the framework of reporting, monitoring and being held to account will all be part of making sure that we improve nature. I urge him to withdraw the amendment.
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move amendment 144, in clause 97, page 98, line 16, at end insert—
“(e) a description of how actions intended to meet the net gain objective and land management changes supported by public funds should be spatially targeted through Local Nature Recovery Strategies in order to contribute most effectively to environmental improvement.”
This amendment clarifies the relationship between LNRSs, net gain, ELM and other policies.
I suspect that we are trying to achieve the same things through slightly different means. Amendment 144 seeks to ensure that local nature recovery strategies are comprehensive and bring all an area’s environmental gains into a cohesive plan. They should co-ordinate all the local biodiversity net gains arising from planning as well as from the land management changes pursued under ELM schemes. As I have said, we think that linkage to ELM is absolutely key to ensuring a cohesive approach. Again, we think the amendment would strengthen the Bill, which is rather important. I have referred to the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan, which I think needs to be strengthened.
We are helping the Minister here; she could win many brownie points by pointing out to her colleagues that, given that COP26 is nature-based, this is an opportunity to absolutely deliver on nature recovery. I am offering her an early Christmas present, really, and I am afraid that on this occasion we will divide the Committee, because it is a perfect opportunity for her to show that she wants to join us in strengthening her very own Bill.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Member for Cambridge for the amendment and for his constant endeavour to strengthen the Bill, which we want to be a strong one—he is right about that—but I do not believe that this amendment is necessary, and I will set out why.
Local nature recovery strategies will be a powerful new tool to help us take a more strategic approach to how we plan for nature’s recovery and to how we use nature-based solutions to address wider environmental challenges. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about nature-based solutions, but they are very much part and parcel of this new will to deliver for nature and for all those other benefits—flood control, better water quality, carbon capture and sequestration, and so on—so I think we are on the same page on that.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
I think the point that the Minister is trying to make, which I reiterate, is that a lot of those schemes are in their infancy. We have just discussed the five pilot plans, one of which my constituency is involved in. If the Bill is too prescriptive, we will be unable to tweak those plans later if they do not work. It is important that we set out the intention on the face of the Bill and let the pilots do their work, so that Ministers and experts in the field have the flexibility to learn from and use best practice moving forward.
Rebecca Pow
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting that; I could not have put it better myself. That is why we are running the pilots, and it is great that they are already running. The hon. Member for Cambridge asks when we are going to do all this, but we are actually already doing it. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that each area will be different: Cornwall will be quite different from south Humber or Keighley. Those areas’ requirements and demands will vary and that is why we need to run pilots.
We do not want the pilots to go on forever—the hon. Member for Cambridge is absolutely right about that—and the Secretary of State and I are at pains to say, “Yes, we want all the data and feed-in, but we do need action.” I like to think that we will see action. The Secretary of State said on Second Reading that we have to ensure that we work to promote actions through the environmental land management scheme and that those actions work with what we are putting into our local nature recovery strategies. The idea is that those will all work together and that we will then deliver our biodiversity net gain, which will also be helped by the strengthened biodiversity duty on public authorities in the Bill.
Beyond the Bill, the strategies will support local authorities in protecting and enhancing biodiversity through the planning system, and encourage more collaborative working between the public, private and voluntary sectors, to establish and achieve common goals. We are keen that each responsible authority leading production of a strategy properly understands and considers the different mechanisms through which the net gain and adding to nature could be achieved. The responsible authority will not always have direct control of all those different delivery mechanisms, however, so they will need to work collaboratively with other organisations, as we have proposed.
Simply requiring the responsible authority to give its opinion on processes that it does not control will add little to the strategy and could deter partners from engaging constructively. My intention is instead to use the statutory guidance provided with the clauses to explain how the responsible authority should take account of potential delivery mechanisms when preparing its strategy. I agree with the hon. Member for Cambridge: he is absolutely right that we are coming up to a crucial year, with COP26. However, I hope he is very pleased that nature and adaptation are part of the COP. That is why it is so important that we demonstrate that we are going to lead by example, with the pilots and all the measures in the Bill, which show that we are taking these issues seriously; it can work and add to nature. I therefore kindly ask the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.
Daniel Zeichner
That was a helpful set of interchanges, but I have to say that we need something stronger than, “I’d like to think that we are going to see some action.” The urgency is much more pressing. There is a danger of ending up with perpetual pilots, and we want to go much more quickly and more strongly. On that basis, we will press the amendment to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Daniel Zeichner
I beg to move amendment 145, in clause 97, page 98, line 23, before “are” insert
“an ecologically coherent network of sites that”.
This amendment clarifies that local habitat maps should contribute to a coherent ecological network.
Obviously, I am very disappointed that the Minister felt unable to accept my Christmas gift, but we will move on.
Amendment 145 seeks to ensure that local habitat maps, which are included in local nature recovery strategies, are set out in an ecologically coherent way. It is important to get some clarity, because the sites should relate to each other in a coherent way to form part of a wider integrated network for nature’s recovery. We do not want to see local habitats stagnating in isolation; they should relate to one another.
Our understanding is that the intention is for local nature recovery strategies to be produced, as the Minister has already made reference to, in a bottom-up way, to create a nature recovery network at a national level by way of creating corridors of habitat across the country.
I wonder slightly about the national level. As has already been referenced, we have quite clear regions and sub-regions, and it depends on the landscape. Our point is that there should be some coherence. There is a slight risk that there will be a lack of coherence. For instance, we could see a situation where a local authority prioritises a green space for people, quite rightly, but neglects the fact that it could be a crucial stepping-stone between two vulnerable habitats, which could be resolved by creating a corridor of trees that links those habitats.
The basic point we are trying to address is that there should be some integration. By linking strategies together, we believe they can form the building blocks of a national nature recovery network—a joined-up system of nature-rich places, as originally envisioned in the 25-year plan for the environment. We will not seek to divide the Committee on this amendment, but we want to get a sense of whether the Minister shares our aspirations.
Rebecca Pow
I have to go back to the last comments from the hon. Member for Cambridge. He said that, “I’d like to think” we might have some environmental improvement. I am thinking about it all the time, as my team know. All my thinking will lead to action, through the Bill—I just want to make that very clear.
I understand that the intention behind the amendment is to ensure that local nature recovery strategies consider the ecological coherence of any areas that they identify in their local habitat map, and I reassure the Committee that I recognise how important ecological coherence will be in the strategies. The current clauses allow us to publish statutory guidance to set out in more detail what each strategy must contain, so we intend to draw on examples of existing good practice in spatial prioritisation for nature, to ensure that ecological coherence is reflected in the strategies. Quite clearly, “link up” and “join up” are very important, and wildlife corridors are exceptionally important.
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. We probably have slightly different views on this issue, but we are both trying to get to the same place. My concern—it goes right back to the planning White Paper, where these issues are touched on very lightly—is about the lack of integration, rather than having a coherent, planned overall approach. That makes the whole approach less effective. We have heard what the Minister says, however, and we do not seek to push the amendment to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Leo Docherty.)
Financial Services Bill (Fourth sitting)
Thursday 19th November 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Financial Services Bill 2019-21 View all Financial Services Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 19 November 2020 - (19 Nov 2020)
The Chair
Good afternoon, everyone. We will now take evidence from the first of our afternoon witnesses, who is joining us remotely. I remind hon. Members on the right-hand side of the room and in the Public Gallery to use the microphone near the window when they pose their questions. We will hear first from Hugh Savill, from the Association of British Insurers. We have until 2.45 pm for this session, so lots of time. Hugh, will you introduce yourself for the record, please?
Hugh Savill: I am Hugh Savill, director of regulation at the Association of British Insurers.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
Q
I would like to probe your views on the measures that we are introducing with respect to access arrangements between the UK and Gibraltar for financial services firms. How do you see the issues around maintaining the same quality of regulation between the Gibraltarian and UK regimes? Do you foresee any challenges with that? How important do you think that that level playing field will be?
Hugh Savill: A level playing field between Gibraltar and the UK is essential. I think that about 20% of the British motor insurance market is in fact serviced by firms from Gibraltar so, clearly, whether people are working from the UK or from Gibraltar, that needs to be on the same basis. Given that you have two regulatory authorities, and that can always be quite awkward, we think this strikes a good balance. There is good dovetailing of the relationship between our regulators and the Gibraltarian regulators, and we really hope that the Gibraltar authorisation regime works and provides a smooth basis for business in the future.
John Glen
Q
Hugh Savill: This is mainly derived from our experience of conduct regulation at the European level over the past 10 years or so. To be honest, it has not shown the European Union at its best. We have the PRIIPs regulation, which is mentioned in the Bill—well, we are having to correct it—and there have been other measures, such as the insurance distribution directive, which, frankly, have been no better. It is not entirely to do with the way that the European Union makes rules; it is because consumers expect different things in different countries. All you have to do is put together all the things that consumers want. It makes for a very heavy-handed—[Interruption.]
The Chair
I’m sorry, Hugh, could you please pause for a moment? We have a noisy bell. It is gone now, so please carry on. Can you start that sentence again?
Hugh Savill: Worse things might happen at my end.
John Glen
We won’t go there.
Hugh Savill: The fact is that consumers expect different things; they have different traditions. Introducing conduct regulation at the international level—setting what people expect from their bank, so that it fits the conditions in Japan, Brazil and the UK—is too big an ask. You will end up with a very unwieldy rule book that is not particularly suitable for British consumers. We think the retail conduct rules need to be set with British consumers in mind.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
Q
Hugh Savill: I should say that we are equally blunt when we see shortcomings in British regulation, as well as European regulation, but, yes, we have criticised some of the European rules. In effect, the Bill sets out the first step towards a UK regime for financial services, and there will be others that follow. Really, this needs to be tailored to the needs of the British market—first to the needs of British consumers and secondly to the needs of British providers of financial services. Now that we have left the European Union, we think that is the way to go forward, and that is what we are hoping our legislators and regulators will concentrate on.
Mr McFadden
Q
Hugh Savill: I would be surprised. Ideally, what the Gibraltar authorisation regime sets out is the same basis, whether you are doing business in the UK or from Gibraltar. It is quite an enterprise to move your business to Gibraltar, and I am not certain you would be able to take all your skilled people with you. It is expensive to shift domicile like that. I see no big advantage in firms that are servicing the UK market from the UK moving to Gibraltar. Most of the Gibraltarian firms that have moved into the UK market, particularly the motor market, have done so as new entrants.
Mr McFadden
Q
Hugh Savill: I will have to let you know on that point. I believe there is a small value added tax advantage, but I will let you know that in due course.
Mr McFadden
Q
Hugh Savill: They are all slightly different circumstances. I am by no means an expert on the relationship between, say, the Channel Islands and the UK, Gibraltar and the UK, and so on. What was unusual about Gibraltar was that it was part of the single market in a way that the Channel Islands were not, so you had an existing passporting arrangement between Gibraltar and the UK, which, for the sake of the smooth continuation of the motor market, would be helpful to continue.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Q
Hugh Savill: There was a question about whether British consumers who were using Gibraltarian firms had access to the Financial Ombudsman Service in the UK. We think it is extremely important that all British consumers have access to the Financial Ombudsman Service—it looks at individuals’ difficulties in a way that other regulators cannot. I am particularly pleased that that has been clarified in the Bill. Let us hope that it works well.
Alison Thewliss
Q
Hugh Savill: I never say never, but all the people who operate in the British market are subject to the conduct rules of the Financial Conduct Authority, so I think there should be the same standards for those selling from Gibraltar as in the rest of the UK.
Alison Thewliss
Q
Hugh Savill: Some of them will be, some of them will not. I am not a great reader of the small print in my insurance policy, any more than anybody else is, but if we have a similar regime, I hope that that would not be a major preoccupation of somebody buying an insurance policy.
The Chair
I open the questioning to other members of the Committee. Does anyone else have questions? I call Miriam Cates.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
Q
Hugh Savill: If you are buying insurance in the UK, you tend to buy it online for general insurance, or you will quite often use an independent financial adviser to buy life insurance and savings policies. That does not happen on the continent of Europe. There, there is a little shop in most small towns, and people go and buy their general insurance from that shop. If they want savings policies, whether that be insurance or other kinds of savings vehicles, they will go to their bank, so it is a completely different approach and entry into financial services.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
Q
Hugh Savill: Sorry, from the market access arrangements, did you say?
Andrew Jones
Yes, just generally. We are seeing a large provider have access to our markets. That could traditionally see increased supply. Increased supply tends to mean price competition, with consumers benefiting both in quality and innovation of product and in the price they pay for it, but equally it can work the opposite way. So do you think there will be any price implications for UK consumers as a result of these measures?
Hugh Savill: I do not think they would be because of these measures, in that the suppliers from Gibraltar already have 20% of the market, and it is not this Bill that is going to change that. There will be changes in price—there are always changes in price, and there will be other things that drive that—but I do not think that will be driven by this Bill.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
Hugh Savill: That is why I offered to write. I am afraid I do not know exactly what the VAT arrangements are, and I will have to write it down. If I said any more, I would get something wrong.
Alison Thewliss
Q
Hugh Savill: We do not think very much of equivalence as a means of arranging market access. As set out by the EU, it is extremely easy to end equivalence and to leave both provider and client hanging and not knowing where their policy is going to go. We also think that the European system of equivalence is far too open to political interference in what ought to be a technical matter.
This said, if I look back to the Chancellor’s very welcome statement last week, in the supporting document to that, the Treasury set out a far more grown-up view of what equivalence ought to be—a rather more technical decision, where there is open consultation and a discussion between the two jurisdictions, that is actually looking for a long-term relationship between the two jurisdictions, and that cannot just be terminated at short notice. On equivalence generally, we really do not think much of the way that the EU runs its equivalence regime. We are very reassured by the vision of equivalence that the Treasury has put out.
Turning to the detailed point about those accessing the overseas fund regime, what is important is that, in the unlikely event that a trusted jurisdiction moves out of trusted jurisdiction status into untrusted jurisdiction status, there are, as the Bill suggests, mechanisms for ensuring that customers are not orphaned from their provider. That is extremely important, particularly when you have some long-term contracts such as annuities.
Alison Thewliss
Q
Hugh Savill: I think they should have enough reassurance here. The overseas fund regime allows investors to access a much wider range of funds than would otherwise be available. As I said, choice is a good thing. It gives a wider choice and, ideally, better products and prices. I think the safeguards are there.
Alison Thewliss
Q
Hugh Savill: Not at the moment, no.
Mr McFadden
Q
Hugh Savill: I am not aware of the corporation tax differences between the UK and Gibraltar, so, again, I am sorry but I will have to cover that in my reply later.
The Chair
Thank you. This letter is getting longer.
Hugh Savill: Do not worry—I will not make it too long.
The Chair
Good, good. If there are no further questions, all that remains is for me to thank you, Hugh, for your evidence as our first witness this afternoon. We finished a bit ahead of time. Thank you for that.
Examination of Witness
Duncan Hames gave evidence.
The Chair
We move on to our second witness this afternoon and the only one who is appearing in person today. Duncan Hames is no stranger to this place. He is now from Transparency International. Duncan, do you want to introduce your job title for the record, and what you do?
Duncan Hames: Yes, happily. My name is Duncan Hames and for more than the past four years I have served as the director of policy at Transparency International UK. Transparency International is part of a worldwide anti-corruption coalition, and because those engaged in corrupt activity need to launder the proceeds of their crimes, we have become quite knowledgeable about the practice and policies around the prevention of money laundering and the need to have effective supervision and enforcement.
The Chair
We have until half-past 3 for this session, so a good long time. Unusually, we are going to the two Opposition spokespeople first, and then to the Minister. We are shaking it up a bit. We will start with shadow Minister, Pat McFadden.
Mr McFadden
Q
Duncan Hames: There is much in the Bill that I am not qualified to comment on, but certainly in relation to regulatory duties around money laundering it is our contention that the challenge is as much about means of implementation and the expectations placed on the private sector in relation to supervision, which needs addressing. There is an analysis—in fact, it was probably our conclusion on seeing the Financial Action Task Force evaluation—that there are many good policy measures in place, but that they are yet to be fully implemented, and therein lies the nub of this problem.
Mr McFadden
Q
Duncan Hames: We have found with the UK Bribery Act 2010, which has been in force for 10 years now, that a “failure to prevent” offence within that legislation has served to enhance corporate governance. That is not just our view; it was the conclusion of the parliamentary post-legislative review into that legislation a year or two ago. Government Ministers have expressed their interest in seeing that model—which they have described when introducing it in other areas, such as failure to prevent tax evasion, as effective—applied more widely in areas of economic crime. That is certainly something we would consider there was an opportunity for in the Bill.
Mr McFadden
Q
Duncan Hames: Yes, we would. That is separate to the discussions about the identification doctrine, on which, as I am sure you will be aware, the director of the Serious Fraud Office has frequently shared views and on which now the Law Commission has been invited to bring forward its own options for reform. These are complementary measures.
We now have a “failure to prevent” offence in relation to two areas of offending: one, the Bribery Act and, two, failure to prevent the facilitation of tax evasion. Applying a “failure to prevent” offence more widely, while still considering reform of the identification doctrine in regard to the substantive offence, would be entirely complementary, rather than the House having to consider doing one or the other.
Mr McFadden
Q
Duncan Hames: If I were in the business of money laundering, I would be laughing at the glacial pace at which reform happens. So I would counsel against waiting. As I say, we have two “failure to prevent” offences, and it would be entirely possible to apply that more widely in economic crime. Sadly, it has taken the Government over three years to reach their conclusions in response to the call for evidence on failing to prevent economic crime, and Law Commissions are not generally considered to move more quickly than ministerial responses to consultations. I would not want to estimate quite how long we will have to wait before the conclusions of the Law Commission are enacted in law. I think that is plenty of time to put in other measures, which will help the corporate sector improve their corporate governance, as we have seen in the case of Bribery Act.
Mr McFadden
Q
Duncan Hames: I certainly think we need to look at the area of supervision. This is a regulatory function. We have private sector supervisory bodies tasked with helping the business sector to put in place the necessary preventive measures to prevent money laundering.
While we welcome the introduction of the Office for Professional Body Anti-Money Laundering Supervision a couple of years ago, its reports—these are not activist or campaigner reports; these are Government regulatory reports—have been very damning of the effectiveness of the supervisory bodies. It is very fragmented—I think there are 14 supervisory bodies for the accountancy sector alone.
OPBAS has identified conflicts of interest between the advocacy and supervisory functions of those bodies. The effectiveness of their enforcement activity is really inadequate. If we take Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs as one of the supervisory bodies, the fines imposed are barely a couple of thousand pounds and will quite possibly be less than the value of the commission or fee on any individual transaction. That is clearly an inadequate incentive for private sector actors to say no to handling illicit funds.
The quality of the money laundering defences in the private sector has also been found to be poor. The Solicitors Regulation Authority recently conducted reviews into about 60 companies. In nearly half of those cases, they are pursuing the findings they had for potential disciplinary action. A similar proportion of cases were found to be areas of weakness in money laundering defences in other sectors.
So we have a problem with supervision. The first line of defence against money laundering is tasked to the private sector, and yet the supervisory bodies that are meant to ensure that that is being done well, both in terms of guidance and in subsequent enforcement of regulations, are not effectively ensuring that those defences are good.
At the end of the day, the police estimate that the impact of money laundering on the UK economy is of the order of £100 billion a year. We can have lots of good measures and lots of good policies, which at times the Government will have been congratulated for, but the upshot is that we still have a big problem, which is not going away. That is why we think taking action where we can to improve the defences is urgent.
Mr McFadden
Q
Duncan Hames: We have to recognise that the FinCEN files were a leak; I would want us to be hearing about suspicious transactions as a result of enforcement having been taken by law enforcement agencies. It has been a concern of the now Secretary of State for Justice that too often we see enforcement, effectively, outsourced to the United States authorities. I do not think that is good for the corporate reputation of UK plc, and I do not think it is how we would want things to proceed as Britain defines a newly independent role in international commerce.
John Glen
Q
This Bill ensures that HMRC retains its ability to access information on the ownership and beneficiaries of UK-linked overseas trusts, building incrementally on things that have been done previously. Can you explain why this information is important? This is a key measure and, I would have thought, the most relevant.
Duncan Hames: It is certainly a welcome measure. We have found that some of the complexities of the structures and design of different corporate entities have proved difficult, in terms of the implementation of existing legislation. That was a feature of the recent Baker et al case in relation to appeal against an unexplained wealth order; there was a South American foundation, which was perhaps not the corporate structure that Members of this House had in mind when that legislation was being decided.
Addressing trustees and overseas entities, to strengthen and ensure there are no loopholes in existing legislation, is definitely to be welcomed. In the past, when the House has been considering legislation to address money-laundering risks—do not forget that another piece of legislation related to leaving the European Union is the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018—it has focused on what can be done about the transparency of ownership, and not just of UK limited companies but of overseas entities, too.
John Glen
Q
Duncan Hames: Certainly. Although some of the things we have already discussed this afternoon are not in the economic crime plan, there is much in that plan that we welcomed at the time. It was about 15 months ago that that plan was adopted by the Government. Some of the measures in that plan require legislation, and I am sure the Minister is itching for legislative opportunities to enact his policy.
John Glen
Q
Duncan Hames: Indeed. I think we have recently completed a consultation on it, and I hope, therefore, that it will be in the Queen’s Speech.
The register of beneficial owners of overseas entities enables us to know who really owns the foreign companies that own property real estate in this country. It was a Government commitment announced around the time of the London anti-corruption summit, which was four and a half years ago. Although that legislation has already been through pre-legislative scrutiny in both Houses, the conclusions of which were, “Get on with this; we must advance quickly,” it still has not been brought forward. These are both measures in the economic crime plan. It is great that they are in the economic crime plan, but it would be much better if they were implemented. I hope that that will be addressed very soon, but, equally, given how long one waits for legislative opportunities to keep up with the pace of nefarious actors in economic crime, if you have an opportunity to make progress in this Bill, in any additional manner, we would obviously be keen to see you take it.
John Glen
Q
Duncan Hames: I think we would see the creation of OPBAS as a very helpful staging post in addressing this problem of inadequate supervision, albeit that it can address and challenge only the professional body supervisors. HMRC has been found wanting, and I have already criticised the level of its fines. OPBAS cannot do anything about HMRC, and I think we have been party to discussions about that in other proceedings of the House.
What OPBAS has found is pretty devastating. In its 2018 report, 62% of accountancy supervisors had some overlap between their advocacy and regulatory functions. Those represent a conflict of interest. There are some really choice quotes from OPBAS in that report, about what supervisors said about the impact on their membership income, were they to take more assertive enforcement action. That really is a conflict of interest in these supervisory bodies.
I think what we need, Minister, is for you or your colleagues to have the ability to respond to these reports—I think we have now had two annual reports from OPBAS—and, where necessary, to strip the supervisory duties from bodies that are failing in this regard. Obviously, all bodies should address their own conflicts of interest, but performance is a really important issue.
The report I was referring to earlier was HMRC finding that about half of the businesses it had reviewed were non-compliant with its anti-money laundering regulations. So, the changes that have been made recently to the regulatory landscape, in and of themselves, are not enough to address the holes in our money laundering defences that are overseen by this very fragmented regulatory arrangement. I said there were more than 14 accountancy sector supervisors; I think we are at 25 anti-money laundering supervisors, altogether.
The Chair
I call the third Front Bencher, Alison Thewliss, for the Scottish National party.
Alison Thewliss
Q
Duncan Hames: We might want to talk about beneficial ownership transparency. As I say, Ministers had a duty placed on them in the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act in relation to Britain’s overseas territories and what would need to happen if they did not adopt public registers of their own volition, and I think they have found that duty helpful. Certainly at a diplomatic level, Ministers in the Foreign Office would celebrate the statements that have been made by those overseas territories as that deadline has approached. That is illustrative of how effective using legislation like this to convey a duty on a Minister can be, in order to rachet up the pressure for change.
The problem we have, of course, is that in some cases, those overseas territories are quite grudgingly coming around to this position. The last statement to complete the set was from the British Virgin Islands, and in his statement the Chief Minister—having agreed to the things the Government were hoping he would agree to—started to list a whole list of reservations and conditions, and concluded by saying that of course, this would only happen at a pace at which they consider deliverable. That does not fill me with hope that, without further incentive or, ultimately, the threat of action through Orders in Council, this will actually happen, which brings me back to my original point about implementation. It is one thing to have the policy—another, even, to have the laws—but if we have not had the implementation, we have not really changed anything. I would encourage you to look at what levers you might be able to grant Ministers through additional measures in a Bill such as this.
Alison Thewliss
Q
Duncan Hames: That is a creative tension, isn’t it? I think we should welcome international scrutiny of the effectiveness of our own measures. As the Minister said, there has been a consultation about new powers and duties for Companies House, in relation to the quality of the data we have. We are already beginning to see signs of a cultural change in Companies House as a result of the directions it is being given and the anticipation of future legislation. We need it to be a partner in preventing crime, not just a registrar—not just providing a service to companies that wish to be registered.
As I say, we recognise the pattern of change there, but ultimately it has to work within the law, and if the laws do not empower it to take the actions necessary, we need to change that. We are anticipating that the Government will bring forward legislation, so that when we are trying to persuade other financial jurisdictions to address their own contribution to money laundering, including in Britain’s family of offshore financial centres, we are able to hold our head up high and know that we are doing everything we can to ensure that the quality of our own defences is adequate.
Alison Thewliss
Q
Duncan Hames: I suspect that it is Parliament’s role to hold Government to account for acting on what those regulators are finding. They are often quite forthcoming in their criticisms of where things are going wrong, but they need the frameworks in which they can act on that. As I have said, I think the powers rest with Government to strip supervisory bodies of their duties where they are failing, but I cannot think of a time when it has happened. I believe OPBAS has provided plenty of evidence—indeed, unattributed in some reports—but I am sure it could point the finger for Ministers where necessary, in order to be able to take action.
Alison Thewliss
Q
Duncan Hames: I think trusts are intended to be in the scope of the registration of overseas entities Bill. That is definitely something required by the fifth anti-money laundering directive as well, so we should consider them within scope. Whether we have yet got that working, I am not so confident. For example, if we take something that I am sure is of interest to you—Scottish limited partnerships—the Financial Action Task Force report, which the Government are very pleased with, noted that there remains a weakness in terms of scope for abuse of that corporate structure. I should acknowledge that those are regulated by UK law, not by decisions made in Scotland. Those partnerships can be partnerships with two corporate entities—so, no human personality. If those two corporate entities are registered in jurisdictions where beneficial ownership is not clear—it is not public—we essentially have a UK entity that has got around all of the strictures that the Government are very proud of, in terms of the transparency that the UK’s own registry demands.
There are other issues with having corporate partners of a legal partnership. Obviously, it all comes down to accountability. It is very important if we want to be able to hold corporate entities accountable for their role in economic crime. I am afraid that many such complexities remain to be addressed. We cannot just take the bits we like when a report like that is presented.
The Minister is correct: the UK outcome was very favourable compared with other FATF evaluations. I hope, by the way, it will give the Treasury the confidence next time around to invite civil society representatives to give evidence to the FATF assessors. None the less, FATF came up with a number of things that it identified needed to be addressed, and the Government have a plan, but we seem to lack a timetable for implementing a number of these things. If the Minister is able to give us a timetable for when the legislation to introduce measures such as robo, which is in the economic crime plan, will be introduced, I think we would all be very glad of it.
John Glen
The point is, as Duncan well knows, that a whole range of interventions have been provoked by that FATF report. I am glad he acknowledges its world-leading nature for the UK. It is good that we should be pleased about that, but there were significant elements that need to be worked on. They are obviously taken in different ways across Whitehall, and there will be more to be said about that in due course. I am responsible for what I am responsible for in this Bill, and the purpose of this conversation is about that.
Alison Thewliss
Q
Duncan Hames: I doubt you need primary legislation to fix that. I expect that secondary legislation giving direction to Ministers and regulatory bodies to ensure that fines are commensurate with the level of offending would be helpful. I suggested that the level of fines by these professional bodies supervisors and by HMRC is just not commensurate with the financial advantage of taking part in these transactions.
Indeed, if you are a solicitor, and someone complains to the Solicitors Regulation Authority about you because you have been holding up a transaction, that will still be investigated. You will still incur quite a discomfort in responding to that investigation. That is quite a powerful incentive just to go along with the transaction, whereas the fine you might receive for having gone along with a transaction that you should not have could well be less consequential for you. That needs to be addressed.
Fines wielded against trust and company service providers by HMRC, for example, are pitifully low. We were told by the trade body that its experience of fines imposed by HMRC on trust and company service providers was typically no more than £1,000.
Alison Thewliss
Q
Duncan Hames: I do not think that the measures with regard to Gibraltar particularly focus on money laundering. Obviously, Gibraltar is covered by the fifth anti-money laundering directive. I think they would consider themselves to be among the earlier adopters of the measures required under that directive. What we see in the Government’s language is an emerging global standard. That has been recognised in the past year or so by the Crown dependencies and, increasingly, by British overseas territories.
Although the US starts from a very far-back position on public beneficial ownership transparency, on the basis of bipartisan—as I think they call it, or on both sides of the aisle—working on this issue, even with a Republican Senate it seems set to advance new regulatory requirements around a central register of beneficial ownership. The tide is definitely moving in the direction of greater transparency. I think it would help British overseas territories to be encouraged to keep up with that direction of change.
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
Q
I am interested to hear your reaction to the criticisms of the report that that phrase came from. It was felt that the scope of the report did not include, for example: the bribery and corruption statistics, including on the “failure to prevent” provisions; the period after the financial crisis, which meant that much implementation was not included in the report; or the way prosecuting in the US often involves plea bargains, which are used to extract fines, so the measurement of the extraction of fines is not necessarily a justified comparison between the UK and the US. What is your reaction to that?
Duncan Hames: The corruption perceptions index measures views of the prevalence of corruption in public sectors, whereas for the most part here we are talking about enforcement of corporate wrongdoing. None the less, you are right to record where those countries are in the index.
“Exporting corruption”, our recent report produced for the OECD anti-bribery working group—part of a series of reports published every other year—is the one in which the UK is recognised to be an active enforcer of anti-bribery laws and laws to prevent foreign corporate bribery. None the less, the US is top of the table and, while it is good that Britain remains an active enforcer, the calculation that grants that assignation is such that the UK hung on by a hair’s breadth this year and there is no room for complacency.
The statement that I reference from the Secretary of State for Justice was made when he was Solicitor General, at the Cambridge International Symposium on Economic Crime. His words were that these differences in how the law operates
“result in other jurisdictions holding British companies to account where ours has not.”
He said he was making that observation in an argument in favour of moving towards the “failure to prevent” approach to economic crime.
For all of America’s challenges, I do not think anyone would criticise it for being less assertive in enforcement of the law that it has. Even at a time when one might have feared political interference or the undermining of the Department of Justice, its level of enforcement has remained high, without signs that it is falling back. I think we have to reflect on why that is. It is partly to do with resourcing, but it is principally to do with the challenges of our arrangements for prosecutors.
Lisa Osofsky, the director of the Serious Fraud Office, describes what we have as “a very antiquated system”. She said:
“We are hamstrung right now by the identification principle”.
She explained to the Justice Committee that she can “go after Main Street”—forgive the American references; I am sure you will be able to translate them—but she
“cannot go after Wall Street, and that is unfair”.
When we think about the businesses that each of you represent, you would want there to be a level playing field, where traditional businesses with perhaps traditional ownership models are not facing a greater requirement to uphold the law than much larger, perhaps more anonymous, conglomerates in complex corporate structures spread over many jurisdictions.
Julie Marson
Q
Duncan Hames: I think Ministers observed that responses to the consultation were mixed. It is regrettable that responses to the consultation are not public and people can form their own views about them. If you conduct a consultation about enforcing criminal law and those who might be subject to that enforcement, in a way that they are not currently, are able to make submissions in response to that proposition, then one would hope that in evaluating those responses they would not carry the same weight as more objective respondents. If we were asking how much chicken wire we should put around the hen coop, I would hope that we would largely disregard the foxes’ views.
Stella Creasy
Q
I want to ask your opinion on whether we might be able to learn from the specific proposals in that report. In particular, it recognises that although this does tend to happen, there is no legal requirement to reject applicants with a criminal background in Gibraltar. If we will allow Gibraltar and the UK to operate in the way that this Bill does, do you think we could make it a requirement in the Bill to look at the criminal background of people applying for financial services?
Duncan Hames: I should acknowledge that Gibraltar is not within the scope of the work that I do. I will not profess expertise on the rules as they apply in Gibraltar. I think Bloomberg reported today on a bank in Luxembourg and some of its practices. You ask a good question about the personal credentials that enable one to take on responsible roles in our financial system, whether in banks or other institutions.
I note, for example, that the proposals in relation to Companies House are not that it should be more discerning in the acceptance of the directors of companies registering, but rather that it should simply verify the accuracy of the identity and the information provided. Current initiatives do not go as far as you are suggesting would be reasonable. It seems hard enough just to get us responsible for ensuring the accuracy of the data, which is provided as a piece of our economic infrastructure, without getting to a position of demanding some kind of individual assessment.
Stella Creasy
Q
Duncan Hames: Dedicated supervision of the accountancy sector is part of what has got us into this mess of having 25 supervisory bodies. I think one must weigh the benefits of particular sectoral knowledge and some of the issues I raised earlier around potential conflicts of interest and incentives to supervise assertively. As we explained in our report “At your Service”, which was published about this time last year, it is definitely the case that the non-financial sector is very much touched by the money laundering problem. It is not enough to rely on the requirements of banks without raising our defences in other sectors—whether that is accountants, solicitors, estate agents, trust and company formation agents and so forth. In some areas, such as private education or charitable giving, an educational training supportive approach might be appropriate to try to raise standards, but in other areas, as I have outlined, clear financial incentives need to be addressed. A firmer approach to supervision is proving necessary given the findings of, for example, the studies that I cited from HMRC, the SRA and OPBAS.
The Chair
If there are no further questions from the Committee, I thank Duncan Hames for his evidence and we can move on to the next witnesses.
Examination of Witnesses
Jesse Griffiths and Fran Boait gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear from Jesse Griffiths and Fran Boait, who are from Finance Innovation Lab and Positive Money. We have until 4.15 for this session. Jesse and Fran, do you want to introduce yourselves?
Fran Boait: I will go first. I am the executive director of Positive Money, a non-profit organisation that campaigns and researches on reform of the money and banking system to enable a fair, democratic and sustainable economy.
Jesse Griffiths: I am the CEO of Finance Innovation Lab, a charity that helps people to try to transform the financial system for people and the planet.
The Chair
Thank you. We will return to the traditional format with questions first from the Minister and then from the two Opposition spokespeople.
John Glen
Q
Fran Boait: Shall I kick off? This is definitely one of the key issues in the Bill that I wanted to raise. Although I understand that the Bill is about regulation and tidying up a few things, it does set the framework and direction for future financial regulation. It is important to say at the outset that we are only 11 years on from a global financial crash that resulted from deep regulatory failures. Neither my organisation nor Jesse’s existed 10 years ago—they were formed since the crash. Without a number of amendments to the Bill, it could pave the way for a repeat of that failure.
To put it in context, I remind you that, according to the Bank of England’s chief economist, Andy Haldane, the banking cash cost Britain about £7.4 trillion and it would take the financial services sector’s tax contribution about 100 years to make up for that. It is a really important Bill that sets the direction, but accountability and transparency are severely lacking in its current form. The civil society sector is tiny, relative to the industry lobby. Although we have engaged in FCA and PRA consultations, the fact that we are onshoring so much legislation right now means that we need to think about the balance of input from the industry and civil society. It is worth noting that the EU, which obviously to date has been where the scrutiny for much of this legislation has been, funded civil society consumer, environmental and social groups in order to provide a balance to the industry lobby, because it recognised that this area is severely complex and critical.
The substantial transfer of power to the financial regulators—the Treasury, the FCA and the PRA—is concerning if there are not increases in parliamentary scrutiny and more detail about the accountability framework. I noted this morning that a number of amendments have been put forward, and I think a lot of them enhance accountability and require parliamentary scrutiny and reporting. I would really welcome that. I could list them—I have some of the numbers. An MP put forward a suggestion for a new specialist financial services Joint Committee between the Commons and the Lords, and that would be welcome, especially if it engaged with civil society.
From where we are starting, in its original form the Bill really is quite concerning in relation to accountability and transparency, but we would welcome all the amendments being put forward—and more—to improve those aspects.
John Glen
Q
The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, introduced under the previous Labour Government, was about setting an approach for how the regulators worked, looking at an outcome-based approach with the observation of technical standards. I note that you refer to the proposal about Parliament’s role. Are you really saying that you do not support that fundamental architecture? Given the complexity of the regulations and technical standards, do you think it is realistic for Parliament, in terms of capacity and expertise, to offer the sort of scrutiny that you think is lacking?
Fran Boait: Fundamentally, we want robust frameworks that allow for input and do not just allow legislation, such as the capital regulation requirements, to be changed without scrutiny, because they have really significant consequences for the whole UK economy. That is why I started by laying out how critical the direction of financial services is.
It is worth saying that we are not out of the repercussions of 10 years ago, so we do not want in any way to go back to the days of regulation being done behind closed doors. I understand that there is a capacity issue, but is about having those opportunities for both Parliament and the wider public—civil society—to feed in.
It is also worth thinking about the regulators themselves. For example, one of the things that the new chief executive of the FCA has said is that they will also be liable for legal attacks on what they are having to implement, so putting all the onus on them is an issue. At the same time, we know that there has been an issue with the revolving door between our regulatory bodies—the Treasury, the FCA, the PRA and the Bank of England—and the industry.
There is a grave concern about this transfer of power. If capacity is an issue, Parliament surely wants to be looking at how to resource things better, in terms of more Clerks or staff, plus thinking about how the EU funded civil society, rather than saying, “Actually, no, it’s fine. We will just have reduced transparency and accountability.”
John Glen
Q
Jesse Griffiths: Thank you. I think they are extremely important questions, and that is one reason why this Bill is so important as part of the other important consultations and discussions that you have mentioned—because we are now setting, if you like, the precedent for how we might deal with financial sector regulation in the new era, where the focus will be in London and not in Brussels. Actually, I worked for seven years in Brussels on related issues, so I have some experience from there to share.
I think I agree with the points that Fran has made about the fundamental importance of trying to find ways to support broader civil society engagement in these types of discussion. Perhaps it links to another important point on the Bill, which is that part of the issue will always be ensuring that the purpose of the regulations and the regulators includes social and environmental purpose, so that it is clear that that is an extremely relevant angle from which to discuss these things. One thing that definitely came out of my experience in Brussels was that the role of Parliament is very important, or can be very important, not just because it is important in itself, but because it does open a window for broader input and discussion.
I will explain one particular amendment or change we would welcome. As I understand it, the current Bill allows changes to capital requirements and other regulations under the affirmative procedure. That is obviously more welcome than the negative procedure, but it does not actually specify a role for specialised Committees, so finding a way in which specialised Committees in the House of Common or Lords, or both, could have input would be both a useful step and an entry point for a broader discussion for groups likes ours to help to support the new framework.
Could I say one other thing on a kind of related point? We recognise that it is important that different institutions have different regulatory frameworks and that this is not just about making every single type of institution abide by extremely stringent regulations. That sort of principle is involved in the Bill, and we would welcome that being extended to, for example, the nascent mutual banking movement. We know that the co-operative banking movement is struggling to get off the ground, because the regulations are not tailored to its particular circumstance. I would be willing to talk more about that. It is something that could perhaps also accompany this Bill as a commitment and that Government might like to think about.
Mr McFadden
Q
The Bill, in schedules 2 and 3, sets out new accountability frameworks for the regulators. They are to abide by relevant international standards and to have regard to the relative standing of the UK as a place for internationally active investment firms to be based, or to other matters specified by the Treasury. I would like to ask whether you think it is appropriate for broader goals to be considered in that regulatory framework, and I am thinking particularly of environmental, social and governance goals. The UK wants to be a leader in that area. The Chancellor of the Exchequer set out an ambitious environmental agenda for our financial services industries in his statement about 10 days ago. Do you think that the Bill is an opportunity to put regulatory weight behind the ESG agenda?
Fran Boait: That is a really great question. It is definitely something that stood out for me when I first read through the Bill. The Bill sets the direction, and it needs to integrate the needs of the wider economy, social responsibility, the environment and thinking about how we set a direction that is different from the one that led to the global financial crash in 2008.
As you mentioned, there is clearly cross-party agreement, and we have had announcements from the Government this week and last week on wanting to be a leader in green finance, especially ahead of COP26. There is also pretty much cross-party agreement on issues such as the banking sector severely under-serving small and medium-sized businesses. In his speech yesterday, Andy Haldane, the chief economist at the Bank of England, mentioned that the funding gap is £20 billion. We know there is cross-party agreement on wanting more of our productive and manufacturing sectors to grow, and we need to level up. Some Conservative MPs, such as Kevin Hollinrake and Danny Kruger, have done reports on that and on the need for a different banking system. We have to recognise that that will all require quite a significant shift in the direction of financial regulation, yet there is not anything in the Bill that suggests that such a shift in direction is something that the Treasury is interested in at the moment.
We would certainly support the hardwiring of ESG considerations into the regulation. I looked this morning at the proposed amendments, and we would be very supportive of amendments 20 and 24, which have regard to climate and net zero in terms of investment firms and CRR—that is on climate and environmental. There are some other amendments on social practice and corporate governance that are really important, and there are potentially bigger amendments that we could be thinking about, which would embed sustainability in the regulatory framework of our regulators, such as the FCA and the PRA. That would involve further amending the Financial Services and Markets Act, which I know is being amended already in the Bill, but we could add an environmental sustainability objective, for example, to the FCA’s or PRA’s objectives.
It is worth noting that the UK’s financial institutions are among the worst culprits in Europe for fossil fuel financing. HSBC and Barclays alone have funnelled about £158 billion into fossil fuels since the signing of the Paris agreement. If the UK really wants to be a leader in green finance in a serious way, we need our regulators to be on board with that mission. Obviously, that starts with this piece of legislation and others. We would fully support the amendments to the Bill that have been put forward already, and we would potentially suggest further ones.
Jesse Griffiths: I think that the absolutely fundamental issue with regards to the Bill is that it is an opportunity to put social and environmental purpose at the heart of both the regulation and the duties of the regulators. I do not think it would take a huge change, or huge amendments to the Bill, to set that precedent and really kick-start what I agree is a cross-party consensus that we need to deal with the climate crisis and the rising problems —inequalities caused by covid and so on—and that the financial system is central to that. How it is regulated determines a lot about how it will react to those points.
I can give some examples. Of course, it would be helpful if the Bill required the FCA to refer to the Climate Change Act when preparing secondary legislation. If you wanted to be more ambitious, it would obviously be helpful if capital requirements for investment firms introduced weightings on environmental, social and governance issues—for example, by penalising assets that have climate risks.
I know the Bill covers legislation on PRIIPs—packaged retail and insurance-based investment products—which is a huge, €10 trillion market in the EU. One specific example we have suggested is that, if we could improve the key information document that investors receive when they are looking at PRIIPs to include disclosure on environmental, social and governance issues, and ask the FCA to ensure that that happens, that would be an important signal.
I think that there are real opportunities here to change the nature of the discussion and set the UK as a leader in this area. We know that the direction of travel is towards much greater ESG integration across the financial sector. Investors are pushing for it. We do a lot of work with the big four banks in the UK, and many of them are pushing a purpose-driven agenda. It is the way that we are going, and I think about this as a real signal that the UK wants to be the leader in this field and takes it very seriously.
Mr McFadden
Q
If we are giving the regulators these big new responsibilities, both at the prudential and the conduct level, how would a more active role for Parliament work? We have one Select Committee that is active in this area, which already has a really broad agenda of work—the Treasury Committee. We have members of it on this Bill Committee, and they all do a great job, but things are pretty thinly stretched. Could you tell us more about how you think Parliament could have a more active role after the onshoring of all this regulatory responsibility? Again, I will start with you, Fran.
Fran Boait: I think we agree that this is the critical part of the Bill. That is why I mentioned the suggestion that has been put forward of a new potential Joint Committee between the Commons and the Lords. That would be absolutely right. The direction of the financial services sector is fundamental to the direction of the UK. We are really at a crossroads. We have been a large financial sector in the world, and generally the Treasury would say that it has prioritised the international competitiveness of our financial sector in the global market. It has held that in greater reverence than domestic competition that serves the needs of the people—your constituents, your businesses and the productive UK economy.
I think it is in Parliament’s interests to think about how we set up processes for greater scrutiny and about engaging civil society actors in that as well. I would have thought that quite a few people sitting within those regulatory bodies would welcome that. They are under immense stress from the last 10 years of post-crash change. As I mentioned, they are subject to legal challenge from the industry.
Although, ideally, there would be greater scrutiny in Parliament, and I think that a Joint Committee would be good, some of the amendments that have been tabled on specifics, such as an annual review of capital regulation requirements, are really great additions—I hope the amendment on that will go through.
I also think that we need to ensure that the regulators are given the right direction for financial services, which is why I would also welcome the amendment that was put to us about this Government’s strategy for financial services. As I said, we are at a kind of crossroads, and understanding what direction the Government want to take it in is critical for the regulators. I support a lot of the amendments that have been put forward. Setting up a new Select Committee or some kind of Joint Committee is also a strong proposal.
Mr McFadden
Q
Jesse Griffiths: I think it is extremely important that there should be some Committee, whether it is a financial services Committee or some other way of doing it, that gives Parliament that role. That could be operationalised in a number of different ways, but it should be done in a way that makes sure that consideration is given to the way the Bill and, I presume, future legislation delegate a lot of power to the Treasury and the regulators to change, through secondary legislation, regulations that were previously agreed jointly between the European Parliament and the European Council. Some kind of check that that has been done in the correct way, and that it has been done with regard to the fundamental purposes of that legislation, is the role that the Committee would fulfil.
Obviously it would need more resources, which is a key lesson from the European experience. You are right to say that it is not an easy thing to do, nor is it something that can be done in addition to what is already being done by the Treasury Committee, for example. Resources is a key point.
The second key point, of course, is that such a Committee, and potentially the Bill and some of the amendments that have been referenced, can allow the regulators to report and explain more clearly why they are making certain changes, so that is a useful transparency and information point. The third point is that, without such parliamentary oversight, it becomes extremely difficult for civil society organisations such as ours, which are trying to ensure that the voice of the environment and social issues are raised in financial sector regulation, to be heard as effectively as other voices that are trying to influence that regulation. So it helps to create a better balance of lobbying, if you like, or of advocacy in this area.
Alison Thewliss
Q
Jesse Griffiths: One of the main issues that we would have loved to have seen in the Bill—I recognise that it would be outside the scope to introduce it now—is a proportionate regulatory regime for mutual banks. One thing that is important, or one problem that is very evident in the UK financial sector, is its lack of diversity of institutions. Across Europe, co-operative banks have an average of more than 25% of assets, and in the UK they were not even legal until 2014. The mutual banking movement is now trying to establish that vital part of the system that would help to improve services for customers, improve competitiveness and bring important countercyclical and social and environmental benefits. That would have been nice, given that the Bill recognises that there is a need for a different regime for investment firms from banks, for example. There is a huge unmet need for a more proportionate regime for those institutions. That would be my wish list of what might have been in the Bill. Perhaps as part of the Bill discussions, we might get a commitment to consult on such a proportionate regime.
Of course, the other point to make here—to repeat some of the points we have made about social and environmental purpose and accountability—is that the main issues with the Bill are the things that are missing that could make it much more ambitious and set a much better precedent for financial sector regulation going forward.
Finally, one issue that is worrying to us is the danger of a return to framing the purpose of financial regulation as being about the competitiveness of the UK financial sector globally. That appears in a few places in the Government’s explanatory notes to the Bill. The key point is to make a distinction between competition, which is good, and competitiveness, which can be dangerous when applied as a principle for regulation. Framing regulation within that competitiveness framework is widely recognised as one of the main contributors to the global financial crisis. It was easy to make the case for relaxing regulation to make any particular financial sector more competitive compared with others, when actually I think what we want to establish, through the Bill and other actions, is that the UK financial sector will seek to set high standards and to be the leader in that, not to introduce a competitiveness framing that raises the risk of standards being lowered.
Fran Boait: I can build on that. I agree with a lot of what Jesse has said. For us, the overarching areas are accountability and seeing more that it in the Bill, the environmental, social and governance aspects, and the purpose. On that last point, while we understand the Bill is onshoring and tidying up, as I have said before, it sets the direction, and that strategy for the financial services sector has not been laid out by the Government. I think that is key because, as Jesse has mentioned, it is concerning to see competition and competitiveness in there—in the run-up to the crash, that was shorthand for deregulation—at the same time as handing a lot of power to regulators. Again, it is worth noting that the FCA chief executive said himself that they would prefer high standards to the idea of competition, so there is support for that. Making the direction clear is critical.
On a few specifics that have been left out, over the last few years Positive Money has been working on things such as access to cash and the need to protect people’s right of payment in different ways—I noted that there were a few questions on that—and thinking about financial inclusion. Thinking more about the financial services’ role in the wider UK economy is absolutely critical at this time, and there is not too much in the Bill in terms of the direction of that.
Alison Thewliss
Q
Fran Boait: I welcome the Help-to-Save scheme, but again, I point to the wider issue—it is the focus of what Positive Money does—of how the financial services sector contributed to the global crash, which has undermined a lot of our economy in terms of people being able to meet living standards, pay bills and so on. Critically, we have to understand that where the money goes from financial services really determines that shape of the UK economy. If most of the money goes into property and financial markets, which it does, and we have four big banks occupying pretty much the whole market in the UK, as Jesse mentioned, we have an economy that has an oversized finance sector and property bubbles, and we have less money going into creating jobs, supporting small and medium-sized businesses and getting into people’s wages. We have a crisis of living standards in this country, as well as a household debt crisis. I am not a debt specialist, but I welcome some of the changes put forward for breathing space and debt repayments.
Again, we need not only to look at fixing some of the symptoms, but to think about the cause. I sound a bit like a broken record, but this is why, unless we get a grip on the direction of the financial services sector that we want—whether we want financial services to serve the UK domestic economy and not just international financial markets—I do not see us really stemming the problems with problem debt, limited savings and incredibly low savings across low-income households in the short, medium and long term.
Alison Thewliss
Q
Jesse Griffiths: Before I turn to the risks, I want to recognise that it is not the case that more regulation is better or that regulators should not have leeway to design proportionate regimes. That is absolutely not the case, and we need to recognise that. However, I think there are risks involved in turning over quite so much authority to regulators as the Bill proposes. As we mentioned, it will allow them to make changes to important regulations with limited parliamentary oversight. Secondary legislation will become one of the main ways in which regulations are changed.
The risks come from different angles. The obvious risk—we have seen this in the past in the run-up to the global financial crisis—is that there is a potential problem of regulatory capture, where the regulators become very close to the people they are regulating, who have regular discussions and meetings with them. The more those decisions take place behind closed doors, the greater that risk becomes.
From our perspective, another big risk is that you miss out on the opportunities to have a broader section of voices contribute to framing regulatory changes, from the kind of organisations that Fran mentioned, which represent the people who are the most badly affected by problems in the financial sector—those with problem debt or who are highly financially vulnerable—to those who think about the environmental impacts of the different regulations. The other risk is that we will not be able to reflect some of the most important impacts that changes in regulation will have.
I will make one final point. It is extremely important for Members to think about how they can actively encourage participation and engagement in those discussions by more of the groups that represent those affected by the financial system. This is in no way a criticism of the Treasury, which I know has a lot on its plate now, but there was an important consultation we noted over the summer that had a one-month consultation window during August, which basically made it impossible for groups that are not directly involved in that particular issue to think about the implications and whether they should contribute. Having requirements to consult in a certain way that allows more groups to participate would be useful.
The Chair
I have seen two other Members indicating. First, I will come to Abena Oppong-Asare.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
Q
I want to clarify something you mentioned, which is that there should be an element of penalising large organisations for not carrying out environmental risk assessments. As we know, there are large organisations and companies such as Barclays that do that. I wanted to hear from you about how those penalties would be carried out. Are they financial ones? The concern that I have is that big companies would be able to afford to pay financial penalties, so is that really a great incentive or way of holding them to account?
Fran Boait: This idea is really in the capital requirements regulation, the idea being that financial institutions and banks lending towards high-carbon sectors would have to hold much more capital against that loan. I agree with the concern that they would maybe go ahead and do it anyway, but I think this is an important mechanism for pricing in climate risk, which has taken off in the past couple of years. There is obviously a recognition from the Financial Policy Committee of the Bank of England that climate risk is a huge risk to financial stability—both transition risk and physical risk—so we need to think about that.
Implementing a penalising factor requiring them to hold higher capital should have an important effect. We have seen a similar thing already done in the housing system, which has not completely solved the problem because it is systemic, but it is an important step forward in regulation and really signals to the market that the regulators do want to keep control of the situation. It is not going to solve everything—it is not going to completely stop lending into the fossil fuel industry—but it is quite an important step forward.
The key here is that there should also be a mechanism for scrutinising the CRR that we are onshoring. At the moment, it seems to say, “We are not going to say what we are going to do. We are going to let the financial regulators decide what it is,” which is very dangerous. As Pat McFadden pointed out, it was capital and the lack of banks needing to hold it that resulted in the crash, and it will be the lack of banks needing to hold capital against fossil fuel lending that will keep that carbon bubble, if you like, being pumped up. I am keen to continue the conversation about wider regulation and other things that need to be done alongside that in order to ensure a transition out of fossil fuels, and towards a green economy.
Abena Oppong-Asare
Jesse, do you have any further comments?
Jesse Griffiths: Yes. I think it is another extremely important question, and it is an extremely important way to think about the impact of regulation, as being about what kind of incentives it places on different actors to behave differently.
With regard to climate, there are three key points. One is about disclosure: that is why, for example, we made the recommendation on the PRIIPs point that the key information document should have better disclosure on environmental and social governance issues. That creates an incentive between the sellers of those products and the investors buying them, and we know there is strong demand in the investment industry to know much more about those issues and try to redirect their investment towards greener ends. That is important. Disclosure is obviously also important in terms of civil society and the public understanding what different institutions are doing, and also the Government.
The second point on incentives is the point that Fran has made, which I would fully support. Finding ways to disincentivise or penalise fossil fuel investments in particular is extremely important. The scientific research shows us that if we exploit only those oil and gas reserves that are already being exploited, we will still go above the dangerous 1.5° threshold, without even taking coal into account. There really is not any room for further investment in fossil fuels, so it would be an important signal to think about how we fundamentally disincentivise that by introducing penalties for that within the capital requirements of organisations.
The third point is that this is a newish area for regulators. Although we have been thinking about it for a long time and many regulators have been discussing it, it is not like all the answers are known. We had a report a couple of years ago called “The Regulatory Compass”, which explored what it would look like if regulators put a social and environmental purpose at the heart of what they do. There is a lot to do, and a lot of thinking to do there. The first step is, through Bills such as this, giving regulators the responsibility to think about that. I think that is extremely important.
Those are the three main things. The fourth incentive point is that regulation does not solve everything, as Fran said. It is important not to try to solve all problems through this lens, but to think about all the other things that we should be doing—investing in the green future and so on—if we are to solve the climate crisis.
Abena Oppong-Asare
Q
Jesse Griffiths: You can. I do not have anything in particular to say that goes beyond the evidence from StepChange and others on this point. I fully support what they said.
Fran Boait: Similarly, a point that StepChange brought up that it is critical to keep in mind when looking at this kind of regulation is how we look at debtors and the stress and strain that they are under. We need to ensure that their needs are prioritised above those of creditors.
Earlier I made a macroeconomic point about financial services: unless we get our financial services sector better aligned with the needs of the people, small businesses and different parts of the economy in this country, household debt will keep rising. Obviously, we also need good direction from the Government’s fiscal spending plan. The direction of financial services and the direction of Government spending are critical in tackling household debt. If we do not look at some of those underlying systemic causes, we will keep kicking the can down the road, in terms of household debt being a problem. Although changes such as breathing space are welcome, they do not tackle the underlying causes and the need to get the number of people in problem debt down.
Stella Creasy
Q
Jesse Griffiths: Yes, I think that is very sensible. The main point I would make is that those institutions are very different from other types of financial institution, and need a proportionate regulatory regime. The point that you raised is important. They frequently raise the idea of establishing a network of 18 regional banks on the model of the German Sparkasse system. For that to work, they would need to centralise IT and other services so they do not have to replicate those across the different institutions. As they have, embedded in the network idea, an agreement that they will not compete with each other, they can fall foul of competition regulations, so those would need to be considered.
Those are some of many examples that show you need a different regime for these types of institutions. On following a model like the Sparkasse system, in Germany those regional institutions are jointly responsible for each other, so that creates a very powerful incentive for them to be prudent and responsible lenders. If that internal incentive is already there, you should consider which other regulations are not so necessary for those institutions because, by their nature, they are highly prudent lenders.
Stella Creasy
Q
You and Fran talked powerfully about trying to ensure that this Bill has at its heart a positive approach to consumer regulation. Perhaps one of the things missing from it is consideration of its inevitable impact on consumers. Do you have a view about the benefits of reviewing how the Financial Conduct Authority has acted for consumers, and are there are areas where you think it could have gone further and been more proactive? The Bill gives the FCA new regulatory powers. I have an interest in high-cost credit. If we wanted the FCA to take a more proactive view in using these new regulatory powers for consumers, where would you want it to act?
Fran Boait: That is a great question. To build on what Jesse said about mutuals and your wider point about consumer regulation, the issue with our financial services regulation is that all regulation tends to favour the status quo—the incumbents. That is where Parliament’s voice is so crucial, as is having more of a civil society voice than we had pre-crash. It might not be obvious how the FCA regulates a mutual bank. Without direction from Parliament that the regulator’s purpose is to look at diversifying the UK banking or financial services sector to include different ownership models, the FCA is not really in a position to understand fully or quickly, or move fast on how it can support the emergence of new banks.
On banks and consumers, since the crash, we have seen all these challenger banks coming in, but they are operating very much the same model of a shareholder bank, with short-term profits, and without any kind of wider thought for environmental or social mission-driven aims, or regional considerations. We have not really diversified the sector, and it will be very challenging for us to do so unless the regulators think differently. I think that Jesse and I agree that one of their goals should be to diversify the sector’s ownership models, in terms of mission, geographic location and so on. For consumers, and especially someone setting up a new local co-op or small business, that would be a lot better, particularly as we emerge from the pandemic wanting to build back better.
I definitely support a lot of your work on high-cost credit, but although there were some wins on payday loans and in other areas, that issue tended to be transferred to other areas, such as credit cards; some good proposals were put forward on how to regulate those. Obviously, we hope to see the FCA moving fast on trying to ensure that regulation is put forward as quickly as possible where there is a clear issue with extremely high interest rates on high-cost credit.
I repeat that we need to bring this back to the systemic problem of such a large sector of society being on low pay with high living costs. We need to think about the underlying macroeconomic issues, which are very relevant to the direction of financial services. If we are serious about taking things in a more positive direction as we emerge from the pandemic and Brexit, we need more voices for consumer rights in financial services, and for environmental and social considerations. That will be critical if we are to see a more positive direction from financial services, in terms of serving consumer needs.
Stella Creasy
Q
Jesse Griffiths: Absolutely; I agree. On consumers, to bring this back to high-cost credit—this links to the point about the purpose of regulation—regulators should always have at the front of their mind the impact on the most vulnerable people in society, and those who are in many ways excluded by the financial system. This is not just about consumers as a whole, although they are important; it should be about those consumers who will lose most if their needs are not taken into account.
One example that we have been discussing are the new regulations on open banking and open finance, which can lead to further exclusion of marginalised people, who might get their income, withdraw it as cash, and operate in the cash economy, or who often—this has been raised—get income from a lot of different sources, and in such small amounts that it is not recognised as income by the open banking system, as it is set up. Those are just small examples, but if the regulator is not thinking, “What is the impact on these people?”, they get missed. Unfortunately, in that example, it feels a bit like that discussion has been, “Well, if it works for 95% of consumers, then it is good.” If it does not work for 5%, that is probably the biggest impact that we should care about.
The Chair
I thank both witnesses for their evidence. Our final panellist is poised and ready to go, so thank you, Jesse and Fran.
Examination of Witness
Hon. Albert Isola MP gave evidence.
The Chair
We have a treat now. Every other word seems to have been “Gibraltar” this afternoon. Our final witness is the hon. Albert Isola, Minister for Digital and Financial Services in Her Majesty’s Government of Gibraltar. Minister, thank you for being with us. Will you introduce yourself for the record?
Albert Isola: I am Albert Isola. I am charged with responsibility for financial services in Her Majesty’s Government of Gibraltar. I have with me the chief executive of Gibraltar Finance, who has driven much of the work on the matters under discussion today, and Mr Julian Sacarello, who is the head of policy at the Gibraltar Services Commission. You cannot see them, but they are in the room with me.
John Glen
Q
Albert Isola: I thank you and your team in the Treasury, as well as the regulators at the PRA and the FCA, who have engaged with us over a three-year process of looking at all the areas of market access, all the challenges and opportunities, and how, post Brexit, we can best replicate what we had under the European Union, as that ends and we begin something new. It has been an interesting and almost enjoyable journey. It has been extremely hard work, but the professionalism of your team has been exemplary, and I am extremely grateful to all of them for the conversations that we have had. Sometimes they were difficult, but they were always positive and proactive in looking for solutions, for which I am extremely grateful.
On the relationship between Gibraltar and the United Kingdom on financial services, it is important to remember that when the United Kingdom joined the European Union in 1973, because the United Kingdom was responsible for Gibraltar’s external relations, we joined with you. As a consequence of that, for many years, up until 2001, we were striving to enjoy the benefits of that membership. With that came the responsibilities of adhering to the many directives and complying with regulations that were passed from Brussels.
We talk about 28 or 27 member states, but there was another competent authority, the Gibraltar Financial Services Commission, in financial services; it was able to issue a banking licence, an insurance licence or any other financial services licence in exactly the same way as all the other competent authorities within the remainder of the European Union. I ask the Committee to think through the fact that Gibraltar has complied with all European Union directives and legislation in all areas, including financial services. That includes all the anti-money laundering perspectives, which you may wish to discuss later.
For all intents and purposes, Gibraltar and the UK, from a financial services perspective, are aligned. We have the same rules. As we discussed with your teams over the past few years, this is about outcomes—where we get to, and how we get there. We have been through a very long assessment with an independent contractor that was jointly engaged by Her Majesty’s Government and the Government of Gibraltar to deep-dive into insurance, which is the largest area of interest between the United Kingdom and Gibraltar, to analyse in enormous detail, and to conduct a sort of gap analysis of whether we were getting to the same outcomes. Where we felt that we were not, we have dealt with that.
Parallel to that process, we also had what you call the legislative reform programme, which was a three-year piece of work, which started before Brexit, to completely redo our financial services legislation. Before, we had 87 pieces of legislation; we now have one Financial Services Bill, which encompasses everything, and is far more aligned to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 than we were previously.
This legislation came into play in January this year. Section 20(2) refers to the Gibraltar regulatory regime aligning its standards and supervisory practices with that of the United Kingdom. We had that before, and we again have it in 2020. We are drawing closer together under the new regime that we are discussing; that relationship should continue and prosper, so that consumers in the United Kingdom can have more choice and competition. At the same time, we can know that our aligned standards of law and practice match those of the United Kingdom. I apologise if I have gone on a bit long, but I thought it was important to put today’s discussions in context.
Mr McFadden
Q
Albert Isola: The fundamental question for us is, do we continue to have market access? The answer to that, of course, as you know, is yes. As you have rightly pointed out, we lose single market access to the remainder of the European Union with the United Kingdom on 1 January, and this is where we will look for our future. If I can put it a slightly different way, some 90% of our financial services business before Brexit was with the United Kingdom, so that puts in focus how important this legislation is for all of us here. In each of the different areas in which we have worked, we have developed a niche—an area of specialisation and expertise—that has served those who work here with us well. We very much hope that that will continue into the future.
Mr McFadden
Q
Albert Isola: As the Minister with responsibility for financial services, I would love to see our businesses grow —of course I would—but responsibly and in a manner that matches the standards that we have with the United Kingdom in terms of the regulatory approach. The reason that we have been successful in motor insurance is because we have developed expertise and specialisations in the firms that have come here. It is not that we switched on one morning and had 20% of the United Kingdom motor market; that has grown over a 15-year period. As they have grown, so have we, in terms of the business we do with the UK. There are a number of other businesses that have tried in other areas of insurance, and they do well, but with nothing like the success that the motor insurers have enjoyed in working with the UK.
Mr McFadden
Q
Albert Isola: My experience, put quite simply, is that of all the firms that have come and set up here in the last seven years while I have been in this job, not one of them has ever said they are coming for tax purposes. There is a tax differential—I think the rate of the UK’s corporate tax, or profit tax, is 19%; in Gibraltar, it is 10%—but that has never been cited as one of the reasons for setting up in Gibraltar.
It is far more about our agility as a jurisdiction and the accessibility of the regulator. I can arrange to meet every single insurance company in Gibraltar in two weeks if there is something that I would like them to do or be more conscious of. That is just not possible in the United Kingdom. The accessibility of our regulator for all our insurance firms is the No. 1 point that they measure as to why Gibraltar has been so good to them. They have that access and they have that contact. Then you have the expertise we have developed: the lawyers, the accountants, the insurance managers, who are able to provide the services that they need. These are far more important to the firms than the corporate tax. I have to say, if I may—allow me this plug—the quality of life is obviously important too. The sun shines here for a little longer than it does in the City of London, and I think that is important too.
Mr McFadden
I am sure it is; your weather is certainly better. I have no further questions. Thank you very much, Minister.
Alison Thewliss
Q
Albert Isola: Forgive me, I did not hear the question particularly well. Would you mind repeating it?
Alison Thewliss
Apologies; you are quite far away, I suppose. You mentioned that insurance is the largest area in which you have dealings. Are there any other aspects of financial services that are not covered in this Bill that require any further legislative action, or does the Bill cover everything that you require it to?
Albert Isola: This legislation is like the enabling legislation, if I can call it that. If I can just say what it does for us, this requires alignment of normal practice, and it also requires, as a secondary condition—if I can call it that—co-operation between regulators and between Governments. In terms of the aspect that you are referring to, what will actually happen post 1 January 2020, I expect, when we begin the serious work, is that we and the Treasury will work through each of the different activities that we wish to have to access to, to the United Kingdom. The Treasury will then satisfy themselves, or not, that we meet the standards required to be able to have those passed through a statutory instruments in 2022, as one of the subsets of the activities that we can do. Insurance will be one; banking will be another; funds will be another. All of these are different subsets of controlled activities regulated in the United Kingdom, which we will work on with the Treasury in the coming 12 months to satisfy it of our ability to meet and match the standards that we have discussed here today.
Alison Thewliss
Q
Albert Isola: No, not at all, but again, simply because today we can passport our services under the European Union or Gibraltar order, mirroring the European Union provisions. We both have the same rules today: that is obviously true in insurance, in banking, and in the funds sector. We all have the same rules and regulations today, so I have every confidence that we will meet the standards that the Treasury will ask us to meet in the next 12 months in each of those different areas, because we are at one already today.
Alison Thewliss
Q
Albert Isola: Yes, because we need to be aligned in terms of authorisations, supervision, capital finance and enforcement, so the whole array of measures that a UK consumer can expect to receive in the United Kingdom, they can fully expect to receive from us also.
Alison Thewliss
Q
Albert Isola: No, no, absolutely not. On the contrary, as the UK moves in whichever direction it moves post 1 January 2021, whether there is divergence or not, we will obviously, in respect of the areas that we seek market access, follow those through.
The Chair
Stephen Flynn, could you make your way to the mic and speak right into it? That one will work, although it has Duncan Hames’s name by it.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
Q
Thank you, Minister Isola, for presenting yourself before us today and for the information that you have provided. I would like to follow on from the shadow Minister’s questions about the competitive advantage that Gibraltar may or may not have. As I see it, the Bill seeks to create a level playing field, but it could be inferred that Gibraltar has a competitive advantage over our constituent parts of the United Kingdom—indeed, the home nations—given that it has abilities in relation to corporation tax and other forms of taxation that the home nations do not. How would you assess that? I appreciate that you sought to answer Mr McFadden in that regard, but do you feel that we could see a situation in which businesses will seek to take advantage of what is clearly a level playing field with a competitive advantage for yourselves?
Albert Isola: The simple answer is no, and I will tell you why. If you think about it, we have been setting our own tax rates for the past 20 years, during which we have had access to the United Kingdom market through the European Union single passporting system. I do not think that I have ever heard any discussion in the financial services environment about different tax rates in different member states of the European Union, let alone Gibraltar, having an impact. It is not as if an advantage were being created by the Bill that would endure to 1 January next year and beyond. Where we are today is where we have been for the past 10 or 15 years with different tax systems.
I do not think that you will find a company that—with the level of investment that it requires in terms of capitalisation, particularly with respect to insurance—will make a judgment call on a difference of 9% in corporate tax, assuming that it can make a profit. As I said to the shadow Minister, the information that I have from the firms that have come here is that that is very low on their list of priorities, if it is there at all. I do not see it having the impact that you suggest; if there were such an impact, it would already have happened a long time ago. As I mentioned, the firms that are in Gibraltar today have been here for a very long time, and as they have grown, so have we. Our market share has been 20% for the past year or two; it was a lot less before those businesses grew and became more successful.
The Chair
As there are no further questions, I thank you, Minister, for joining us remotely from Gibraltar as our final witness of the day. This is the end of our fourth and last evidence session.
The Committee will meet again, not here but in Committee Room 14, on Tuesday at 9.25 am—bright-eyed and bushy-tailed for our first sitting of line-by-line scrutiny.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(David Rutley.)
Environment Bill (Nineteeth sitting)
Thursday 19th November 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Environment Act 2021 View all Environment Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 19 November 2020 - (19 Nov 2020)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 146, in clause 98, page 98, line 45, at end insert—
“(3A) The Secretary of State must produce a strategy to inform the development of a Nature Recovery Network, including a spatial description of the opportunities for recovering or enhancing the environment through actions to protect or restore biodiversity, in terms of habitats and species, in England.
(3B) The Secretary of State must publish guidelines that set out a process for review and approval of Local Nature Recovery Strategies by Natural England to confirm the priorities and proposals identified in the Local Nature Recovery Strategy would contribute adequately to the delivery of a national Nature Recovery Network and relevant environmental targets.”
The amendment requires the Secretary of State to undertake the mapping and planning work necessary to carry out their functions in relation to the national habitat map.
We welcome the provisions of the clause. It requires the Secretary of State to assist public authorities in preparing their local nature recovery strategy by publishing a national habitat map for England, and to help identify national conservation sites and other areas of particular importance to biodiversity. Predictably enough, we have one or two concerns and comments about that, which our amendment 146 allows us to address.
If this national habitat map is to be effective in informing the preparation of local nature recovery strategies, it needs to be available in good time for the preparation of local nature recovery strategies. As we touched on earlier, we want that to be done speedily, so the national map needs to be done speedily.
It will not be sufficient simply to present national conservation sites on the map. We will also need critical information—on, for example, the condition of sites and the opportunities for recovery—to help direct public authorities in their important work to improve and restore national conservation sites.
The Government’s proposal is a start—it provides some of the information that authorities will need—but good planning for the natural environment requires more than the identification of isolated patches of nature on a map; it requires a strategy for enhancing and linking sites, throughout urban and rural areas, to facilitate nature’s recovery. What is missing from the clause is provision for the Government to undertake work to identify habitat opportunities. Nor is there any national system of review of the local and national recovery strategies put in place—any quality control to check that each one is making a meaningful contribution. Our amendment 146 would address these omissions by requiring the Secretary of State to
“produce a strategy to inform the development of a Nature Recovery Network”;
to
“set out a process for review and approval of Local Nature Recovery Strategies by Natural England”;
and to confirm that each one
“would contribute adequately to the delivery”
of the national nature recovery networks that we need. Those requirements would give the Secretary of State responsibility for knitting local nature recovery strategies together, which is what the Minister said she wishes to do, so that they function as a coherent national network.
As this is a good opportunity to help the Minister in her endeavour to rescue and strengthen the Bill, I will give her one last opportunity to accept our assistance; we will seek a Division on the amendment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
I welcome the hon. Member’s ambition of providing a national framework to inform the development of the nature recovery network, but the Bill already provides for a framework.
Part 1 of the Bill requires the Government to publish an environmental improvement plan, setting out the steps that they intend to take to improve the natural environment. It also establishes the 25-year environment plan, which, as I said this morning and so many other times, is the first environmental improvement plan. That first plan commits the Government to establishing a nature recovery network, and to publishing a new strategy for nature that includes the network. We have no intention of reversing any commitments made in the 25-year environment plan. Of course, the Office for Environmental Protection will also hold the Government to account on their progress in implementing the environmental improvement plans, including for the nature recovery network.
The clause requires the Secretary of State to provide information that we intend will offer a national spatial framework for the network. This framework includes a national map of areas of existing value for biodiversity, as well as areas where there are opportunities to enhance biodiversity and associated wider environmental benefits. There is also provision in the Bill for the Secretary of State to issue statutory guidance on what the local natural recovery networks should contain and regulations on how they should be protected. These mechanisms will allow the shaping of how each responsible authority reflects the information provided under clause 98.
Natural England has a key role to play in supporting the establishment of the local nature recovery strategy, as I explained earlier. We want them to help produce national guidance to support the responsible authority in producing each strategy and to be the responsible authority themselves where needed. These roles are provided for in the Bill. Regulations produced under clause 96 will be crucial for establishing roles and responsibilities. Provisions for local nature recovery strategies in the Bill will form part of environmental law. This means that the Office for Environmental Protection will have oversight of these provisions, as it does over all aspects of environmental law.
I hope that the hon. Member is reassured that the Bill, as a whole, provides a suitable framework for the nature recovery network, as well as appropriate mechanisms to ensure that local nature recovery strategies contribute to its development. Therefore, I request that amendment 146 be withdrawn.
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful for the Minister’s response and to her for reintroducing the OEP at this stage. As she will recall, this side were not entirely convinced of the efficacy of this new organisation, and some of us do worry that it will just be a desk in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in the early new year, and we want it to be much tougher than that. I suspect her response on this has been the same as on many of these attempts from our side to strengthen and add vim and vigour to this process. However, I am afraid I am still not persuaded or convinced, but I do thank her for the charm and courtesy she has shown in our exchanges. I would still caution her to beware the bloke on the bulldozer, and we do think there is a danger that this Bill’s good intentions are undermined. We would like to press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
That schedule 15 be the Fifteenth schedule to the Bill.
Clause 101 stand part.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
I appreciate that there are no amendments in this group, but I think it is worth having a brief stand part debate here to mark the fact that we have moved from talking about nature and biodiversity to a very brief section in this Bill on trees. I say very brief section, because even though the heading above clauses 100 and 101 and schedule 15 is “Tree felling and planting”, it does not actually deal with planting at all. It only deals with cutting trees down.
We think, among other things, that is a tremendous opportunity missed. Although we are limited in this particular group to talking about the clauses and schedule, I ought to draw the Committee’s attention to our proposed new clauses later in the Bill on this particular subject that do address tree planting. As we know from the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan, the question of tree planting is very much on everyone’s minds, and for the obvious reason that tree planting is going to be crucial to reaching our future net zero targets.
There have been various estimates of how many trees need to be planted over the next period to sequester the relevant amounts of CO2 to create a significant negative contribution to our net zero target by 2050.The tree-planting ambition is not a question of running on to a site, sticking a number of saplings in the ground, running away again, and hoping that they will all have grown into large trees in 30 years and will sequester carbon satisfactorily. The process of planting trees requires an enormous amount of loving care and attention, both in the planting and in the subsequent maintenance of the trees.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. After all, page 99 of the Bill includes “Tree felling and planting”, which are the two sides of the coin, but the whole of the next page gives everybody the authority to cut down trees, as he has quite rightly pointed out. Does he agree that that is a rather negative way forward?
Dr Whitehead
My hon. Friend makes an important point. If someone chanced upon the Bill, flicked through it, looked at the contents at the front and said, “There is a section on tree felling and planting; that’s good, because we want to know about tree planting,” and then found that there was no tree planting, that would be rather an odd outcome, yet that is what we have in front of us. I would like to know, at the very least, what the Minister thinks can be done to rectify that omission and whether she intends, when the tree strategy is mature, to amend the Bill or, if this Bill has already gone through the whole of the House, introduce a subsequent Bill that will match up with what will be in the Environment Act, to give whole-life regulation and protection to tree planting, which is absolutely necessary for our ambitions for the future. Although we do not want to amend these clauses, because we accept that they are within the limitations written into the Bill, we give notice that we intend to proceed to rectify at least part of the issue concerning the heading of the clauses as we move on to the new clauses.
There is an indication, certainly in schedule 15, that the problem of maintenance and stewardship for the future is not anticipated, even on the question of felling and restocking trees. Schedule 15, which is an amendment to the Forestry Act 1967, requires restoration orders to be put in place—a good thing in itself—where people have felled trees when they should not have done or without the proper provisions being applied for.
Schedule 15 provides a welcome advance, in that there is clear regulatory guidance on restocking, but that guidance then starts to fall down, inasmuch as the restocking orders last for only 10 years. The precise problem that we have outlined with replanting could arise for the restocking orders. The person who has knocked the trees down might grudgingly replant more under the restocking order, but 10 years later, he or she can pull them all up again.
That is certainly not in line with the sort of stewardship that we think has to take place for trees, both in general and in particular with regard to the restocking orders. I would appreciate it if the Minister could comment this afternoon on whether she thinks the provisions in schedule 15 for the duration of restocking orders are sufficient in the light of our discussion, or whether she might review that for future reference.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I know that I represent millions of people across the country in wanting to speak more about trees and seek more about trees in the Bill. There are some things in these clauses that we can agree on. I know that the Minister is a lover of ancient woodland and that the clauses are close to her heart as a chair of the all-party parliamentary group on ancient woodland and veteran trees.
Fleur Anderson
As a former chair, she has said of ancient woodland:
“It is an absolute travesty that only 2% remains and we must ensure that no more is lost.”
We agree on proposed new section 96A(1) of the Highways Act 1980, as inserted by clause 101, in which it becomes statutory for local authorities to
“consult members of the public before felling a tree on an urban road”.
Constituents in Putney will welcome that measure, because in many cases, they do not know why a tree has been felled and they would like to have had a say. It gives our fantastic volunteer tree wardens more power to look at the trees in our urban areas.
We also agree that the Bill is landmark legislation that legislates for urgent action on the biggest environmental challenges of our time. Therefore, it is disappointing that clause 100 is sadly lacking. We will talk about a tree strategy later when we debate new clause 19, but that is where this clause could have come in. Putting an English tree strategy on a statutory footing is key to delivering the commitments in the 25-year environment plan, alongside which the Bill sits.
The 25-year environment plan has targets for net zero carbon emissions by 2050 and for planting 30,000 hectares of trees a year across the UK. We need interim and overall targets in the Bill to ensure that we deliver on those targets. Why is that? Trees sequester carbon, support biodiversity, protect against floods, stabilise the soil, improve our physical and mental wellbeing, filter air pollutants and help to regulate temperatures. The Environment Bill seeks to do all of these, and more on trees would enable us to do it better and make it that landmark legislation. However, 53% of UK woodland wildlife is in decline. Woodland expansion is well below the rate necessary for the future. DEFRA has a woeful track record of missing tree planting targets. It cannot be left out of this Bill and just left to happen. History shows that it does not just happen. We really need a statutory England tree strategy.
There is currently no formal mechanism to set targets for protection, restoration and expansion of trees and woodland in England. Here is the opportunity to legislate and address the importance of trees in tackling the climate and nature crisis we face. This Bill aims to restore and enhance green spaces, yet it falls short in not containing a necessary clause about a tree strategy. There should be a strategy with the following objectives: increasing the percentage of tree cover in England, increasing the hectares of new, native woodland creation by planting and natural regeneration, and increasing the hectarage of plantation of ancient woodland undergoing restoration.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
I pay tribute to the work of the Woodland Trust, which has helped schools in the hon. Lady’s constituency, I am sure, as well as those of all members of the Committee. Does she agree that the sort of projects it leads will help the Government to achieve their goals of planting masses more trees across the country and involving school children?
Fleur Anderson
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention noting the work of the Woodland Trust, which is in agreement with the points I have just made. In fact, this is exactly what it is calling for. Indeed, given that he has talked about the excellent work of the Woodland Trust, I hope he will be supporting new clause 19 when we come back to it. The Woodland Trust would like an English tree strategy to be put on a statutory footing and gave evidence to that effect to this Committee previously, and many constituents from across the country have written in to support this also.
Richard Graham
The point I was trying to make was to highlight the good work that the Woodland Trust is doing alongside the Government, rather than to necessarily support the Opposition’s suggested amendments to the Bill.
Fleur Anderson
I understand the clarification. I would say that the Woodland Trust is doing fantastic work, but it is also calling for this statutory framework. I put Members on notice that we will return to this issue when we come to new clause 19. Therefore, I ask all Committee members to hastily look that up and, I hope, support it when it comes. Alternatively, as the shadow Minister has mentioned, let us see an actual, whole tree Bill come to Parliament with all urgency. That would be excellent as well.
Rebecca Pow
It will not surprise those hon. Members who have spoken that I share their passion for trees and ancient woodland particularly. Indeed, I also praise the work the Woodland Trust does and has done, particularly with young people, schoolchildren and all those who want to get involved with this future environment, as was intimated by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
I wonder whether the Minister will also pay tribute to the work of the Scottish Government, as over 80% of new plantings in 2018-19 were in Scotland. Are there lessons to be learned there?
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith for that intervention. Indeed, it is all credit to Scotland. It has a different, much wilder landscape, where trees are very well adapted to the landscape. I do take my hat off to the tree planting that Scotland does, and we all like to learn from good practice across borders. Forestry is, of course, devolved, and that is why introducing a statutory target for the UK is not appropriate for this stage. I just want to touch on general points about tree planting before I address what the actual clause is dealing with, which really pertains to tree felling.
Yes, we do have an England tree strategy, which does set out the means to protect existing trees and see more planted across the country. We have a massive commitment to more tree planting to the tune of 30,000 hectares by 2025. It is ambitious, but we do have, and we are bringing forward, the measures to make that possible. That long-awaited and talked-about tree strategy will be launched in the spring of 2021. A huge amount of work has gone into liaising on that consultation.
Richard Graham
The Minister is quite right to highlight the good work that has already been done. Does she agree that there is a specific opportunity in many parts of the country in recycling centres? As more councils gradually get out of the business of landfill, there is an opportunity to transform the landscape of these existing recycling centres into places that can generate eco-woodland and green energy and fulfil lots of good environmental purposes.
Rebecca Pow
I thank my hon. Friend for a slightly off-the-wall intervention. I bet he has a recycling centre in his own constituency in mind. There will obviously be opportunities.
I will not say that the whole tree planting industry has to be kick-started, because there was a brilliant piece on “Farming Today” this morning—I do not know whether anyone was awake that early—about massive tree planting going on in the north. There is a huge private forestry scheme; it is private and has lots of input by Natural England and the Forestry Commission. It feeds into a big sawmill; the sawmills need the wood, and we want to stop the wood being imported, so we need to grow it at home. Although one may not think that the word “trees” is mentioned enough, all the policies we are putting in place to deliver biodiversity net gain and local nature recovery, or a great many of them, will involve tree planting.
Ruth Jones
Does the Minister not agree that, although it is great to have the tree planting strategy coming up next year, this is a missed opportunity to put it in the Bill, making it a really good, comprehensive, joined-up piece of work?
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Member for that. While she makes a good point, I point her to the fact that we did a public paper this summer, which explored whether a statutory target for trees in England would be appropriate under the target-setting process of the Environment Bill. Perhaps the shadow Minister missed it, but it shows that all of this work is ongoing. We have this target-setting measure in the Bill, and this will be a prime example of where a target ought to be set.
I would take issue. I do not honestly believe that picking out individual things right now, putting them in the Bill and saying there should be a target on them is the right way to go about it. We need the ability to make the target, but we also need to get absolutely right what that target should be. On those grounds, one could say, “We’ll have a target for reeds, for pennywort and for some corncockle.” That is not the way the Bill works. I hope I am making that quite clear. I hope I am also making it quite clear that we have this massive commitment to tree planting. Indeed, that was outlined in our manifesto, and the Prime Minister made his announcement this week in his 10-point plan linking it all together.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
Will the Minister commend Solihull Council, which in line with its commitment to plant a quarter of a million over the next 10 years has linked up with the Woodland Trust to plant nearly 12,000 trees in the first year? It did not need a statutory footing to do so.
Rebecca Pow
I absolutely applaud Solihull if it has already planted that many trees. There is a massive amount of voluntary work and other initiatives going on. I will also point out that tree planting will completely dovetail with the environmental land management scheme to deliver lots of those big projects, especially the landscape-scale projects. That will obviously help the climate change, the carbon sequestration work and all the things Members have touched on.
Richard Graham
Does the Minister agree that the Queen’s Commonwealth Canopy has also played a helpful role? Many of these plantings were done specifically by primary school children.
Rebecca Pow
I meant to reference that just now, so I am glad my hon. Friend mentioned it. I believe that all MPs got sent three trees—I cannot remember what year that was, but we were—and I planted my three using the instructions. Some other MPs called me up to say, “Gosh, what do I do with these things that look like twigs? How do I plant them?” I talked them through it, because some of the trees had obviously been in the box for quite a long time. It is a great project to link up these areas and to get children, in particular, planting trees.
I am going to deal now with what is actually in the clause. I would not belittle this clause about tree felling and planting at all. It is very important. We have committed to planting and protecting all these trees, and the clause will help us to protect the trees we plant. Street trees are often the closest green infrastructure to people’s homes—the hon. Member for Putney talked about how much value people in urban areas get from trees.
Clause 101 places a duty on local highway authorities to consult before felling street trees, guaranteeing the local public an opportunity to understand why a tree may be felled and to raise concerns if they wish. That is really important, because we have had issues elsewhere in the country, where it has caused an absolute storm when the council has come and cut down trees and people simply cannot understand why that was being done. It is really important to get the messaging right.
Local highway authorities should have regard to guidance the Government will publish. This will provide certainty on how the duty should be implemented, as well as consistent street tree management across the country. Under certain circumstances, however, trees are exempt from the duty, thereby not impeding action to address trees that might have to be urgently felled—for example, due to a tree disease, which would then make them a danger. The introduction of this duty reflects the Government’s commitment to protecting our urban trees, which people value so highly and which are important in the urban space.
While reported illegal tree felling rates are low, no level of illegal felling is acceptable. We propose to address this through clause 100 and schedule 15. The felling licence system works well, but is now over 50 years old. Since its introduction, the driving forces behind illegal felling have changed, and statutory protections no longer serve as a deterrent to some illegal felling. Our forestry enforcement measures resolve this and support effective enforcement of the felling licence regime.
First, we will increase the penalty for illegal felling to an unlimited fine, addressing the gains that can be made from illegal felling to realise the value of the land. Court powers to compel replanting will also be increased. Secondly, the measures will ensure that potential buyers or new owners of illegally felled land are made aware of their obligation to replant that land. That will ensure that restocking is achieved, regardless of whether that land is sold.
The hon. Member for Southampton, Test raised the issue of restocking and the 10-year issue in the schedule. If a person replants following the restocking order, but then fells the trees again, that is breaking the law. The trees can be felled only with a licence, so a fine could be applied in those circumstances. It is thanks to other changes in the Forestry Act 1967 and the changes that the Environment Bill is making that that will be the case. I hope that clarifies the issue.
The public obviously care very deeply about trees, and clauses 100 and 101 and schedule 15 will ensure that we have powers to protect and value them. That will allow us to retain the benefits they deliver for us—capturing carbon, providing shade in our streets and homes, creating homes for wildlife and, not least, looking beautiful. When I chose my flat to live in in London with my allowance, one of my chief criteria was that I could see a tree from the window, which I can. It gives me a great deal of pleasure and makes me breathe easy.
Dr Whitehead
I am sure that the Minister knows this already, but there are many ways of getting rid of trees other than felling them. The issue here regarding proposed new subsection 3(b) relates to the requirement
“to maintain those trees in accordance with the rules and practice of good forestry for a period not exceeding ten years”.
Maintenance in terms of the practice of good forestry might include various things, such as making sure that the trees do not get eaten, or making sure that they are sufficiently watered so that they do not die, and various other things that do not involve felling. However, the penalties in the legislation at the moment are for felling. She may want to have further thoughts about this 10-year rule in the light of that particular observation. This issue is not just about felling; it is about a number of other aspects of good forestry management of trees as they grow to maturity.
Rebecca Pow
I think I have given a very clear answer about the felling. If someone replants, that is an offence; they will be prosecuted for it. I think I have made that very clear. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that maintenance is important; quite clearly it is. I also agree that planting a tree is not a simple thing; it has to be planted, watered, maintained and protected from pests, and there is a great deal of work to be done. However, I think there is an understanding of that for anybody who plants trees. Indeed, particularly when we bring forward these bigger schemes, maintenance and all that side of it will be an important part and parcel of those projects and those schemes.
I hope that I have covered this issue quite clearly in my explanation and answered the questions, and I ask the Committee to agree that clause 100 stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 100 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 15 agreed to.
Clause 101 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 102
Conservation covenant agreements
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 103 to 106 stand part.
Clause 107 stand part.
Government amendments 224 and 225.
Clause 108 stand part.
Clauses 109 to 115 stand part.
That Schedule 16 be the Sixteenth schedule to the Bill.
Clauses 116 to 120 stand part.
Rebecca Pow
Can I just check that I am speaking about all those clauses in one go, because that was a lot to take in?
Rebecca Pow
Thank you. This part of the Bill is based, by and large, on the excellent work done by the Law Commission; I thank the Law Commission for the ongoing support that it has given us.
Conservation covenants are private agreements entered into voluntarily to deliver a conservation purpose for the public good. They can cover conservation of the natural or heritage features of the land; that is set out in clause 102(3). Importantly, they can bind subsequent landowners, giving them the potential to deliver lasting conservation benefits for future generations; that is referred to in clause 107.
Conservation covenants are crucial, because there is currently no simple legal tool that landowners can use to ensure that conservation benefits are maintained when land is sold or passed on. Current workarounds are costly, complex and have limitations, so opportunities to secure long-term conservation outcomes are being lost. Our consultation last year found significant support from a range of bodies, including farmers, landowners, and conservation organisations, for the whole idea of conservation covenants. The covenants will provide a way of giving biodiversity net gain sites and other key areas for nature the long-term conservation management that they need, and will make it easier for businesses and others to fund nature recovery.
Dr Whitehead
We have no feelings this afternoon that we want to oppose these clauses. On the contrary, we think that the establishment of conservation covenants is a good idea, provided that those covenants can really last in the way they work. The Minister has given a good account of how the covenants will work and can be enforced. Although this is a lengthy number of clauses in a lengthy part of the Bill, I hope hon. Members will not feel that we have failed to examine it. Indeed, having examined it, we think that these are a proper series of measures to take, and we hope that conservation covenants will, as the Minister mentioned, be an important part of the process in years to come.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 102 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 103 to 106 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 107
Benefit and burden of obligation of landowner
Amendment made: 224, in clause 107, page 105, line 10, after “1975” insert
“(as substituted by paragraph 3 of Schedule 5 to the Infrastructure Act 2015)”.—(Rebecca Pow.)
This amendment clarifies that the reference in clause 107(6) to section 3 of the Local Land Charges Act 1975 is to the text as substituted by the Infrastructure Act 2015 and not the original text. The original text still has effect in certain local authority areas to which the new text does not yet apply.
Clause 107, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 108 to 115 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 16 agreed to.
Clause 116
Power of responsible body to appoint replacement
Amendment made: 225, in clause 116, page 109, line 13, after “1975” insert
“(as substituted by paragraph 3 of Schedule 5 to the Infrastructure Act 2015)”.—(Rebecca Pow.)
This amendment clarifies that the reference in clause 116(4) to section 3 of the Local Land Charges Act 1975 is to the text as substituted by the Infrastructure Act 2015 and not the original text. The original text still has effect in certain local authority areas to which the new text does not yet apply.
Clause 116, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 117 to 120 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 121
Duty of responsible bodies to make annual return
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 121, page 111, line 17, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
I will be brief. This is a further clause concerning mays and musts. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge will be fascinated by this clause. He will observe that, in the clause, two musts are cancelled out by one may. The clause states that a designated body must make an annual return to the Secretary of State and that the annual return must give any information that is prescribed under subsection (4). However, that subsection states that the Secretary of State may by regulations make that provision in the first place. Basically, clause 121(1) and (3) put in two musts and, indeed, there are further musts below that. I am sure that my hon. Friend will want to reflect that in his calculations on these matters in the future. Perhaps there will be further opportunities to reflect further as the Bill progresses, but I do not want to press the amendment to a Division. I merely wish to point out that the musts and mays continue in substantial numbers as we progress through the Bill.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Member for welcoming the conservation covenant, and I am tempted to ask whether it has driven him to excitement.
Dr Whitehead
Steady on. I would not go quite that far. I am sort of elevated.
The Chair
Order. This is all very entertaining, but it is not getting us any further with the Bill.
Rebecca Pow
Sorry, Sir George. I could not resist it, because we were referring to the hon. Member’s excitement on Tuesday. I thank him for his proposed amendment.
Clause 121 places a duty on responsible bodies to make an annual return to the Secretary of State. The return must state whether they held any conservation covenants during the relevant period, the number of covenants and the area of land that each one covers. As the duty is already on the face of the Bill, in clause 121, no regulations will be needed to require responsible bodies to provide that information. However, conservation covenants are a tool that are intended to be used over the long term. It is therefore important that the Secretary of State should be able to obtain additional information in annual returns, if that proves necessary in the future.
Consequently, the clause also provides the Secretary of State with the power to make regulations about the annual returns. That power can be used, if needed, to require from responsible bodies more information than that already required by the Bill. I cannot anticipate at this point what such additional information might be, but any information required to be provided must be about, or connected with, the responsible body, its activities, any conservation covenant that it held during the relevant period, or the land covered by any such covenant.
As I have previously explained about similar amendments, it is therefore entirely appropriate to provide the Secretary of State with flexibility as to when and how the regulation-making provision is given effect. Primary legislation consistently takes such an approach to the balance between powers, which are mays, and duties, which are musts. I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw what I think is just a probing amendment anyway.
Dr Whitehead
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 121 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 122 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 17
Application of Part 7 to Crown land
Rebecca Pow
I beg to move amendment 71, in schedule 17, page 222, line 36, leave out from beginning to end of line 9 on page 223 and insert—
“Demesne land
3 (1) Where land belongs to Her Majesty in right of the Crown but is not held for an estate in fee simple absolute in possession—
(a) Her Majesty in right of the Crown is to be regarded for the purposes of Part 7 and this Schedule as holding an estate in fee simple absolute in possession in the land, and
(b) any estate granted or created out of the land is to be regarded for those purposes as derived from that estate in fee simple.
(2) The land referred to in sub-paragraph (1) does not include land which becomes subject to escheat on the determination of an estate in fee simple absolute in possession in the land if—
(a) it is land to which an obligation under a conservation covenant related when the estate determined, or
(b) it is not land to which such an obligation related at that time and Her Majesty in right of the Crown has not taken possession or control of the land, or entered into occupation of it.
Land subject to escheat
3A (1) This paragraph applies where land becomes subject to escheat on the determination of an estate in fee simple absolute in possession in land to which an obligation under a conservation covenant relates.
(2) The conservation covenant is not terminated on the determination of that estate, even though the appropriate authority has no liability in respect of the obligation unless and until the Crown—
(a) takes possession or control of the land, or enters into occupation of it, or
(b) becomes the holder of—
(i) an estate granted by the Crown out of the land, or
(ii) an estate in land derived (whether immediately or otherwise) from an estate falling within sub-paragraph (i).
(3) If the Crown takes possession or control of the land, or enters into occupation of it—
(a) the Crown is to be regarded for the purposes of Part 7 and this Schedule as holding an estate in fee simple in possession in the land, and
(b) that estate is to be regarded for those purposes as immediately derived from the determined estate.
(4) If the Crown grants an estate out of the land after having previously taken possession or control of the land, or entered into occupation of it, the estate is to be regarded for the purposes of Part 7 and this Schedule as immediately derived from the estate mentioned in sub-paragraph (3)(a).
(5) But if the Crown grants an estate out of the land without having previously taken possession or control of the land, or entered into occupation of it—
(a) the acts of the Crown in granting that estate are not to be regarded for the purposes of Part 7 and this Schedule as taking possession or control of the land, or entering into occupation of it, and
(b) the new estate is to be regarded for those purposes as immediately derived from the determined estate.
(6) In this paragraph and paragraph 3B ‘the Crown’ means Her Majesty in right of the Crown or of the Duchy of Lancaster, or the Duchy of Cornwall, as the case may be.
Bona vacantia
3B (1) This paragraph applies where an estate in land to which an obligation of the landowner under a conservation covenant relates vests in the Crown as bona vacantia.
(2) The appropriate authority has no liability in respect of the obligation in relation to any period before the Crown takes possession or control of the land or enters into occupation of it.”
This amendment replaces paragraphs 3 and 4 of Schedule 17 with three new paragraphs. Paragraph 3A is new and deals with the application of Part 7 to land to which a conservation covenant relates which becomes subject to escheat to the Crown (for example where the land is disclaimed by a trustee in bankruptcy). Paragraphs 3 and 3B are derived from the current paragraph 3, subject to some minor changes arising from consideration of paragraph 3A.
This amendment ensures that conservation covenants survive when land passes to the Crown through a process known as escheat. Doing so provides consistency in our overall policy on conservation covenants, which is to ensure that they can continue to affect land when it changes hands. The Bill as introduced has the effect that conservation covenants survive when land passes to the Crown as bona vacantia, or ownerless property. Land passes on bona vacantia in various circumstances, such as—in some cases—when a person dies without a will. That actually happened to the house I bought: they could not find who the house was left to in a will, so it went to the Crown and was sold by auction. This Government amendment replicates that effect for land that passes to the Crown by virtue of a process known as escheat. That can happen in a range of circumstances—for example, when a liquidator disclaims freehold land that belonged to a company that is wound up. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that, in those circumstances, the conservation covenant is not extinguished by the escheat of the land.
Amendment 71 agreed to.
Schedule 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 123 and 124 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 18 agreed to.
Clause 125 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 187, in schedule 19, page 229, line 9, at end insert—
“provided that such regulations do not regress upon the scope or purpose of REACH regulations as applied prior to the amended regulations being enacted”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 3, in schedule 19, page 229, line 9, at end insert—
“(1A) Regulations made under this paragraph must not regress upon the protections or standards of any Article or Annex of the REACH Regulation.
(1B) Subject to sub-paragraph (1A), the Secretary of State—
(a) must make regulations under this paragraph to maintain, and
(b) may make regulations under this paragraph to exceed parity of all protections and standards of chemical regulation with any new or amended regulations of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the regulation of chemicals.”
This amendment would set a minimum of protections under REACH and remove the possibility that a Secretary of State might lower standards than are in place currently, whilst reserving the right for them to set higher standards should they choose.
Amendment 198, in schedule 19, page 229, line 13, at end insert—
“both in general and, in particular, the precautionary principle referred to in Article 1(3).”
This amendment would require Ministers, in considering consistency with Article 1 of the REACH Regulation, to pay specific attention to the precautionary principle.
Amendment 174, in schedule 19, page 229, line 32, at end insert—
“provided that such regulations do not regress upon the scope or purpose of the REACH enforcement regulations as applied prior to the amended regulations being enacted”.
New clause 11—Ongoing relationship with EU-REACH—
“(1) The Secretary of State must not use regulations under Schedule 19 to diminish protections provided by REACH legislation.
(2) The Secretary of State must by regulations seek to maintain regulatory parity with any new or amended regulations of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the regulation of chemicals after IP completion day.
(3) It is an objective of Her Majesty’s Government as part of any trade negotiations with the European Union to seek to secure associate membership of the European Chemicals Agency for the United Kingdom after IP completion day to enable it to continue to participate in the EU-REACH framework.
(4) Regulations under subsection (2) are subject to the affirmative procedure.
(5) In this section, ‘IP completion day’ has the same meaning as in section 39 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020.”
This new clause would require continued parity with REACH.
Dr Whitehead
As you have indicated, Sir George, amendment 187 is being dealt with alongside a number of other amendments, in my name and those of other Opposition Members, and a new clause, which we fully support, in the names of a number of Members who were on the Committee but are on it no longer.
Hon. Members will be aware that we have now moved away from conservation covenants, trees and biodiversity towards a very important new issue: chemical regulation, imports, exports and trading in this country post January 2021. The amendments, and indeed the schedule that they amend, deal with a particularly perverse decision by Her Majesty’s Government upon leaving the EU. They do not wish to have a negotiation or a discussion with the ECHA, the European Chemicals Agency, about associate membership of the agency, under which the REACH regulations—on the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals—sit, and I will come to that in a moment. Instead, they wish to wholly recreate a UK series of REACH regulations to be regulated by the Health and Safety Executive rather than the ECHA.
The REACH regulations are one of the substantial achievements of the EU. They are a series of regulations that comprehensively sort out the transportation, trade, appearance on particular markets, and safety of chemicals across the EU. They also provide a comprehensive regime for identifying chemicals—a sort of institutional memory of what has gone on with chemicals. Companies that deal with chemicals have to systematically provide additions to the European database of chemicals, which now stands at something like 23,000 different chemicals. That database is available to all EU member states to inform their policies relating to what they consider acceptable for chemical trade and chemicals landing in their countries, what they can avoid bringing into their countries, and what safety regulations should be applied to the chemicals. All of that has a tremendously advantageous effect on how we steward our environment.
I would go so far as to say that the REACH regulations have played a tremendous role in protecting Europe from all sorts of chemical harm, chemical malpractice and dumping of chemicals in markets an. It is generally environmentally advantageous to have regulations in such a good form, in such a comprehensive way and available for all to look at.
I might add that the REACH regulations were brought about in the EU substantially through the agency of the UK. It was UK regulations and the advance of the situation that we had in the UK at the time that persuaded those involved and assisted the development of the REACH regulations. What we did for European chemical safety is something we can proud of.
One might think that one threw all that away at one’s peril, but that is precisely what the Government have just done. They have decided that, despite quite strong indications that the UK could have engineered an associate relationship with the ECHA. The EU would have been happy for that to proceed, not least because a close, harmonious relationship in dealing with activities relating to various chemicals across Europe is a great advantage for everybody across Europe. Close harmony on chemical standards is beneficial all round. Frankly, the Government have made a perverse decision, which I cannot fully understand, to effectively completely recreate everything that was in EU REACH on a free-standing basis, subsequent to the HSE in the UK.
Ruth Jones
My hon. Friend is making a powerful and important point from a safety perspective. Does he agree that it is odd that the Government have yet to provide a single good practical reason or advantage for severing ties with the world-leading EU chemicals system?
Dr Whitehead
Yes, indeed. My hon. Friend is right. I have not found anyone who has said what the reason is for doing it. On the contrary, every professional body and every joint industry body in this country—all the bodies concerned with chemicals; there is not one dissenter—has said that a close relationship with the EU and a continuing close association with or within the REACH regulations would be immeasurably to the UK’s advantage, and, indeed, would be an advantage all round.
Hon. Members might say, “Well, they would say that, wouldn’t they?” because the estimated cost of the industry variously accommodating itself to the new duplicate regulations in the way that is proposed is about £1 billion. That is damaging to our economy, and needless expenditure for a lot of people. Not only that, but it is needless expenditure for what appears to be, in the Bill at the moment, a substantially deficient system in the UK.
Among other things, the suggested system does not take account of a lot of the checks and balances and arrangements in the original REACH articles, which we will come to later. The database that I have talked about, if it is recreated in the UK, will take an estimated six, seven or eight years to get to a position where it will be even remotely comprehensive regarding chemical lists. Again, that is a huge amount of work for no purpose, other than us apparently having a sovereign REACH—now known in the trade as British REACH or BREACH. I think that describes fairly well what it looks like there will be in the UK REACH arrangements as set out in the Bill.
The amendments that we will put forward this afternoon would not on their own make up for the Government’s calamitous decision to go their own way on REACH in the UK, but would at least ameliorate some of the worst effects of that changeover. I will not speak to the amendments in the first group individually, but they seek, in different ways, to try to make sure that the starting point for UK REACH is that we do not, at least consciously, regress from what there was before, so that its starting framework is as close as possible, including those articles, to what REACH consists of at the moment. Yes, that does mean we would be duplicating something, but at least it would be duplicated properly, with a number of safeguards and checks and balances. I will come later to protected and non-protected articles, which, frankly, the Government appear to want to play games with.
The Chair
I can put the hon. Gentleman’s mind at rest. His memory was not defective: he has attached his name to new clause 11.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Member for his comments. Like him, I take this whole area extremely seriously. It is imperative that we establish our own independent chemicals regulatory framework for Great Britain, UK REACH, and that we do not diverge in terms of our standards. I must say that EU REACH will continue to apply in Northern Ireland under the terms of the Northern Ireland protocol.
We are absolutely committed to maintaining high standards of protection for the environment, consumers and workers, but we want the autonomy to decide how best to achieve that for Great Britain. We will consider the best ideas from both inside and outside the EU, alongside the best evidence within the UK, but there are no plans to diverge from EU REACH for the sake of it.
As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, we were instrumental in designing the whole process in the first place, which we kicked off during our presidency in 1990. That should provide some reassurance about how seriously we take this and how there is no intention to regress. I assure stakeholders that our regulatory system will be developed and managed in line with what is best for the UK and reflect our commitment to high levels of environmental protections.
I understand what hon. Members are aiming for in amendments 187, 3, 198 and 174 and new clause 11 as regards not reducing standards of protection, but I do not believe that the amendments are necessary. There are already a number of safeguards in schedule 19. Any changes to REACH must be consistent with article 1, which includes the purpose of ensuring a high level of protection of human health and the environment. We are not moving away from that and schedule 19 clarifies that.
There are 23 protected provisions—principles that cannot be changed. These include provisions relating to the fundamental principles of REACH, such as the progressive replacement of substances of very high concern. I think the hon. Member is going to deal with those shortly, so I will not go into any more detail about them yet. The Secretary of State must also consult on any proposed amendments and obtain the consent of the devolved Administrations in respect of devolved matters.
I particularly do not agree with amendment 3 or new clause 11(2). What they seek to do is impose dynamic alignment with the EU going forward. They would lock the UK into the EU’s orbit. We must be able to follow the evidence and have the freedom to adopt approaches that are the most appropriate for us. We should be able to look inside this country and elsewhere in the world, not just in the EU, for the best ideas.
New clause 11 goes further still. It would require the Government to seek to negotiate associate membership of the European Chemicals Agency, ECHA. We continue to push for a chemicals annex to a free trade agreement to enable data sharing, but the Government have been clear that the UK will not agree to any outcomes that bring with them an obligation to align with EU laws or give jurisdiction to any EU institutions, including EU agencies or the European Court of Justice. Associate membership of ECHA would bring all of those consequences with it.
Dr Whitehead
I want to tease out what the Minister is saying about the fact that there is a proposal to try to get some data sharing under way with the EU. I presume she is referring to access to the wonderful database of 23,000 products that ECHA controls. The Minister appears to be saying, “Wouldn’t it be nice if we had access to that database, without any of the obligations that go with maintaining the database in the first place?” I would not have thought it likely that anyone would agree to that in a hurry. Would she agree with it, if it were the other way around? I do not think so. Surely that is not a serious proposal and should only go ahead on the basis that some sort of obligation sharing was also part of the offer.
Rebecca Pow
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that long intervention.
Rebecca Pow
It was short for the shadow Minister. The Government’s approach to negotiating a future relationship with the EU includes a proposal for a chemicals annex as part of the EU free trade agreement. I thought the hon. Member for Southampton, Test might welcome that. A deal on data sharing with the EU could mitigate the need for industry to provide full-data packages. If that were to happen, we would be responsible for the updating of this as it went along. That is a clear direction of travel.
We continue to push for that, but the EU continues to reject any sectoral annexes. However, securing the chemicals annex is still our preferred outcome. It would obviously be in the interests of both UK and EU businesses, including those that will want to continue selling their chemicals into the GB market. The EU must, though, respect the UK’s position on no ECJ jurisdiction and no alignment.
As regards amendment 198, I recognise the importance of the precautionary principle for each, but I do not believe the amendment is necessary or desirable. Article 1 states that REACH is underpinned by the precautionary principle: that means that it is firmly bound into the safeguards I have already described. However, emphasising the precautionary principle could also have unintended consequences. It risks creating uncertainty about how to interpret article 1 as a whole. This is because article 1 sets out a series of overarching aims for REACH, as well as underpinning it with the precautionary principle, so I do not believe that such a consequence would be desirable.
Amendment 174 moves on from REACH itself to the UK REACH enforcement regulations. Paragraph 2(2) of schedule 19 says that any amendments must be “necessary or appropriate” for the enforcement of REACH. Taken with the protections in paragraph 1 of the schedule, I believe we are already providing what the hon. Member actually wants. There is a lot of detail there, but I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw these amendments.
Dr Whitehead
Well, the hon. Member is certainly not going to withdraw these amendments, because we think they are crucial to the establishment of any reasonable REACH regime in the UK. In a minute, we will come to some further particularly bad elements of schedule 19, which even allow the Secretary of State to chip away at protected areas that are in that schedule in the first place. What we are doing is laying down a marker that seeks to hold a line somewhere, as far as diminution and dilution of REACH regulations in future are concerned, so it is important that we put these amendments to a Division. We would particularly like to ensure that amendments 187, 198 and 174 and proposed new clause 11 are all recorded as a divided vote this afternoon.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 107, in schedule 19, page 229, line 16, leave out sub-paragraph (4).
This amendment removes the high degree of discretion when setting REACH Chemical regulations afforded the Secretary of State by Clause 127 in the Bill. Without this amendment the Secretary of State is able to make wide provisions to chemical regulations.
This amendment illustrates the continuing problem we perceive with the way that the REACH regulations— or the breach regulations, as I call them—are to be set out in the Bill and implemented as the new regime. Paragraph 1(3) of schedule 19 refers to
“protected provision of the REACH Regulation”,
which are set out in the schedule. Having indicated that there are protected provisions in the REACH regulations, sub-paragraph (4) states that there is nothing to
“prevent any protected provision…being amended by provision made under this paragraph by virtue of section 127(1)(a).”
What appears to be the case here is like other elements of the Bill. The protected provisions of the REACH regulations under paragraph 6 of the schedule include the articles that deal with its principles and scope, animal testing, information for workers, and so on. By the way, we shall later consider the fact that a number of the articles that we think should be protected do not appear in the list, and our amendments would include them in it. However, we must first address the point that the list, even once it is agreed, seems to be infinitely malleable.
I wonder what is the purpose of our agreeing the protected list this afternoon if there will continue to be a sub-paragraph in the schedule stating that if someone decides in future that they do not particularly like it, they can zap particular protected provisions, which will no longer be protected. That is a rather cavalier way, at the very least, of going about translating protections that were in the REACH regulations into a UK equivalent. It must be apparent to anyone that the measure is not, aside from the good intentions of present Ministers, worth the paper it is written on for recreating a REACH regime with similar standards to the previous EU ones.
If paragraph 1(4) is left in the schedule, we will simply be digging a hole in which to bury the protected clauses for the future. They will not really be protected, and we shall not be able to refer to them in the long term as the substance of the REACH regulations in the UK. The amendment would simply remove the sub-paragraph so that the protected provisions would actually be protected, as they should be. The Secretary of State would not have the ability to remove the protected articles.
The Minister has already referred to several assurances that can be based on the fact that article 1 is protected. It is, indeed, in the list of protected articles, but it is not exempt from the Secretary of State’s ability to remove articles. It is nonsense, to be honest, and pretty shabby nonsense, looked at in any reasonable way.
Daniel Zeichner
My hon. Friend makes a powerful case. I find myself wondering what he thinks the purpose of all that is. He sets out clearly that the protections we have now can be swept away. Who benefits from that?
Dr Whitehead
I presume it would be someone at a future date who did not particularly like the idea that we should have high standards of chemical protection, perhaps because they thought we should have a let-it-all-hang-out, free trade, laissez-faire arrangement that would let all sorts of stuff come in from all over the world that was not subject to that high standard of chemical protection—someone who would be quite happy for those items to flood into the country at a future date—and there would be nothing we could do about it, because our protections would have been knocked over by our own Government.
Rebecca Pow
Amendment 107 relates to provisions that are listed in the table in paragraph 6 of schedule 19. If I hold up my copy of the Bill—it is slightly disintegrating through overuse—Members will see that I have highlighted the table, which lists different articles relating to the protected provisions. I agree with the hon. Member for Southampton, Test about the importance of the provisions, which enshrine the fundamental aims and principles of REACH. That is why we have set out a sizeable list of them and they will not change.
It may be helpful if I explain the reason for sub-paragraph (4). An ability to make
“supplementary, incidental, transitional or saving”
provisions is a standard provision in legislation. The aim is to make sure we avoid inconsistencies, discrepancies or overlaps developing in the statute book, but it would not enable us to make wholesale changes to the protected provisions. I honestly believe that the hon. Gentleman is seeing shadows. He is seeing malign opportunities and things that will occur in the future, when they are not there.
Article 1 of the REACH provisions, on aim and scope, sets out the purpose as ensuring a high level of protection of human health and the environment, promoting alternatives to animal testing and the principles that are primarily responsible for the chemicals that are sold and used. REACH is underpinned by the precautionary principle.
I want to pick out a number of the provisions—hon. Members may wish to turn to page 231 of the Bill. Article 5 is on the “no data, no market” principle. Access to the market is dependent on registering the chemical with the Health and Safety Executive. Article 25(1) is the principle that animal testing should be carried out only as a last resort. Article 35 covers the right of workers to access information received by their employers concerning the safety of chemical substances or mixtures. Article 55 covers the aim of the authorisation process to progressively replace substances of very high concern. Article 4A covers the principle that decisions that affect devolved matters can be taken only with the consent of devolved Administrations. Article 109 covers the duty on HSE to adopt operational rules to ensure transparency in matters of chemical safety. None of those things is going to change. They are all in there. The annexes are included among the protected provisions, as REACH already contains all the necessary powers to amend them. Duplicating powers in the Bill would cause legal confusion and uncertainty.
I want to give an explanation of where a little bit of tweaking might be required, as an example of how we could use the consequential amendment power, which I think is what the hon. Gentleman is worried about. One of the REACH protected provisions, article 35, states that workers and their representatives shall be granted access by their employer to the information they receive on chemical safety under articles 31 and 32. However, articles 31 and 32 apply only to substances such as individual chemicals and mixtures of chemicals—for example, commercial preparations such as paints and cleaning fluids. They do not apply to substances in what are called articles—for example, toxic heavy metals that might have been used in a piece of electronic equipment. The worker does not have that knowledge at this date in time.
If we decided to expand articles 31 and 32, so that information on dangerous substances in items such as electrical products must be sent down the supply chain, we would want to make consequential amendments to article 35, so that workers would have the right to access that information. As we gather more evidence and science moves on, more comes to light about all those different chemicals and whether, for example, something used in my hairdryer, which I use every other day, is damaging me. We want the right to amend that so that the people who produce those items, and everybody else, would know.
Dr Whitehead
The Minister is making quite a substantial case. She is stating that the apparent contradiction between paragraphs 1(3) and 1(4) of schedule 19 is resolved by reference to clause 127(1)(a), which includes
“supplementary, incidental, transitional or saving provision”,
meaning that those protected articles could be amended so that, at a subsequent date, they would do what they are supposed to do rather better. Clause 127(1)(b), however, states:
“A power to make regulations under any provision of this Act includes power to make…different provision for different purposes or areas.”
Will the Minister explain how that complete power to do something different if she feels like it does not undermine the idea that amendments should only be
“supplementary, incidental, transition or saving provision”?
The Chair
Order. I have been very tolerant of the length of interventions, because I genuinely believe that sometimes an intervention can help to progress the discussion. I make no criticism of the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, but I hope that future interventions will be kept to a single point and will be as brief as possible.
Rebecca Pow
Thank you, Sir George. It was a detailed intervention. I reiterate what I said about the purpose of the consequential amendments and how useful they will be. I will not run through the whole example again, but there are others like it. Those provisions are in the Bill with a view to protecting people, not to undermine or regress.
Richard Graham
I was not going to come in on the point about hairdryers, which we do not all use. The general element of scaremongering from the Opposition effectively amounts to a feeling that once we are out of reach of the REACH regulation, we are going to be vulnerable to all sorts of horrors. In fact, pages 187 and 188 of the explanatory notes are clear that the Bill allows the Secretary of State the future power to amend the REACH regulation, but only in very specific ways, and almost everything currently in those regulations will be recreated under a UK banner. Does the Minister agree that we should be more confident of what the future will look like?
Rebecca Pow
I wholeheartedly agree. That is what I was trying to get at in the beginning: given that we basically helped to set up those regulations in the first place, we are hardly likely to want to lower standards. Indeed, I would say that we might want to raise them. That will all have to be done on the advice of the experts and the rest. We have no intention whatsoever of lowering our standards.
Ruth Jones
The Minister says that the Government have no intention of lowering standards, but the ECHA—the European Chemicals Agency—has an annual budget of approximately £100 million and 400 staff, while the Government have promised only £13 million to cover those costs. How can that be commensurate with the protection that we need?
Rebecca Pow
In the chuntering from the Back Benches, some sensible points are being made. Work is ongoing, but given that we were so influential on this in the first place, we have a lot of specialists and experts who are and will be engaged in setting up the system.
I am going to wind up now, Sir George. I think I have addressed all the points I wanted to address, and given quite a detailed explanation. I ask the hon. Member for Southampton, Test if he will kindly withdraw amendment 107, but I am not holding out much hope.
Dr Whitehead
We will not withdraw this amendment. The Minister’s attempted explanation has increased our resolve, because I do not think it took account of what is in the legislation. By the way, explanatory notes are not legislation—we ought to bear that in mind.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 227, in schedule 19, page 231, line 22, at end insert
“and take account of all relevant scientific evidence and advice through the Agency’s science advice mechanisms”.
This amendment requires the Secretary of State and any relevant devolved authority to take into account the relevant independent scientific advice when making decisions.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 228, in schedule 19, page 231, line 30, at end insert
“take account of all relevant scientific evidence and advice through the Agency’s science advice mechanisms, and”.
This amendment requires the Secretary of State and any relevant devolved authority to take into account the relevant independent scientific advice when making decisions.
Dr Whitehead
These two amendments are what one might call blindingly obvious amendments. They seek to ensure that, before making regulations, the Secretary of State should not only consult with the bodies and persons indicated, but
“take account of all relevant scientific evidence and advice through the Agency’s science advice mechanisms”.
Be guided by the science, quite simply. That might be quite important in terms of some of our concerns about other clauses.
That is why we have tabled the amendments. I fear that they will not get a very positive hearing, but I feel sure that the Minister will agree with the sentiments behind them. I would not like us to end up as Trumptown-on-Sea and go in the opposite direction. I offer the amendments for the purpose of elucidation. We think that it is a very important principle, albeit a rather obvious one, and will therefore divide the Committee if the Minister is unable to take the amendments on board. It would be nice if she took some amendments on board, given that they are meant in the best possible way, but I fear that that will not be the case.
Rebecca Pow
I understand why the hon. Gentleman has tabled amendments 227 and 228. It is obviously really important that decisions in the field of chemicals regulation are based on strong science and robust evidence. That is a no-brainer. That is why any proposals to amend REACH in the future must be subject to consultation, and the agency in particular must always be consulted. We are absolutely in agreement on that. It is up to the agency to decide how to mobilise its various scientific advice mechanisms and then reflect the opinions that emerge in its consultation response. That is the role of the Health and Safety Executive, as it has the necessary expertise and experience. The Government will of course take the agency’s considered advice into account.
To that extent the amendment is necessary, but it goes beyond that, requiring the Government to go back and take those opinions into account directly. That would require the Secretary of State to bypass the agency’s expert assessment and potentially replace it with his own interpretation. Perhaps the current Secretary of State would be quite capable of that, but who is going to come along afterwards? We do not want that to happen, and I do not believe that it would be a desirable outcome or a good use of HSE’s scientific expertise.
Amendment 228 has the same aim, but in respect of the REACH enforcement regulations. Again, I understand why the hon. Gentleman has tabled the amendment. Obviously, I absolutely agree with him about the importance of science and the evidence, but the amendment risks the same undesirable consequences as amendment 227. I am sure that that is not really his intention, and therefore ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Dr Whitehead
I am sorry to have to do this again, but we do not think that such an obvious addition can be subject to the undesirable side-effects in the way that the Minister describes. We think that the amendments should simply be added to the Bill and we wish to emphasise that by dividing the Committee.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 229, in schedule 19, page 231, line 31, at end insert—
“(4) The Secretary of State, or any relevant devolved authority, shall make transparent the reasons for all decisions taken under this regulation by publishing this information in the public domain.”
This amendment requires the Secretary of State, or any relevant devolved authority, to publish an explanation as to how they reached a decision.
Although the amendments are set out for individual debate, they all refer in one way or another to a requirement to operate the UK REACH regulations transparently, publicly and openly. They mandate giving access to information by providing requirements to publish and for Ministers to report. Later amendments address the question of why the elements that are in the REACH articles at the moment are not included in the protected articles that the Minister has already talked about—articles concerned with the right to know, the publication of material and so on.
The question we want to ask through these amendments is related to basic issues around transporting chemicals, the harm that they might do and what might happen to people if they ingest products that have not been properly certified—all those things. Why are protections in terms of the publication of documents or decisions and the public right to have access to the decision-making process all missing from this part of the Bill? I would have thought that the Minister would agree that they should be present in some form or other. I do not know whether it has just been overlooked or whether there is any reason—I am jumping forward a little—why the very good protections in terms of transparency, public access and so on in the original REACH articles should not be translated directly into protected articles in the UK.
We will seek to divide the Committee on some of the amendments. In different ways, they are designed to place in the UK REACH regulations those issues of the right to know, public access and the interrogation of decisions. I am sorry that they are not in there. They should be. I do not think, Sir George, that we need separate debates on all these amendments, because they all address that principle in different ways and, for that reason, they should all be supported.
The Chair
I will have to take the further amendments the hon. Gentleman refers to, because they are all on the amendment paper, but if Members do not want to proceed with them, that is relatively easily dealt with—if nobody wishes to speak to them or move them, they effectively fall.
Rebecca Pow
I understand why the hon. Member for Southampton, Test tabled amendment 229, which I will talk to now. The amendment calls for transparency in decision making, which I completely support, but I do not think that the amendment is necessary. There must be consultation on any proposals under these provisions, as set out in paragraph 5 of schedule 19. The timely publication of responses is a fundamental part of the Government’s consultation principles. Any legislative changes as a result of that consultation will be subject to the affirmative procedure, which gives the opportunity for explanation and scrutiny, which I know the hon. Gentleman will welcome.
There is an important difference in procedure between the powers in the Bill and decision making under REACH. The Secretary of State’s decisions under REACH are given effect through a statutory instrument using the negative procedure or through Executive action, whereas powers in the Bill are exercised through the affirmative procedure, with the higher levels of explanation and scrutiny that that entails. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Dr Whitehead
I am anxious not to overthrow procedure completely, but it might be acceptable to the Committee if we were able to indicate that we would, in principle, wish to divide the Committee on a number of amendments that we feel particularly strongly about, without actually proceeding to divide the Committee. Might the Committee think that that was an acceptable procedure at this time in the afternoon?
The Chair
I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman proposes. Can he be a bit clearer?
Dr Whitehead
Yes, I can. We face a debate on essentially the same points about transparency, public access and so on, which we feel strongly about. We particularly want the Minister to explain why articles are missing from that list of potential REACH articles. We may have a brief debate about that subsequently. However, we intend, in principle, to divide the Committee on all these amendments, which would of course take quite a while to complete. However, if we were able to state that, in principle, we wish to divide the Committee on those amendments, we could perhaps have an indicative Division on this this particular amendment.
The Chair
I think I now understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying. It would be an ingenious new addition to the rules of the House, but I am afraid that that is way above my pay grade.
Leo Docherty (Aldershot) (Con)
On a point of order, Sir George. Would it be helpful to suggest to the shadow Minister that we debate the current amendment, but that he does not press the subsequent amendments to a Division?
The Chair
The situation is straightforward. If the hon. Member for Southampton, Test wants to make his point about the issue, the best way to do it is to have a Division on the lead amendment. When we come to the subsequent amendments, it is a question of saying, “Not moved,” or of saying, “Moved formally” and we will then take a vote. There will have to be some sort of Division, but the hon. Member for Southampton, Test does not have to take part in it if he feels that the point he is trying to make has already been established with regard to the lead amendment.
Dr Whitehead
Thank you, Sir George. We wish to seek a Division on this amendment, and we may seek a Division on subsequent lead amendments when they come up.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 108, in schedule 19, page 231, line 37, at end insert—
“Article 13 (General requirements for generation of information on intrinsic properties of substances)”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 109, in schedule 19, page 231, line 38, at end insert—
“Article 26 (Duty to inquire prior to registration)
Article 27 (Sharing of existing data in the case of registered substances)
Article 30 (sharing of information involving tests)”.
Amendment 176, in schedule 19, page 231, line 38, at end insert—
“Articles 32, 33 and 34 (communication in the supply chain & a right to know for consumers)”.
This amendment includes Article 32, 33 and 34 of REACH (communication in the supply chain & a right to know for consumers) in the “protected provisions” that may not be amended under Schedule 19.
Amendment 110, in schedule 19, page 231, line 39, at end insert—
“Article 40(2) (third party information)”.
Amendment 111, in schedule 19, page 232, line 25, at end insert—
“save insofar as they contain endpoints for tests using animals”.
Dr Whitehead
As I said, these amendments deal with elements of the REACH articles as they stand that we would seek to be protected in the translation into UK jurisdiction. We are concerned that the articles mentioned in the amendments have been left out, all of which are concerned, one way or another, with public access, the right to know and transparency. My hon. Friend the Member for Putney may say a few words on that in a minute, so I will restrict my remarks to that.
I also indicate to you, Sir George, that although we would in principle seek to divide on all the amendments if the Minister is not able to accept them or to give a fully satisfactory explanation, we will seek to divide on the lead amendment only.
Fleur Anderson
The Bill gives the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs the power to amend UK REACH and the REACH Enforcement Regulations 2008—REACH being the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals, for the benefit of those reading in Hansard. However, specified elements of REACH are excluded, as we said earlier, from the Secretary of State’s amending power. We are referred to the table that the Minister mentioned earlier and told, “It is all there and included.” It is not all there and included.
We would like to highlight some articles that have not been included in the protected provisions—specifically, article 13 in amendment 108, articles 26, 27 and 30 in amendment 109 and—an interesting set of articles—articles 32, 33 and 34 in amendment 176, which are highly important to the REACH regulations actually working for consumers and those within the supply chain of chemicals. The provisions refer to everyday products that we and our constituents would all use, including paints, cleaning products, clothes, furniture, electrical appliances and, as already mentioned, hairdryers.
In article 32, which I would argue should be a protected principle, there is the duty to communicate information down the supply chain free of charge and without delay. In article 33, the duty is to communicate information on substances in articles for the consumer free of charge within 45 days. In article 34, the duty is to communicate information on substances and preparations up the supply chain.
There are duties up the supply chain, down the supply chain and to the consumer. That is all protected, and it absolutely should happen to ensure that, as the Minister has said, when more information, science and data come to light as we go along with new products and chemicals, the consumer and all of those in the supply chain have a right to know what that new information is, and what is up and down the supply chain. The consumer should know what is in the products that we consume.
Under article 33, suppliers of articles that contain a substance of very high concern are required to provide sufficient information in response to consumer requests about those products to allow their safe use, including disclosing the name of the substance that is used. However, that will be taken out of a protected requirement. There are substances that, for example, meet the criteria for classification as carcinogenic, mutagenic, toxic to reproduction and persistent bioaccumulative toxic. This is an essential public policy safeguard, and it is unclear why the Government wish to exclude it from the list of protected provisions. Other things are included in that list. It is seen as beneficial to have a list of protected provisions. Why are those provisions not protected?
That is the question we are asking by tabling these amendments. We are saying that it is important to the whole of the REACH regulation that these things are included and cannot be subject to change by the Secretary of State.
Rebecca Pow
I thank hon. Members for amendments 108, 109, 176, 110 and 111. I understand the desire to protect further provisions of UK REACH in the Environment Bill. However, I do not believe that these amendments are necessary or, in many cases, desirable—shock, horror!
The protected provisions of REACH are intended to ensure that the fundamental principles of REACH cannot be changed, while allowing a flexibility to ensure UK REACH remains fit for purpose. The intention is not to freeze detailed processes. Any proposed amendments by the Secretary of State are subject to consultation, to the consent of the devolved Administrations in respect of devolved matters and to the affirmative procedure, ensuring a full debate in Parliament, which I know Opposition Members will welcome.
Amendment 108 applies to article 13 of REACH, which sets out detailed provisions about alternatives to animal testing, including when animal tests can be waived—I think the hon. Member for Putney was referring to that. She wants us to avoid unnecessary animal testing and to promote alternative approaches. We agree with that aim, but adding this article to the list of protected provisions could make that more difficult. For example, it could prevent us from extending the range of tests for animal testing that may be omitted where there is appropriate justification.
The same objections apply to the articles that would be affected by amendment 109, that is, articles 26, 27 and 30, and by amendment 176, that is, articles 32, 33 and 34. These articles are not just about the principles of information sharing. They also include prescriptive details about how information should be shared with the REACH supply chain and how the agency should deal with inquiries. We should not bind ourselves to these detailed procedures going forward but instead remain free to adopt new ways of working that draw on our experience of applying REACH in the UK. The whole idea is that we will improve and benefit.
Amendment 110 would protect REACH article 40(2). Again, the point is that we do not want to freeze the detail of how REACH operates. Instead, we need the flexibility to amend REACH, to ensure that it works for the UK. In this case, article 40(2) includes specific details, such as timescales for publishing information.
I do not believe that amendment 111 is necessary or desirable. I agree that we may consider it appropriate to amend the REACH annexes to drive the use of non-animal alternatives, but the power to amend the REACH annexes is already within REACH itself, which makes it unnecessary to add an overlapping power to the Bill.
I therefore ask the hon. Member for Southampton, Test to consider withdrawing his amendments.
Dr Whitehead
I think I have already indicated that although we do not wish to withdraw these amendments, we will seek—for the purpose of the record, as it were—an indicative division on amendment 108. However, the fact that we will not press all the subsequent amendments to a vote does not mean that we would not ideally like to divide on them. However, we are doing this for the sake of the comfort and sanity of the Committee this afternoon, and I hope that will be appreciated.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
Before I put the question on amendment 109, which again was tabled by Dr Whitehead, I wonder if it would be helpful if I try to explain the hon. Gentleman can achieve what he wants to achieve. With advice, I think there are two options, which apply to amendments 109, 176 and 110. I take it that the hon. Gentleman, in principle, does not want to have a Division, but does not want to concede the principle; I think that that is approximately his position. When I call each amendment and he says, “Not moved”, then there would not be a Division. The other option is that he can move each amendment, but then simply remain silent when I put the question. So, when I say, “As many of that opinion say aye”, he should just not say anything and then there will not be a Division in that instance either. Those are the only two options available to the hon. Gentleman, so I will leave them with him. The advice I have given is intended to be helpful to him and to the Committee.
Amendment proposed: 109, in schedule 19, page 231, line 38, at end insert—
“Article 26 (Duty to inquire prior to registration)
Article 27 (Sharing of existing data in the case of registered substances)
Article 30 (sharing of information involving tests)”.—(Dr Whitehead.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Question negatived.
Amendment proposed: 176, in schedule 19, page 231, line 38, at end insert—
“Articles 32, 33 and 34 (communication in the supply chain & a right to know for consumers)”.
This amendment includes Article 32, 33 and 34 of REACH (communication in the supply chain & a right to know for consumers) in the “protected provisions” that may not be amended under Schedule 19.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Question negatived.
Amendment proposed: 110, in schedule 19, page 231, line 39, at end insert—
“Article 40(2) (third party information)”.—(Dr Whitehead.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Question negatived.
Amendment proposed: 111, in schedule 19, page 232, line 25, at end insert—
“save insofar as they contain endpoints for tests using animals”.—(Dr Whitehead.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Question negatived.
Schedule 19 agreed to.
Clause 126
Consequential provision
Amendments made: 58, in clause 126, page 113, line 28, leave out “the National Assembly for Wales” and insert “Senedd Cymru”.
See Amendment 28.
Amendment 59, in clause 126, page 113, line 36, leave out “the National Assembly for Wales” and insert “Senedd Cymru”.
See Amendment 28.
Amendment 60, in clause 126, page 113, line 37, leave out “Assembly” and insert “Senedd”.—(Rebecca Pow.)
See Amendment 28.
Clause 126, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 127
Regulations
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 149, in clause 127, page 114, line 11, leave out subsection (1)(b).
I have alluded to this amendment previously. I must admit that, having read the clause on a number of occasions for different purposes, I cannot come to any other conclusion than that subsection (1)(b) is a serious attempt to destabilise what happens before it in the clause. One has to read it differently from common English to conclude that
“different provision for different purposes or areas”
means anything other than that the Minister can do what he or she wants. That should not have a place in the Bill. I would be grateful if the Minister would explain briefly—I mean briefly—why that is in the Bill. We do not intend to divide the Committee, but we would like to hear something from the Minister to that purpose.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution on this matter. Clause 127 sets out the scope of regulation-making powers as well as the procedures to be used when making those regulations. Subsection (1)(b) makes it clear that regulations made under the Bill are able to make
“different provision for different purposes or areas.”
That is a standard provision that has been used for many years in any Bill that includes delegated powers. It is necessary to provide clarification as to the flexibility of the delegated powers. Different circumstances may require different provisions. The amendment would remove necessary, proportionate and appropriate flexibility from the delegated powers, making it more difficult to deliver the ambitions set out in the Bill, including setting targets, creating deposit return schemes or delivering biodiversity net gain. I hope that was brief enough to clarify what is meant. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Dr Whitehead
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments made: 61, in clause 127, page 114, leave out line 32 and insert “Senedd Cymru”
See Amendment 28.
Amendment 62, in clause 127, page 114, line 35, leave out “the National Assembly for Wales” and insert “Senedd Cymru”.—(Rebecca Pow.)
See Amendment 28.
Clause 127, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 128 and 129 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned—(Leo Docherty.)
Westminster Hall
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Fuel Poverty and Energy Price Caps
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Christina Rees (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the new call list system and ensure that social distancing can be respected. Members should sanitise their microphones with the cleaning materials provided before they use them and then dispose of the materials as they leave the room. Members are also asked to respect the one-way system around the room. They should speak only from the horseshoe and can speak 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.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered fuel poverty and energy price caps.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Ms Rees. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting my application, for two reasons. First, the issues to be discussed are important ones that affect millions of households across the United Kingdom. Secondly, despite the statutory requirement to debate fuel poverty annually, it was not met last year. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Allan Dorans) for agreeing to co-sponsor today’s debate so that it could go ahead if I had not been able to attend in person. I certainly echo the Minister’s closing remarks in the previous debate in December 2018 in so far as I also hope that a cross-party consensus can be reached to eradicate fuel poverty, which, unfortunately, continues to be a scourge across the whole of the UK.
Fuel poverty and energy efficiency are of course devolved matters, yet it is recognised that fuel poverty is impacted not only by a home’s energy efficiency, but by household income and the cost of energy. That therefore leaves the devolved nations exposed to Westminster policies when trying to tackle fuel poverty. We are fighting it with one hand tied behind our backs. As a devolved policy area, fuel poverty is defined and measured differently in different parts of the UK. For that reason, it cannot be directly compared because of the differences in methodology.
In Scotland last year, with unanimous cross-party support, the Scottish Parliament passed the Fuel Poverty (Targets, Definition and Strategy) (Scotland) Act 2019, which sets statutory targets for reducing fuel poverty, introduces a new definition that aligns fuel poverty more closely with relative income poverty, and requires Scottish Ministers to produce a comprehensive strategy to show how they intend to meet the targets. The final fuel poverty strategy was due to be published in September, but, like many other important issues, the covid-19 outbreak has delayed it and it is now expected next year.
The targets set for the 2019 Act are that by 2040 no more than 5% of households should be in fuel poverty, no more than 1% of households should be in extreme fuel poverty, and the median fuel poverty gap of households in fuel poverty is to be no more than £250 in 2015 prices before adding inflation. Each of those 2040 targets must be achieved not only in Scotland as a whole, but within each of the 32 local authority areas to ensure that no part of the country is left behind in tackling the root causes of fuel poverty. In my opinion, and I am sure others here will agree, not even one home ought to be caught in the misery of fuel poverty. One home is one too many, but if we can achieve those targets it will at least be a step in the right direction.
The 2019 Act also established a new two-part definition whereby it is determined that a household is fuel poor if, after housing costs have been deducted, more than 10% of net income is required to pay for reasonable fuel needs, and, after further adjustments are made to deduct childcare costs and any benefits received for disability or care need, the remaining income is insufficient to maintain an acceptable standard of living, defined as 90% of the UK minimum income standard, which is the minimum amount required to meet material needs and participate in society. A household is considered to be in extreme fuel poverty if, after housing costs have been deducted, more than 20% of net income is required to pay for reasonable fuel needs.
No doubt there are nuances in how other devolved nations refine their own definitions, but we all use the 10% criteria. A household in Wales is described as fuel poor if it needs to spend more than 10% of its net income on energy costs while in Northern Ireland a household is considered fuel poor if it needs to spend in excess of 10% of its household income on all fuel use. The UK Government, however, moved away from using the 10% benchmark in 2013 when they adopted the low-income, high-cost approach. This categorises a household as fuel poor if the cost of keeping the home at a reasonable temperature is above the national median level and if it were to spend that amount, its residual income would be below the official poverty line.
On the other devolved issue of energy efficiency, it is worth mentioning that energy efficiency does not only go a long way to keeping household bills down; it also helps devolved nations play their part in tackling the global climate crisis, but that is a debate for another day. Indeed, the Scottish Government have classified energy efficiency as a national infrastructure priority and they have been praised by the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee for doing so. In its report “Energy efficiency: building towards net zero” it recognised:
“Scotland has made much faster progress in improving the energy efficiency of its fuel poor homes than England”.
The same report also recommended that the UK Government
“follows the example of the devolved nations by supplementing ECO with central Government funding for fuel poverty.”
For the sake of clarity, I should make it clear that ECO is the energy company obligation.
I expected Members from the other devolved nations to share their experiences, but given covid-19 lockdowns and other business in the House, Members from other parts of the UK are not present. Therefore, I will highlight some of the achievements of the Scottish Government in this regard. They have spent four times as much as the UK Government on household energy efficiency—the highest average annual per capita investment in the UK. In the periods from 2013-14 up to 2018-19, their total investment in domestic energy efficiency was £636 million. The schemes helped more than 150,000 households throughout Scotland to benefit from energy efficiency measures and, by the end of 2021, they will have allocated more than £1 billion since 2009 through energy efficiency programmes to make homes warmer and cheaper to heat. Over the lifetime of the measures installed, Scottish households will cumulatively have saved more than £854 million on fuel bills.
Furthermore, for the next Parliament, the Scottish Government will invest nearly £1.6 billion in transforming our buildings to ensure that emissions from heating are eliminated by 2040 and to remove poor energy efficiency as a driver of fuel poverty. This uplifts heat and energy efficiency spend from £112 million in 2019-20 to £398 million per annum in 2025-26 and will include an additional £55 million to support the scale-up of energy efficiency programmes.
Our progress in this area is encouraging. However, continuing to improve the energy efficiency of Scotland’s buildings—both domestic and non-domestic—and over time decarbonising the heat supply to those buildings, providing warmer homes and better outcomes for our consumers, remains a major challenge. It is a challenge that we are determined to meet. That is why on 16 December, despite the challenges posed by covid-19, the Scottish Government provided a further £16 million investment to improve energy efficiency in fuel-poor households. The money will be used to improve insulation and install energy-efficient heating systems, including those using renewable technology, thereby contributing to Scotland’s net zero targets and helping to meet a key programme for Government commitment. This new investment will help to improve the lives of fuel-poor people in Scotland by enabling them to live in warm, comfortable homes and pay less on their fuel bills by living in a greener and more sustainable way. Importantly, in the current, climate, it is expected to help to secure up to 200 jobs.
Yet we have not lost sight of the fact that energy remains unaffordable for far too many in Scotland, creating hardship for individuals and families. Energy prices and market failures play an obvious part in that, but the building stock in parts of Scotland is old and, all too often, profoundly wasteful in energy. However, as I have said, fuel poverty is driven by more than energy efficiency and, collectively, we need to do more, because thousands of people die from it every year. As winter approaches, we have a responsibility to be mindful that temperature-related excess winter mortality remains strongly evident. We must also take heed of the growing body of evidence that shows links between indoor temperatures and excess winter mortality.
The reason that I applied for a debate on energy price caps is because it is a UK Government fuel poverty policy that relates to energy costs—one of the reserved key drivers of fuel poverty that the devolved nations have no control over. Moreover, like the energy company obligation, this UK Government policy is not the panacea for fuel poverty that was anticipated. Indeed, even Citizens Advice, an organisation that welcomed it as some semblance of protection for households on default tariffs, simultaneously warned that customers could still get a better deal by switching supplier or investing in energy efficiency.
It was evident—in fact, it was pointed out in the last fuel poverty debate, which took place nearly two years ago, before the Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Act 2018 came into force on 1 January 2019—that the energy price caps would be set at a sustainably higher level than the cheapest available tariffs. Therefore, the intention behind the price caps—to protect consumers in England, Wales and Scotland who were on default tariffs—was questionable from the get-go. Additionally, research carried out in 2018 by the consumer group Which? found that the energy price cap would not help customers who were on some of the priciest deals on the market. For example, 30% of customers who were on fixed tariffs, rather than default tariffs, were not able to benefit.
There is also the issue of some energy customers having access only to certain tariffs due to having a prepayment meter. The Competition and Markets Authority’s report recommended the first price cap for customers on prepayment meters because they had fewer options, which resulted in less competition and a higher likelihood of being overcharged. Ofgem introduced that recommendation as a temporary cap in April 2017.
Furthermore, there are customers across the country who are subjected to unaffordable tie-in tariffs because of the type of heating system and meter that are installed in their home. Indeed, I presented a public petition earlier this year on behalf of Falkirk’s Forgotten Villages, a group made up of some of my constituents, whose experience of the THERMAflow wet electric heating system and its related ScottishPower’s Economy 2000 tie-in tariff is not only fuel poverty, but food poverty and physical and mental health issues.
I pay tribute to the work done by the Falkirk’s Forgotten Villages group, and I recognise the significant investment that Falkirk Council has made in agreeing to install a new mains gas system in 86% of the affected properties. That is a great example of partnership working, and it shows what can be achieved. I am looking forward to seeing continued progress with the project and to learning what renewable technologies will be engaged for properties where gas installation is not available. Falkirk Councillor Laura Murtagh, who has also been working on the replacement of wet electric heating systems in her area, says:
“These residents are particularly vulnerable to fuel poverty due to the double whammy of high heating tariffs and inefficient systems, which cause eye-wateringly high bills for residents, who are often in a position to least afford this.”
Councillor Murtagh has been assisting residents in her ward with energy-efficiency measures for some time. However, the rise in the tariff, which was introduced last year by ScottishPower, highlighted the breadth and depth of the issue and galvanised council officials to work at pace over the past year to find solutions for the affected areas. Hopefully, I will hear about progress being made in these areas over the coming months.
Having no access to mains gas affects another group of households, who I understand are generally unable to benefit from the Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Act 2018, as they have little choice in their heating source, pay more for their fuel and are thereby more at risk of fuel poverty. We must not underestimate the economic and social implications of living in a fuel-poor household, and we must do everything in our power to end the dilemma of whether people heat their home or feed their family, because being in that situation causes distress and ill health, both physical and mental.
Earlier this year, the SNP called for a package of measures to help households get through the crisis, and I urge the UK Government to heed the calls and to look urgently at introducing an emergency coronavirus energy grant to support households struggling to pay their energy bills, and to prevent them from accruing unmanageable debts. For example, I saw evidence from one of my constituents, who lives in accommodation within the boundaries of Falkirk’s forgotten villages and uses the THERMAflow heating system, that they pay an average of £170 per month for their home energy. Members will not be surprised to hear that after their housing costs were paid, they were not left with £1,700 of net income to make that energy affordable. That was not the worst that this area of my constituency experienced, nor are high energy costs unique to those using the THERMAflow system. I have heard about bills far in excess of that being received in those remote villages.
Other constituents, who live in a three-bedroom semi with the THERMAflow wet electric heating system and the domestic Economy 2000 meter tariff, had an average monthly energy bill of £270. When they raised an inquiry, they were advised by a ScottishPower representative that THERMAflow wet heating systems can be notoriously expensive to run. That had not been brought to their attention before installation, nor were they given any guidance about how to effectively use the system after it was installed.
ScottishPower is not linked to THERMAflow systems in any way and my reference to it is as the local provider. There are currently 60 or so alternative energy suppliers in the UK who could offer a cheaper tariff but do not. There is no cost-benefit for constituents to switch, which is why we need Government action on energy policy.
It is unacceptable that constituents could not access the cheapest payment method, just because they do not pay by direct debit, in common with many others across the country. Such draconian measures target the least advantaged and most vulnerable in our society. Energy companies must end that discrimination voluntarily or legislation should be introduced to ensure that they do.
Another constituent, who paid ScottishPower for their electricity by direct debit, contacted me in distress in June this year after receiving an outstanding statement for over £1,500, despite making the regular requested payments. That constituent is a vulnerable pensioner who lives alone in accommodation that does not have the THERMAflow system. In fact, their home has no central heating at all. All the distress was down to billing errors because a new meter had to be installed when my constituent did not want to be a victim of an expensive pay-as-you-go tariff.
That is a prime example of someone trying to be prudent, yet still being caught out by a system that lets people down. Fortunately, that constituent was lucky to have the support of their family, who stepped in and found the best available option was to change supplier. That is a bad enough situation, but it begs the question of how a pensioner living alone on a fixed income copes with such a dilemma if they do not have support from their family or others. It exemplifies what I mentioned earlier, about energy price caps being set at a level substantially higher than the cheapest available tariff and proves customers can get a better deal by switching.
It is relevant to point out that ScottishPower is the energy provider in the cases I have talked about and that these are just a few of my constituents who have approached me since the start of the year. These cases do not cover all the constituents who have experienced problems with unaffordable energy costs, because there simply is not time to cover them all. Even with as few speakers we have today, I would be here until next week going through the cases. I am fairly certain that not everyone has come forward for help since I was first elected five years ago.
To summarise, it is deeply regrettable that the UK Government have not met their statutory requirement to debate fuel poverty annually. Additionally, the situations I have highlighted indicate that the energy price cap is not having the desired effect. Indeed, in his statement to Parliament on 20 October, the Business Secretary said that when the price cap on standard variable and default energy tariffs ends there will be
“more to do to ensure consumers will not face unfair prices”.—[Official Report, 20 October 2020; Vol. 682, c. 38WS.]
Although extending the price cap to next year may provide some protection for some customers, that does not go far enough. It is just more of the same. Instead, I urge the Government to prioritise the faster switching initiatives and consumer engagement schemes that the Secretary of State referred to in his statement, and to replace the price cap with a scheme that will ensure all customers are protected from the energy inefficiency and high tariffs imposed by energy providers, which target the least wealthy in our society.
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
The difficulty with following the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) is that he makes such a comprehensive case. As we prepared our speeches individually, there is some repetition in our remarks. However, as he was speaking, I took the opportunity to take out some of the repetition, as it is such a short debate, rather than take up too much time.
Fuel poverty rates vary significantly across the United Kingdom and cannot be directly compared, owing to differences in methodology. However, the latest estimates show that around 11% of households in England are classed as fuel-poor. The figure is 12% in Wales, 18% in Northern Ireland and 25% in Scotland. That is a remarkable difference, and one that needs to be addressed.
In Scotland, fuel poverty is generally measured on the basis that, in order to maintain a satisfactory heat regime, a household would be required to spend more than 10% of their disposable household income on fuel. Some of the areas of the worst fuel poverty in Scotland are in my constituency of Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock. There is deep injustice in that, as many of those areas are in communities still living above the great Ayrshire coalfields that powered the economy and the industrial revolution for centuries and they are home to many wind farms, which power the economy today. Adding to that sense of injustice, those wind farms now play a major part in the transfer of electricity from Scotland to other parts of the United Kingdom. As of April 2020, that transfer stands at 25,000 gigawatt-hours annually—enough to heat 700,000 homes.
Parts of East Ayrshire in my constituency have some of the highest levels of fuel poverty in Scotland—a staggering 32% of households—while neighbouring South Ayrshire, also in my constituency, has one of the lower levels in Scotland, at 22%. Both figures are much higher than the English average of about 11%. Most shockingly, 13% of households in East Ayrshire suffer from extreme fuel poverty and need to spend at least 20% of their disposable income on fuel.
Fuel poverty and the ability to properly heat homes really matters for health outcomes. According to research published in June 2020, cold temperatures are strongly related to cardiovascular and respiratory diseases and they double the risk of respiratory problems in children. Cold also suppresses the immune system, increasing the risk of infections and minor illnesses such as cold and flu. Living in poverty exacerbates existing conditions such as arthritis and rheumatism and negatively affects the mental health of the population by increasing the financial stress on households.
We know that 91 per cent of those who have died from the effects of covid-19 had a pre-existing medical condition—commonly, chronic lower respiratory disease. The End Fuel Poverty Coalition has warned that fuel poverty puts households more at risk from the worst effects of covid-19. Reducing preventable ill health arising from cold homes will be vital in protecting the national health service and care services this winter.
Without any doubt, the major contributor to the existence of fuel poverty is the overall level of poverty in this country. The Scottish Government have already implemented a number of specific actions to reduce household poverty by increasing disposable household income, which have been widely praised by the United Nations and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
The actions include the Scottish child payment, which will commence in February 2021. It will provide families on low incomes with a payment of £10 per week for each child under six, which the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has said will
“make a significant contribution to tackling child poverty in Scotland.”
There are also community care grants, where £25 million has been paid out to help with one-off cost purchases, to allow those on low incomes to purchase essential household items. Since 2013, an annual package of more than £125 million has been paid to mitigate the impact of the UK Government’s welfare cuts, including the bedroom tax, the two-child benefit cap, the five-week wait for universal credit and the sanctions regime.
The Scottish Government aim to reduce fuel poverty to no more than 5% and extreme fuel poverty to no more than 1% by 2040, but they are constrained by their partial controls over benefits and the levers of the economy. They have also recently introduced a child winter heating assistance programme—a new payment of £200 to help families with severely disabled children.
Using Scottish Government funding and advice, East Ayrshire Council and South Ayrshire Council have had external wall insulation fitted to improve energy efficiency, lower costs and improve health outcomes. In South Ayrshire alone, a programme to fit external wall insulation to 1,900 properties saved more than £400,000 on fuel bills per year and significantly reduced admission rates for respiratory and cardiovascular-related conditions in those areas. That project is an impressive example of what can be done, despite the limitations of the devolution settlement, by the Scottish Government in partnership with local authorities to make a real improvement to lives by reducing fuel poverty.
Despite the fact that Scotland’s energy generation, produced by oil, gas and renewables, is way beyond its domestic demand, energy prices for consumers in Scotland remain high. According to Age Scotland, price capping has made little difference to them.
Fuel poverty is a major issue across all nations of the United Kingdom, but it is particularly serious in Scotland. It has also been brought into sharp relief recently by the number of people working from home or on furlough due to covid-19, and the significant increase in their home fuel bills, by as much as 37%. They have generally not been compensated by employers. The reality of fuel poverty is that today, as winter approaches and we gather here in the relative warmth of Westminster Hall, in all our communities there are families with young children who, through no fault of their own, are out of work; people on benefits; working families on the minimum wage or zero-hours contracts; elderly people alone and isolated; the long-term sick and disabled, and many others, including those who have been excluded by the Chancellor from receiving grants, loans or any other benefits in our society, who have to make the difficult decision daily whether to heat or eat.
Although the Scottish Government have made progress on tackling fuel poverty and improving energy efficiency, the constraints of the devolution settlement, under which 85% of expenditure and income-replacement benefits are reserved to Westminster, prevents the kind of structural change and investment required in a country that has a harsher climate and, ironically, generates far more power than it requires. The immediate impacts on levels of fuel poverty are directly related to general poverty and are the direct result of the austerity policies of the United Kingdom Government over the past 10 years.
To effect meaningful change in levels of fuel poverty, Scotland needs powers on welfare, the ability to cap energy prices to affordable levels, and the control of economic levers, and not only in respect of fuel poverty and overall poverty. That would best be achieved by an independent Scotland or, in the short term, by powers being devolved to the Scottish Parliament as a matter of urgency.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) and my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Allan Dorans), on securing this debate. I thank the Backbench Business Committee. This is a very important subject, and it is a shame that there are not more hon. Members here to debate it, but obviously, between covid and the fact that it is a Thursday afternoon, it is understandable that the Chamber is not as full as it would normally be.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk set out the issues really well. He highlighted the need to work on a cross-party basis. It was interesting to hear about the work undertaken with Falkirk’s forgotten villages. I am sure many of us have villages that claim to be forgotten villages. It is great to see them working together to secure a successful outcome and a gas grid connection. Hon. Members can tell how steeped my hon. Friend is in his constituency and the work that he does for his constituents by bringing forward those examples, defending his constituents and trying to effect change, as highlighted today. My neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock, reiterated Scotland’s contribution to the generation of the UK’s energy supply and fuel over the years. He also highlighted how East Ayrshire Council, which is my local authority as well, suffers from fuel poverty and poverty in general, which we would like to be addressed.
On that point, I welcome the fact that the UK Government, the Scottish Government and the three Ayrshire councils today signed off the Ayrshire growth deal. One of the proposals of that deal is for a national energy research demonstrator project at Cumnock. The leader of East Ayrshire Council today highlighted the need to tackle fuel poverty, and hopefully that will make a difference in our area.
I am lucky that I have never had the dilemma of not being able to turn on the heating, or faced the awful choice of what to cut out to turn it on, but as my hon. Friends have demonstrated, too many people do face the awful choice of heating or eating, which is simply not good enough. I am sure that all hon. Members present have dealt with constituents who are in that predicament, or who try to get by by heating only a couple of rooms. Heating only a couple of rooms invariably leads to dampness in the rooms that are not being heated, which obviously exacerbates health problems, including mental health problems, as my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk highlighted. That has a personal cost as well as a cost to the NHS, which has been estimated at between £1.4 billion and £2.2 billion a year in England. If we tackle the problem, we will improve people’s health and wellbeing and cut costs to the NHS. Sadly, National Energy Action estimates that 10,000 people a year die earlier than they should owing to fuel poverty, so we need to tackle that scourge of society.
As has been pointed out, the four nations measure fuel poverty slightly differently, but there is no doubt that Scotland appears to have a higher rate. Some 24% of Scotland’s population are classed as fuel-poor. That is partly due to the fact that about 15% of homes are off the gas grid and have to pay more to heat their homes.
Within that cohort, in the highlands of Scotland, many customers pay about £400 a year more to heat their homes because they are on restricted meters. They pay a surcharge of between 2p and 4p per unit of electricity used. I highlight that to the Minister. Does he think it is fair that people in the highlands have to pay a surcharge while exporting electricity to the rest of the UK? I hope that that can be addressed. We need a better regulatory framework for off-grid heating, to control pricing for people who have to buy oil and gas. I hope that he will take that away and look at it.
It has also been highlighted that covid-19 has had an impact. People losing their jobs or working at home is exacerbating fuel poverty. Energy Action Scotland estimates that fuel poverty in Scotland could increase by 5% owing to the pandemic. Again, that illustrates the need for action.
I welcome the action taken by the Scottish Government to deliver their new child winter heating allowance. Those payments of £200 a year for those eligible start next month and are automatically paid, rather than people having to claim for them, so everybody will get them in full. The UK Government could look at that, along with the request from my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk for an emergency coronavirus energy grant, to which I hope the Minister will respond.
We also need the UK Government to commit to keeping the £20 uplift for universal credit. That additional money has been a lifeline to many, but those on legacy benefits need a similar increase. That is not the responsibility of the Minister’s Department, but I hope he can speak to the Chancellor about that.
As was highlighted, the Scottish Government have brought forward groundbreaking legislation to tackle fuel poverty. We need to know when the UK Government will bring forward their fuel poverty legislation and strategy. We wait with bated breath for the energy White Paper. The Minister said recently, in a written answer, that he is still planning to publish it in the autumn, but I suggest that in Scotland it is already winter, rather than autumn, so hopefully we will see it soon.
One of the most important factors, apart from income and alleviating fuel poverty, is clearly energy efficiency measures. As we have heard, the Scottish Government have led the way on that. I want to focus a wee bit more on the details of energy efficiency—hopefully without repeating too much of what my colleagues have said. Obviously, it is a no-brainer that greater energy efficiency measures can assist in reducing carbon emissions at the point of use, as well as the demand in energy generation, so that also has an effect on reducing emissions further. Clearly, it will assist in reducing fuel poverty levels and it can be part of a green industrial revolution.
I welcome the 10-point plan and the commitment to making £1 billion available next year to make new, and existing, homes and public buildings more efficient. However, while I welcome that, it does feel like a wee bit of a rehash of previous announcements. We remind the Minister that the Conservative manifesto gave a figure of £9.2 billion, so we actually need to see plans for the rest of that money. I also ask the Minister to consider asking the Chancellor to remove VAT on energy efficiency home improvements, because that makes it more cost-effective for those that can only just about afford to install such measures.
Back to the 10-point plan: I welcome the proposals for installing 600,000 heat pumps every year by 2028. Obviously, we need to see how that is going to come forward in terms of an action plan and delivery programme. I request the Minister to look at tackling first those that are off the gas grid, and to make the heat pumps more efficient. To transform people’s lives, the plan needs to align with the installation of energy efficiency measures. Hopefully the programme will be co-ordinated in that way—providing energy efficiency and the installation of new heat pumps.
I do welcome those proposals, but I still think that we need more direct UK Government investment in energy efficiency; again, that comes back to following the lead of the Scottish Government. It is not just the SNP that has said that, but energy companies, third sector organisations and the cross-party Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee in its 2019 report, “Energy efficiency: building towards net zero”. A key point from that report was:
“We note that Scotland’s investment of four times more than England cannot be explained by a less efficient dwelling stock: the latest housing survey data demonstrates that homes in Scotland actually have greater insulation levels than in England. For example, in 2017, 49 per cent of homes in England had insulated walls, compared to 60 per cent of homes in Scotland.”
Also,
“that Scotland has made much faster progress in improving the energy efficiency of its fuel poor homes than England, where in some bands, progress has stalled.”
On that, statistics show relative success—44% of Scottish homes were rated as Energy Performance Certificate Band C or better in 2018, compared with just 34% in England and 28% in Wales. In Scotland, the proportion of properties in the lowest EPC bands of E,F or G has more than halved since 2010, reducing from 27% to 12%. In England the figure is still at 16%, and unfortunately in Wales it is even higher, at 20%, although there is a caveat that the Scottish figures are measured slightly differently. No wonder the BEIS Committee concluded:
“The Government appears indifferent towards how public per capita spend in household energy efficiency in England compares to other parts of the UK”
and
“the governments of the devolved nations treat energy efficiency as a much higher priority than the UK Government.”
That “indifferent” comment is particularly damning. I would like to hear what the Minister has to say about that. I know that £1 billion has been announced, but we need to see the rest of that £9 billion commitment.
The Committee on Climate Change first confirmed that policies were not in place to deliver the UK’s ambitions in energy efficiency to improve homes to at least EPC band C. The CCC stated that regulations for the private rented sector prioritise costs for landlords over the costs for renters, and that minimum standards for social housing were required. By contrast, it observed that the Scottish Government were demonstrating how an effective policy package for energy efficiency improvements in buildings might be delivered. They have actually set out a comprehensive framework of standards, backed by legislation. When will the UK Government put in place a proper framework that covers the private rented sector, social housing minimum standards and owner-occupiers, as the Scottish Government have done?
We know our long-term energy efficiency and investment programme will create jobs that allow the programme to deliver the best value, avoiding spikes in cost, as part of a green industrial revolution. Some 27 million homes need their heating systems decarbonised, so it is critical that they are as energy efficient as possible. That is why it would be good to see a long-term Government programme that looked at energy efficiency as a national infrastructure project. Maybe that could be addressed when the national infrastructure plan is published.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk mentioned the energy company obligation scheme. The committee on fuel poverty states that those measures do not actually help those who most need help, which confirms the need for direct, targeted investment. We do not want another failure like the green deal scheme, which has put more people into fuel poverty rather than helping them. I know that the Minister has acknowledged that appeals for mis-selling by Home Energy and Lifestyle Management have taken too long, but his Department needs to look at and resolve that matter.
Our net zero commitments will be built in to the next investment period for the transmission grid upgrades. ECO and smart meter costs are all being added to consumer bills. What will that mean for energy users of the future? Will the Government start to consider general taxation as a way to create some of that investment in our energy system?
Everybody will be pleased to hear that I am going to conclude my remarks, but I have a few comments from the BEIS Committee report. The Committee stated that the UK Government must not only match Scottish levels of funding but create a joined-up strategy, and that the
“weight of stakeholder evidence suggests that Scotland designating energy efficiency as a national infrastructure priority has helped to improve its policy impact, making energy efficiency policy better designed and funded, longer-term, as well as more comprehensively governed and targeted, than in England.”
I ask the Minister to reflect on that and, I hope, to bring forward similar plans for the rest of the UK.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Rees. I congratulate the hon. Members for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) and for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Allan Dorans) on securing the debate, and thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it.
As all hon. Members have said, the scale of fuel poverty, which is present in every part of the UK, is staggering. I say that as a Member representing a constituency less than 10 miles away in which 5,500 households are in fuel poverty—this problem affects every part of the UK. The point about methodology and the consequent difficulties in making comparisons across the four nations was made, but the headline estimated rates show approximately one in 10 households in England and Wales are fuel poor, one in five in Northern Ireland, and one in four in Scotland. Those figures should be a source of shame for each nation. We have heard about the negative impacts that fuel poverty has on health, mental health, and morbidity.
The debate is timely as this issue affects millions across the country. Older people bear the brunt of it, but families—particularly single-parent families—and increasing numbers of younger people are also affected, and the issue has been exacerbated by the coronavirus pandemic. The impact has been felt not just because of sharp reductions in income, job losses, and people being furloughed or having to manage on some form of financial support from the state, but, as has been mentioned, because more time at home as the weather turns colder means much higher bills. In the context of the near standstill on the installation of smart meters and of the distinct lack of progress on energy efficiency, there is concern that this winter could see even higher numbers of deaths linked to cold homes.
That more can and should be done to address fuel poverty is, in my view, beyond dispute. A number of schemes already aim to tackle the problem, but they operate with varying degrees of effectiveness, and more attention needs to be paid to making them work better and over a long time. In the short term, we really need clarity on how those schemes will operate in the months and years ahead.
The warm home discount scheme was rightly extended by the Government last month, but we still have no idea about what that means for the amount of the discount or whether coverage will be extended to customers who sign up with smaller energy providers, for example. We need urgent clarity on how that scheme will work going forward.
In its last iteration, the energy companies obligation, which the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk referred to, focused almost exclusively on low-income and vulnerable households. We know that it can make a contribution to reducing fuel poverty through energy efficiency measures, and hence lower bills for at-risk households. However, the ECO is now scheduled to run only to 2022. We need urgent confirmation from the Government that it will be extended beyond that date, and that the cuts made to its overall funding at the time when its focus was revised will be restored.
Beyond the targeted schemes that exist, the best way in the long term to combat fuel poverty is to design it out—to systematically insulate and make more energy-efficient the homes in which those in fuel poverty live, which are largely, it has to be said, in the private and social rented sectors. In most European countries, not just those with more temperate climates, the concept of fuel poverty is largely alien because the underlying efficiency of their housing stock is such that bills are entirely manageable by the vast majority of households. That is not the case across the UK, where we still have some of the worst insulated and least energy-efficient housing stock in Europe.
As the Scottish National party spokesperson mentioned, the manifesto on which Conservative Members stood in the last general election contained a commitment to spend more than £9 billion on uprating energy efficiency in homes, including a £2.5 billion home upgrade grant scheme and a £3.8 billion social housing discount fund. We have yet to see any sign of either measure or, I would argue, any real commitment to rapidly overhauling and upgrading the UK’s housing stock.
Although the amount allocated to the recent green homes grant is welcome, as an emergency measure lasting only for this financial year, and with some real questions about how effectively it can be delivered over that period, there is a real risk that it will ultimately have very little effect. Current statutory energy efficiency commitments require all fuel-poor homes in England to be levelled up to the energy efficiency standards of a current new-build home. At present, the Government are a very long way away from meeting those commitments, and we need urgent action to get us back on track.
So far I have focused on general issues relating to fuel poverty, but the title of the debate invites us to pay particular attention to the role of the energy price cap. The Opposition very much welcomed the price cap when it was introduced in January last year. After all, it was an idea—as the Minister may recall, labelled a semi-Marxist proposal by his party—that we put forward in our prospectus in the 2015 general election.
There was a clear need for a cap to address the issue of companies overcharging consumers, manipulating the goodwill of loyal customers and exploiting so-called sticky customers, many of whom are among the most vulnerable in the population. There is no doubt in my mind that the price cap has saved the poorest households considerable sums of money. It is estimated that the amount is in the order of £75 to £100 for those households on the default price tariffs.
However, as hon. Members will know, and as has been mentioned, the cap was introduced only as a temporary measure until such time as it could be proven that conditions for effective competition in the market existed. Those conditions clearly still do not yet exist. We were pleased that the cap has been extended for a further year after Ofgem reported as much to the Government, but issues of concern remain. The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk spoke about the really important one of pre-payment meters.
We know that people on pre-payment meters are often fuel-poor customers. The energy price cap has folded into it the previously existing pre-payment meter price cap, which will lapse at the end of this year. Although protection for those who access their energy in that way will continue to some extent through the default tariff price cap, I hope the Minister agrees that we have to ensure that they are afforded long-term protection when the cap as a whole is lifted, as it inevitably will be.
This has been a good and important debate, albeit an under-subscribed one for the reasons that the SNP spokesperson mentioned. There is a huge amount of interest in this problem, as there should be given its scale. The Opposition urge the Government to devise a more comprehensive strategy on fuel poverty—one that addresses price, efficiency and problems of coverage and access, as well as the root causes. I hope that the Minister can provide the House with some reassurance that his Department is at least thinking along those lines.
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Kwasi Kwarteng)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Ms Rees, in this excellent debate on a really important issue. I cannot think of a more important issue that the House could debate; very few are more important and more relevant to people’s lives than fuel poverty. I congratulate the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) on securing this important debate.
The challenges of fuel poverty and the affordability of energy for households are a huge concern for everybody—not just for members of Opposition parties, but for the Government. I particularly share the concerns about fuel poverty relating to health issues, both physical and mental, and the difficulties people are experiencing now because of the coronavirus pandemic. Obviously, my view of what the Government have been doing and of the importance with which we regard these issues will be slightly different from that of Opposition Members, but I can assure the House that the Government take the issue of fuel poverty extremely seriously.
As the hon. Gentleman mentioned, fuel poverty is a devolved matter, with England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland all having their own fuel poverty targets, their own policies and in many cases their own definitions. However, we all absolutely share the view that fuel poverty is a critical issue.
It is not a new issue. In 2015, we published a fuel poverty strategy for England, which set out the Government’s approach to tackling fuel poverty then. The hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that we should publish a new fuel poverty strategy. We had wanted to publish it at the end of this year, but we are very hopeful that we can get it out early next year, and it is absolutely critical that we do so.
We are also committed to ensuring that there is appropriate scrutiny, so I am very happy to spend some time dealing with some of the issues raised in the debate. Obviously, I cannot deal with every single issue that has been touched on. We have talked about power generation, fuel poverty and the nature of the devolved settlement—it has been a wide-ranging debate—and I will try to deal with some of the issues. It is vital that we work together to tackle this really important problem.
The hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) was good enough to mention the warm home discount, which was not referred to in any of the speeches by SNP Members. Of course, the warm home discount that he was good enough to mention is a critical part of the Government’s fight against fuel poverty. It provides financial assistance to more than 3 million low-income and vulnerable households each winter, and each one of those households benefits to the tune of £140 a year roughly, which represents £3.5 billion of public money and is a significant contribution.[Official Report, 16 December 2020, Vol. 686, c. 2MC.] It does not abolish the problem but it is a significant contribution, and I think that any fair-minded participant in this debate would have acknowledged that. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for doing so.
We have already consulted on extending the scheme until March 2022, recognising that it offers vital support to people in this country, and we are considering how a version of the scheme, or even the scheme itself, can perhaps be extended beyond 2022. These are matters of grave consideration.
Members mentioned the energy company obligation and that, too, is a scheme that has helped people in fuel poverty to improve the energy efficiency of their homes. It is another great GB-wide scheme, which is worth £640 million a year, and it has made an impact in improving the energy efficiency of homes across the country. Since it began in 2013, under—dare I say it?—this Government, nearly 2.8 million energy efficiency measures have been installed in over 2.1 million homes. Again, that is making an impact. The ECO has always been focused on supporting low-income and vulnerable households, providing improvements to give a long-term benefit to those households. Again, we are planning to consult on proposed changes to the scheme in 2021; we want to see how any future scheme can contribute to meeting actual targets.
Another form of assistance and another scheme, which Members were good enough to refer to, is the green homes grant. It was launched only in September and is a £2 billion programme to improve the energy efficiency of homes in England. Other attendant fuel poverty schemes are available in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I remind the House that the green homes grant offers low-income, vulnerable and fuel-poor households up to £10,000 for the installation of energy-efficient and low-carbon heating measures in their homes. There is also a local authority delivery element that considers households of all tenors and of all descriptions within a household income of under £30,000. Local authorities will shortly set out detailed eligibility criteria for that.
The hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) suggested that there would not be time to fully implement the green homes grant. We are looking at that, and there is some flexibility in the system. I look forward to making the case that we should perhaps extend it, and there may already have been an announcement in that respect.
[Siobhain McDonagh in the Chair]
Alan Brown
The Minister will be aware some hon. Members have also raised concerns that people in many constituencies have been unable to get the free quotes required from approved suppliers to progress. Will the Government address that as well?
Kwasi Kwarteng
Absolutely. I suggested that there was flexibility in the scheme. One of the reasons that there would be flexibility is that we are trying to increase the number of installers who have the trust mark accreditation, so that they can do the work. It is a good scheme, and it goes some way towards meeting the manifesto commitment mentioned with respect to the £9.2 billion. There is clearly more work to be done and I fully accept that, but we have made a start. It would be irresponsible to say that the Government are “indifferent” to the problem, as was suggested by the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee. We are not “indifferent” to this important issue, though there may be disagreements as to how best to tackle it. It would be wrong to suggest that we are “indifferent” to that critical and hugely important problem.
The energy price cap was mentioned, and that opens up a whole new avenue of debate. Clearly that has had a role in not only helping people in straitened circumstances, but in helping industry. It has meant that the industry can, overall, be more productive and efficient. That obviously has the effect of driving down costs and thereby driving down prices. We are committed to ensuring fair energy prices for consumers, and that is why we introduced the price cap on default energy tariffs in 2019. The hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich mentioned that it was part of the Labour manifesto many years ago before he even got into the House. I think it was in 2013—the election was in 2015. Clearly, however, there was an issue and the Government accepted that. We introduced the requisite legislation. It is extraordinary that we are being criticised for adopting the policy suggested by the Opposition with which we have, over time, agreed. That shows that the Government do listen to ideas, from whichever quarter those ideas may arise.
The default price cap today protects around 11 million consumers, and a further 4 million households are protected by the prepayment meter price cap from 2021 when that is introduced. It is a big intervention in the way the energy market works and shows that we have a non-ideological approach to the issue. It also shows the Government’s determination to support hard-pressed energy consumers.
In my concluding remarks, I will talk specifically about the covid-19 response. I and the Government are fully aware that the covid-19 pandemic poses unprecedented and unusual problems with respect to fuel poverty. I was struck by the suggestion from the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudon that fuel bills had risen by 37% or maybe it was his colleague the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk. I fully accept that it is a huge increase.
From the outset of the crisis the Government recognised that the covid-19 pandemic would have a huge impact on household incomes and would lead to more straitened circumstances. That is why the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy acted swiftly to secure an agreement with energy suppliers to support consumers impacted by coronavirus. In fact, one of the first calls that I made was to try to organise a response, and the suppliers understood the difficult circumstances that we were in. We managed to reach an agreement as early as March, which provided real support for those who needed help the most.
The energy companies have responded reasonably well. There is a broad understanding in the sector about the nature of the problems. We have done a huge amount. People talked about poverty in general, and the Government have spent unprecedented amounts to protect jobs and incomes. We have extended the coronavirus job retention scheme until the end of March, which has been welcomed across the country. We have also increased the third self-employed grant and provided an uplift to universal credit, which was mentioned. I am happy to say that we have responded to the concerns by providing an uplift to universal credit.
We have also increased the upfront guarantee of funding for the devolved Administrations from £14 billion to £16 billion on top of the spring Budget 2020 funding. Despite all of the support and the unprecedented level of intervention, it is a sad fact that many households will struggle with their energy bills this winter. We are absolutely focused on that and I speak to energy suppliers all the time about how best we can meet the challenges. From 15 December this year, new rules will require energy companies to identify self-disconnecting prepayment meter customers, people who are confronted often with the very harsh dilemma that was pointed out and choose to take themselves out of the prepayment meter scheme. We require energy companies to offer them support to stay on supply and to offer emergency and family-friendly hours and credit to all prepayment meter customers. That is a world where we are driving change to meet the very problem that the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk so ably identified.
In the spirit of cross-party co-operation, I hope I have always extended a warm hand to Members to discuss the issues. We have had an excellent debate. Like the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk, I regret the fact that more right hon. and hon. Members could not participate today, but I am sure the question will be revisited soon. I will be very happy to attend a further debate if that is what Members want and also to meet individual Members on a face-to-face basis to discuss these really important issues.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered fuel poverty and energy price caps.
The Future of Work
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the future of work.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McDonagh. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting the time for this debate.
It is troubling that we are having this debate against the background of a continuing pandemic, which greatly affects how we can engage with the issue. Unfortunately, this House itself is a case study of how the world of work has not kept pace with events and technological advantages that could have allowed much wider participation in this debate. I have had to travel all the way from East Renfrewshire to speak here, despite the existence of perfectly good digital options. That is nonsensical in the middle of a pandemic.
As a member of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, I have a particular interest in the terms and the subject of this debate. I thank the CIPD for its work on this issue, as well as the Institute for the Future of Work, Scope, the disability charity, the City & Guilds Group, the Chartered Management Institute, the Scottish Trades Union Congress, trade unions, local authorities and many others that are contributing to this debate. It is clear to them all and to workers all over Scotland and beyond that we cannot and must not go back to the same old same old. The status quo was not right before, and it is certainly not right for the future.
We need to ask ourselves searching questions about the way work should look, including about hybrid or remote working and the prospect of a shorter working week, and the fundamental question about what value we place on the jobs of those who keep us, our countries and our families functioning and safe. We need to tackle head-on the fact that structural inequality is inbuilt in the fabric and systems of work, and use technology more wisely in the future to ensure that bias on grounds of race, sex and disability, to name a few, is stripped out of recruitment and promotion decisions. We need to do better, and this is the time to take that reality forward.
I have spent much of my professional life looking at work from the perspective of the employer-employee relationship. However, working in further education, I also contributed to preparing young people for work, and increasingly helping older people move to the next phase of a multifaceted working life.
The world of work, and with it the education and skills sector, changed significantly long before covid, but this crisis means that we must take stock and re-examine what the future of work should look like. A recent report by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Task Force on the Work of the Future mirrors the findings of the UK’s Future of Work Commission. Both reports highlight that technological change is not eliminating work; it is replacing existing work and creating new work. More importantly, it is changing the quality of jobs and access to them, driving new forms of polarisation and work inequality. It is estimated that 60% of the jobs being done today in America did not exist in 1940; the figures for Scotland and the UK may not differ greatly.
Change in the world of work is constant, but too often the process has been poorly handled, and many parts of the UK bear the scars. As we move beyond this pandemic, we have to learn from past mistakes. The effect of previous Conservative Governments can be seen in too many areas of deep-rooted deprivation across the UK, where existing jobs were closed down before investment in new jobs and skills could build an alternative future.
The brutality of this transition at its worst was recalled in Scotland just last month. The Scottish Government are recommending that hundreds of Scottish miners be pardoned for offences that they were convicted of 35 years ago as they struggled to defend their jobs, their industry and the wellbeing of their communities against an onslaught from Margaret Thatcher’s Government. As the Chancellor has acknowledged, although it would be better if he also acted on this, a decent society should not leave people behind.
The issue we are talking about today are profound and long term. Changes that fundamentally shift the world of work include developments in technology, the reality of climate change and catastrophes such as wars; and clearly this pandemic is having a huge impact on employment. The situation is not helped by a blundering, blustering Prime Minister and a dithering UK Government, who leave announcements of support until they are too late to stop firms folding and jobs being lost. Andy Haldane, chief economist at the Bank of England, has said that we are at risk of returning to 1980s levels of unemployment—truly a return to the Thatcher years.
Recovery from the pandemic will not be helped by the Prime Minister delivering a half-baked Brexit that will undermine many sectors of the economy. According to the latest employer survey by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, the rise in unemployment will be accompanied by a reduction in training investment, reinforcing a long-standing trend of declining investment in UK workplace training. Just as George Osborne’s austerity agenda held back recovery post-2008, the UK cannot reshape its economy on the back of slashed training budgets.
Kirstie Donnelly, the chief executive of the City & Guilds Group, has warned that
“mass unemployment…left unchecked, will scar the futures of a generation”.
City & Guilds has highlighted the difficulty in accessing work for those who were already disadvantaged, with lower use of personal contacts, previous employers or recruitment consultants. Although working from home can be valuable, it is not a panacea. A recent survey found that those with the lowest household income were six times less likely to be able to work from home. Also, the sectors most impacted by covid include those with the highest share of workers from black, Asian and minority ethnic communities, and with its evident effect on those with disabilities or underlying health conditions, the economic impact of this pandemic will be projected into the future unless there is conscious mitigation.
Kirstie Donnelly is calling on the Government to redirect funding to support skills development that promotes social mobility; perhaps the Minister can indicate if that call has been heard. The Scottish Government have announced a £60 million young person’s guarantee, to ensure that everyone aged between 16 and 24 has the opportunity of work, education or training. Scotland will also have a £25 million national training transition fund, to help up to 10,000 people aged 25 or over to develop the skills required to move into sectors with the greatest potential for growth.
More needs to be done, but with major economic and fiscal powers resting with the Treasury, the Scottish Government need Treasury backing to go further. Rather than bypassing them, as the UK Government shamefully plan to do, the Scottish Government need the Treasury to work with them to address Scotland’s needs in a way that meets Scotland’s aspirations. Scotland does not want another Dido Harding or Rupert Soames to be parachuted in to tell us what we need and what we have to do.
We must look at creating a real baseline of fairness below which people do not fall, whether they are in work, education or employment, or are temporarily or permanently displaced from the workforce. As an alternative, we in the SNP are calling for changes in approach, raising the basic floor of protection and welfare, and for a proper examination of alternatives, such as a universal basic income that recognises and supports people as individuals. It is support for people, for workers and for transition between jobs, firms and sectors that needs urgent attention from the Government, not just protecting the status quo of businesses that are not required to maintain fair work standards or reduce executive pay or shareholder pay-outs.
Through their flagship Fair Work First policy, the Scottish Government lead the way. They are rewarding and encouraging employers to adopt fair work practices by attaching fair work criteria to grants and other funding and to contracts awarded by and across the public sector. They ask employers to commit to paying the real living wage, making no inappropriate use of zero-hours contracts, and providing channels for an effective voice for workers, such as trade union recognition.
I was pleased to back the Independent Workers Union of Great Britain in its fight for equal protection between those who work in the gig economy and those on standard employment contracts. Shamefully, some businesses that rely on workers in the gig economy have continued to operate during the pandemic but have not accepted responsibility for the health and safety of their workforce. We cannot build a resilient and flexible labour market by disadvantaging even further the most disadvantaged in our society, or by stripping workers of the rights that we all used to take for granted. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) is working across parties on his Employment (Dismissal and Re-employment) (No. 2) Bill, which has the backing of major trade unions including Unite, the British Airline Pilots Association and GMB Scotland. It is a response to disgraceful actions by companies including Centrica and British Airways, which tried to use the cover of the pandemic to lay off thousands of workers, only to rehire them on diminished terms.
The UK Government have said that they will not use Brexit to erode workers’ rights. Those are two real opportunities for them to prove it. Will the Minister make it clear that the Government accept the ruling of the High Court, and take the action needed to implement it? Will she also commit to backing my hon. Friend’s Bill, or to bringing forward similar provisions in the Government’s own employment Bill to protect and enhance workers’ rights, as was promised in the Queen’s Speech? If the UK Government will not act, they should devolve the necessary powers and let the Scottish Government continue to match or exceed EU standards. After all, that is what was promised, and Scotland never voted to leave the EU in the first place. It is no wonder that people increasingly see a better independent future.
The pandemic has accelerated existing trends in the world of work. How we build on the technologies and the sectors that have expanded since March this year may mark the pandemic as a tipping point for changes in the world of work and the economy. If we want to build back fairer and stronger, we need to be clear about what we want to achieve. The Future of Work Commission argues that the purpose of work is to support health and wellbeing, and to enable individuals to flourish. Economic policy should reflect that goal. A member of the commission, Professor Michael Sandel, said:
“The pandemic has highlighted a familiar problem: The best-paying jobs are not necessarily the ones that contribute most to the common good, and some low-paying jobs have greater social value than their market value would suggest.”
We can either reflect and act, or allow ourselves to be driven headlong by those keen to capitalise on the position that they have gained over this unique period and hang the human consequences.
The economic movement from high streets and retail centres to digital platforms and delivery vans has without doubt pushed existing legislative and regulatory frameworks to the limit. The court victory by the IWGB last week should just be a start in bringing them into alignment. It is not acceptable for the operators of new technologies to prosper by stripping workers of their rights and protections. They are misusing legislation designed to create flexibility to underpin a new dominance for the interests of capital. The UK Government must recognise that and act.
The CIPD is working with the Institute for the Future of Work and the Carnegie Trust to develop guidance to ensure that investment in new technology optimises returns not only in organisational performance, but in job quality. The findings from that work must help to identify areas where legislative change is needed. It is one thing to have Jeff Bezos planning to use drones for deliveries, but the operators of global platforms must not be allowed to treat their workforce as drones, stripped of basic levels of sick pay, never mind the enhanced level that they should have during a pandemic to make sure that they can comfortably self-isolate when required.
Case studies and analysis by the Institute for the Future of Work highlight imbalances in information, wealth and power that come from emerging global platforms. They demonstrate that our legal framework has not kept pace with the new automated technologies, with their use of algorithmic and artificial intelligence-based decision-assisting tools. The UK Government’s hands-off approach to the issue is negligent and flies in the face of commitments to address structural inequalities at work. We need a fresh approach if we are to ensure that historical inequalities are not projected into the future. That is why I support the call for a new accountability for algorithms Act.
The growth of home working has also led to a growing interest in, and growing concern about, such techniques as keyboard and camera monitoring. In a recent survey, the trade union Prospect found that only a third of workers had even heard of such techniques. That should be of concern to us all.
We need to look across this complex subject as a matter of urgency. We need a dedicated work 5.0 strategy, and it needs to be produced jointly with civil society, trade unions and academics, as well as with businesses, to ensure that we can find a fair, inclusive and forward-looking approach to work. We need the UK Government to do what the Scottish Social Justice and Fairness Commission is already doing. As we approach Brexit, that has never been more important.
In conclusion, I reflect on the comment by David Autor, co-chair of the MIT future of work report, which was published yesterday. He said:
“The sky is not falling, but it is…lowering.”
This UK Government need to reprioritise future good work as a cross-cutting role and they need to act now.
Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)
We have five speakers in the debate before we go to the Front-Bench speakers, so I ask people to consider an informal time limit of seven minutes.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh. I congratulate the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) on securing the debate. I recognise that there could be no more important subject to discuss in this place. I am pleased that we are able to have this discussion. I will range more widely than our immediate situation, but I will end with a word on where we are and what Government might do.
I will start with a quick scan of what has happened since the last recession. We may be entering a different recession that is happening because demand is being choked off in the economy. The 2008 recession was caused because credit was suddenly cut off and that recession ended quite quickly because the Government and the Bank of England pumped credit into economy. That kept the banks afloat, and through them businesses were able to borrow and stagger on.
The crucial issue is that the great bulk of the money that entered the economy after 2008 fed not into people’s incomes, but into their assets, or the assets of those people who had them. We had 10 years of growth until this year, which is a modern record, but we also had the lowest wage growth for 200 years. Median incomes before covid were still lower than in 2008.
We have had a jobs miracle over the last decade, but these were not jobs as we used to think of them. Two thirds were precarious. I do not mean to criticise the Governments since 2008 that took these steps because things would have been far worse if those steps had not been taken, but we need a different way out of this recession, if we can find one. Most of all, we need to build a better economy that is fit for the times.
The future of work is in large part a debate about automation. I recognise the truth of the claim, that in past times technology has not destroyed jobs but created them, but I do not think that is going to happen this time around to any significant degree. For a start, the new industries that tech is creating are not labour intensive. Some 50 years ago the world’s most valuable company, the telecom firm AT&T, employed 750,000 people. Today’s telecom giant, Google, which is worth about the same as AT&T in today’s money, employs only 55,000 people—less than a tenth of AT&T’s workforce.
Crucially, previous tech revolutions replaced manual labour, which allowed human beings to build new cognitive innovations that created jobs. This time we are seeing cognitive tasks taken over by the machines, not just with clerical work but with projects from design to law and others.
There is a dystopian future, which the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire helped to paint. In that future, inequalities of wealth will get greater. People with assets will get richer and those with the right skills will get more successful. Those without those skills and assets will fight over the low-paid jobs that remain. As Daniel Susskind has shown in his book, “A World Without Work,” many people will find themselves locked out of those jobs by their skills, their attitude or their location.
As the hon. Lady said, this year has accelerated trends that were already under way. The principal victims economically of lockdown have been those in the insecure jobs that have boomed in recent years.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is making some important points, but would he accept that there is no inevitability about this, and there is a role for Government? Yes, we need to identify potential growth areas that offer high-skill and high-wage jobs, but we should not simply abdicate from those areas where traditionally we have had a lead, for example in highly-skilled engineering at Rolls-Royce in Derby, and allow those jobs to be offshored, so we lose that potential forever more.
Danny Kruger
I agree that there is an important role for Government, both in cushioning the effects of change and in helping to nudge change in the direction where it will be the most beneficial for us all. We cannot stand in the way of what technology is doing to the world of work, but we can definitely make it a more comfortable experience for our people. I agree with that. I shall come to what the Government might do in a moment.
Although there has been an acceleration of many of the dangerous and destructive trends of recent years through the lockdown, we have also had a glimpse of a different future. I was going to say that the danger is having millions of people in forced unemployment, with all the harm that entails. The hon. Member for East Renfrewshire raised the prospect of universal basic income, but I do not believe that we as a species are ready for permanent idleness.
Kirsten Oswald
I gently point out that universal basic income is not in any way, shape or form about enforced idleness. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to look around the subject and see what potential there is for better work, and more equal and fair work, under a universal basic income system.
Danny Kruger
It may be that we are quibbling over terms, and I recognise and accept that there is a role for Government in subsidising some wages. My concern is that there is danger in the idea that it is possible for Government to provide all the income for all the people, so that they do not have to work—which is, of course, the end result of the proposal for universal basic income.
Danny Kruger
I think it is dangerous to suggest that it is possible for Government to subsidise all the incomes of all the people. We are fundamentally producers, not consumers. I also think that UBI would lead to inflation, as the income that was passed to people would simply lead into higher costs, so we would need a better management than that.
I have spoken of a dystopian future, but there is also a positive vision. The lockdown has given us a glimpse of that different future for some people. In the future more people will work from home. Fewer people will work at all, in the common sense of the word, for a remote boss in a big corporation or organisation. More of our time will be spent with our families and helping our neighbours, and new resources of care and creativity will be summoned from each of us. The Government might directly subsidise some incomes, but in the future that we want that will not be money for nothing; it will be linked to productive, pro-social creative activity. Of course, that is what we saw for some people during the lockdown. We need it for everyone.
As the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire said, there is a benign scenario in which automation frees up human beings to serve each other, while the machines serve the machine. Let the robots manage the logistics, and we can do what human beings are uniquely capable of, because if there is really nothing in the ordinary way of human work that machines could not do, what is the point of humans? What shall we do in the future? Happily, the answer is obvious. Humans should do what humans are good at—namely the activities of care and creativity.
We are good at looking after each other. Everyone knows from their own lives the foundational need for and value of human help when we are weak, at the start and end of life and at moments of illness or trauma in between. That giving of care might possibly be physically possible for some automation of the near future, but it is unthinkable that we would ever want our children to be nursed by a machine, or a robot to hold our hand as we die. In the new age that we are entering, care will be demanded more than ever, because our societies are ageing. McKinsey reports that by 2030 there will be at least 300 million more people aged 65 and over than there are now. Globally, the number of jobs related to healthcare and social care could grow by 50 million by 2030.
Automation is helping that trend. The duties of hospitality, in retail, cafés, shops, banks and hotels—those are the jobs that human beings are good at. We notice that automation is helping that. Richard Sargeant has written that after the introduction of ATMs—cash machines—the number of bank tellers in the economy rose, because ATMs made the banks more efficient and allowed the tellers, the human staff, to focus on the more complex human role of customer support. If we are good at care, hospitality and customer service, we are also good at creativity. I am talking about art and design, digital innovation, horticulture, philosophy, place making, sport, entertainment and education. We have to use the emergence from the shadow of covid to build back better. That means consciously orienting our economy and our education and skills systems towards those functions of care and creativity. That will require and help to create, as we saw in the lockdown, a more local, family-friendly and environmentally responsible society.
Let me finish on where we are now and the immediate priorities. We recently had a great bust-up in the House on the issue of children in families on low incomes and how they are to be fed in the holidays. We finally reached the right place on that, but I do not deny the role that pressure from Parliament and the media played in getting us there. We got the right result, which is a system whereby alongside more cash for families, which will be delivered in a targeted way through councils, we are enabling more support to be provided through communities. That is the model that we need overall. Yes, people need more cash, and we should consider whether the universal credit uplift should be continued or more flexibly targeted. However, more than money, what we all need is people around us, and that is why I am so passionate about civil society and its role. On welfare, yes to generous universal credit, but I want to put in a word for universal support. The original corollary in the design of universal credit was civil society organisations getting alongside people who were unemployed to support them and their families.
Kickstart is a tremendous programme that the Government have introduced to help young people get into employment at this time. Already 20,000 new placements have been created and 300,000 are due over the coming year. What it enables is more than just a job, which might only be temporary anyway. Crucially, it provides the real social support that young people need to develop the skills, care and creativity that they and the economy need. I urge employers—not just small ones, but large ones as well—to make use of the gateway arrangement, which helps employers to recruit and train young people and to develop the skills that will make them prosper. The future jobs fund, which was a similar programme introduced in 2008, had quite a high drop-out rate, and we need to prevent that.
The activity holiday programme, universal support to help people with employment and beyond, and the gateway system for the kickstart programme are a vision for a better future, so I will end on that point.
Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)
I welcome today’s debate and the recent establishment of an all-party group on the future of work, which will be helped by the Institute for the Future of Work.
I want to emphasise a couple of points that have already been made and talk about some of the assumptions that form much of the debate about the future of work. Even before the pandemic took grip, the future of work was attracting widespread attention, reflecting a widespread belief that the robots were coming. McAfee and Brynjolfsson of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have suggested that automation and artificial intelligence are powering a second machine age that is equivalent to the first industrial revolution. Writers such as Martin Ford have confirmed these technological shifts, and such books shape a narrative of epic technological change, often described as the fourth industrial revolution.
Numerous tabloid headlines have reported the likely displaced jobs through automation. Many of the most threatening estimates can be traced back to a single source: a 2013 article by Carl Frey and Michael Osborne that suggested that nearly half of all jobs classified by the US Bureau of Labor are vulnerable to automation. This has been used to suggest the demise of many millions of blue-collar jobs. Alongside that, in “The Future of the Professions”, Richard and Daniel Susskind suggest that technological forces will dramatically rework white-collar jobs—lawyers, consultants, accountants and health professionals. Reading these pieces makes one feel that almost no job is safe, but can we be so certain?
The approach to automation also corresponds, as has been said, with renewed interest in universal basic income. On the right, Milton Friedman, Hayek, Charles Murray and Richard Nixon have all embraced it to roll back the welfare state and replace it with an individualised transaction between state and consumer. The left-wing case tends to focus on the basic human right to a level of subsistence to shield against work poverty or job loss. Historically, Tom Paine, Bertrand Russell, JK Galbraith and Lyndon Johnson and many others have supported it. The policy is also embraced by many silicon valley titans, presumably to offset their personal responsibilities for structural unemployment. We have seen an upsurge in interest in basic income initiatives such as the Alaskan oil dividend and the UBI pilots in Finland, Scotland, Canada, Oakland, the Netherlands and New Zealand.
Much of this appears to be fuelled by the belief that the robots are coming soon. Work is ending with the wholesale replacement of humans by machines. That begs the obvious question: what do we really know about the future of work? How reliable is the data? My basic point is that technology is not destiny. Assertions of technological disruption have always been around. In the 1930s, Keynes argued that by 2030 the average working week would be 15 hours long as new methods of economising on labour exceeded its use.
[Mr Philip Hollobone in the Chair.]
We should be cautious about headlines on the future of work that often derive from a single contested source. The Frey and Osborne analysis estimated that up to half of British jobs were threatened by automation. That was famously used by the Bank of England two years later to assert that 15 million jobs were at risk. How confident should we be about such assertions, not least because wildly different estimates co-exist? For instance, McKinsey Global has suggested that only 5% of jobs are candidates for full automation. Clearly, as has been mentioned, jobs will be created by automation, not just destroyed. For example, Frey and Osborne’s projections do not consider new jobs created in health and social care, the creative industries, leisure, in sectors that require interpersonal human skills, and in the technology and telecommunications sectors. Moreover, many of these studies on the effects of automation do not contain any timelines. I read this morning about a McKinsey report based on an analysis of 800 occupations, which estimated that half of all work activities could be automated by 2055, but then said
“this could happen up to 20 years earlier or later”.
So the data is pretty unreliable.
Many of these studies also underplay patterns of labour regulation that can help or hinder automation. The classic example is one of de-automation, literally, through the resurgence of thousands of hand car washes and the disappearance of the automated alternative, driven by the exploitation of migrant labour in the deregulated British labour market. These are questions of politics, not technological destiny.
To return to the statistics briefly, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development estimates that 9% of jobs are automatable, yet it also suggests that that is an overestimate, given the likely political and social constraints, redeployment and future job generation. It concludes that
“automation and digitalisation are unlikely to destroy large numbers of jobs.”
A TUC paper estimates between 10% and 30% of jobs to be at risk, yet concludes that the likelihood is that those jobs could be replaced by new occupations and professions. The evidence is at best inconclusive. The UK Government do not appear excessively worried. Their industrial strategy White Paper suggests a growing demand for high-skilled jobs and anticipates an extra 1.8 million new jobs in the next 10 years. That was before the pandemic, obviously.
In a thorough review of the literature, Phil Brown and his colleagues at Cardiff University concluded that technology is not destiny and that human decisions will determine the future of work. Their study states:
“Most studies focus on the potential for automation, without incorporating into their models economic and social factors that may stimulate or deter the replacement of workers by technology.”
In other words, politics. So the future is far from certain; it depends on the policy and political choices that we make.
In recent years, UK labour markets have seen a significant increase in atypical work, including elements of the gig economy. Prior to the pandemic there were some 5 million self-employed, 1 million workers on zero-hours contracts and 800,000 agency workers—since 2008, there have been rises of 24%, 450% and 46% respectively. Those comparatively high numbers are the product of our labour law and policy choices, resulting in work that is less regulated and protected and contributes to sluggish wage and productivity growth.
I will conclude with a few points. First, there is little consensus about future technological disruption. Secondly, the research is contested and, at best, unclear. Thirdly, it is prone to speculation and contains serious methodological flaws. This suggests that a more cautious approach is required, with an emphasis on our political choices rather than reverting to conjecture fuelled by technological determinism. There is nothing inevitable about the future of work. There are political choices about creating and rewarding good work and in upholding the dignity of labour, cruelly exposed by the pandemic. That is why it is so good that we are discussing the subject in Parliament this afternoon. I congratulate the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) on securing the debate.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) on securing this important debate, and I compliment her on her speech and for acknowledging the important role that the trade unions must play in planning ahead for the world of work. Perhaps the subtitle for this debate on the future of work should be “Building Back Better”. I am firmly convinced that there must be a role for Government in building back better; it cannot simply be left to the markets or a matter of nudging. When it comes to many of the employment practices that we have seen arising from the pandemic, notably fire-and-rehire, the Government must intervene and stop that happening.
I am sure that everyone in this room would agree that whatever the future of work looks like, trade unionism must be at the heart of it if we are to see well-paid, highly skilled and secure jobs not just for ourselves, but for our children and our children’s children. I have been a member of a trade union, and indeed of the Labour party, since I was 16, so an awfully long time now. In fact, I think it is since I was 15—I may have lied about my age.
It would be remiss of me, as chair of Unite the union’s parliamentary group—[Interruption.] Thank you, comrades. It would be remiss of me not to refer to the strike action that Unite members are being forced to take at the Barnoldswick factory, birthplace of the jet engine, where Rolls-Royce is cutting 350 highly skilled jobs and moving the work offshore. It is fair to say that workers at Barnoldswick are cutting-edge, world-beating—quite simply, the best in the business. Those are surely exactly the sorts of jobs that we need to keep, create and encourage, yet Rolls-Royce—sadly, the Government seem to be standing idly by—is sending them abroad, to Singapore, and ironically to a factory that the Barnoldswick workforce helped to set up. They had been given promises that doing so would never put the home site at risk, but that has turned out to be a gross betrayal of loyal staff by Rolls-Royce management.
It is no wonder that Rolls-Royce workers are striking to save the jobs. They are doing so not just for themselves and their families, but for future generations and for their community. The strike, which was completely avoidable, is now set to continue until Christmas eve and quite possibly beyond that. It is not a pleasant experience to be on the picket line at this time of year, when it is cold and dark, but their cause is just.
The workers will not back down, and neither will their union. The jobs are simply too valuable, not just for the workers and their community but for the whole economy. It is a battle—the battle for Barnoldswick—and they must not lose it, because let us be clear that once the jobs go, they will be gone for good. It is an open secret that these 350 redundancies, on top of the 500 that have already taken place over the last two years, would almost certainly spell the end of that historic site. With only about 150 workers left, the site will simply become unviable. It is not overstating the case to say that that would be nothing less than ripping the heart out of the community. It would be an appalling legacy for the iconic Rolls-Royce brand.
The Government should not be sitting on their hands. People should bear it in mind that Rolls-Royce is doing all that while benefiting from billions of pounds of taxpayer support—support that is meant to be keeping jobs in industry going during the pandemic. It gets worse, because specifically the company is set to receive another £50 million of Government funding for producing a new component for the world-beating UltraFan engine, Rolls-Royce’s next generation of green jet engines. But that must be completed by Christmas for the company to get the money. I am told that Rolls-Royce is currently lobbying the Government to give it an extension to that deadline, and Rolls-Royce is blaming covid for the delay, but that simply is not the case; it is the strike that is preventing Rolls-Royce from meeting the deadline. The workers of Barnoldswick assure me that if the dispute were resolved tomorrow or even today, they could produce that part by Christmas, and only the Barnoldswick workers can make the component, so let us be absolutely clear about that. No other factory and no other workforce in the world have the skills to do that, because if it were possible elsewhere, believe me, we can be absolutely certain that Rolls-Royce would be sending that work there. It is ultra-high-end engineering, and it needs the world-beating engineers at Barnoldswick to deliver the goods.
The Government have a very easy way to end this dispute. The have the power to end it tomorrow if they want to. They can simply refuse to extend the deadline for Rolls-Royce, which would mean that it had to get back to the negotiations, take the job cuts off the table and commit to a viable future for Barnoldswick.
In my capacity of the chair of the Unite the union parliamentary group, I have written to the Rolls-Royce chief executive, Mr Warren East, asking him to take a leaf out of the book of the Barnoldswick workers and show some loyalty to Barnoldswick, the community and the iconic Rolls-Royce brand itself. If Rolls-Royce cares about its bottom line—we can all be sure that it does—that should force it back to the table, but time is running out. I want to take this opportunity to express my solidarity with the Rolls-Royce strikers. I once again offer my full support to them in this historic battle for that historic site, and I hope that other Members will offer their support and solidarity too.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) for introducing the debate.
It is always a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris). He is absolutely right to speak up for the Rolls-Royce workers. We are seeing that the opportunities for employers come on the back of working people when they offshore jobs. That is one of the biggest threats to our economy, and I support Unite in its battles against employers who have done such things.
The reason why the people of Barnoldswick have come to our attention is very much at the heart of my speech. Work defines us; it gives us dignity. It is where we spend most of our waking hours, build our security and friendships, display our skills, and contribute to society. Without work, we lose our identity, purpose and self-worth.
Tragically, for many, work has been hardly an edifying experience in recent times. Slavery conditions, poverty wages, insecurity and uncertainty have framed the working experience for too many. Recently, we have seen a sharp increase in zero-hours contracts, on which many people languish at the behest of their employers. Many jobs, good and bad, hang in the balance as we face a catastrophic tsunami of job losses. We have to build back better.
We have to decide what kind of economy we want to build. There have obviously been advances in technology and automation, but the word “growth” was mentioned again in this debate, and we have to understand what it means. Does it mean depth, or does it mean forever chasing profits for those at the top of organisations at the expense of workers?
I want the Minister to comment on how her Government view economic thinking such as that of Kate Raworth, who is looking at things such as doughnut economics and the value being put in, and Julian Richer, whose work on the good business charter looks at how work can have a more ethical base, including a real living wage, environmental responsibility, fairer hours, paying fair tax, employee wellbeing, a commitment to customers, employee representation through a trade union, diversity, inclusion, timely payments to suppliers and ethical sourcing. That would reshape the economy for the future in a far better, qualitative way.
Before I talk about my constituency, which is due to be the worst-hit area in the country from the current economic crisis—we could see unemployment rise from 2.8% last year to 27% next year, because the recovery from the last economic crisis was built on insecure jobs—I want to highlight three areas where we could see real movement in reshaping the economy. First, we should build sectoral councils. The fragmentation of the economy is not helping our response, so we need the economy to come together. Establishing sectoral councils will provide a framework for employers, workers, trade unions, academics and industrial leaders to come together, build back better, institute a skills analysis and look at the economic opportunities of those sectors. The fragmentation is preventing that from happening, but linking with local and devolved authorities and local enterprise partnerships would be a real opportunity to focus on the future and ensure that the big issues such as climate mitigation are at the heart of the discussions. It is also about building a base for sectoral negotiations to determine things such as pay, pensions terms and workers’ conditions in those sectors.
Secondly, I want to look at the university and further education sector. I have to say that I was disappointed by the debate earlier this week on the union learning fund and the opportunity it brings. Education is at the heart of growth: if we enable people to reach their potential and the extent of their skills, we can do so much more in local economies.
We see real under-employment in the city of York in my constituency. The two universities have now come together with the two further education colleges to form Higher York in order to shape the economy, but we need the education sector to have a more central role in establishing the future of the economy, looking at things such as the skills gap and inequality, and at the wider community interest—not just from the perspective of education alone, and not just looking at higher-end skills. In my city, 30,000 people work in areas such as retail, tourism and hospitality. Those jobs will not be there next week, next month and possibly next year, and we therefore need the university and further education sector to intervene and to address the many challenges that we face.
Perhaps the most difficult conversation that any of us have had over the past eight months has been with small employers and the self-employed, who have poured everything into their businesses—their money, their time, their resources and their lives—only to see them melt away without Government support. In building back for the future, we need to build more resilience into business by building collective support and looking at more social models of business support, to ensure that businesses are more sustainable in the future as they move forward—looking at the co-operative models and social enterprises that have good reach into their communities and real roots, which can address some of the real challenges around employment, too.
I turn briefly to my constituency of York Central. Already the high street is the worst impacted in the country—we have lost around 60 businesses to date, and I daresay there will be many more to come. As those businesses have been struggling, Government grants have been slipping through their fingers into the hands of leaseholders who live offshore and do not pay their taxes in our country. The taxpayer is subsidising that lifestyle, and hard-working people in our local businesses and shops do not see any of the benefits. There has to be responsibility when the Government hand out resources. Although they are saying they are supporting these times, we have to look where that money is ending up—it is certainly not ending up supporting business. I call on the Minister to look at how we can have proper investment and a responsibility put on property tycoons to ensure that the money is not just invested in their tax havens.
On a green new deal, the BioYorkshire project is incredible. It will create 4,000 jobs and retrain 25,000 people to have the skills to bring about a real revolution in the bio-economy, putting York at the heart of that—not just in the UK, but globally. The Government are tying this to a devolution deal that could be two and a half years away, but we need investment in those jobs and skills in York now. Before next Wednesday, can the Minister have words in order to bring that forward, so that we can start the work in creating the jobs that we are losing hand over fist at the moment?
Finally, and most importantly, if we are to have a strong future of work, we need to protect workers’ rights and to think about the real challenges that workers face in the workplace today. After 50 years of looking at health and safety, it is timely that we now have a health, safety and wellbeing commission to look at the wellbeing of workers. We know that issues such as mental health, bullying in the workplace and even the fallout of occupational health services were not discussed 50 years ago. We do not have a legislative framework to protect workers, particularly those who experience issues such as stress, poor mental health and bullying. We need to ensure that such a framework is introduced. Finally, we need to introduce a right to learn and to ensure that the union learning fund is invested in, because this is the opportunity to rebuild our economy.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
A Westminster Hall debate would not be complete without Jim Shannon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
You are very kind, Mr Hollobone. I thank the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) for setting the scene, and everyone who has contributed. This is the second time that I have followed the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) in Westminster Hall. I do not know whether we are a pair—one speaks and then the other speaks—but I have always followed her. That may be how life is, but there we are.
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. These are incredibly worrying times for the nation—for those with vulnerable family and loved ones, for those with small businesses, and for those with jobs in various industries. The minimum wage is really a minimum for those who have had their hours reduced; they cannot even pay their bills. We do not have all the answers in this place, and we do not know what tomorrow will bring, but we know that we need to work to give opportunities no matter what comes with the new days. We look with expectation to the Minister in relation to that.
Unison has given me a briefing, and I want to use some of those facts in my speech. We are facing the worst jobs crisis in a generation. Up to 1 million people on furlough are in jobs that will not return after covid-19. Those people are significantly less likely to have qualifications than the general population, which will have an impact on the jobs that will be available to them. Some 130,000 of those people do not have an equivalent to a level-2 qualification, and a further 250,000 do not have a level-3, so the ability to support people who lose jobs in such sectors depends on the support available to them.
We always look to the Government and the Minister for help because that is their job. They have been voted in by the people and tasked with providing support, and I believe that they have a responsibility to do so, so how can we help people in those sectors? The number of young people experiencing long-term unemployment has tripled over the last quarter—some 33,000 of 18 to 24-year-olds. A further 65,000 have been out of work between one and two years, with the risk of long-term unemployment should the job climate persist.
That is all very concerning given that we know the scarring related to long-term unemployment for young people. It may impact their future job opportunities, earning potential, and physical and mental health. Take the effect of coronavirus in my own area. The Library’s provision of constituency claimants shows, using what they refer to as the alternative account, that there were 3,035 unemployed claimants in Strangford in August 2020, which is some 1,400 higher than in August 2019. That trend is worrying—even more so when we realise that those who are on furlough will potentially be added to it. It is 5.4% of the population aged 16 to 64. That was what it was when I came to this House in 2010, and we are back there today, unfortunately. It is deeply disturbing.
The furlough scheme extension is welcome. We thank the Government for all that they have done. We will not be churlish about it because many people are in jobs today because of the commitment that the Government made, but we must do more to ensure that people have jobs to come back to. Small and medium-sized businesses in particular have vulnerable staff who are so stressed about going back to work that they are unable to return. Again, I believe that the Minister and the Government must take steps to invest in job protection and in future jobs.
I am thinking of the plethora of small, independent shops and businesses. I will give one example, because it comes to mind: a small kelp shop. Kelp is basically seaweed. This person has found a market for it, made a business out of it, and then came a cropper due to covid-19. There were many one-person starters that were full of hope for the future. I believe that those workers are on universal credit while applying for a new job.
We need more support for the backbone of our workforce: the small and medium-sized enterprises that cannot allow people to work flexibly from home, and depend on the office block buying their sandwiches and coffee. I understand that we cannot tell the future. Oh boy, what if we could? We would all pick the six numbers for Saturday night. We would do many other things, of course, but we would do that if we had the opportunity. However, that does not mean that we do not have to future-proof. That must begin with support for owners of SMEs, to give them confidence that their business will survive, that they will come out the other end, and that we will be here to support them.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
We now come to the Front-Bench speeches. The guideline limits are 10 minutes for the Scottish National party, 10 minutes for Her Majesty’s Opposition and 10 minutes for the Minister. Then Kirsten Oswald will have three minutes at the end to sum up the debate.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) for bringing this debate to the Chamber. What we have to do—and many Members have already done so—is set out the context, both past and present. Change is inevitable. It is coming, and it may just be an age factor, but I realise we cannot roll back time and it is not all bad. There are challenges, but there are also huge opportunities. I do not believe that the future need be either dystopian, or indeed, apocalyptic. The future can be bright if we fight and deliver a fair and just society for all, and that is what we need do.
I also think we need to remember the past, because it was not all halcyon days. My hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire was right to praise the Scottish Government for pardoning minors for convictions in the industrial struggle back in the 1980s, but let us not have any rosy picture about the nature of the jobs: the work in the pits, the work in the yards, the work offshore and the work on fishing boats. It was hard. It was dirty. It was dangerous. I do not think any of us regret that our children are not required to serve in that. So let us remember with pride, but let us also remember that in some ways, the change—in the automation and moving away from those jobs—has been a good thing. The same can occur in a society if we mould it in the manner that we want.
Change is inevitable, as has been mentioned by all speakers. Pre- and post-covid, there were changes. Before covid, in IT automation, the pace, the number of jobs; that was referred to by others, and we spoke about the union learning fund. The number of jobs that youngsters entering into the labour market are required to carry out will be significantly greater than in the days of my grandfather, who almost got a gold watch for going into the same place day in, day out for most of his life. Post covid, the changes have simply accelerated, and we are required to bear that in mind. There are huge challenges, that I will come on to, but equally, we have seen how Zoom has transformed with our very own eyes in these last few months.
New jobs have come about, but sadly, far too many jobs have been lost. Therefore, the first target has to be tackling unemployment. History tells us the dangers that all societies—and especially our own—can face from the challenges of mass unemployment coming around once again. It is not just the difficulties that can be faced in the body politic in the world of politics and governance, but the challenges that individuals face when we see our jobs go, and then heroin and alcohol flood in, so we require to tackle unemployment with a will and with vigour.
That comes back to the basic premise: we need to minimise the challenges and we need to maximise the opportunities. It can be done, because things do need to be done. We do need to upskill our people, as the buzzword goes; we do need to deliver that green new deal to tackle climate warming; we do need to ensure that society allows access for all, especially the disabled and most especially, the young.
Kirsten Oswald
I am particularly troubled by the story that a young friend of mine told me. My young friend has a learning disability, but has held down a job and done very well at that job for a significant number of years. He recently lost that job because of the challenges of covid, and I am particularly concerned by what this will mean for people such as him in the future. We cannot build that inequality into the future. What does my hon. Friend think about that?
Kenny MacAskill
That is why we have to ensure that we tighten employment legislation that has been loosened over recent years. Other speakers mentioned that, but this is about ensuring rights for all and, as I say, especially the disabled. It also comes on to the point about workplace changes. I have mentioned the nature of the jobs that we have lost, but there was one benefit that came from them, and that was unionisation. It was and remains important that workers have rights. I always remember reading that the largest single site employer in the United States is not Boeing; it is not even the Pentagon. It is Disney World. I recall that my grandfather started his training as a carpenter at Parkhead Forge. It was the largest single site employer in Scotland—up to 40,000 people—and is now a retail shopping centre. The problem is that it has brought about the gig economy, and made it difficult for people to come together to organise. We must have a balance between capital and labour.
Mention has been made about the IWGB. I have been involved with it on foster parents while others have worked with it on the gig economy, but we need to ensure employment rights. That is fundamental. We must address the nature of the work that is taking place, because the gig economy is grinding people down. I am fortunate enough to be a good friend of Paul Laverty, who, along with Ken Loach, wrote the movie “Sorry We Missed You”. That is fiction, but it is based in fact: the story could have been written in 101 different ways, all about the exploitation of individuals who are low paid, hired and fired, and used and abused. They are human beings, not battery hens. As political bodies, we and the Government must ensure that we provide protections for them. That is most certainly necessary.
We must also remember the challenges that are coming around because of covid and those that existed before, such as the gig economy, which the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) mentioned. During my brief time-out from politics, I went away and wrote books. I wrote one about the dispute in Glasgow in 1919, when, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) will know, there was also a huge strike in Belfast, as well as in areas of England. What people forget is that that was not just a battle in George Square between the forces of law and order and our industrial workers, but a strike for a 40-hour week.
If we went out in the streets today and spoke to people, they would say, “Give me a 40-hour week. I’d be grateful if I had a 40-hour week and could live on what I earn.” More than a century on, it is shameful that people cannot get a living wage. That movement was driven because men were coming back after being demobilised from the first world war and there were going to be challenges. Before they went on strike for a 40-hour week, they had argued for a 32-hour week.
We need to start looking at a four-day week, but ensuring that people can pay their way. Countries such as Sweden have shown that working for four days means the same—or increased—productivity as working for five. Far too many people in our country are not working for 40 hours a week, but for far longer. We need to address that because, frankly, it is shameful and there is a better way.
This is not just about the gig economy, but about the type of work that needs to be done. The hon. Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) was quite right: social care is absolutely essential, but it cannot be used and abused. It was hard enough to be on a fishing boat or in the pits, but working for hour upon hour on your feet as a social care worker is miserable. We need to ensure that those jobs are properly recompensed and protected, which comes back to the point about balance between capital and labour, the need for unionisation, and the need for a living wage and not simply a minimum wage.
Society can be better, but there is work to do. We must build and retrofit houses, and do the same for schools, hospitals and other buildings that will be necessary to meet the climate change challenges that we face. We can choose a better way. There are significant challenges; we cannot turn back time, but if the Government are prepared, willing and able to ensure that the rights of workers are protected and that the excesses of individual employers are reined in—there are good employers out there, but some are deeply exploitative—we can get that balance.
Countries such as Germany, which has a right-of-centre Government whom I would not necessarily support, have found that better productivity, better quality of life, and higher standards of living can be and are better delivered by respecting trade unions and even having them on boards of directors—not just in public companies, but in private ones. Will the Minister ensure that adequate workers’ rights and protections are provided? If we provide them, the future can be bright and we can build back better, but the Government must ensure that they take charge to protect workers’ rights, rather than allowing a race to the bottom.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Hollobone. I join colleagues in congratulating the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) on securing this debate on the future of work, and on her speech. The range of contributions that we have heard from hon. Members, and the thought that has gone into each, show that the issue should, increasingly, be on the parliamentary radar.
The hon. Member for East Renfrewshire was right: the status quo is not good enough, and we cannot go back to the past. Many issues have been raised. The hon. Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) talked about the importance of effective employment programmes. My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas) rightly said that technology is not destiny and that the future is far from certain. My hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) talked about how building back better cannot be left to the market, talking about a role for Government, communities and the unions. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—it is always a pleasure to speak in a debate with him—talked about worrying times for the nation. He is absolutely right. This is an issue that we must all face together, with the concerns of our constituents very much at the forefront of our minds. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) talked effectively about dignity, identity, self-worth, and the need to reshape our economy and to look at sector councils.
I want to build on some of those themes. The issue has many dimensions. Technological change is creating the future. To some extent, it might replace work but in truth it might also not replace work—it might create those new jobs. How we embrace and shape the technology and changes of the future is down to the choices that we make. Past mistakes cannot be allowed to continue. We should not come out of this period with greater division than we saw not just going into the crisis but before, and with a deeper digital divide creating those who are in and those who are out of prosperity in future.
The imperative that a decent society does not leave people behind must be our priority. Employment will be one of the key themes of 2021. What has to be critical is not just how we create good work and jobs for the future, but access to those jobs and fair and decent pay to go with them. Why is that? Because more than 1 million jobs have been lost during the crisis. Vacancies remain 30% below pre-crisis levels, and forecasts suggest that unemployment will remain substantially above its pre-pandemic level well into 2022.
Too many entered the pandemic in an already precarious position. More than 12 million households began the year with less than £1,500 in savings. They have been hit hard as jobs and income have been reduced. Jobs are becoming less resilient, not more. The latest ONS figures show that more than 1 million people are on zero-hours contracts, almost double the number in 2013. Ethnic minorities, young people, single mothers and the lowest paid have seen their employment hit the hardest, with a double hit on BAME communities disproportionately affected by the health crisis. As has been said, they are the least likely to be able to work at home and those who will struggle for access to the new jobs of the future.
Yesterday, the Government announced an additional £8 billion for green funding for the future. That is welcome, but it does not remotely meet the scale of what is needed to tackle the climate emergency and is far smaller than the €27 billion pledged by France or the €38 billion by Germany. That is why Labour has launched its own jobs-rich green recovery action plan, which includes action to recover jobs, and investment and co-ordination to secure up to 400,000 good, green additional jobs; to retrain workers by equipping them with the skills needed; to deploy the green technologies of the future; and to rebuild business with a stronger social contract between Government and businesses to tackle the climate crisis and ecological deterioration, while promoting prosperity and employment.
I will also make mention of co-operative strategies, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central. A co-operative strategy for recovery that builds from the bottom up, looking at community resilience in our recovery, is an important part of our future. Indeed, those are themes to be discussed at the West London Business conference tomorrow on the future of aviation and communities.
The future of work must mean fair work, and a social security system fit for purpose. Too many workers have had inadequate employment rights and precious little bargaining power. The pandemic has highlighted that the social security system that should underpin those workers’ autonomy in the labour market is woefully inadequate.
It is also important for the Government urgently to conduct and publish an assessment of the financial barriers to self-isolation, including the level of statutory sick pay. If such gaps are not filled, a cohort of people will continue into the next period having to make an impossible choice between self-isolating and putting food on the table. We need to support people back into work, so I hope that the Minister will reconsider the punitive culture behind benefit sanctions, brought back by the Government in July.
The future of work—a resilient, inclusive future, with good work for all—is critical as we think about how we build back better. The theme is now international, reflected in recent reports on the future of work published by the World Economic Forum, the International Labour Organisation, the OECD, the RSA and, of course, the Institute for the Future of Work, which I thank for its work supporting the APPG and its briefing in advance of this debate. Many of these debates look at the acceleration of changes in workforce practices, including the advent of automation and AI.
As change comes, however, we must lead rather than lag. There is a need to review concerns around workers’ rights and protections as labour market structures change, and issues around the future of good work and of workplaces post-covid must be matters for debate and policy. It is not a new area: 30 November marks the fourth anniversary of the launch of the Taylor review, which looked at insecure and exploitative work, the quality of work, and modern workplace values. It is time to refresh that: the Government have only passed legislation on seven of the 53 recommendations to date, despite accepting much of that report. Furthermore, in an answer to a parliamentary question today Ministers were still not able to define when the Employment Bill will be coming to Parliament.
Many employers have sought to do the right thing by employees in the uncertain period in which we live, and unions have been working closely with many of them. Other employers have sought to take advantage of the pandemic to erode workers’ pay and terms and conditions, as discussed in the “fire and rehire” debates in the House. That has exposed the need to strengthen our offer to workers and to enhance the protection afforded them. It also raises how vital it is that we listen to workers and include their views in how we shape the future of work.
According to research by the Fabian Society, some 58% of workers say that they are given no opportunity to influence how technology is used in their workplace. Emerging technological change in workplace practices must look at improved transparency, accountability and involvement: that should be at the centre of any Government plan. That plan could include how the Government will work shoulder to shoulder with trade unions to stand up for working people, as well as tackling insecure work and low pay, and transforming the training opportunities available to people at every stage of their lives, with schools, further education and higher education all part of that.
That is why it is so important to reconsider and rethink the proposed cuts to the union learning fund, which is so effective and vital to adult education. It is also important to take tough action to raise standards and root out exploitation in lower paid under-regulated sectors. An ambitious vision for how technology can be used to open up and improve opportunities for all workers should be core and part of a commitment to ensuring that the future of work is resilient and inclusive. Alongside that, we should also be looking to explore and review rights such as the right to disconnect, giving remote and electronically connected workers the tools to disconnect to ensure that their mental health and work-life balance are protected and respected. That issue was highlighted effectively by the union Prospect.
We must look at effective employment support. People must have access to work for the future. Opportunities for access must come through effective Government schemes; the latest figures show that the Government’s Kickstart scheme has so far created opportunities for around 3% of the 600,000 unemployed young people.
We also need to make sure that these are high-quality placements with built-in training opportunities for young people that provide a transition into longer-lasting employment, so that around the country opportunities for young people are sustained into a long-term future. That is important because effective support in work and out of work—including an effective social security system that supports workers—is vital. People will be looking to switch jobs following changes in the labour market perhaps 11 times, on average, in their lifetime. That is very different from the world in which past generations grew up.
In conclusion, future generations will judge us by the choices we make today to support livelihoods and businesses, tackle the unemployment crisis, and face up to the realities of the climate emergency. An economic plan needs a jobs plan, and a jobs plan needs a skills plan. A credible green recovery with sustainable jobs—something that people across the world are looking to—requires co-ordinated action across Government, harnessing investment and regulation, working alongside local government and the private and voluntary sectors to deliver system-wide change right across our country. We cannot let the failure to address pre-covid inequalities, laid bare by this crisis, now be an injustice that we allow to be passported into the future.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, and to respond to the debate. I look forward to further debates on this issue. I greatly thank the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) for securing this important debate on a critical topic for the UK. It has been interesting and thoughtful, and the introductory speech was exactly that—as were those from Front-Bench colleagues. I particularly welcome the new APPG on the future of work, which will look at work going forward and the role the Government take. I will try to pick up on some of the points hon. Members have made.
Reflecting on what Members have said, we recognise that the labour market is fluid. We will have to continue to adapt to the forthcoming challenges, emerging technologies and the changing nature of available employment, and the skill sets that are required to remain agile enough for this change in the world in work. My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) reflected on the jobs miracle, the barriers and impacts of where we are now compared to where we were, and the inequality challenge. I absolutely recognise the points that my hon. Friend made.
We also heard from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) who has the art of being in two places at once—brilliantly done today. I failed at that earlier, and I apologise. The hon. Gentleman pointed out, rightly, that for many families this is an incredibly worrying time. The Department for Work and Pensions has stepped up in this pandemic so that we are supporting as widely as possible, but I fully recognise the impact on SMEs and our local independents.
We heard from the hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill) who highlighted the social care challenge—it is absolutely important. We have had a care academy in Scotland through the DWP that has been brilliant, and has highlighted the variety of roles, and impacts, that can be made by those who are part of that amazing world making a daily difference to people’s lives. It is important that we sell and point out that opportunity in the world of work.
I want to pick up briefly on UBI. I believe, fundamentally, it is the wrong approach for the UK. As we heard from my hon. friend the Member for Devizes, it does not incentivise work. More importantly— and the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire mentioned disability—it does not target people with additional costs and needs when it comes to the challenges that they face, whether it is disability or childcare responsibilities. We should be careful how we approach that.
We recognise at the DWP that we need to be looking strongly and widely at the labour market. We have an excellent team, which I work with closely, who give me a daily understanding of the labour market so that we can try to take advantage of the opportunities of automation—this emerging technology—and what it may bring. We heard already about the green jobs taskforce which met for the first time last week, which will bring together the views of businesses and employers, as we heard today, and key stakeholders including the skills sector. The taskforce will focus on the immediate and longer term challenges of delivering workers with the right skills for the UK’s transition to net zero, including dealing with the issue of building back greener, as we heard this afternoon, and developing a long-term plan that charts out those key skills. It will also focus on the good-quality jobs that we need, a diverse workforce and supporting workers in high-carbon areas transitioning into sectors such as green technologies.
We heard about the 10-point plan this week from the Prime Minister and his blue-print to focus on jobs and opportunities in the areas where the UK’s industrial heartlands need that support—be they in Yorkshire, the north-east, the Humber, the west midlands, Scotland or Wales. It is important that we drive through a green industrial revolution to support the industries of the future.
Rachael Maskell
Will the Minister specifically look at the BioYorkshire project, which has been driven by the University of York and others to kickstart York’s economy in the light of the crisis, and look to bring it forward, because we need new jobs now?
Mims Davies
It is an absolute focus for us to drive forward local needs and support where they can change the local labour market and local opportunities. Earlier, the hon. Lady also mentioned working with local mayors and local enterprise partnerships, which this Government encourage.
On automation, we know that the increase in productivity, progression and wages that it can bring if we get it right will be really important as we head into this fourth industrial revolution. It is very difficult, as we know, to predict with any kind of precision what automation will do to the labour market, but it is important that we understand new technology, including the enablement of smart robotics and artificial intelligence, grab it and put it in place as part of our process of change. We know that 60% of the jobs in 2014 simply did not exist in 1990, so we know that things will change imminently.
Jim Shannon
In my contribution—perhaps the Minister was about to come on to it—I said that the indications are that about 1 million people will lose their jobs after covid comes to its end, and those are generally people with low educational achievement. I gave two figures that together almost come to 400,000 of that million people—those who have two GCSEs or equivalent, and those who do not even have a level 3 education. So, although I know that it is not the Minister’s direct responsibility, is it possible for her to look at those people who do not have many qualifications but need extra help?
Mims Davies
I was coming on to the interventions that we need to make. At DWP, I have introduced a new sub-brand for our jobcentres: “jobs, community, progression”. It feeds into my passion to shape the future of the labour market, to deal with its structural problems and to reflect the breadth of what we do in our jobcentres, so that people understand that they are there for the reskilling and upskilling of individuals.
That is a key priority for us in the next decade and it is applicable not only to individuals displaced by the pandemic. As the hon. Gentleman suggested, it is also to deal with a structural problem in the labour market, to make sure that the occupational skills base matches what is needed in the labour market, so that people are not left behind and we match businesses’ needs. We recognise that this approach cuts across Government departmental boundaries, but we also recognise that collective action is vital when it comes to jobseekers being able to adapt to changes in the workplace.
Mims Davies
No; if I may, I will make some progress.
My Department is leading a cross-Government steering group, with key responsibilities in terms of gathering evidence to inform the right decision making. We have touched on the issue of skills this afternoon. There will be £3 billion, when the skills fund is Barnettised, to have a national skills fund to help adults to get the key skills for the economy of the future.
Also, as a part of wider Government work, I am working with the Department for Education and the Department for Business, Enterprise and Industrial Strategy to ensure that all our DWP claimants have the skills sought by local employers, so that there is a clear link between the local labour market and employers.
The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), the Opposition spokesperson, asked for a plan for jobs. We have one—a £30 billion plan for jobs for every part of the country, and for every business, so that businesses can have the confidence through the furlough scheme to retain and retrain staff, and also to be able to hire people by working with DWP and across Government.
We are doing that through the Kickstart scheme, which my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes referred to. This is an incredibly important job creation scheme. It is a £2 billion project that runs through to December next year, so that our young people have the opportunity to get on the employment ladder.
We have our expanded youth offer, including new youth hubs that will bring together all the options that our young people need; sector-based work academy programmes; Job Entry Targeted Support, which will also launch in Scotland in January, is a brand new and targeted support scheme that is already rolling out in England and Wales; we will boost our flexible support fund; and our work coaches are paramount. Conditionality was mentioned earlier. Our work coaches are more empowered than ever to focus on a claimant’s needs and on the challenges they face, to ensure that we have a clear link between our claimants and our work coaches, so that we can support our claimants. We have tailored programmes to help people’s individual circumstances more than ever to make sure that they can get a job and, more importantly, progress in the labour market. The economic outcome will be difficult, but as it becomes clearer, we are targeting our support at the right people and the right areas.
Kirsten Oswald
Before the Minister concludes, could she put her mind to the specific things that I asked her to consider? In particular, can she can tell us whether the Government will accept the ruling of the High Court? Will they take forward the fire and rehire provisions, or similar ones, that my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) has put forward?
Mims Davies
Those are matters for the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, but I can write to the hon. Lady about them. I also note that she mentioned HSE, safety at work and other areas for which I am responsible, which were important points. She also mentioned wellbeing at work, which was our absolute priority before the pandemic hit, and will continue to be.
I am determined that those who were struggling to progress before the pandemic hit—who were perhaps locked out of the labour market before that, despite the record employment—are not left behind. Our focus as a Department and a Government is to build back greener and stronger. That will be powered by technology and skills; by matching retraining with new jobs to secure a better future; and vitally, as we have heard, by connecting communities with all opportunities so that we can level up our economy by ensuring that our labour market thrives throughout the UK.
Kirsten Oswald
I again thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing us to have this debate. It has been an important discussion and the speeches have been excellent, thoughtful and wide-ranging. I acknowledge the breadth of topics covered and the importance of covering all those topics. Undoubtedly change will come in this area, so we need to look to the future, but we also need to look to action.
Covid-19 is clearly accelerating changes in work, as well as a number of significant employment challenges. We have to look to the future in that context. We have to consider artificial intelligence and technology, and how to use it well and positively. Some Scottish local authorities are looking at how to innovate there; in fact, many organisations are looking at technology in the context of work. Perhaps the Leader of the House, if he is watching the debate or reading the transcript, might reflect on that. We also need to look at the issue in the context of equality. We have to build in equality as we move forward. We cannot allow the pandemic or technology to ever be an excuse to perpetuate inequality at work.
As we go forward, we need to consider the issue of fairness at the heart of all we do. The work of the Social Justice and Fairness Commission is worth looking at; the importance of sustainable and fair work cannot be underestimated. Dignity should sit in the middle of everything. We should consider how work needs to look: do we have to have a five-day week or could we move to a four-day week? We should look at the way that collaboration at work makes things possible. The trade unions, such as the Scottish Trades Union Congress, are doing excellent work on that.
Different organisations are considering the future of work, including the new all-party parliamentary group on the future of work. We need to consider that along with the employees, who are central to it all. There is nothing inevitable about the discussion that we have had today, or about what is coming down the track in terms of the future of work, except for one thing, which is that the good political decisions and good judgments that we make today can make work better and fairer for tomorrow.
Question put and agreed to,
Resolved,
That this House has considered the future of work.
Written Statements
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Gibraltar: Covid-19 Response
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs and First Secretary of State (Dominic Raab)
The covid-19 pandemic has had a major impact on all of the overseas territories, including Gibraltar, where it has impacted on around 60% of its economy. The Government of Gibraltar also instituted a lockdown and financial support package broadly similar to that in the UK. The cost of maintaining this support and related measures, combined with the loss of revenue from its key sectors, has put a significant strain on the Government of Gibraltar’s finances. Consequently, the Chief Minister of Gibraltar sought financial support from the UK Government (HMG), as the sovereign power.
The UK Government were clear at the outset of the covid-19 pandemic that they were looking to overseas territories to make full use of their financial resources in order to address the needs of their people: we also indicated that we would consider requests for further support on a case-by-case basis, to complement comprehensive local responses. Following discussions with the Chief Minister, it was agreed that HMG would provide a loan guarantee for a lending facility of up to £500 million. This will provide resilience to the Government of Gibraltar’s finances by enabling them to borrow at more favourable rates, by leveraging HMG’s high sovereign credit rating as the guarantor, confirming the Government of Gibraltar’s capacity to repay the principal loan, providing HMG with the reassurance regarding their liability under the guarantee.
A contingent liability checklist has been approved by HMT and FCDO Ministers. The Government of Gibraltar have identified a bank prepared to open the requested drawdown facility, under acceptable terms, and contracts are being prepared for signature. The Government of Gibraltar have made commitments on transparency and information sharing and have ensured compliance with all relevant international standards in this respect.
The serious impact of covid-19 on Gibraltar’s economy means that it is important that these contracts are signed at the earliest opportunity. I have written to the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Public Accounts Committee explaining that it has not been possible to consult Parliament in advance on this occasion.
A departmental minute has been laid in the House of Commons providing further detail on this contingent liability. I will keep the House informed of further significant developments in the case.
[HCWS588]
Applications for British Citizenship: War Crimes Screening
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
I have made the Equality (War Crimes etc.) Arrangements 2020 and the Race Relations (Northern Ireland) (War Crimes etc.) Arrangements 2020 to enable a Home Office Minister to subject applications from certain nationalities for British citizenship to more rigorous scrutiny than others for the purposes of determining whether the applicant has committed, been complicit in the commission of, or otherwise been associated with the commission of war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide.
The Equality (War Crimes etc.) Arrangements 2020 are made under paragraph (1)(1)(d) of schedule 23 to the Equality Act 2010, and replace the Equality (War Crimes etc.) Arrangements 2013. The corresponding Race Relations (Northern Ireland) (War Crimes etc.) Arrangements 2020 are made under article 40 paragraph 2(c) Race Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 and replace the Race Relations (Northern Ireland) (War Crimes etc.) Arrangements 2013.
The condition for subjecting these applications to more rigorous scrutiny is that the applicant is a national of a state specified on a list approved personally by a Home Office Minister for the purpose of the arrangements.
I have reviewed and approved this list and I am satisfied the conditions set out in the arrangements are met in respect of the countries on the list.
The arrangements will be reviewed on an annual basis and will remain in force until revoked. I will update Parliament when new arrangements are made.
Copies of the arrangements will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS589]
Cabinet Committees
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
Today I am publishing an updated Cabinet Committee list. I have placed a copy of the new list in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS590]
GCHQ Accommodation Procurement: Intelligence and Security Committee Reports
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
The Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament (ISC) has today laid before Parliament a report of the former Committee on GCHQ accommodation procurement: a case study, examining the procurement process for the National Cyber Security Centre’s (NCSC) London headquarters and the decision of the (then) Government in 2016 to approve Nova South as the location.
We welcome the scrutiny that the Committee and the National Audit Office provide in order to ensure that the taxpayer receives the best value for money from investments made by the security and intelligence agencies. The procurement of Nova South as the headquarters of the NCSC was a unique challenge, undertaken within a demanding timeframe and as a result, the Government acknowledge there are lessons that can be learned from the procurement process. We have noted the Committee’s recommendations and will respond to them in full in due course.
The UK has never been better defended from cyber-threats than it is today. The NCSC offers unprecedented analysis, response and reduction techniques to the growing cyber-threat.
The Government accept that this report does not scrutinise the overall success of NCSC. However, as the public-facing part of GCHQ and the UK’s lead technical authority on cyber-security, the NCSC required a workspace which balanced the need for accessibility and operational capability to defend the UK against cyber-threats effectively.
Nova South met all the key criteria required by the Government, including proximity to Whitehall and other stakeholders within the Government secure zone. A further contributing factor to its selection was its availability which allowed the NCSC to be established at pace, within a year, providing a centre at time when there was an urgent need for the Government to increase their defensive cyber capabilities and respond to global cyber incidents like Wannacry.
Nova South has provided a much needed central focus for UK cyber-security since its procurement, hosting a wide range of Government and industry partners as well as contributing to our global commitment to cyber-security and the UK’s ranking as number one by the Global Cybersecurity Index.
[HCWS587]
Grand Committee
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)
My Lords, the hybrid Grand Committee will now begin. I am sorry for the delay. Some Members are here in person, respecting social distancing, others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. I must ask Members in the Room to wear a face covering except when seated at their desk, to speak sitting down and to wipe down their desk, chair and any other touch points before and after use.
The microphone system for physical participants has changed. Microphones will no longer be turned on at all times, to reduce the noise for remote participants. When it is your turn to speak, please press the button on the microphone stand. Once you have done that, wait for the green flashing light to turn red before speaking. The process for unmuting and muting for remote participants remains the same. If the capacity of the Room is exceeded, or other safety requirements are breached, I will adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House—and there will be one or two—the Committee will adjourn for five minutes.
Medicines and Medical Devices Bill
Thursday 19th November 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021 View all Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 116-VII(Rev) Revised seventh marshalled list for Grand Committee - (17 Nov 2020)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)
A participants’ list for today’s proceedings has been published by the Government Whips’ Office, as have lists of Members who have put their names to the amendments, or expressed an interest in speaking, on each group. I will call Members to speak in the order listed. Members are not permitted to intervene spontaneously; the Chair calls each speaker. Interventions during speeches or “before the noble Lord sits down” are not permitted.
During the debate on each group I will invite Members, including Members in the Grand Committee Room, to email the clerk if they wish to speak after the Minister, using the Grand Committee address. I will call Members to speak in order of request and will call the Minister to reply each time. The groupings are binding and it will not be possible to de-group an amendment for separate debate. A Member intending to move formally an amendment already debated should have given notice in the debate.
Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. When putting the question, I will collect voices in the Grand Committee Room only. I remind Members that Divisions cannot take place in Grand Committee. It takes unanimity to amend the Bill, so if a single voice says “Not content”, an amendment is negatived and if a single voice says “Content”, a clause stands part. If a Member taking part remotely intends to oppose an amendment expected to be agreed to, they should make this clear when speaking on the group.
We will now begin.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)
I call the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. He is not there. The noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, is not with us either so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Penn.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, before I speak to the helpful debate we had on this group of amendments, I should like to make a correction to my response to an earlier grouping. At the time, I said that all adverse incidents with medical devices are available online on the MHRA’s website. I would like to correct this: adverse incidents with medical devices will be published online on the MHRA’s website as part of the plans to deliver increased transparency and in line with developing future legislation enabled by the powers in the Bill. However, it is not presently the case.
Turning to our present debate, I thought it might be helpful first to address the current arrangements for the regulation of medicines, veterinary medicines and medical devices in Northern Ireland. Responsibility for medical device regulation is reserved in respect of the whole of the UK. However, Part 1 of the Bill, relating to human medicines, and Part 2, on veterinary medicines, deal with transferred matters in relation to Northern Ireland. Clauses 1 and 8 set out that regulations in relation to Northern Ireland can be made either by the Secretary of State acting jointly with the Northern Ireland department or by the Northern Ireland department. This has always been the case; however, the MHRA and the VMD regulate these areas UK-wide on a day-to-day basis. After the end of the transition period, with regard to both human and veterinary medicines, as well as medical devices, under the terms of the Northern Ireland protocol, Northern Ireland will continue to follow the acquis.
Amendment 119 in the name of the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, seeks to ensure that, in making regulations under the Bill, the Government must minimise and mitigate the potential for regulatory divergence between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Along with Amendment 120 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, Amendment 119 seeks to establish a requirement for the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on areas of divergence between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
I completely understand that these probing amendments seek to ensure that Parliament has proper sight of how medicines and medical device regulation develops in the future, particularly in relation to any differences between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That is right and proper. Noble Lords will be aware, however, that the amendment in the name of my noble friend the Minister, on reporting obligations, means that the Government must already provide Parliament with a report every two years. This sits alongside the separate amendment to Clause 41 in my noble friend’s name, which requires a public consultation on any regulatory change to be made under the Bill.
That new reporting obligation on the operation of regulations made by the Secretary of State under Clauses 1(1), 8(1) and 12(1) is both forward and backward-looking. It must include any concerns raised or proposals for change made by anyone consulted by the Secretary of State in the preparation of the report, and the response to these. That may include advance notice of further regulatory change that the Secretary of State is proposing to make.
These reports, along with the public consultation on regulations under the Bill, would be the right place to deal with any issues of possible regulatory divergence raised. It would therefore be duplicative to require the Secretary of State to lay additional reports specifically on regulatory divergence for medicines and medical devices.
Noble Lords also asked a number of practical questions on how regulation will operate in Great Britain and Northern Ireland after the end of the transition period, which I will also address. The noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, asked who would be responsible for any possible divergence between the Great Britain and Northern Ireland regulatory systems. I can reassure her that the MHRA and the VMD, reporting to their respective Secretaries of State, will continue to regulate human and veterinary medicines and medical devices for the whole of the UK, and will continue to ensure that patients and animals in Northern Ireland, just as in Great Britain, receive the safe and effective medicines and devices they need.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, asked specifically about the interaction between the UK Government and the Northern Ireland Executive on issues relating to future regulation of medicines and medical devices. I can reassure the noble Baroness that officials in the Department of Health and Social Care meet officials in the Northern Ireland Executive every two weeks to discuss the Bill and regulation of medicines and devices, and that a strong working relationship exists.
Robin Swann MLA has also given consent for the medicines day one-readiness statutory instrument, laid on 20 October, to be made by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland as well as for Great Britain. We will continue to engage with the Northern Ireland Executive as plans for the future regulatory environment for devices and medicines develop.
The noble Lord, Lord Patel, also raised the approach to the day one readiness after the end of the transition period on which the MHRA has based its guidance to industry. I can reassure the noble Lord that, as I have just said, those regulations have been laid before Parliament, and we expect to debate them in early December.
Those regulations also require that from 1 January 2021, marketing authorisation holders must transmit all global serious reports of adverse drug reactions directly to the MHRA, to ensure that the agency has access to the totality of the information, to assess safety issues. This links to the noble Lord’s point on pharmacovigilance. I can reassure him that, following the end of the transition period, the MHRA will continue to be responsible for pharmacovigilance across the whole of the UK, and will use common processes for the assessment of safety issues in Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)
I think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, is now with us. Are you there, Lord Mackay?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con) [V]
Yes, I am here. My internet was turned off on the basis that I was on an aeroplane—which I have not been since March. That shows that some things are not absolutely reliable. Anyway, the noble Lord, Lord Patel, has dealt with the subject, and I do not need to trouble noble Lords any further.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)
I now call the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler. No? I gather that the noble Lord, Lord Patel, wants to speak. I call Lord Patel.
Lord Patel (CB) [V]
My Lords, I sent in a request to speak after the Minister. I am grateful to her for her lengthy response, but in a way it just shows that there will be considerable areas of divergence once we exit Europe, even after we exit Europe and the agreement with the EU has expired. What the Minister said is correct—that maybe the emergency power regulations will allow us to ask questions—but those are only emergency powers, and this is longer-term.
My amendment asks for an indication, on at least a yearly basis, of where divergences are occurring. It is interesting that the Minister said that the statutory instrument is now available and will be debated in due course. Of course it is available now—although I do not know when it was made available—and we will have an opportunity to debate it. However, the MHRA was already giving guidance on the basis of that instrument before we had seen it or debated it. The Minister’s reply did not therefore satisfy the intention behind my amendment—although I will, of course, not move it today—in terms of the necessity for the Government to produce a report of where divergences are occurring and why.
Baroness Penn (Con)
To address the noble Lord’s question about when the statutory instrument was laid, I believe it was on 20 October. I think the statutory instrument laid on 20 October, which we shall debate, is not the Government’s approach to an answer on how we deal with the future issues of regulating medicines, medical devices and vet meds in Northern Ireland and Great Britain. What I was trying to express to the noble Lord is that we have a mechanism that means the Minister will report to Parliament every two years, both looking forward to prospective changes and back at any changes that may have been made. Of course, where new regulations are proposed there will be public consultation on those, but there will also be reports to Parliament ahead of that about the intentions, and those reports will provide a mechanism, which I think the noble Lord wants, to ensure that these issues are discussed properly in Parliament in future.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her response. Due to the break in the group since Tuesday, we have all had the advantage of being able to have a closer look in Hansard at the speeches made by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie. If we had managed to squeeze in the Minister’s response, that would have been perfect; I could then have responded having read it all very closely.
Anyway, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Patel, both for his support of our amendment and his very detailed considerations and questions on the MHRA guidance on Northern Ireland-Great Britain regulatory diversion on medicines and medical devices. His speech was very much a tour de force on the whole situation, understating how confusing the situation is in relation to the distinction the MHRA guidance makes between the EU market, the GB market and the market for Northern Ireland. We will need to read Hansard carefully but, despite the Minister’s best endeavours, I cannot see that she has managed to clear up for us exactly how the whole confused system will work in the future.
Moreover, as the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Patel, mentioned, we do have the draft regulations. My attention has been drawn to them only this week. I thought they were published on 13 November, not in October, but that may be just me not reading them properly. Both regulations deal with Northern Ireland and Great Britain regulatory diversion issues, so this debate will be paused until we have considered those regulations and come back to the main Bill, and while we see what outcome there will be on the adoption of the Northern Ireland protocol.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, underlined the need for monitoring, oversight and accountability on this issue, and the importance of reporting to Parliament, and we obviously strongly agree with that. I did not specifically hear a response to her question on what internal discussions there have been between the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, and the Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive with responsibility for the NI Department of Health. If the Minister could write to her and put a copy in the Library, so that we can see what progress the discussions have made so far, that would be really helpful.
On the issue of reporting to Parliament annually—as in the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Patel—and not every two years, as the amended legislation provides for, I think the annual report called for by the noble Lord will be very much needed as all the problems and issues underlined by him and others in this debate are being worked through.
The issue is vital, and many issues are still to be identified, considered, worked through and resolved, which will mitigate and minimise the potential for regulatory divergence in human medicines and medical devices between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. In that expectation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 121. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate.
Amendment 121
Baroness Cumberlege
“Independent medicines and medical devices safety review: task force for implementation
(1) Within three months of this Act being passed, the Secretary of State must appoint an independent task force.(2) The task force must—(a) have an independent Chair;(b) be accountable to an oversight governance board; and(c) include representatives of the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review, published on 8 July 2020.(3) The task force’s functions are—(a) to deliver a timeline for the implementation in full of the recommendations of the Review in subsection (2)(c); and(b) to implement the recommendations of the Review in subsection (2)(c).(4) Once the task force has fulfilled the functions in subsection (3), it will cease to exist.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would establish the task force whose role it would be to implement recommendations set out in the report of the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review.
Baroness Cumberlege (Con) [V]
My Lords, as noble Lords are well aware, First Do No Harm, the report of my review, was published in July of this year. Our ninth and final recommendation was that the Government should set up a task force to implement the other recommendations and the many actions for improvement contained in the report. That task force has not been set up, and the Government remain silent on whether they will agree to do so and, indeed, on the report as a whole.
This proposed new clause would require the Secretary of State to set up a task force within three months of the Bill becoming law. I would much rather not find myself tabling it; I would much rather the Government saw the urgency and had already set up the task force, because it is designed to help the department and the wider healthcare system to do the thinking, to make sure we get the details right and to set out a pathway and a timeline for implementing the report’s recommendations.
I believe it must be a collaborative venture; it should involve not just the department and its arm’s-length buddies but also patients. It would be a missed opportunity were it not to include the representatives of my review, because we have the knowledge and the expertise, acquired over two and a half years of work. To inspire confidence among people who have suffered, it needs to be independently chaired and overseen by a government board.
We feel that the task force is the right way to approach the job of implementing the review’s recommendations. My noble friend the Minister may well tell us that the Bill is not the right place for this measure—that is as may be—in which case, if he were able to reassure me that the task force would be set up separately by the Government, as we envisage in this proposed new clause, and on a similar or shorter timescale, I would be more than satisfied.
These matters are pressing. Our recommendations need to be implemented if we are to help people who have suffered so much already, many of them for decades. We must try to prevent further avoidable harm to more patients and families in the future. The task force is the key to making this happen, and those of us who have run organisations know that they need some discipline and something like a task force—a body that will ensure that the task set out is actually implemented and that it happens. I beg to move this amendment, and I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, and to support what she is saying. At the heart of her argument is the concern that, although the Minister said earlier in Grand Committee that the Government are weighing it up with all “seriousness and intent”, the Government are not going to run with the core of the noble Baroness’s recommendations. Because the Government have been so reluctant—very unusually—to respond immediately to the thrust of her report, there remains a lot of uncertainty about how far the Government are prepared to implement it.
Of course, the opportunity given to us with the medicines Bill enables us really to press the Government to be more detailed about what they are going to do. On Tuesday, we had a very good debate on the recommendation for the appointment of a patient safety commissioner. The Minister made a very extensive response, which essentially set out the measures that the Government are taking to embed patient safety throughout the NHS. I shall just mention a few: promoting a positive learning culture at the heart of the NHS; taking steps to help staff to speak up when things go wrong; establishing the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch to examine the more serious patient safety incidents and promote system-wide learning; appointing medical examiners to provide much-needed support to bereaved families and improve patient safety; introducing a duty of candour, so that hospitals tell patients if their safety has been compromised, and apologise; and commissioning the NHS national director of patient safety, Dr Aidan Fowler, to publish a strategy, which, of course, has been done.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and support the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, in her amendment, to which I have added my name.
The report that the Government commissioned and appointed the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, to do on these issues of medicines and medical devices made nine very clear recommendations in July. One central recommendation in that report, First Do No Harm, was the need for a task force to oversee the implementation of the recommendations from the report —hence this amendment today.
If the Government, the Minister and his colleagues, are serious about the recommendations and recognise that there is an issue and a problem in relation to certain medicines and medical devices, they should see fit to implement all nine recommendations. I think back to when I was doing some research on this. An eminent QC, Lauren Sutherland, said that the Government should not ignore these recommendations—they should implement them.
I made the request, along with many other noble Lords, for the implementation of the task force during Second Reading in early September. I said that it should be set up without delay to oversee progress, and I believe that, if the Government are to take this report seriously and ensure that such failures do not happen again, that needs to happen. What better way to have an implementation group than by the task force that is already in existence, because it was independent of government, has worked on these issues for two years and is fully acquainted with all the matters, problems and challenges met by many people, who have suffered indignity and immeasurable pain as a result of the imprecision in relation to medical devices? To ensure proper implementation and oversight of the recommendations, a task force is a necessary prerequisite and needs to be placed in the Bill. The first remit or task of such a task force should be to set a timeline for its work and delivery of the review’s recommendations. The only way for that to work is if the implementation task force is put in the Bill.
As the report states, the task force should be made up of representatives of the various arms of the healthcare system that have a recognisable role to play in delivering patient safety—in other words, people acquainted with the issues and who have knowledge and expertise. Those responsible for implementation need to know that their work and progress will be monitored and they will be accountable. Supporting the implementation process should be a reference group made up of a range of patient interests going far wider than the groups the report members dealt with. Yet again, such a reference group would consist of people with direct experience, and ongoing daily experience, of the impact of such medicines that have been specified, as well as other types of medicines, where there have been side effects, and the medical devices that have caused so many problems to so many women and men.
We need a system and task force that listens, hears and acts with speed, compassion and with proportionality to prevent further avoidable harm—hence my support for the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, to establish such an implementation task force without delay in the Bill.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Cumberlege on the work that she and her able team have done on the report, First Do No Harm. I entirely support the amendment, and I am delighted to follow in this the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, who has pointed out that by definition it will have only a limited life. Its main work will be to ensure that the functions of the report and all the recommendations are followed through. However, I take this opportunity to ask both Ministers if they are minded to support this. Possibly, when my noble friend comes to respond, we might hear what the nature might be of the budget allocated to the task force, as well as to whom, if at all, the oversight governance board in subsection (2)(b) of the proposed new clause might report, and whether it is intended that Parliament might have an overview of the work of the task force.
In establishing the task force, it is absolutely vital that there is a body that has the role, as is intended in this amendment, of implementing the recommendations set out in the report of the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review. I would personally favour the mechanism in this amendment that a task force should be set up for this purpose, limited in time with a specific view. I would be interested to know what budget might be allocated, and from which budget this would come, and also if there was a mechanism to keep Parliament informed of the work of the task force for its limited life.
Lord O’Shaughnessy (Con)
My Lords, when I was preparing for today’s debate and I saw where I was in the speaking list, I anticipated that there would not be much left to say by the time we got to me. I was wondering what I might be able to add to support my noble friend Lady Cumberlege in the very powerful argument she made about the need to set up the task force in recommendation 9 from her review.
I went to look at the latest data on the use of valproate in girls and women in the UK, and I declare my interest as a vice-chair of the APPG that looks at these issues. The MHRA publishes a regular report and its version 4, which tracks the data from 2010 to 2019, was published earlier this year. From that I draw two lessons that are very germane to this debate. The first—which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, alluded to—is that there is this fear of independence, but there is also something else that perhaps goes on, which is almost a sense of helplessness: well, harm is going to happen in practice, there are things you can do, but it is something we are always going to have to accept. The positive message that comes from the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, and her review, is that we can make a difference. If you look at the prescribing of valproate in pregnancy, you see that it fell by 78% from 2010 to 2019 on the back of concerted action from many people—clinicians, officials, Ministers, patients of course, patient campaigning groups particularly, and many others. It halved, year on year, from 2018 to 2019. So we can make a difference through concerted action.
The other data point I take out of it is that even now there are still 200 babies exposed each year to valproate and, as we know, half of them will experience physical or mental harm. That is 100 babies whose lives, and whose families’ lives, are going to be irreparably changed because of that exposure, when everybody accepts that exposure to valproate in pregnancy should be zero, or as close to that as humanly possible.
It is the point about urgency that I want to get across to my noble friend the Minister. I do believe that he is deeply sympathetic to the findings of the review and the need to move forward, but we cannot wait any longer, because these harms are going on. They are going on every day and we can do something about them—and the recommendations in my noble friend’s review are precisely the way we can do something about them. As my noble friend Lady Cumberlege said in her opening remarks, this is not the kind of thing on which you really want an amendment. It is not the kind of thing that should require legislation, but the reason there is such support for it is the sense that nothing is happening when there are harms going on that could be prevented if we took the concerted action that is necessary. That is why I am speaking in support of the amendment today.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I will speak briefly in favour of this amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. Like the preceding speaker, I am aiming to add extra angles and approaches rather than to repeat what has already been said—but I associate myself, essentially, with everything that has already been said.
As I was thinking about this amendment, I was reflecting on a session in the House—I believe it was this week, although it all blurs slightly if one looks at a screen for long enough—when the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, was being questioned by one of his noble friends about why a whole series of Written Questions about Covid had not been answered. The fact is, of course, that all aspects of our health system are currently under enormous pressure. The proposition that I put—as I was arguing in another amendment to the Bill earlier this week—is that this is actually an amendment that makes the Government’s job easier. It carves off a recognisable, obvious piece of work that does not have to be done by already horribly overworked, stretched systems. It means that something can be done: something can be ticked off and said to be under control, managed and done, in a way that does not draw too heavily on that existing overstretched system. That is the first point I wanted to make.
The second point I want to make—and I feel that I need to apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, for bringing this up—is that, as a former newspaper editor, when I was thinking about reports and what happens to reports, I had to go back to the Leveson inquiry, conducted by Lord Justice Leveson. I remember, when I first read that report, I thought about how it had been carefully structured to put aside some of the more difficult areas, particularly the issue of media ownership concentration. In the report Lord Justice Leveson had tried very hard to create something that was implementable and manageable, and that had some chance of being delivered. I think we all know that that is not what happened, so I can understand that anyone asked to take on a huge job of work, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, did with this, must ask themselves the question, “If I devote so much time, energy and effort to this work, will it actually be delivered?”
I said before that the patient safety commissioner amendment was possibly the most important one. In some ways, this certainly vies with it. This is about delivery. We know that there are three reasons to call an inquiry. One might be to find information, one might be to reassure the public, and another might be to create a plan of action. Those are the three often-stated reasons, but sometimes there is a fourth reason—perhaps “sometimes” is not the right word; perhaps “often” might be a better word—to kick something into the long grass. It is crucial that the issues uncovered by the noble Baroness are not kicked into the long grass, and that the very clear, obvious and important recommendations are not lost. So I support this amendment and, should it need to go further, I will continue to support it.
Lord Sharkey (LD) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 121 is another recommendation, as we have heard, from the Cumberlege review. We would, within three months of the Bill being passed, set up a task force to implement the recommendations of the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review. This particular recommendation, like the others in the review, received very widespread support at Second Reading, and a key element of the recommendation contained in this amendment is the appointment of an independent chair of the task force. It is absolutely critical that this independence is real, and perceived as being real. It should be clear to all that the chair is not an establishment place-person, and is an obviously safe pair of hands. It is vital that public confidence in the safety of medical devices be restored, and we very strongly support this amendment. This amendment is the means—and perhaps the only means currently available to us—of making the Cumberlege recommendations a reality. If the Minister is not inclined to accept this amendment, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, will bring it back on Report, so that we can test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I will be very brief, as it must be clear to the Minister that there is unanimity across the Committee in support of setting up this safer care task force. My noble friend Lord Hunt was quite right that this is about whether the Government take this report seriously, and for me this is also an issue of accountability. Recommendation 9 of nine states:
“The Government should immediately set up a task force to implement this Review’s recommendations.”
I hope that the Minister will just say, “Yes, we’ve done it”, so that we can now be told what the timeline for the task force will be and who will be involved. That is my hope from the Minister’s remarks, but if that is not to be the case, I hope that it might be the case in two or three weeks’ time when we move to the next stage of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, again, I thank my noble friend and her team for their work to produce the report and to ensure that patients and their families have been heard. Above all, I pay tribute to all the patients and their families who have so bravely shared their experiences to inform this important report. The report has been impactful and has already served to firmly put patient safety at the top of the agenda for all the healthcare system, and we in the Government are committed to learning from it.
On the amendment, if I may put this delicately, we must please remember that this is not a Bill to respond to the review. The Bill provides the powers needed to be able to update the current regulatory regime for medicines, devices and clinical trials in response to the end of the transition period, although the Bill does have the best interests of patients at its heart.
If it was not for the ongoing impact of Covid-19 on the health and care system, I believe that we would be discussing little else but patient safety. But, as my noble friend Lady Cumberlege has acknowledged in this Grand Committee, Covid has had a challenging impact on all our priorities, including on her own work on the NHS maternity transformation programme —and, of course, on the publication of her report, which was scheduled for the beginning of this year but, because of Covid, happened only 16 weeks ago.
I can assure noble Lords that much activity is already under way. Officials from across the healthcare system have been working together intensely since the report’s publication. They have been meeting weekly since August to ensure that we fully understand the report’s recommendations and the best way forward.
My noble friend has rightly mentioned the importance of listening to and involving patients in the implementation process. We absolutely recognise the need for effective patient engagement to ensure that we get implementation right. The Minister of State, Nadine Dorries, will provide an update on this and other matters related to the report in December, and I shall be very happy to report likewise to this House.
These debates have been clear, and I can assure noble Lords that, as part of our consideration of the report, we will of course want to be informed by the debates on this Bill before responding in detail to this very important report. I am very sympathetic to the desire of my noble friend and others to see the Government move quickly in responding to her report, but I do not agree that this Bill is a sensible method of delivery for that response. It is a weighty report, and our response will be rightly scrutinised when the Government responds to Parliament, but an amendment in this Bill is not the right mechanism. We should not be making policy through legislation, for that rarely makes for good government policy-making.
Therefore, I hope that this is a probing amendment, seeking some reassurance, rather than a firm request. In that spirit, I welcome the opportunity to update the Grand Committee on some of the progress that we are making to date.
Recommendation 1 has been implemented. The Government have, on behalf of the health and care sector, apologised to those women, their children and their families for the time that the system took to listen and respond.
We debated my noble friend Lady Cumberlege’s amendment for a patient safety commissioner just a few days ago, so I shall not repeat all the points raised. It was an insightful discussion, and I will think on it further, as I said during the debate.
We shall shortly be debating Amendments 122 and 123, on establishing a redress agency and redress schemes, so I will not pre-empt those discussions.
On recommendation 5, I know that my noble friend is already aware of work to establish specialist centres for mesh removal, but I would like to say a little more in recognition of its importance. NHS England is working closely with providers to set up the specialist mesh removal centres and is currently working to prepare for launch next April. The service specification for mesh centres describes how all centres must come together in a clinical summit to agree how we can develop the service moving forward, to agree standards that all centres will work to and to share data and outcomes. The first summit will take place tomorrow, 20 November. I am pleased to note that clinicians from the devolved nations are invited to that session too.
On recommendation 6, the MHRA has already begun a substantial programme of work to change the culture of the agency. Key priority areas are: first, listening and responding to patients; secondly, better utilising scientific evidence to strengthen and speed up decision-making on safety; and, thirdly, becoming more open and transparent in everything that the agency does. The MHRA is strengthening its yellow card scheme to make it easier for both patients and healthcare professionals.
On recommendation 7, as my noble friend will also be aware, we have debated Clause 16 of the Bill. Significantly, its provisions will mean that, in future, we can collect surgical implants and devices data from all NHS and private provider organisations, starting with mesh-related procedures and from that agreed next steps.
On recommendation 8, the General Medical Council already has guidance covering financial and commercial arrangements and conflicts of interest, which came into effect on 22 April 2013. In addition, the GMC’s updated consent guidance came into effect on 9 November. This reaffirms that any conflicts of interest that a doctor or their organisation may have should be shared with patients where relevant. We are considering whether these arrangements should be strengthened further.
My noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy spoke of a worrying attitude of fatalism in the system, but I should also flag the work being done by GPs, universities and the royal colleges on long Covid and the excellent work being done to protect patients. We are listening to patients, who are presenting highly complex symptoms, including mental health, renal, cardiac, respiratory and other issues. I host a weekly round table that has full engagement with representative groups. We have mobilised a whole-system response. We are linking research with guideline writing for primary care in real time. We are using data thoughtfully, and we are mobilising networks of concerned groups around the country and around the world. This reflects the priority that we have already put on the recommendations of the patient safety report.
My noble friend Lady Cumberlege and her team took two and a half years to complete their review and present their findings, and I am intensely grateful for that. It is imperative, for the sake of patients and especially those who have suffered greatly, that we give this independent report the full consideration it deserves. I look forward to updating the House following the Minister’s Statement in the other place before recess. I therefore hope that my noble friend Lady Cumberlege feels able to withdraw her amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)
I do not believe that anyone wishes to come in after the Minister, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege.
Baroness Cumberlege (Con) [V]
I thank all those noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I am extremely grateful to them. I have listened to what the Minister had to say, and I do not deny that meetings are taking place—I understand that they are—but I have no idea what is coming out of those meetings. But we will come to that in a minute.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is quite right that actually implementing policy is the most critical thing and is extremely difficult. The Paterson report was a very interesting report on things that had gone terribly wrong with an individual surgeon who acted inappropriately, and, as I said when we debated the patient safety commissioner amendment on Tuesday, I understand that the Paterson report’s recommendations echo what our report said. What has happened to the Paterson recommendations? I do not believe that anything has happened. If things have happened, I would like to know what they are. I can show shelf upon shelf of wonderful reports that have been drawn together by people who have put their heart and soul into them, but, actually, nothing has happened. I am not going to let that happen with my report—I really am not—because there are too many people who have been so badly hurt and who deserve redress, which we will come on to in the next amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is right that there is a missing piece in the jigsaw—the most important piece—because safety has to be a system.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 122, and we will not be interrupted by any Divisions. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate.
Amendment 122
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
“Medicines and Medical Devices Redress Agency
The Secretary of State must, by the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, bring proposals before Parliament to establish a Redress Agency for those harmed by medicines and medical devices.”
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this is a probing amendment. Although I am a member of the GMC board, I make it clear that I am not speaking on behalf of the GMC.
It is very difficult to move on to the nitty-gritty of a redress agency after the hugely eloquent and moving speech made just now by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. The Minister said in his response to the noble Baroness that this is not the Bill to respond to the report. What I say to him is that this is the only Bill in town. Medicines and medical devices are at the core of patient safety. He promised that the Minister responsible for patient safety would make a Statement on the report in December. My assumption is that that will be made after the Bill has passed through the House of Lords, and therein lies the problem: we will not be told the Government’s response before we come to the critical Report stage. We just have to work on the assumption that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, said, the Government are not going to embrace her core recommendations. We will therefore have to take action on Report on that basis. I do not see what other course of action the House of Lords can take, unless the Government are prepared to bring forward their Statement so that we can see it before we reach Report.
I have just one other point. I listened to the Minister, and he has been very helpful in setting out some of the initiatives that the Government are taking. However, as with the patient safety strategy—we have been here before—the department seems to have collected all the examples of good practice it can find, bunged them into a report and called it a strategy. That is the problem, because it ain’t a strategy. It does not address the fundamental crunch that the NHS has been run far too hot and is unsafe. When you really tackle that, you have to tackle the issues of resources, work force and targets. That is a huge challenge to the Government, which is why they are so reluctant to go down that course.
What does that have to do with the redress agency? I will try to come to that in a moment. However, I want to ask the Minister whether he can say anything about this recommendation. The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, argued powerfully for a redress agency to be set up on an avoidable-harm basis that looks to systematic failings, rather than blaming individuals, encourages reporting and should provide faster resolution for claimants. She argues that it should be a consensual process rather than a judicial one. Redress would be offered, not awarded, and proceedings under the scheme would be voluntary. She also said that the redress agency would have an important role to play in harm prevention as claims for adverse events would be centralised, enabling data to be provided that would help regulators detect signals earlier.
This is not the first time that a redress scheme has been proposed. Indeed, 17 years ago, an NHS redress scheme was unveiled by the then Chief Medical Officer, Sir Liam Donaldson. It included no-fault compensation for babies born with severe brain damage, and payments of up to £30,000 without litigation for patients whose treatment went wrong. Under the scheme, parents would get a managed medical care package for their child, monthly payments for other care of up to £100,000 a year, lump sums for home adaptations and equipment of up to £50,000, and compensation for pain and suffering capped at £50,000. The other arm of the redress scheme, for smaller negligence claims, would have provided a package including an explanation and apology, remedial treatment, rehabilitation and care where needed and financial compensation up to £30,000 where authorised. Legislation followed in 2006, but 14 years later it has, as I understand it, yet to be implemented. The aim of the Act was to provide a genuine alternative to litigation, but it has languished on the statute book. I would be grateful if the Minister would tell me whether that is it and whether the Government do not think it the appropriate way forward.
I also ask the Minister to say something about the increase in negligence costs to the NHS. The latest annual report from NHS Resolution shows that the total cost of payments made in respect of clinical negligence in 2019-20 was £2.32 billion. Of that figure, a substantial amount was paid in legal costs: nearly £500 million to claimant legal costs and £143 million for NHS legal costs. We know that it often takes years for cases to be resolved.
Is the Minister confident that we are getting this right? Does the noble Baroness’s recommendation not deserve examination, at least? I beg to move.
Baroness Cumberlege (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is hard to follow the very well-researched contribution to this whole issue from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. It was interesting to hear about Sir Liam Donaldson’s report, which got on to the statute book but was not implemented. Is that not a disgrace? It is really dreadful.
Very near to where I live is the centre for Chailey Heritage, now the Chailey Heritage Foundation, for children who suffered through their mothers having taken the drug thalidomide. I chaired its governing body for years. It is interesting that that redress system still continues; it is supported by a trust, which inherited the disaster of the medication, and it has honoured that and receives government support. So we have examples where this is working.
The redress agency that we recommend is really about the future. My amendment is about the present. We know that so many patients and their families have suffered such harm, and we need a system that is more compassionate and a much more certain route for obtaining redress to compensate them. We are talking not about compensation as such, but about redress. You have to go to the courts to achieve compensation, and it is a very miserable experience—we have heard that from patients. It also takes a very long time and, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, very often the people who benefit most are the lawyers.
We are talking about Primodos, sodium valproate and pelvic mesh—the three interventions through which people have suffered avoidable harm. The suffering they endure now is terrible. All three have caused and are causing avoidable psychological and, of course, physical and neurological harm. These families really need a little help with the conditions they are living with. Indeed, some are looking after some very disabled children. We do not believe that their needs are adequately met by the healthcare, social care or benefits systems. Some of these people are actually very elderly—the parents of the children who took Primodos. It would be a scandal if those people were to live their lives unable to access the redress they need and the outcome they deserve. After all, the harm was caused not by them, but by the state.
In the case of these three interventions, there is a moral and ethical responsibility to provide ex gratia payments in respect of the avoidable damage that occurred. That responsibility falls on the state and the manufacturers of the products in question. The schemes that would be established through this proposed new clause would provide discretionary payments, and each of the three schemes would have tailored eligibility criteria.
The payments the schemes make would not be intended to cover the cost of services that are already available free of charge, such as healthcare and social security payments. They would be for other needs—for example, the cost of travel to medical appointments. We have met and talked to many of those people, and they have said that it is a significant cost burden. The payments might be for respite breaks or emergency payments where a parent has had to stop work to cover care. These redress schemes would not be in place of litigation, nor will they be to deliver compensation. People should retain the right to take legal action if they wish to obtain compensation—of course they should; that is in our law. The schemes I am talking about should be set up in such a way that they can be incorporated into the wider redress agency that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, spoke about, once it is established.
These people have suffered for decades. They have tried to obtain compensation through the courts. That action has failed in the case of valproate and Primodos, although I am aware that a new Primodos action is under way. I have been told by solicitors that, in fact, the report does not in any way affect that action. There have been some awards and settlements in the case of mesh, but legal action takes time, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said. It creates added stress and much more personal cost can be involved.
I believe that a measure of a decent society is how well it looks after those who have suffered harm, especially when that harm was avoidable. From having met many hundreds of people who have suffered and heard from many more, I am clear that help is needed and deserved. People should not be made to wait any longer. I hope my noble friend the Minister will agree with that.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 122 and 123, to which I attached my name. The first is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and the second in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. They have both introduced these very clearly, so I will make only three points to add some extra, different perspectives.
The first point I wish to make is that there is what I can describe only as a heart-rending report in the Guardian today about Windrush compensation two years on. The headline talks about
“long waits and ‘abysmal’ payouts”.
The story mentions an agency that talks about five people waiting more than 18 months for compensation. If this—as high-profile a scandal as we can possibly imagine, which attracted far more attention than the issues covered by the report from the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege—is going so badly, surely we have to address this issue, which in many ways is smaller, more limited and perhaps much less complicated, to create a situation via Amendment 123 to deal with these three issues. Amendment 122 would create a situation to deal with all cases, so that we would have a system and framework that, I hope, would do better than the Home Office is doing. I hope that such an agency in the health framework would not suffer from the same hostile environment in the Home Office that the Windrush compensation scheme has to act within.
Lord O’Shaughnessy (Con)
I shall speak to the amendments in reverse order, starting with Amendment 123 in the name of my noble friend Lady Cumberlege. As she said, these amendments deal with the here and now and with the future, and it is important that we start with the here and now. The perspective I bring to this is again informed by my work with valproate charities through the all-party group and by reflecting on the evidence compiled by charities such as INFACT and others and presented in my noble friend’s report. Historically, some 20,000 babies were exposed to valproate in the UK and half suffered harm. The disorder recognising those harms, foetal valproate spectrum disorder, was fully recognised only in 2019, although the drug was known for decades to have effects of that kind.
It must now be the case that for those families and others we put in place a proper redress scheme. They have had to battle to be recognised. They have had to battle to change clinical behaviour. They have had to battle red tape and a lack of understanding in personal impact payment schemes and in the education and health assessments carried out for young children. This is not only a historical problem; it is true today. We need a solution in the here and now. We do not need to spend huge amounts of time creating a new agency or anything else—I will come to that in a moment—but we need to address that and their harms today. I hope my noble friend will be sympathetic to that spirit.
Amendment 122 is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. He is quite right to want to look at this structurally, given all the scandals over the years, including thalidomide, contaminated blood, which I dealt with briefly when I was a Minister, breast implants and many others. It was quite right that my noble friend Lady Cumberlege talked in her report about creating an agency and a proper redress scheme for clinical negligence. Indeed, she has been promoting such an idea since her work on maternity safety, where, as we know, are the largest financial claims and some of the most heart-breaking. I do not think any of us can deny that the system is currently broken. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, talked about some of the data points from NHS Resolution’s annual report. The annual cost is now nearly £2.5 billion and there are total liabilities of £84 billion because of clinical negligence. A lot of that is the cost of care for people who have been harmed, but a lot of it is the frictional cost—the legal and other costs of going through the process—let alone the uncounted cost to families, especially as the average number of days to settle claims has been increasing over the past decade. There is a very strong case for acting in a big structural way to do something about this.
Having said all that, and having been responsible for this policy area as a Minister, it is a very complex situation. There is undoubtedly a case for moving to a less confrontational and swifter approach. This is not a new idea, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, pointed out. We have been thinking about this and legislating for this purpose for at least the past 15 years. There are good examples of no-fault compensation schemes that work in New Zealand and across Scandinavia, which generally satisfy all the participants and, importantly, change clinical behaviour, which is so important in reducing the cost. However, the truth is that this is tied up in broader tort reform, which I am definitely not expert enough to discuss, and in considerations attached to other legislation. A good example is Section 2(4) of Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act 1948, which has been discussed in this House before and concerns the entitlements of people who have suffered from clinical negligence, but inevitably affects other people who have been harmed.
It is also true that these kinds of schemes do not necessarily save money. Indeed, the modelling I saw when I was a Minister suggested that they could end up being more expensive. That is the challenge and we have to be realistic. It might be deserved, but it is a challenge in moving from one scheme to another.
I am definitely a supporter of action on this front, and I would very much like to hear from my noble friend that work is going on. I worked closely with my noble and learned friend Lord Keen, when he was at the Ministry of Justice, on this programme, and I hope it has continued. I am not sure that this can be dealt with in the way suggested, with a clause dropped into the Bill, because of all the consequential changes and the very difficult issues that it raises, but it is unbelievably important. The cost—that liability of £80 billion—is two-thirds of annual spending on the NHS and we simply cannot go on taking on these liabilities to future tax- payers, let alone to those people who have been harmed. We need to see a more robust policy response from the Government in general on this.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
The next speaker on the list, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Lansley.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am in the position that my noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy was in earlier, as much of what needs to be said has been said, but I want to add a few remarks on the two amendments.
I echo what my noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy said. In the light of the First Do No Harm report, we have to be careful to address ourselves to the issues before us and put in place schemes of redress on the three causes. I am not an expert on those, but when I was Secretary of State for Health I was only too aware, when dealing with the Thalidomide Trust or infected blood payments, for example, that when we reviewed and made payments that were more generous, we were working in what was, in effect, an administrative structure that did not necessarily have coherence or consistency. We were making what we thought were the right decisions at the time, but those who had been harmed all suffered, from their point of view, from two problems. The first was the relative lack of generosity of the payments, which were made to reflect specific needs but were not representative of the overall harm that had been done. Secondly, there was no admission of liability, which is always an issue. Liability matters. Those who are harmed want to see liability determined and accepted.
I am sympathetic to the view that not only should redress schemes be considered for the three causes in the report, but the Government should take the opportunity to think about what a redress scheme might look like more generally. My noble friend Lady Cumberlege and her colleagues looked carefully at a number or international examples. They might well have thought, with some justification, that the French scheme—I will not attempt its title in French, but it is a national office for indemnity in relation to medical accidents—is an interesting basis on which to examine the issue. We might include not only the redress schemes from previous years but the present schemes that need to be established. This is something that Ministers might want to say in relation to the continuing review into infected blood accidents.
Again, like my noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy, I do not want to confuse what are related but distinct issues. The schemes relate to what are, in effect, systemic failures. Recommendation 3 of my noble friend Lady Cumberlege’s report appropriately says that the schemes are to provide redress in relation to avoidable harm resulting from systemic failures. There is a question, which is not entirely resolved in the report, about which test should be applied. The Government should look carefully at where liability genuinely lies. Where there is harm as a result of systemic failings, the Government have a responsibility. That is fairly straight- forward. However, that is not the same as assuming that such a scheme should encompass all the many other cases that give rise to most of the clinical negligence claims against the NHS, which result not from systemic failings but from the failings of medical practice in particular circumstances. Those are different and separate. This debate is not the right place to go on about that at length.
I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, talk about the NHS Redress Act 2006. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, will recall that in 2009 she was not able to bring that Act into force. I was the shadow Secretary of State during the passage of that Act and Secretary of State after 2010. One reason for not bringing it into force, to which my noble friend referred, was the Government’s intention to undertake tort law reform in general and this was a tort-based liability scheme.
Lord Sharkey (LD) [V]
My Lords, I can be very brief. Amendment 122, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Cumberlege and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, would require the Secretary of State to bring proposals before Parliament to establish a redress agency for those harmed by medicines and medical devices.
The arguments advanced for this by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, and others, seem completely and obviously convincing, and we strongly support this amendment. We have not spoken to its proposers about this, but we wonder whether this redress agency might be hosted by the patient safety commissioner. We also wonder whether the amendment perhaps ought to be reworked into a revised task force amendment for Report, as we discussed in the previous set of amendments.
I know that the Government are in resistance mode about the patient safety commissioner but, when he responds, could the Minister tell the Committee what coherent arrangements there currently are for NHS patient redress, and whether he believes these arrangements are satisfactory?
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I think this has been one of those really rather good and unexpectedly deep House of Lords discussions, going back into the mists of time. Until the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, mentioned the redress Act, I had completely forgotten about it—it all came flooding back.
We have two quite different amendments in this group, and my noble friend Lord Hunt said at the outset that his Amendment 122 was a probing amendment. This is about opening up the discussion, which it certainly did—a discussion that has long needed resolving. The noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord O’Shaughnessy, were quite right in that it is an issue of the future; this group has one probing amendment about the future—what it should look like and how you create an agency that can address the issue of those harmed by medicines and medical devices. It is a very legitimate discussion, which needs to be had.
The second amendment, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, is about the future, what happens now and what happens about the harms that were done—the avoidable harms, in the case of hormone pregnancy tests, sodium valproate and pelvic mesh. That is very important indeed, and the noble Baroness is right to say that those harms must be specifically addressed by the Government and to push that. I think that is what we would be looking for—how the Government would implement those recommendations. I see the noble Baroness, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, whose comments we very much welcomed and valued, but I do not think that was the last word. I hope she will involve herself in the next stage of the Bill. In fact, I am depending on it.
The Government have to address Amendment 123 in particular, because that is urgent and needs to be done now. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about that in particular.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle—who indicated her interest in this along with my noble friend Lady Cumberlege—for raising the important issue of redress for those harmed by medicines and medical devices.
I share the review’s concern that patient voices were not heard, and I reiterate that we are committed to ensuring that the healthcare system does better at listening, learning and acting on patient concerns. Furthermore, we recognise that patients need to be at the centre of decision-making to ensure that their perspectives are built in.
Our focus is on improving the safety of medicines and medical devices so that in future there should be less need for redress. We are determined to increase patient safety and drive additional pre-market scrutiny and post-market surveillance of medical devices. For example, the yellow card scheme plays a vital role in providing an early warning that the safety of a product may require further investigation, and the MHRA is transforming and strengthening the system to make it easier for patients and healthcare professionals in the UK to directly report adverse incidents involving all medicines and medical devices. The UK has one of the safest medicines systems in the world and we will continue to make sure that patients and the public have access to the best and most innovative medicines.
Amendment 122, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, would require the Secretary of State to bring forward proposals to establish a redress agency within 12 months of the Royal Assent of this Bill. Committing now to such an agency would short-cut the in-depth policy consideration that the review’s recommendation of a redress agency deserves, as a number of noble Lords have reasonably recognised. I understand that my noble friend Lady Cumberlege herself undertook substantial engagement with the affected patients and other parties as part of her review. Listening and consultation is a vital part of how we take forward any policy change, and it is even more important given the significance of this issue.
A redress agency would represent a significant addition to the current landscape for all stakeholders, and we need to give them time to contribute their perspectives and think through the implications for them. In particular, there is a need to work through what the determinations and parameters of such arrangements would be and how they would interface with current legal remedies—already complex—before we could agree to take forward this proposal. This would help us explore how that would affect the patient journey through different potential approaches, the costs and their value for money. We also need to be mindful of the potential impact on industry.
With regard to Amendment 123, tabled by my noble friend Lady Cumberlege, given that legal action is pending over hormone pregnancy tests, and as is usual when matters are sub judice, I am restricted in what I can say on this aspect of the amendment.
I know that the establishment of a specific redress scheme was my noble friend’s fourth recommendation in the report of the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review. While I am very sympathetic to the desire of my noble friend and others to see the Government respond to her report and take forward her recommendations, I do not agree that policy should be made and deadlines set through primary legislation. Indeed, her report itself was sadly delayed during the current situation we find ourselves in.
I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that we will respond to the issues raised in the amendment as part of our formal response to the Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review. The Government are considering all recommendations made in that review and will provide an update before the Christmas Recess. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has heard enough that is reassuring and feels able to withdraw Amendment 122, and that my noble friend Lady Cumberlege is similarly reassured not to move hers.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, I have received no requests to speak after the Minister, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, to conclude the debate on his amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I think this has been an excellent debate. I fully accept, as my noble friend Lady Thornton said, that my Amendment 122 covers a much wider area than Amendment 123, which focuses on the specific issues relating to the report of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege.
My Amendment 122 was definitely a probing amendment, because the current situation in relation to clinical negligence is wholly unsatisfactory. It combines the bureaucracy and slowness which the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, referred to in relation to Windrush and she is absolutely right to draw parallels. It combines a hugely frustrating process for patients and their relatives with a system that increasingly becomes ever more expensive for the NHS. The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, was not going to be drawn on these wider considerations, but the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord O’Shaughnessy, have both dealt with these—we know that it is a very complex issue, but surely, at the end of the day, we have to recognise that the current system simply is not working.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
We now come to Amendment 126. I should inform the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments 127, 128 or 129.
Clause 41: Consultation
Amendment 126
Lord Bethell
(1A) In relation to proposed regulations under section 16(1), the Secretary of State must specifically consult—(a) the Welsh Ministers,(b) the Scottish Ministers, and(c) the Department of Health in Northern Ireland.(1B) In relation to proposed regulations under section 1(1), 8(1) or 12(1), the consultation document must include a summary of the relevant authority’s assessment of the matters mentioned in section 1(1A) and (2), 8(1A) and (2) or 12(1A) and (2)(as the case may be).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires a relevant authority to carry out a public consultation before making regulations under any provision of Part 1, 2 or 3, and to set out the authority’s assessment of any matter to which the authority must have regard in making the regulations, as well as requiring the Secretary of State to consult the devolved administrations in relation to regulations under clause 16(1).
Lord Bethell
“Reporting requirements
(1) As soon as reasonably practicable after the end of each reporting period, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on the operation of any regulations made by the Secretary of State under sections 1(1), 8(1) and 12(1) that were in force at any time during the reporting period.(2) In preparing a report, the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(3) A report must include a summary of—(a) any concerns raised, or proposals for change made, by a person consulted in accordance with subsection (2), and(b) the Secretary of State’s response to those concerns or proposals, including any plan the Secretary of State may have to make further regulations under section 1(1), 8(1) or 12(1).(4) The reporting periods are—(a) the period of 24 months beginning with the day on which the first set of regulations under section 1(1), 8(1) or 12(1) comes into force, and(b) each successive period of 24 months.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause imposes reporting requirements on the Secretary of State in relation to the operation of regulations made under Clauses 1(1), 8(1) and 12(1).
Lord Bethell
“(3) The procedure for making regulations under Part 1, 2 or 3 is to be determined in accordance with this table and subsection (4)—
If the regulations contain provision made in reliance on | the regulations are subject to |
section 5(1)(a) | the negative procedure |
section 10(1)(a) | the negative procedure |
section 14(1)(a) | the negative procedure |
paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 | the negative procedure |
section 6 | (a) the made affirmative procedure, where the regulations contain a declaration that the person making them considers that they need to be made urgently to protect the public from an imminent risk of serious harm to health |
(b) the draft affirmative procedure in any other case | |
section 15 | (a) the made affirmative procedure, where the regulations contain a declaration that the Secretary of State considers that they need to be made urgently to protect the public from an imminent risk of serious harm to health |
(b) the draft affirmative procedure in any other case | |
any other provision in Part 1, 2 or 3 | the draft affirmative procedure |
(5) Where regulations are subject to “the negative procedure”—
(a) in the case of regulations made by the Secretary of State acting alone, the statutory instrument containing the regulations is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament,
(b) in the case of regulations made by a Northern Ireland department acting alone, they are subject to negative resolution within the meaning given by section 41(6) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954, and
(c) in the case of regulations made by the Secretary of State and a Northern Ireland department acting jointly, the statutory instrument containing the regulations is subject to—
(i) annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament, and
(ii) negative resolution within the meaning given by section 41(6) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954.
(6) Where regulations are subject to the “draft affirmative procedure”—
(a) in the case of regulations made by the Secretary of State acting alone, the statutory instrument containing the regulations may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament,
(b) in the case of regulations made by a Northern Ireland department acting alone, they may not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly, and
(c) in the case of regulations made by the Secretary of State and a Northern Ireland department acting jointly, the statutory instrument containing the regulations may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of—
(i) each House of Parliament, and
(ii) the Northern Ireland Assembly.
(7) Where regulations are subject to the “made affirmative procedure”—
(a) in the case of regulations made by the Secretary of State acting alone, the statutory instrument containing the regulations—
(i) must be laid before Parliament after being made, and
(ii) ceases to have effect at the end of the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which the instrument is made unless, during that period, the instrument is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament,
(b) in the case of regulations made by the Department of Health in Northern Ireland acting alone, they—
(i) must be laid before the Northern Ireland Assembly after being made, and
(ii) cease to have effect at the end of the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which they are made unless, during that period, the regulations are approved by a resolution of the Assembly, and
(c) in the case of regulations made by the Secretary of State and the Department of Health in Northern Ireland acting jointly, the statutory instrument containing the regulations—
(i) must be laid before Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly after being made, and
(ii) ceases to have effect at the end of the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which the instrument is made unless, during that period, the instrument is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament and by a resolution of the Assembly.
(8) In calculating the period of 40 days for the purposes of subsection (7)(a)(ii) or (c)(ii) in relation to Parliament, no account is to be taken of any time during which—
(a) Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or
(b) either House of Parliament is adjourned for more than 4 days.
(9) In calculating the period of 40 days for the purposes of subsection (7)(b)(ii) or (c)(ii) in relation to the Northern Ireland Assembly, no account is to be taken of any time during which the Assembly is—
(a) dissolved,
(b) in recess for more than 4 days, or
(c) adjourned for more than 6 days.
(10) If regulations cease to have effect as a result of subsection (7) that—
(a) does not affect the validity of anything previously done under the regulations, and
(b) does not prevent the making of new regulations.”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for urgent regulations made in reliance on clauses 6 and 15 (emergencies) to be subject to the made affirmative procedure rather than the negative procedure and for regulations under clauses 2(1)(j), (k) or (n) and 9(1)(f), (k) or (l) to be subject to the draft affirmative procedure rather than the negative procedure.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
Amendments 134 to 138 have been pre-empted.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
We now come to Amendment 145. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate.
Clause 44: Commencement
Amendment 145
Lord Sharkey
“Commencement
This Act comes into force on the day on which it is passed.”
Lord Sharkey (LD) [V]
My Lords, this is a probing amendment; its purpose is to allow the Minister to explain why Clause 44 contains four different commencement provisions for different parts of the Bill. The Explanatory Memorandum is silent about the reasons for that. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain on what basis the paragraphs in subsection (1) were chosen, why the coming into force of the items in subsection (2) is delayed by two months, and, in subsection (3), why Chapters 3 and 4 of Part 3 come into force at the absolute discretion of the Secretary of State. I think that I may understand subsection (4), but it would be helpful if the Minister could explain that to us too for the record. I beg to move.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
The only question I want to ask is the question the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, has just asked. Can the Minister give a rational explanation about why certain parts of the Bill come into force at different times? The key question on commencement is whether the commencement schedule as drafted risks holding up any of the work that needs to be done or allows the Government to move too slowly on anything.
My colleagues in the Commons drew attention to this provision as essentially a means of saying, “at some point in the future”. Can the Minister give an indication of the timeframe in which the Government expect to get these regimes consulted on, regulated for and up and running? As the Bill is drafted, the timing is left rather open-ended.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for her amendment, which would require the Secretary of State to act in accordance with the guidance on the use of civil sanctions—I am sorry, I am on the wrong amendment.
Amendment 145, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, seeks to amend the commencement clause, Clause 44, so that all provisions would come into force on the day the Bill receives Royal Assent. I am confident that the amendment is not necessary. Clause 44(1) provides that the clauses needed to make emergency amending regulations will come into force the day the Bill receives Royal Assent.
Under Clause 44(2), a significant number of clauses come into force after the customary two-month commencement period. Chapters 3 and 4 of Part 3 come into force on a day the Secretary of State appoints which is specified in regulations. This combination of commencement provisions is for a good reason. Patients, stakeholders and Parliament must know what the law is before the law is made. The two-month commencement period allows the Government to continue to engage with industry and the relevant stakeholders properly before provisions come into force.
Importantly, Clause 44 provides for the necessary powers and provisions to come into force on Royal Assent should it be necessary, within that two-month period, to make regulations urgently in order to protect the public from an imminent risk of serious harm to health.
I understand that there may be concern about Clause 44(3), which allows the Secretary of State to determine when Chapters 3 and 4 of Part 3 come into force, but I assure the noble Lord that, again, this is for a good reason. Chapter 3 of Part 3 is concerned with enforcement and included in that is the introduction of a civil sanctions regime. Civil sanctions will act as a flexible, proportionate enforcement mechanism, enhancing the MHRA’s ability to incentivise compliance. The new civil sanctions regime requires supplementary regulations to be made under paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 before it can be fully operational. It is important that the MHRA engages with industry and stakeholders on these regulations and the accompanying guidance. Indeed, the Bill requires a consultation to be carried out before they are made. If these provisions came into force on the day the Bill achieved Royal Assent, we would have no time to make the necessary regulations. Our time to consult in advance on those regulations and the guidance would be severely condensed.
It is absolutely right that we consider the views of stakeholders and the public before making the supplementary regulations and bringing the new civil sanctions regime into force. I assure noble Lords that the Government are committed to bringing the enforcement and data and disclosure chapters into force as soon as is appropriate in order to enhance the safety of the medical devices regime. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, understands the reasoning behind the clause and feels able to withdraw his amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, I have received no request to speak after the Minister, so I call Lord Sharkey—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
With apologies to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, who does wish to speak after the Minister, I now ask him to do so.
Lord Lansley (Con)
I thank the Deputy Chairman. I sent the email only about 30 seconds ago so I suppose, strictly speaking, that apologies on his part are not required. I should have anticipated the need to ask a question, but I am afraid I was prompted by listening to the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, and the Minister’s reply. I want to ask one question: how can what will become Section 1 be brought into force without Section 2? I do not understand. If a power is to be used under Section 1, it must surely make provision about some of the long list of relevant areas in what will be Section 2. In the absence of Section 2 being in force, I cannot see how Section 1 works.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I will seek to provide an answer to my noble friend. Should it not be quite the right answer I will endeavour to write to him. It is my understanding that no substantive provision of an Act should be brought into operation earlier than two months after Royal Assent. However, some sections of the Act can be brought into force on Royal Assent, typically those setting out how the Act is to be cited and what the procedure is for making regulations or commencing them. It is under those arrangements that the sequencing which he describes can be undertaken.
Lord Sharkey (LD) [V]
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, for his intervention. I will read Hansard carefully tomorrow to make sure that I understand not only his question but the Minister’s reply. I thank the Minister for his explanations—they were useful—and for the brief preview of his next speech.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
We now come to Amendment 146. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate.
Schedule 1: Medical devices: civil sanctions
Amendment 146
Baroness Thornton
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment places a duty on the Secretary of State to follow, rather than have regard to, guidance.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, we have reached the final amendment so I will be as brief as I can. The first thing I need to clarify, and I do not know if other noble Lords have spotted this, is that my amendment is actually to page 32 not page 34, otherwise it makes no sense at all. It is to amend line 10 on page 32—of the Bill that I have in front of me, anyway. But maybe I have an old copy of the Bill. Paragraph 13(7) of Schedule 1 says:
“The Secretary of State must have regard to the guidance or revised guidance published under this paragraph in exercising functions under this Schedule.”
That is the point of this tightening-up amendment, which would require the Secretary of State to “act in accordance with” the guidance.
Amendment 146 is about the planned civil sanctions regime for medical devices. Part 5 of Schedule 1 provides that the Secretary of State must “prepare and publish guidance” on
“the sanctions that may be imposed on”
someone who commits an offence,
“the action that the Secretary of State may take”,
and the circumstances in which they may take such action. This could be, for example, when a penalty may or may not be imposed, the amount of such a penalty, what the Secretary of State will take into account in determining that amount and so on. Before publishing the guidance the Secretary of State will, of course, consult devolved Administrations and anyone else they consider appropriate. Where necessary, should changes be needed, the Secretary of State must revise the guidance and publish the revised version.
Once published, this guidance is the information that will be in the public domain on the operation of this regime. Yet after all that preparation, as currently drafted, the Bill says the Secretary of State must only “have regard to the guidance” when “exercising functions under this Schedule”. The amendment would simply tighten this up, so that the Secretary of State must “act in accordance with” the guidance. I look forward to the Minister’s response, and I hope we can locate it in the right place—I obviously have an old version of the Bill in front of me.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
The amendment proposed is to page 34, possibly corrected by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, to page 32.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I hesitate to disagree with my noble friend, but I think it is on page 34—but then, of course, I might have an old edition of the Bill as well, just to confuse things.
The reason for supporting this is the unease about provisions in Clause 27 and Schedule 1. The Delegated Powers Committee concluded that
“in the absence of a full justification … allowing the ingredients of criminal offences … and … the penalties for existing offences to be set by delegated legislation”
amounts to “inappropriate delegations of power”. The Constitution Committee said:
“We have concluded previously that ‘the creation of criminal offences through delegated powers is constitutionally unacceptable’, save for exceptional circumstances. The delegated powers to create and adjust criminal offences in this Bill are constitutionally unacceptable.”
The Minister has made certain modifications, but I think the general principle still holds good.
The guidance to be issued under paragraph 13 of the schedule is likely to be extensive, including: the imposition of a monetary penalty; the notices to the person it is proposed to fine and the grounds for so doing; the representations that have been made; the appeals process; and the consequences of non-payment. As my noble friend said, lines 9 and 10 on page 34 provides that
“The Secretary of State must have regard to the guidance or revised guidance published under this paragraph”.
Given that the Secretary of State is the person publishing the guidance, it is puzzling that he or she is required only to “have regard to” the very guidance that he or she has published—hence my noble friend’s amendment to require the Secretary of State to “act in accordance with” the guidance. I look forward to hearing from the Minister as to why the Bill is drafted to give the Secretary of State wider discretion on that.
Lord Patel (CB) [V]
My Lords, I speak very briefly to support this amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, have covered the argument extremely well. As the noble Lord said just now, the guidance is produced by the Secretary of State but, when you look at it in practice, it says that the Secretary of State “must have regard to” the guidance—that is, can take note of it but does not have to follow it.
I am a doctor and am used to following guidelines. If I do not follow the guidelines, I am liable to be reported; if I do not follow them for any reason in the management of a patient, I am expected to write down as to why I did not follow them. I am not expected to take note of it or have regard to it—I am expected to follow it. The amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, addresses exactly that point: why is the Secretary of State not asked to follow the guidelines which he or she drafted?
Lord Sharkey (LD) [V]
We all know that the words “have regard to” create no real obligations, whereas the words “act in accordance with” do create real obligations. Clause 13 seems to contain important restrictions on the actions of the Secretary of State, but it does so via guidance. As the Bill stands, with its “have regard to” wording, that guidance has no statutory force. If the restrictions are to have any reality—and I assume that the Government would like them to, or they would not have written them into the Bill—we must replace “have regard to” with “act in accordance with” as the amendment proposes. We support the amendment.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for her amendment, which is designed to require that the Secretary of State must “act in accordance with” the guidance on the use of civil sanctions that he is required to publish under paragraph 13 of Schedule 1, as opposed to having regard to the guidance. Paragraph 13 requires the Secretary of State to prepare and publish guidance about the use of civil sanctions. More specifically, this guidance must cover the sanctions that may be imposed if a person commits an offence, the action the Secretary of State may take, and the circumstances in which action is likely to be taken.
I understand the intention behind Amendment 146 and recognise that it is crucial that civil sanctions are imposed in a transparent and consistent manner to ensure that the regime operates effectively. However, the current drafting of Schedule 1, including the obligation on the Secretary of State to publish and have regard to guidance on the civil sanctions regime, will ensure this transparency and consistency.
The guidance will be prepared after consultation with the devolved Administrations and others. The purpose of any guidance is to provide clarity to the civil sanctions regime and detail the circumstances in which different civil sanctions may be pursued. However, instances of non-compliance or criminal activity, where the medical device regulations are concerned, need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. The scale, complexity and severity of non-compliance can vary significantly. As such, any resultant enforcement activity needs to be proportionate, effective and commensurate with the non-compliance or criminal activity.
The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, would bind the Secretary of State, acting through the MRHA, to act in accordance with guidance in every instance. This would limit the regulator’s ability to arrive at and undertake the most appropriate course of enforcement action commensurate to the multifaceted nature of the case at hand. The MHRA cannot set out every circumstance where it may be appropriate to impose civil sanctions. However, by preparing, consulting and publishing a clear set of guidance we can be clear on the framework and illustrate circumstances on how and why a civil sanction might be imposed without being exhaustive.
The regulator needs civil sanction guidance that is flexible enough to appropriately address all forms of non-compliance. To mandate following the guidance to the letter could potentially mean that no action can be taken if the MHRA encounters a new example of non-compliance that has not been explicitly catered for in the guidance but clearly warrants a civil sanction. Under such circumstances, the Secretary of State will, of course, comply with obligation to publish revised guidance as required in paragraph 13 of Schedule 1.
I remind noble Lords that recipients of civil sanctions can contest the imposition of a civil sanction before it takes effect by appealing to the First-tier Tribunal. It is also worth highlighting that, as currently provided, the guidance will be statutory guidance and the regulator must have regard to it when carrying out enforcement activity.
Furthermore, this type of provision is standard across the statute book. For instance, provisions requiring regulators and statutory bodies to “have regard” to statutory guidance can be found in a wide range of legislation, from Section 2 of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 to Section 5 of the Business and Planning Act 2020. In a civil sanctions context, Section 63 of the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008 provides that provisions conferring a power on a regulator to impose a civil sanction must also make provision relating to guidance—in particular, that the regulator “must publish guidance” about its use of a sanction and
“have regard to the guidance … in exercising its functions.”
The Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products Regulations 2010 has a similar civil sanctions regime. These regulations are concerned with the establishment of a framework for the setting of ecodesign requirements for energy-related products. In paragraph 28 of Schedule 5 to those regulations the market surveillance authority
“must have regard to guidance”
while exercising his or her functions with regard to the imposition of civil sanctions. I hope that the reassurance we seek is not unusual but in line with how civil sanction and, indeed, other regimes operate domestically. For that reason, I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw Amendment 146.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, I think that I have received no requests to speak after the Minister so, hoping that I have not overlooked the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, once again, I call the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, to conclude this debate.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
First, I need to say that I do have an old version of the Bill which I picked up from my desk on my way here, so I apologise to the Committee for that. I will read the Minister’s comments, but if the schedule already has, as I understand it, the ability to be flexible written into it—I think the Minister said that it was there in Clause 13—it seems to mean that one does not need to have regard to it. One would need to act in accordance with it, because the Bill already has built into it the flexibility needed under the circumstances that he was describing. However, I will read his comments and reflect on them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, that concludes the Committee’s proceedings on the Bill. I remind Members to wipe their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
House of Lords
Introduction: Lord Bellingham
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now begin. Some Members are here in the Chamber and others are participating remotely. All Members will be treated equally. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House. Oral Questions will now commence. Please can those asking supplementary questions keep them to no longer than 30 seconds and confined to two points? I also ask that Ministers are brief in their answers.
Face-to-Face Medical Appointments
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Balfe
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made towards the return to face to face appointments on demand for medical patients.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, face-to-face GP appointments increased from 10 million in August to 15 million in September. I should like to take this moment to thank those who have worked hard to restart primary care and serve patients in difficult circumstances. But I should also flag that the proportion of consultations by phone and video is currently running at around 40% and, for many people, this represents a safe, convenient, low-stress, low-cost and hygienic way to get the clinical engagement they need.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and note that public trust in the Government is not rising at the moment, and that many people feel that the absence of effort to get medical practice back to normal is a contributory factor in this. Will the department make it a priority to get face-to-face appointments back to the level that they were before? If it cannot, the Government will find that trust declines even further.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his comments and reassure him that the Government are absolutely focused on the restart programme. The chief executive of the NHS has written to GPs, emphasising the absolute and primary importance of face-to-face appointments, for exactly the reasons that my noble friend knows full well. I also emphasise the enormous response that we have had from the public, and that we are meeting exacting targets for those face-to-face meetings. I also emphasise that new technologies and techniques have been very much welcomed by the public. Telemedicine, and telephone and video consultations, have proved to be extremely popular and helped to increase the number of appointments last month compared with this time last year.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, nearly three-quarters of GP consultations at the peak of the pandemic were conducted by telephone or video call. A BMA survey in June found that nine in 10 GPs want to continue to deliver consultations remotely, once the pandemic has ended. Many people are reluctant to discuss their symptoms in this way, or cannot access the necessary technology, and often diagnoses are not possible without a physical examination. Is the Minister happy with such a change? What guidance does the department intend to give on this, and will the GP contract be reviewed to reflect what is happening?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Lord is entirely right. Without doubt, there are very many circumstances in which a face-to-face appointment is absolutely necessary, whether that is for a physical analysis, for the comfort of the patient or to check out other symptoms that may not be apparent from a telephone call. However, there are other people for whom telephone appointments are helpful. The Royal College of Physicians found that 20% of patients over 65 felt worse after an in-person appointment because of the stress involved. But the noble Lord is entirely right that guidelines do need to be evolved in order to reflect the changes, and there may be a moment when the GP contract needs to be revisited.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
Iceland has better survival rates for strokes by using telemedicine for decisions in acute care on thrombolysis. Will the Government not take this opportunity to move primary care far more into the modern era by encouraging a far greater use of telemedicine, and not simply hark back to the past as we learn from the experiences of Covid?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Lord makes an incredibly interesting parallel with Iceland. It is not one that I knew, but I will take care to look into it, because it is instructive and informative. He is right to say that Covid has demonstrated the power of telemedicine, and we are keen to learn that lesson. We do not want the elastic band of old practice to snap back to where it was before. To reflect the words of a noble Lord who spoke previously, there will be occasions when tele- medicine is right. The key is getting the blend correct and ensuring that the right format is used in the right circumstances.
Baroness Browning (Con) [V]
I quite accept that there is a role for telemedicine, but an accurate diagnosis in cases of serious disease and illness is dependent not just on the questions that the doctor asks and the observations he makes but on the ability of the patient to give accurate information. I will give the example from my family in the past few months of antibiotics prescribed for a “lung infection” that was actually a fatal pulmonary embolism. Getting that mix right is not easy; there are very many shades of grey.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My noble friend makes a very good point. Diagnosis is phenomenally difficult and, quite often, patients who present with seemingly one condition have something altogether different. It may be that a face-to-face appointment will be the moment when that difference is spotted and caught. She is entirely right to say that we cannot omit that format for the right circumstances, but a great many patients see their GPs very regularly. Their journeys may be onerous, uncomfortable and stressful, and telemedicine might offer them an alternative opportunity. There are others for whom speed is of the essence, and having telemedicine, particularly when it is supported by apps that provide essential information about their condition, can be an important and urgent alternative.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD) [V]
My Lords, according to the June edition of the British Medical Journal, the biggest change for mental health services has been the rapid adoption of video and phone consultations, an approach that had rarely been used in a field where relationships and trust between clinicians and patients are vital and where body language and eye contact are often a key part of the assessment. Many in the sector have reported that virtual appointments are at best inferior, particularly with young people, those with learning disabilities and the elderly. What assurances can the Minister give that face-to-face appointments will continue to be made available for those who need them in this field?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Baroness has raised an important point. I saw the BMJ article to which she has referred; it was a very interesting warning shot, whereby we should not overshoot in this area. But perhaps I can also emphasise that other interesting evidence shows that some mental health services have been better provided by online consultations. For instance, some young people do not like visiting clinics, where they feel uncomfortable, and prefer video conferences. I think it is too early to call it on this one, because we need to analyse closely the benefits and disbenefits in the area of mental health. We must ensure that we have the right format for the right occasion, but I completely take on board the warnings of the noble Baroness.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, my personal experience of online doctor appointments is that they are most satisfactory, efficient and time-saving, but I do understand that many older citizens may want and often need to have traditional face-to-face appointments. Appointments on demand are surely not practical, but does the Minister support citizens having the legal right to request one-to-one doctor appointments?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I agree with my noble friend that the terms of service should be clear, although I am not sure that we necessarily have the scope for or benefits of a legal right per se. However, perhaps I may disagree with him on one point. He said that there is a greater demand among older citizens for face-to-face contact, but that is not our experience. Older citizens are often very engaged digitally, prefer to engage with their clinicians, on occasion, from the comfort of their own homes, and can often be early adopters of such technologies.
Baroness Meacher (CB) [V]
My Lords, I agree with the Minister that, much to doctors’ surprise, many older people prefer to have virtual appointments, whether by Zoom or telephone. We can make assumptions about people, but doctors have been quite surprised by the extent to which patients prefer having an online consultation. Does the Minister agree that, in the end, this needs to be a matter for doctors to decide? Very often, they will have an initial conversation and then agree to see the patient when that is necessary. However, this is probably not a matter for government to decide on or to intervene in, and certainly not until doctors have settled down to a pattern of consultations based on their experience and understanding of their patients.
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Baroness makes a good point, but I would put a slightly different perspective on it. Doctors have not been the most progressive group in this area; as she says, they have been caught by surprise by patients’ views. I would actually give patients the loudest voice in this particular conversation.
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I regret that the time allotted for this Question has now elapsed.
Brain Tumour Research
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord O’Shaughnessy
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what financial support they are providing for research into therapies and treatments for people with brain tumours.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, in 2018, the Government announced funding of £40 million over five years for brain tumour research as part of the Tessa Jowell Brain Cancer Mission, through the NIHR. We are relying on researchers to submit high-quality research proposals in this very difficult area. To encourage such applications, in April 2018 we released an NIHR highlight notice on brain tumour research asking research teams to submit collaborative applications, building on recent initiatives and investments.
Lord O’Shaughnessy (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. Nearly three years ago, this House was witness to one of the most courageous and moving speeches in its long history when Baroness Jowell argued for better support for people who, sadly, like her, die from rare cancers. We have made progress since then; fluorescent dye to aid surgical accuracy has been rolled out and new specialist brain cancer centres have been set up across the NHS. However, funding for research is lagging. Of that £40 million promised by the NIHR, only £6 million has been allocated. Can my noble friend tell the House what the department is doing to address this issue and is he prepared to meet with representatives of the brain cancer research charities in order to think of a way forward?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the memory of Baroness Tessa Jowell has had a huge impact in this area. I remember well her testimony from these Benches and the mood of the House then. It was an extremely moving and impactful occasion and we remember her very fondly indeed.
My noble friend is entirely right that it is extremely frustrating that not more of this money has been spent. You will not catch me saying that very often at the Dispatch Box, but in this case, it is true. Managing the pipeline of research submissions through the process to the NIHR is a challenge. The NIHR has very high standards for the allocation of research grants and to date, it has struggled to find the number and quality of grants to support. That is why we will put a renewed focus on supporting the drafting of better grants, and I would be pleased to meet with the charities recommended by my noble friend in order to discuss the ways we can do that.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I have been told that only 5% of national spend on cancer research is devoted to brain tumour research. Let us consider the collaborative work being undertaken on precision medicine by the University of Bristol and Queen’s University Belfast. What additional funding could be dedicated to this area, which provides individualised treatments to ensure better patient outcomes?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Baroness is entirely right that precision medicine offers an enormous and powerful opportunity for us to tackle cancers. Brain cancers are particularly difficult to tackle, especially in adults, and we are daunted by the struggle to make further progress in this area. Since April 2018, we have spent £5.7 million on directly funded brain tumour research, but that is not enough and we would like to spend more. I am open to recommendations on how the money could be spent.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Con) [V]
My Lords, brain tumours kill more children and adults under the age of 40 than any other cancer, and I am grateful to hear my noble friend’s acknowledgement that research funding is not yet enough. Does he agree with the proposal to change the system so that if a site-specific brain tumour grant is deemed fundable by a panel, it will automatically be funded during a highlighted brain tumour funding round such as the one announced last month?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I am extremely grateful for a briefing given by Professor Richard Gilbertson earlier today on the specific question raised by my noble friend, which is grants for brain tumours in children. The NIHR system is a gold standard that is envied by the world and does not necessarily need to be broken and restarted. However, the point made by my noble friend is a good one and we are looking at ways of ensuring that more and better recommendations for grants go into the system in the first place so that, basically, we can spend the money more quickly.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB) [V]
My Lords, on 6 November this year, the Government spoke of developing quality research and funding through a successful partnership and sustainable alignment with the charity sector. When can we expect to see some results from that initiative, with work and funding to achieve those goals?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, the work of the charity sector in medical research is absolutely fundamental to national progress in this area. However, it too has been hit incredibly hard by Covid. We are having a number of dialogues with medical research sector representatives on how we can help. There will need to be a short, medium and long-term approach to getting back to where we were at the beginning of the year. How we bridge the current funding gap is a source of enormous concern to the department and the NHS. I cannot guarantee that we can necessarily embark on exactly the same framework that we envisaged at the beginning of the year, but I can reassure the noble Lord that we are very committed to the research community and we engage with it regularly on how we can help.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, several references have been made to our late and much-loved colleague Tessa Jowell, who I was proud to call a friend. Was she not prescient when in her last speech to this Chamber she said:
“I am not afraid. I am fearful that this new and important approach”—
referring to research—
“may be put into the ‘too difficult’ box”. [Official Report, 25/1/18; col. 1170]
When the Minister tells us in all sincerity that it is just too difficult to spend the £40 million that was promised, will he at least give this House an assurance that after this discussion he will take a personal and direct oversight of this matter, because it would be a great tragedy if those words of Tessa Jowell proved to be correct in the long run?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I hear the noble Lord’s words loud and clear. I reassure him that the good news is that Tessa Jowell left behind her in the Tessa Jowell Brain Cancer Mission an incredibly effective organisation that is holding the feet of Ministers firmly to the fire —not least through my noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy, who is on my case in a very big way.
I recognise that this is one of the tricky scientific challenges of our age. We have struggled to tackle adult brain tumours for a very long time. There has to be investment in the basic science around them, in the techniques, such as the very focused radiology, and in provable therapeutics that work in the field. This is not going to happen overnight, but I reassure the noble Lord that we are committed to finding a solution.
Baroness Jolly (LD) [V]
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Reid, referred to Baroness Jowell’s final speech, when she told us not to give up fighting this pernicious cancer. The noble Lord, Lord O’Shaughnessy, the then Minister, gave the assurance that the Government would not cease support for research into new treatments. Can the Minister confirm how many more research programmes into brain tumour treatments and therapies have been funded by NIHR since then? Is he confident that enough is being done?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I have a table of all the brain tumour research projects that we have backed over the last 10 years and I would be very glad to share it with the noble Baroness in correspondence. The short answer is, not enough. I would like there to be more grants and of higher value, but I recognise the challenge. When I speak to the scientists—even Richard Gilbertson, who is a very measured practitioner in this area—they recognise that more work needs to be done at an earlier stage to ensure that they are the kinds of projects that the NIHR system can back. We need to have a conversation about how we can encourage the early-stage science and the creative drafting of fresh ideas for that pipeline. That is something that I am very keen to get on with and have a dialogue about.
Lord Polak (Con)
I, too, was privileged to be present when Baroness Jowell spoke. In 1988, a 27 year-old man whose wife was eight months pregnant and who had just completed the London Marathon, was told by a neurologist that he had a brain tumour and six months to live. My Lords, that young man was me. I thank God and the doctors and nurses at the Royal Free Hospital that I am here to tell this story.
What is being done to educate and work with families and loved ones, who take the brunt of providing support for the patient and who most likely have no medical knowledge? While the Minister will be aware that not all brain tumours are cancerous, can he explain the Government’s commitment to fighting this niche but deadly form of cancer?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of everyone, I thank my noble friend for that powerful personal testimony. I am sure there will be many others in the Chamber or listening who have known or lived through some association with brain cancer or cancer of some kind. It is extremely gratifying that in many areas of cancer we have made enormous progress—to the extent that it is a completely treatable disease in many respects—but in the area of brain cancer, that is not true. That is not good enough and we are working on trying to find a solution. Money has been spent, but not enough. We need more focus on this.
On my noble friend’s point on supporting families, that is something that trusts work on, but it is left to the charities and support organisations to do. In all areas of illness, that is something where perhaps we could or should be doing more and I completely take on board his comments.
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
The time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Fossil Fuels: Business
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Salisbury
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the report by the Transition Pathway Initiative Management Quality and Carbon Performance of Energy Companies: September 2020, published on 7 October, what steps they plan to take to encourage fossil fuel intensive businesses to accelerate their move to net zero carbon emissions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, the Government have schemes worth nearly £2 billion operating or in development to support our vital energy-intensive industries to decarbonise. These schemes include the industrial energy transformation fund to help companies to reduce their fuel bills and transition to low-carbon technologies, and the industrial decarbonisation challenge to support industry with the development of low-carbon technologies in industrial clusters.
The Lord Bishop of Salisbury
I thank the Minister for his Answer. There have been some welcome and notable commitments, particularly by European oil and gas companies, but overall, the sector is not moving fast enough to align with the Paris agreement. How does the Minister see the Government supporting companies to move faster and have consistent standards for reporting all emissions from scopes 1, 2 and 3 so companies demonstrate alignment clearly in their reporting? I commend to the Minister the work of the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change working with TPI to establish a net-zero standard. It would be marvellous if the Government supported these endeavours in the context of their presidency of COP.
Lord Callanan (Con)
First, we welcome commitments from any company setting out its net-zero plans. We note the important and notable commitments from the oil and gas sector from the likes of Shell and BP. I endorse the right reverend Prelate’s comments about COP and the other matter he mentioned.
Lord Sarfraz (Con)
My Lords, significant investment will be required by energy-intensive industries moving to net zero. Will the Minister advise the House on efforts being made downstream to ensure that these businesses remain competitive in price-sensitive international markets where the competition might not play by the same rules?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord makes a very good point. We recognise that currently the costs of decarbonisation technologies are very high in many industries and many businesses are unable to pass on the increased costs of decarbonisation to consumers. That is why we are working very closely with industry and addressing this is one of the key aims of our industrial decarbonisation strategy.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as a pensioner of the Environment Agency pension fund, which co-chairs the transition pathway initiative. The TPI report shows that no oil and gas company can yet claim to be aligned with the Paris agreement. Does the Minister agree that accelerating the phase out of petrol and diesel cars in the UK will do little to impact the global oil and gas market in which UK-based multinational oil and gas companies operate? Will he tell the House what real leverage there is in the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan on these global companies to drive faster and better delivery by the aim of Paris in their global operations?
Lord Callanan (Con)
In the transition, the North Sea will remain a strategic asset for the UK providing high-quality jobs. We are working closely with the sector to support its transition. The noble Baroness will get more details in the upcoming energy White Paper and the North Sea transition deal.
Baroness Sheehan (LD) [V]
My Lords, according to the UK extractive industries transparency initiative, between 2015 and 2017, the Treasury gave more money to oil companies than it took from them in taxes—quite shocking. Is it still the Government’s policy to extract every last drop from the North Sea, no matter what the cost to our economy and to the future of our planet?
Lord Callanan (Con)
As I just said in answer to a previous questioner, the North Sea is vital to our economy and the transition. We will work closely with those companies, and already have some world-leading commitments from many on how they are taking forward the decarbonisation agenda.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, now in its fourth year of monitoring, the Transition Pathway Initiative reports that companies make progress rather slowly and that only 18% are aligned with even the benchmark of below 2 degrees. It has also reported that climate science dictates that the pathway matters, not just the endpoint. Can the Minister explain why, in the scatter-gun 10-point environment plan, there is no mention of the oil and gas sector deal promised in the Conservative Party manifesto? It is meaningless without another of the missing strategy frameworks—the heat strategy.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I referred to the North Sea strategy deal in my previous answer. The noble Lord will have to be patient until it comes out, but we are publishing a number of these strategy documents over the next 11 months before the COP in Glasgow next year.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]
My Lords, I very much welcome the Government’s 10-point green industrial revolution. What are we doing to lever private finance and what are the timescales for carbon capture and storage projects, specifically regarding Port Talbot, Teesside and Grangemouth?
Lord Callanan (Con)
My noble friend makes an extremely good point: we want to be a world leader in carbon capture usage and storage technologies. He will have noted the announcement of an extra £200 million to add to the £800 million already committed in the plan, for a total of £1 billion in this world-leading technology.
Lord Ravensdale (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as in the register. I very much welcome the Government’s ambition for London to become the global centre of green finance and the announcement by the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures last week. Have the Government considered legislating to mandate financial institutions to align portfolios to net zero, as a way to incentivise fossil-fuel-intensive businesses to accelerate their moves towards this goal?
Lord Callanan (Con)
As the noble Lord referenced in his question, we are mandating climate information in financial disclosures. We welcome other commitments from the many banks and financial institutions that are already joining us on the path to net zero.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, as the right reverend Prelate and other noble Lords have pointed out, this report shows that most energy companies are not on track. This means that, to an extent, we will be dependent on fossil fuels for energy beyond 2050. Robust plans for that are essential. What is the Government’s best estimate of the scale of the emissions challenge that this continuing dependency will create? As we heard, yesterday the Prime Minister unveiled a strategy to establish four carbon capture and storage clusters. If they operate at maximum capacity, will they meet a significant proportion of that challenge?
Lord Callanan (Con)
They will contribute to that challenge, but we need a number of different technologies and methods to meet our legally binding commitment to net zero. The noble Lord is right in that respect, and the 10-point plan is a useful contribution towards that objective.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, energy-intensive industries can only go so far in getting energy efficiency right. There is therefore a risk of carbon leakage from these organisations offshoring elsewhere in the world, which does nothing for global climate change. Are the Government considering a carbon border tax, as some of our European friends are, to make sure that that offshoring does not happen?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Lord is right to highlight the difficulties of potential carbon leakage. There are many problems with a carbon border tax, of which the noble Lord will be aware—difficulties with the WTO, et cetera—but I leave announcements on taxes to the Chancellor.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the 10-point plan that the Prime Minister announced yesterday, but ask my noble friend what discussions he has had with industry, particularly the producers of electric cars, to ensure that batteries, given their diversity, are fully recyclable throughout the country. We should not take away one problem just to replace it with another.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My noble friend is right to highlight the problem of recycling batteries. We are investigating the environmental opportunities of a transition to zero-emission vehicles, and are keen to encourage a circular economy in these vehicles, particularly for batteries. We are supporting the innovation infra- structure and regulatory environment required to create a proper battery recycling scheme.
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
My Lords, all the supplementary questions have been asked and answered. We therefore move to the fourth Oral Question.
Union Capability: Dunlop Review
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they expect to publish the report of the Dunlop Review into UK Government Union capability.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office told the House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee on 10 September, the Government intend to publish the Dunlop review before the end of the year.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, does the Minister recall that the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, was asked to review the strengthening and sustaining of the union? Given the Prime Minister’s gaffe when speaking to northern MPs earlier this week, which fuelled the fires of nationalism, is it not time for the Dunlop report to be published now and for the Prime Minister to act on it?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, as I have said, the review will be published before the end of the year. It makes a number of recommendations, which Ministers are taking the time to consider carefully, before setting out how they will take them forward. Unfortunately, work has been delayed by a focus on the UK-wide response to Covid.
Baroness Clark of Kilwinning (Lab)
Polling carried out in September showed that the Prime Minister Boris Johnson was himself the major driver of voters in Scotland towards support for independence. Given that, does the Minister not agree that it is time for the Government to review their policies and attitudes towards Scotland?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the Government believe in devolution. The individual devolution settlements and their effectiveness have been appraised on a range of occasions, in the last 20 years. The Prime Minister, quite rightly, drew attention to the threat posed by the SNP to the unity of our kingdom.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]
I have no doubt that the Dunlop review will be well informed and constructive, but I echo the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, that the Government must address this issue urgently, given the Prime Minister’s recent remarks and the almost universal opposition expressed to almost all aspects of the UK Internal Market Bill. Does the Minister accept not only that we need clarity now to secure the devolution settlement, but that there is a case for a constitutional convention that respects devolution and achieves a collaborative approach to UK decision-making, rather than unilateral decisions by the UK Government?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, good contacts exist between the UK Government and devolved Administrations. I recently reported to the House on the positive development in the review of intergovernmental relations. I assure the House that the Government take these matters seriously. The Prime Minister has set up a Cabinet committee for union policy implementation to support the delivery of policies that sustain our union.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, far too often, the unionist case is framed by references to what we achieved together in the past, when we urgently need a modern compelling unionist vision for the future of our United Kingdom? This is unlikely to be the preserve of any one party; what is required is for unionists across the United Kingdom to come together and make common cause, if we are to preserve our great union and defeat those who would tear it apart.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I very strongly agree with my noble friend, and spoke yesterday of the importance of not imputing bad intent where there is none. We are at our strongest when we work as one union, with the needs of all our citizens as the priority. The UK Government have provided billions in support of businesses and individuals in all parts of the UK during the Covid crisis. Our welfare system has been able to support people across the UK and our armed services have been invaluable. My noble friend is quite right: this is a story that unionists from all parties should tell.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB) [V]
The Prime Minister may choose to disparage the devolution settlement, but this House showed yesterday that it is not ready to destroy it, and we can infer that—like the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, and Sir John Major—the House thinks that it is better to improve and use rather than abuse the intergovernmental consensus-building mechanisms which exist. Why can we not get on with that now? Why must we wait until the end of the year before we see the Dunlop report? Can the Minister answer the pertinent questions which the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, put to him in the Chamber on 19 October? How do the Government react to Sir John Major’s lecture 10 days ago?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I have not had the time to read Sir John’s lecture. I said that the review would be published before the end of the year. It is important that we do not denigrate the substantive progress being made in the review of intergovernmental relations. I commend the devolved Administrations and the UK Government in the work going on there. It is very risky to claim that there is no co-operative work going on in this kingdom.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab) [V]
My Lords, can I take the Minister back to his first Answer? He said that Michael Gove had said that the review would be published before the end of the year. In fact, Michael Gove linked this review to the UK internal market Bill, which is currently going through the House, and said that it would be published before the Bill received Royal Assent. Most of us assumed that to mean that what is in that review will be helpful to our deliberations on the Bill, which has the devolution settlement at its heart, and most of us think that the Government have got this wrong. Would the review by the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, not be a helpful way to get to the bottom of some of these issues and have a proper informed discussion? It could help us with that, so why do the Government not publish it now, while we are discussing these very issues in legislation in your Lordships’ House?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I have underlined the importance of the issues and said that the Government gave a Written Ministerial Statement recently about relations and transparency. The Government are determined to carry this work forward, so far as the UKIM Bill is concerned. I do not agree with the characterisation of it, and the Government will reintroduce Part 5 in the House of Commons.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
Does the Minister understand the extent of the damage caused by the recent remarks of the Prime Minister, underlined by the sophistry of his subsequent attempt at explanation? He will be familiar with the old dictum that careless talk costs lives. In this case, careless talk costs votes.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the Prime Minister told the House of Commons:
“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… constantly to campaign for the break-up of our country”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/11/20; col. 315.]
I agree with him.
Lord Empey (UUP) [V]
My Lords, on 10 November in Grand Committee, introducing the Common Rules for Exports (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, said that the EU Commission
“will exercise these powers in Northern Ireland.”—[Official Report, 10/11/20; col. GC 421.]
Can my noble friend explain how allowing a foreign power to exercise executive authority in a part of the United Kingdom is consistent with the Government’s commitment to taking back control and to the maintenance of the union?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I have not seen my noble friend Lord Grimstone’s remarks in context, so I will respond to the noble Lord by letter.
Lord Lexden (Con)
Can the Minister, who throughout his career has been a powerful advocate for the union, agree that a strengthening of it is the cardinal requirement at this moment? Does he think that the recommendations of the Dunlop report will help to secure that great objective?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I cannot anticipate the detailed response to the Dunlop report. I commend both my noble friends Lord Lexden and Lord Dunlop for their commitment to the union. I hope that the package of measures in the intergovernmental review, and in response to the Dunlop review and other work, will make very clear this Government’s commitment to sustaining our vital and precious union.
Viscount Waverley (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am a unionist but, given where we are and before the United Kingdom implodes, what workable alternatives can the Government advance beyond federalism as possibly the most equitable and pragmatic form of governance that would best serve the regions of the United Kingdom? We have divorced ourselves from the concept of EU regionalism and face challenges north of the border, the long underinvestment debate in the north of England, the current Northern Ireland complexities and, importantly, the UK’s citizenry across the regions generally feeling distanced from each other. It is all coming to roost.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I do not agree that the United Kingdom is imploding. That is unhelpful talk. No political party in this country wishes to actively and swiftly break up the United Kingdom, except the one that I have mentioned. There is important co-operative work going on which will continue in full respect of the devolution settlement. We should all, in all parties, subscribe to that, as the noble Lord, Lord Caine, said.
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed.
Personal Protective Equipment: Procurement
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will (1) outline the transparency and reporting requirements of the procurement of personal protective equipment, (2) detail the steps taken to register any potential conflicts of interest in that process, and (3) publish all information about any such contracts awarded, including payments for intermediaries; and if not, why not.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, the National Audit Office report on Covid-19 procurement activity, published yesterday, recognised how we needed to procure new PPE contracts with extreme urgency in order to save lives. We are committed to publishing all the information about these contracts. Robust due diligence processes were in place. The report makes clear that there were no conflict-of-interest issues in procurement decisions. We will respond to the report’s recommendations in due course.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I am surprised by the Minister’s reply. The NAO report revealed numerous issues of concern, from lobbying by an adviser to Liz Truss for a transaction in which he had an interest to the creation of a VIP fast track which happened to assist those with connections to senior Conservatives. Some awards were made without tender; some had no written contracts. There was no documented proof of urgency, nor of how to handle conflicts of interest. Awards were made to a pest control firm and £250,000 went to a jewellery company with no PPE experience. Today, we learn of a cannabis research firm with just £6,000 in assets being handed PPE contracts of £33 million.
The Minister has helpfully tweeted that he is going to respond by saying how well people did in responding to the Covid crisis. That is no excuse for improper dealing. Will the Minister say not only that these details will be published but that I and other Members of this House will get that list soon, as the information should have been published within 30 days of the contracts being signed?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for this opportunity. We take transparency extremely seriously. We share the same values about doing things in the proper way. I stress “the proper way”. The NAO report does not say that the way in which the pandemic was responded to was “improper”, as she suggested. In many ways, the report is supportive of the point that we were facing an unprecedented global pandemic that posed a massive challenge to the entire country. We needed to procure contracts with extreme urgency in order to secure vital supplies. The shadow Health Secretary called on the Government to “move heaven and earth” to get needed PPE to staff. The leader of the Opposition quite rightly called on the Government to get rid of blockages in the system, saying:
“The Government must act to ensure supplies are delivered.”
We did everything we could to do that and I am proud of the achievement of those involved.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
The noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Balfe.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, the report does not make for happy reading, to put it mildly. There is a perception that the reality is some way away from where the Minister thinks it is. That may be fanned by the press, but the image of a tawdry chumocracy is to the fore in many newspaper reports. There were five recommendations in this report, all of which would benefit from the disinfectant of sunlight. My question to the Minister is quite simple: will the Government accept, implement and investigate the five recommendations?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I encourage my noble friend to look beyond newspaper reports. The reality is—
Lord Bethell (Con)
I ask my noble friend to look beyond newspapers for his analysis of the report. I take the five recommendations very seriously. They are encouraging and ally absolutely with the Government’s values. We will look at how to implement them in due course.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I listened yesterday to the Minister’s response to a similar Question. I accept that Governments were under an incredible strain, but many were better positioned and prepared than we were. Does the Minister have any regrets to which he will own up about the way in which money was handed out to procure PPE?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I have to be careful about what I say because legal proceedings are in place. The noble Lord is right; I do not pretend for a moment that everything was perfect. I have spoken quite candidly—possibly more candidly than I should have—about the challenges that we faced. Not everything was perfect or ran smoothly, and no well-honed machine sprang into life. However, I am proud that we reacted with energy, skill and elan. We made the most of a very difficult and unprecedented situation. I cannot hide my gratitude to those who stood up to help. Offers of help came from all sorts of places. We should be cheering them and not in any way attacking them.
Lord Triesman (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as in the register. I welcome the fact that the Minister intends to publish this information. I urge him to do so as rapidly as possible, as my noble friend Lady Hayter has suggested. Perhaps we could refine what sort of information would be desirable. Will the Minister ensure that the names of each of the 144 companies that the National Audit Office says were introduced to the VIP channel by Ministers’ private offices are published? Who authorised their acceptance into that channel? Who are the ultimate beneficial owners of those companies? This is critical. Which Minister made the introduction in each case?
Lord Bethell (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Triesman, misconstrues the nature of events. The Prime Minister made a number of public calls for help, which resulted in more than 15,000 offers. Of course, those had to be triaged. Not all were credible. Some were helpful and some were well-intentioned but not all were practical. We had to find a way of prioritising the most impactful. Anyone in our position would have done the same. This credible list included senior professional healthcare clinicians; members of former Governments of all parties; leaders of British industry; and all manner of helpful people, some of whom came from completely unexpected places. I should be happy to tell the stories of some of those unexpected offers another time. The noble Lord’s description of the prioritised channel is a misrepresentation. I regret that I cannot proceed as he asks.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, let us be clear. The issue is not that people stood up; it is what the Government then did to procure goods and services. Yesterday’s National Audit Office report states
“we cannot give assurance that government … mitigated the increased risks … or applied appropriate commercial practices”
at all times. That is technical-speak for not being able to rule out fraud or corruption. How can the Minister stand at the Dispatch Box and say with any credibility that all the rules were carried out and there were no conflicts of interest? Which should we believe, a line from the Dispatch Box or a report from the National Audit Office?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I do not really recognise the noble Lord’s technical-speak interpretation of the NAO report. In fact, the report is crystal clear. Yesterday, I quoted from its references to Ministers and conflicts of interest, and I do not think that I need to repeat it: it was crystal clear. However, perhaps I may reassure the noble Lord. I do not pretend for a moment that every single piece of paperwork got done on time during the pandemic—quite the opposite. We rewrote the guidelines on 18 March and reissued them: there is no way that you can jump through the hoops of a normal tendering process when you are in the middle of a massive global land grab. I am not pretending that; I am saying that there were not conflicts of interest, that Ministers were not involved in the procurement decisions and that the nation should be proud of the way in which we responded to the pandemic.
Lord Marlesford (Con) [V]
My Lords, what taxpayers will really want is a list of the Covid contracts that went wrong, either because the goods and services were not delivered or because they were not up to standard. They will want to know, in each case, the value of the contract, the amount of public money paid to the contractor, the amount reclaimed by the Government because of failure and the amount recovered for the taxpayer. Will my noble friend agree to produce such a list—eventually, at least—and put it in the Library of the House so that everybody can see it?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I entirely agree with my noble friend. Such lists will be published. Eighty-nine per cent of the contract award notices have already been published under the Official Journal of the EU; I would be glad to send my noble friend a link.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB) [V]
My Lords, in a Written Answer, the Minister confirmed to me that the NHS warehouse for PPE at Daventry has masks made by Medwell Medical Products. It is estimated that a quarter of the workers at its Chinese factory are Uighurs in a facility 3,444 kilometres from Xinjiang, so it is implausible that they went there voluntarily. In his Answer, why did the Minister not name the intermediary company involved? Will he now say whether it was Meheco or another state-owned company, what the value of the deal was, whether our embassy was involved, whether the UK made the deal before or after July—when Medwell was named in reports—and what steps he is taking to ensure that the United Kingdom is not complicit in using Uighur slave labour to produce PPE for the NHS and profits for the Chinese Communist Party?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I acknowledge the extremely good work that the noble Lord does on this issue. Of course, no one wants to see Uighur slave labour used to produce PPE for the NHS. On his specific questions, I do not have the details to hand, but I am happy to revisit the Written Answer that I gave him to see whether I can provide any further details.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, this issue and the report fill me with despair, I must say, as does the fact that it appears that the Government took action almost in a panic. Yes, horrible things happen but Governments should not panic, and there are rules, which should be followed. One could understand an individual who is ill informed and not well educated grabbing a supermarket trolley and filling it with loo rolls, but that is not how Governments should act. There are very clear ways of behaving. When I was in Whitehall and wanted to procure things, I had to go through several hoops. Civil Service rules and the law demanded it, and the fact that we had to do things quickly was not an excuse. Post all this, will we check that Civil Service rules were complied with and that the correct actions were taken that did not break any laws of the land?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I am always grateful for advice from the Ministry of Defence on procurement, which it always manages extremely well. With regard to the work of civil servants, the report speaks for itself. That is the exact purpose of the report.
The Earl of Shrewsbury (Con)
My Lords, is my noble friend aware of a BBC Midlands TV news report earlier this week of a recent meeting at University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust regarding procurement? Those attending that meeting were informed that the DHSC had ceased funding the purchase of PPE by regional NHS trusts and that those trusts would have to purchase PPE directly from NHS Improvement. Further, is he aware that such a decision greatly affects a successful and efficient manufacturer of some 10,000 PPE gowns a week called Wearwell, based in Tamworth, Staffordshire? It will no longer be able to supply the local NHS trust, by which it is recognised and approved as a supplier, as it is not recognised and approved as such by the NHS national framework. Is that situation not completely ridiculous? Will he look into the matter urgently and perhaps write to me?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for giving me advance notice of his question. I am aware of the changes in procurement practices in the NHS, which I welcome. They will have a huge impact and protect us in the case of future pandemics. I am also aware of the phenomenal effort by British manufacturers, which have stepped up to the challenge of producing PPE and have, in my view, gone a lot further than anyone expected, producing around 50% of the NHS’s PPE. There have clearly been unintended consequences if this company, Wearwell, has somehow fallen off the procurement list. I would be happy to take a letter from my noble friend and look into the matter.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, public trust has clearly been lost over PPE procurement and the NAO report. What do the Government plan to do to restore it?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I simply do not accept the assumption of that question. I think that the public see a Government who stepped up to an enormous challenge and did their best under very difficult circumstances. Many of the public individually stood up as volunteers and many professionals returned to former jobs to help out. Many businesspeople turned over their capacity, their staff or their focus to help out in the pandemic, and the Government took on a huge amount of support from members of the public. These sweeping assumptions that somehow everything was done in a negative way are very unhelpful and in fact do not chime with the mood of the public at all.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Private Notice Question has elapsed.
Conduct Committee Report
Lord Mance
That the Report from the Select Committee The Conduct of Lord Ahmed be agreed to. (6th Report, HL Paper 170)
Lord Mance (CB) [V]
My Lords, as the chair of the Conduct Committee, first, I draw the House’s attention to Standing Order 68A, which states that Motions on reports resulting from investigations under the Code of Conduct are decided without debate. This is therefore not an occasion on which I can, or will, take questions.
The reasons for Standing Order 68A are not only that reports such as this one can be highly sensitive and often involve vulnerable people but that the House has established a formal system of decision-making and appeals on which I hope noble Lords can be sure they can rely. Such reports are the culmination of a full investigation by the House’s independent Commissioner for Standards and very careful consideration thereafter by the Conduct Committee of any appeal. In this serious case, the appeal was considered by all nine members of the Conduct Committee, four of whom are independent lay members. The House can rest assured that it considered every aspect of this case.
The resulting report upholds the key findings of the commissioner to the effect that, first, Lord Ahmed breached the Code of Conduct by failing to act on his personal honour—in particular, by sexually assaulting a vulnerable member of the public who came to him as a parliamentarian asking for his help in relation to a complaint to the police about a faith healer’s activities. Secondly, he misled her by lying about his intentions to help her pursue that complaint, and he exploited her emotionally and sexually.
Lord Ahmed appealed to the Conduct Committee. As I have said, we heard that appeal, which included a ground suggesting significant fresh evidence. We remitted that ground to the commissioner who, after investigation, concluded in a supplementary report that there was nothing in that respect to disturb her previous conclusions. We then considered and prepared our 46-paragraph report, which noble Lords have, covering all aspects of Lord Ahmed’s appeal against the commissioner’s original and supplementary reports. We upheld the key findings, which I have set out, as well as the sanction recommended of expulsion.
We noted that the commissioner had found Lord Ahmed unco-operative and dishonest in the key areas and that he had shown no regret, remorse or understanding of the inappropriateness of his conduct or its effect on a vulnerable victim. We said in paragraph 45 of our report:
“The abuse of the privileged position of membership for a member’s own gain or gratification, at the expense of the vulnerable or less privileged, involves a fundamental breach of trust and merits the gravest sanction. Even though it is possible to think of even more serious breaches, the case in all its circumstances which we have set out crosses the threshold calling for immediate and definitive expulsion.”
The report therefore recommends that Lord Ahmed be expelled from the House. However, after Lord Ahmed was shown an embargoed copy of the report last Thursday, he gave notice of his retirement from the House on Saturday 14 November 2020 under the provisions of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. The House is therefore not being asked to agree a separate expulsion Motion today because Lord Ahmed is no longer a Member. I know that some Members of the House have asked why his resignation was accepted. The answer is that there is no provision under the Act to refuse or delay it. The resignation takes automatic effect at the beginning of the date given for retirement.
However, I confirm to the House that Lord Ahmed will retain none of the privileges of a retired Member. If this Motion is agreed today, the House of Lords Commission has agreed that with immediate effect Lord Ahmed will not be entitled to a retired Member’s pass and will not be able to access any of the facilities of the House. I beg to move.
Northern Ireland Protocol: Implementation Proposals
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab) [V]
My Lords, yesterday Northern Ireland business leaders told Members of Parliament that the Government have left them without clarity, details or time to deal with the huge change that is coming. The president of the Ulster Farmers’ Union said they are being asked to prepare with both arms tied behind their back and a blindfold on. So what are the contingency plans for business if the customs declaration service is not available by 1 January? Why have businesses had no information on how a tariff rebate system would work? As noble Lords know, businesses always need certainty, and certainty here is absolutely lacking.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, the Government are committed to ensuring that businesses and communities are ready for the end of the transition period. I am sorry to hear of the remarks reported by the noble Lord, but our intensive programme of engagement with industry continues at pace. The Business Engagement Forum has now met 20 times since May, and this month the Chancellor of the Duchy formed a UK-wide business readiness task force. We have also made considerable progress on the provision of guidance, publishing over 25 pieces of sectoral guidance for businesses moving goods between Northern Ireland and GB in recent weeks.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]
Yesterday’s Statement in in the House of Commons was a bravura performance, but completely out of touch with reality. Is it not the case that any small business in Northern Ireland planning for Brexit is faced with a nightmare of distraction, with few hard facts on which to base any decisions? The five essential steps on InterTradeIreland pose detailed questions on the supply chain, customs, people and data, to which answers are not available. If you ask your supply chain, they do not yet have the answers; if you ask customs, neither do they, and so on. When will the trader support service be in a position to deliver to businesses that register? Does the Minister accept that, given the continuing uncertainty, services in support of the trader support service will be needed for years to come?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, in relation to the trader support service, I can report to the House that, whereas my honourable friend in the House of Commons said that 7,000 businesses had signed up, 9,000 businesses have now signed up, with hundreds more joining every day. We will shortly set out further support for agri-food producers engaging with new SPS processes.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend share my concern that far too many people see this issue solely through the prism of strand 2 of the Belfast agreement and of avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland? Will he confirm that the 1998 agreement contains three strands, while the consent principle underpins Northern Ireland’s position as an integral part of our United Kingdom? As such, is it not imperative that Northern Ireland continues to benefit from free and unfettered access to what is by far its largest single market?
Lord True (Con)
My noble friend raises an important point and I can certainly reassure him that the Government remain committed to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement in its entirety, including all three strands; east-west is vital, as he says. We are delivering on our unequivocal commitment to deliver unfettered access, and I hope very much that noble Lords will reconsider their obstruction of the legislation on that subject.
The Earl of Kinnoull (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I warmly welcome the joint letter of 5 November from the First Minister and Deputy First Minister to Commissioner Šefčovič. In view of the significant concerns that they jointly expressed, what is being done to allow supermarkets to continue to service Northern Ireland from Great Britain? Can the Minister confirm reports that the UK and the EU are considering agreeing a grace period to allow supermarkets time to adapt to the protocols approach, which is still under discussion in the Joint Committee?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the noble Earl raises an extremely important point. I cannot go into matters that are, as he implies, under active discussion, but we have certainly committed to an intensified process of engagement with the EU to resolve all outstanding issues such as this, which includes securing flexibilities for trade from GB to NI. That is particularly important for supermarkets, where we have been clear that specific solutions are required. The recent joint letter from the First Minister and Deputy First Minister reflects how important that issue is for Northern Ireland, and we will continue to work closely with the Executive to get a solution to this problem.
Lord Bilimoria (CB) [V]
Agreement with the EU is key for the sustainability and implementation of the protocol. As president of the CBI, I hear from businesses on a daily basis about the urgent need for the clarity that is needed on the transfer of goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. Businesses want clarity, but they also want to ensure that the protocol works long-term for peace, trade and investment—and this starts with a deal. Does the Minister agree that clarity is needed to ensure the continued flow of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Lord True (Con)
I certainly agree on the importance of clarity. As I have said, certain matters are still under discussion in the joint committee, but the Government have already issued 25 documents of sectoral guidance. We are actively engaged with business in Northern Ireland and we attach the highest importance to these points.
Baroness Goudie (Lab) [V]
This situation threatens the rights and equality clauses in the Belfast agreement, because European law has long been crucial to support those rights. At the time of the Belfast agreement, it was guaranteed that there would be no diminution of such rights as a result of Brexit. These rights are also threatened with regard to Britain’s future membership of the European Convention on Human Rights. In addition, the UK Government’s lack of commitment to guaranteed labour, anti-discrimination and environmental rights in Northern Ireland equal to those enjoyed during the EU membership suggests that they are also under threat.
Lord True (Con)
I disagree with the noble Baroness. The Government are committed to human rights principles and to the maintenance of the Good Friday agreement.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, the Northern Ireland protocol commits to “unfettered” access for all goods, including agri-foods. Does my noble friend accept that there will be a new legal obligation for submitting a customs declaration for import and export purposes that will both take time and incur expense to fill in? How does that square with the commitment to unfettered access?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, unfettered access from Northern Ireland to GB will be sustained and there will be no customs checks. So far as GB-NI is concerned, any control will be at a very minimal level, with risk assessment and administration undertaken by UK authorities.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB) [V]
My Lords, would the Minister agree that we are being a little hypocritical in admonishing China over Hong Kong while preparing to renege on provisions in the EU withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol? Would he also agree that trying to get the best of all worlds in trade could seriously affect progress under the Good Friday agreement?
Lord True (Con)
No, I do not. The maintenance of the Good Friday agreement requires unfettered access, which was committed to by the EU and in the reformation of the Northern Ireland Executive. So far as comparing the actions of the UK Government with those of communist China, I indignantly reject the parallel.
Lord Robathan (Con) [V]
My Lords, does Her Majesty’s Government consider that both sides in the negotiations regarding the protocol and the withdrawal agreement are acting in good faith? Would it not cause much greater harm to, and further undermine, the Belfast agreement if we were to separate Great Britain from Northern Ireland, contrary to the wishes, or without the consent, of all the people in Northern Ireland?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, consent—and the consent of both communities—is absolutely fundamental to this whole process. I agree with my noble friend that it would be to the benefit of all if a reasonable agreement could be reached sooner, as the UK Government hope is still possible.
Lord Hain (Lab) [V]
My Lords, has the Minister any idea of how desperate businesses in Northern Ireland, especially those trading across the Irish Sea—as many do—are to know what their future will be in a month’s time? I say bluntly: please do not give us the same old warm waffle about how it will be all right on the night. People’s jobs and livelihoods are at stake here, and they have no idea what the future holds for them.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, to say that the Government are wholly committed to the future security and prosperity of business in Northern Ireland is not “warm waffle”; it is the truth of the matter. We are providing extensive support through the trader support service. I have referred to other measures, including the £150 million that has been put into IT systems, and we are working at pace to deliver all that is necessary. I hope that agreement can be reached in the joint committee and that any uncertainties there can be resolved.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
All the questions have now been answered.
Towns Fund
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I draw the attention of the House to my relevant registered interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
I welcome the towns fund, as getting funding to communities is always welcome news, but this whole issue has arisen because of concerns about how the funding is allocated. It must be fair and based on understandable criteria and a proper assessment of the need and must have clear goals. At no point should there ever be any suggestion that funding is taking place on political terms. What assurance can the noble Lord give the House that this has not been the case with funds allocated to date? Can he provide information on the different areas where funding was allocated or refused and on the criteria used by his department to make such decisions?
The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am very happy to provide an outline of how the towns were selected. Officials ruled out 541 towns based on their lower levels of deprivation. The remaining towns were ranked as higher, medium or low priority based on an evidence-based methodology. The top 40 high-priority towns were chosen for town deals. Ministers used their local knowledge to conduct a qualitative assessment when picking the remaining 61 towns. This involved—
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I am afraid we cannot hear you well enough; your diction is very indistinct. If you could sit forward a bit, that would be very helpful.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con) [V]
I am very sorry about my diction. Can you hear me better now? I hope so. I was saying that the top 40 towns were chosen for town deals and that Ministers used their local knowledge to conduct a qualitative assessment when picking the remaining 61 towns. A deals process, rather than an open competition, was used, as many previously left-behind towns lacked the capacity to bid. In that sense, the process was very clear and fair in relation to the basis for allocating the considerable amount of money involved.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, I have relevant interests, as set out in the register, and I also welcome the towns fund. however, it is not quite correct that, as the Minister has just said, the top 40 towns, as assessed by the criteria, were chosen for the money in the towns fund. There were many towns in the highest-priority category that were not selected. Can the Minister explain why they were rejected? What can I tell their local representatives about why they are failing to meet the eye of the Minister when they meet the criteria?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con) [V]
I want to make clear that the process was driven by officials using an evidence-based methodology. The top 40 high-priority towns were chosen for town deals. For the remaining 61 towns, there was ministerial involvement but using a process designed by officials in my department. I add that I am delighted that Dewsbury in the borough of Kirklees has been selected to develop proposals for a town deal. My department is looking forward to receiving its town investment plan early next year.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, in all the government guidance on the towns fund, there is the prospect of there being a major missed opportunity for prioritising co-investment with the private sector in sport, recreation and active-lifestyle facilities. I praise my noble friend the Minister for personally promoting the importance of sport as a catalyst for levelling up and inspiring communities, as we did in the deprived East End of London with the Olympic and Paralympic Games in 2012. I hope my noble friend the Minister will agree that we urgently need to build regeneration, inspiration and legacy into our town fund initiatives, particularly in the north of England?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con) [V]
My Lords, there is no greater champion of the role of sport, leisure and recreation in place-making. I point out that the towns fund guidance provides the envelope upon which towns can prioritise leisure facilities. As a department, we hope to see many towns come forward, building in leisure facilities, parks and green spaces, cycle lanes and a myriad of sports activities within their bids.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans [V]
My Lords, I am also delighted that the Government have set up the towns fund, which will make a significant contribution to many poorer communities. Nevertheless, it still remains that the Public Accounts Committee has expressed concerns about why some towns were chosen and some were not. In future, will Her Majesty’s Government undertake to publish the objective criteria and evidence that will be used for selection so that everyone can be assured that there is no political influence in making these selections and choices?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con) [V]
In my answer to the previous question, I made it clear that this is a combination of using an evidence-based methodology and Ministers using their local knowledge. That benefited 101 towns in the first instance. There is more money to be spent on regeneration, but the foundation stone of the allocation of funds was using a clear methodology with multiple criteria, including productivity and exposure to economic shocks.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his responses, but his last response gives rise to some concern. It certainly looks as if many of the decisions were partial and, given what was said during the election by the Secretary of State to Conservative candidates about the likelihood of the towns in their constituencies receiving consideration in the towns fund, his view that Ministers used their personal knowledge gives folk like me from the northern part of Durham real concern. Will the Minister therefore be clearer than he was with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and state that, in future, criteria will be published so that we can see that an independent, proper decision to allocate public money to towns that need it—and they do need it—is transparently fair?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con) [V]
I would point out that the National Audit Office looked into this. Its report sets out the town deal selection process in detail. The report showed that the more affluent towns were ruled out and the 40 most deprived towns were rightly favoured, with the remainder selected from a shortlist that considered a wide range of evidence. This process was developed by officials but there was political oversight, as there should be.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
I, too, welcome this immense support for local towns. I am sure that the Minister will be perfectly aware of the political leadership required in any such allocations, be it locally or centrally. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said about the beautiful Canary Wharf development, access is the most important thing. That has not always been meritorious or led by local demand. Can the Minster assure the House, me and local communities that he will ensure that women leaders play a vital role locally and take part in the regeneration and redevelopment of new towns?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con) [V]
My Lords, there is no doubt that regeneration involves physical regeneration, economic regeneration and social renewal. Women often play a bigger part than men in that process, from my experience in local government.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
Yesterday, the Government made an announcement acknowledging both the urgency of the climate emergency and their special global responsibility in chairing COP 26. If the Government are operating in a joined-up way, you would expect the towns fund money to be used for super-policies that have environmental benefits in addition to economic ones. Can the Minister tell me what percentage of spending addresses those goals?
Lord Greenhalgh (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am happy to write to the noble Baroness on that point as I do not have those figures to hand.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
These proceedings will follow guidance issued by the Procedure and Privileges Committee. When there are counterpropositions, any Member in the Chamber may speak, subject to the usual seating arrangements and capacity of the Chamber. Anyone intending to do so should email the clerk or indicate when asked. Members not intending to speak on a group should make room for Members who do. All speakers will be called by the Chair. Short questions of elucidations after the Minister’s response are permitted but discouraged. A Member wishing to ask such a question, including Members in the Chamber, must email the clerk. The groupings are binding. Leave should be given to withdraw. When putting the Question, I will collect voices in the Chamber only. Where there is no counterproposition, the Minister’s Motion may not be opposed. If a Member speaking remotely intends to trigger a Division, they should make this clear when speaking on the group. Noble Lords following proceedings remotely but not speaking may submit their voice, content or not content, to the collection of the voices by emailing the clerk during the debate. Members cannot vote by email. The way to vote will be via the remote voting system.
Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Bill [HL]
Thursday 19th November 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Act 2020 View all Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 139-I Marshalled list of motions and amendments for Consideration of Commons amendments - (17 Nov 2020)
Lord Stewart of Dirleton
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 1, and do propose Amendments 1A and 1B as amendments thereto—
“Implementation of other agreements on private international law
(1) The appropriate national authority may make regulations for the purpose of, or in connection with, implementing any international agreement, as it has effect from time to time, so far as relating to private international law (a “relevant international agreement”).
(2) The appropriate national authority may make regulations for the purpose of, or in connection with, applying a relevant international agreement, with or without modifications, as between different jurisdictions within the United Kingdom.
(3) The appropriate national authority may make regulations for the purpose of, or in connection with, giving effect to any arrangements made between—
(a) Her Majesty’s government in the United Kingdom, and
(b) the government of a relevant territory,
for applying a relevant international agreement, with or without modifications, as between the United Kingdom, or a jurisdiction within the United Kingdom, and that territory.
(4) Regulations under this section may make—
(a) consequential, supplementary, incidental, transitional or saving provision;
(b) different provision for different purposes or for different parts of the United Kingdom.
(5) Regulations under this section may include provision about—
(a) enforcement of obligations arising under or by virtue of the regulations;
(b) sharing of information;
(c) legal aid.
(6) Schedule (Regulations under section (Implementation of other agreements on private international law)) makes further provision about regulations under this section.
(7) In this section—
“appropriate national authority” means—
(a) in relation to England and Wales, the Secretary of State;
(b) in relation to Scotland—
(i) the Scottish Ministers, or
(ii) the Secretary of State acting with the consent of the Scottish Ministers;
(c) in relation to Northern Ireland—
(i) a Northern Ireland department, or
(ii) the Secretary of State acting with the consent of a Northern Ireland department
“international agreement” means a convention, treaty or other agreement to which the United Kingdom is, or is expected to become, a party; “private international law” includes rules and other provisions about—
(a) jurisdiction and applicable law;
(b) recognition and enforcement in one country or territory of any of the following that originate in another country or territory—
(i) a judgment, order or arbitral award;
(ii) an agreement, decision or authentic instrument determining or otherwise relating to rights and obligations;
(c) co-operation between judicial or other authorities in different countries or territories in relation to—
(i) service of documents, taking of evidence and other procedures, or
(ii) anything within paragraph (a) or (b);
“relevant international agreement” has the meaning given in subsection (1);
“relevant territory” means—
(a) the Isle of Man;
(b) any of the Channel Islands;
(c) a British overseas territory.
(8) This section and Schedule (Regulations under section (Implementation of other agreements on private international law)) have effect, with the following modifications, in relation to a model law adopted by an international organisation of which the United Kingdom is a member as it has effect in relation to an international agreement to which the United Kingdom is, or is expected to become, a party.
The modifications are—
(a) a reference in this section or that Schedule to implementing or applying a relevant international agreement is to be read as a reference to giving effect to the model law (with or without modifications);
(b) subsection (1) is to be read as if the words “as revised from time to time” were substituted for the words “as it has effect from time to time”.”
“(3A) Regulations under subsections (1) to (3) may only be made during the operative period.
(3B) The operative period is the period of five years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.
(3C) The appropriate national authority in relation to a part of the United Kingdom may by regulations extend the operative period for that part of the United Kingdom by a period of five years.
(3D) The power under subsection (3C) may be exercised more than once.
(3E) The operative period may not be extended for any part of the United Kingdom after it has expired in relation to that part of the United Kingdom.”
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Stewart of Dirleton) (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Commons Amendments 1 to 5 and Amendments 1A, 1B and 4A to 4E, which are in my name.
Private international law is a technical area of law, but it is important to people and businesses that become involved in legal disputes with a cross-border aspect. A family may need to enforce a maintenance decision when one parent moves abroad, or a small business that has been left out of pocket by a foreign supplier may need to seek redress. Agreements on private international law create reciprocal rules to enable UK businesses, families and individuals to resolve these difficult and challenging situations. They prevent multiple court cases taking place in different countries and allow for the decisions of UK courts to be recognised and enforced across borders. All of this helps to reduce costs and anxiety for the parties involved.
The House will recall that this Bill contains two substantive clauses. The first implements three key Hague conventions which currently apply as a consequence of our former membership of the European Union, allowing us to continue to co-operate on important aspects of private international law with existing partners. The second establishes a delegated power to implement further agreements on private international law now that we have regained full competence in this area from the European Union. This stood part of the Bill on its Lords introduction but was removed on Report. Commons Amendments 1, 2, 4 and 5 simply return this clause, and related provisions, to the Bill.
There is also Commons Amendment 3, which I hope will be uncontroversial and will not address in detail. It adds a permissive extent clause to the Bill allowing the implementing power to be extended to the Isle of Man; this is at the request of the Isle of Man Government. This is the standard approach to extending UK legislation to the overseas territories or Crown dependencies and in this case does not directly affect the United Kingdom. My noble and learned friend Lord Keen spoke in detail on this amendment back in May but was unable to move the amendment at the time.
The agreements implemented under Clause 1 are widely supported by interested parties in the legal and finance sectors, and indeed by Members in this House and the other place. The 1996 Hague Convention aims to improve the protection of children in cross-border disputes. It deals with issues such as residence of and contact with children whose parents live in different countries. The 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements aims to ensure the effectiveness of exclusive choice of court agreements between parties to international commercial transactions. The 2007 Hague Convention provides rules for the international recovery of child support and spousal maintenance. The Government have already taken the necessary international steps to ensure our continued membership of these agreements following the end of the transition period.
It is vital that the UK’s membership of these agreements continues seamlessly from the end of the transition period. This means that Clause 1 needs to be in force within a few weeks. Although the implementation of the Hague conventions contained in Clause 1 is agreed and not subject to further amendments, the timing aspect creates an imperative for us to agree a way forward on the delegated power promptly.
Before I address the amendments, I will clarify the types of agreements that can be implemented under the delegated power. The power only covers the implementation of international agreements on a very narrowly defined area of law: agreements which are typically uncontroversial and have received widespread support in Parliament in the past. The Bill only allows implementation of private international law agreements which it defines in subsection (7) of the relevant clause. Principally, such agreements cover rules on jurisdiction to hear disputes which raise cross-border issues; which country’s law should apply to such cases; recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments; and co-operation between judicial and other authorities in different countries on these matters. It will not be possible for matters outside the areas covered by the definition of “private international law” in the clause to be implemented using the power.
I know that, in the past, debate on this Bill has touched on topics such as the Hague-Visby Rules, or the 1961 Warsaw Convention on the carriage of goods by air. Let me be clear: these conventions—bar possibly one or two provisions—are out of scope of the power, and if the UK joined these conventions today they would still need to be implemented by primary legislation. This Bill is only concerned with implementing provisions on private international law, not any international agreements on private law matters generally.
Bearing that point in mind, I turn to the amendments. This House has already discussed the delegated power at length and made its views known. However, the clause comes back from the other place with a majority of 149, so, despite the reservations many of your Lordships have and have expressed, I believe we need to accept that such a clause has a place in the Bill and think about how to make it more acceptable to this House. The amended clause will still allow private international law agreements to be implemented promptly. This is important because, following the end of the transition period, there is a need to update the United Kingdom’s private international law framework. The Government have already made clear their intention to join the Lugano Convention. This power minimises any gap in its application if we are able to rejoin that convention and allows us to respond flexibly if we are not.
Implementation of these narrow and technical private international law agreements is largely about drawing down into domestic law detailed rules that have already been agreed at an international level. There is very limited ability for Ministers to deviate from these once the UK agrees to become bound by the relevant agreement. The rules in the agreement will not be amendable, and implementation will often largely be a yes or no question, coupled with making provisions largely of a procedural or technical nature, making the affirmative statutory instrument procedure appropriate. There are well-established precedents for implementing agreements which meet our definition of private international law by secondary legislation. It is not just that much of our current private international law framework was implemented under the powers of the European Communities Act. Even before that, there were many examples of agreements of this type being implemented through secondary legislation. The most notable of these is the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933.
Without this power, each new private international law agreement or update to an existing agreement would require primary legislation. Given the need to update our private international law framework and the current busy parliamentary agenda, such a requirement would be disproportionate and damaging. The intellectual arguments about the extent to which the implementation of international agreements by secondary legislation is constitutionally appropriate are important, but the other House recognised that those arguments are not the beginning and end of this debate. We must remember that these agreements can have a real impact on the lives of the general public, and delays in implementing them and reaping their benefits could negatively impact UK businesses and families. It is my view that the power provides a proportionate solution to an important problem, while retaining a far greater role for Parliament in the scrutiny process than it has had for many years.
All that said, I recognise the many and varied concerns that have previously been raised about this power. Opinions are sincerely held and there is merit to many of the points which have been made. I have sought to familiarise myself with the views your Lordships expressed in the Chamber during earlier debates, and I have listened closely to concerns expressed by noble Lords in engagement with myself and ministerial colleagues in recent weeks. The amendments in my name are a good-faith attempt to find a way forward. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, described the suite of amendments that I have put before this House as “substantial and constructive”. They attempt to strike a balance, sensitive to the aims of the Government and the concerns of your Lordships’ House.
First, Amendment 4A removes from the power the ability to create criminal offences which are punishable by imprisonment. In my analysis of the debates on this Bill, it is clear that this aspect of the power has been the most widely criticised. I certainly see that this is a sensitive issue, and it is right that the Government act cautiously. Although private international law agreements do not generally require contracting parties to create criminal offences, there are exceptions. Some conventions include non-discrimination clauses that require states to apply the same enforcement methods for foreign judgments as are available in domestic cases.
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
The question is that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 1 and do propose Amendments 1A and 1B as amendments thereto. On Amendment 1C, I call the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton.
Amendment 1C (as an amendment to Amendment 1A)
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
My Lords, I move my Amendment 1C as an amendment to Amendment 1A. It would leave out subsection (3D) of the Government’s proposed amendment. Leaving out the subsection would mean that the power to extend the sunset period could be exercised only once.
I start by welcoming the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton. Throughout the process of this Bill, he has been very engaged, incredibly helpful, very courteous and really engaged in the detail, and we are all incredibly grateful for that. I also compliment him on the presentation he has just made, which was persuasive and clear and addressed all the issues. So I really am glad to see him there and I completely support him—as indeed does the whole House—in relation to the bringing into UK domestic law and ratifying the three treaties referred to, and which remain referred to, in Clause 1 of the Bill.
I remain disappointed and believe it to be very much the wrong policy to give the Government the power to introduce private international law treaties by secondary legislation, as in the amendment introduced by the Commons to the Bill that was sent from the Lords. There was an almost universal view in this House when it was last here that that should not be dealt with by secondary legislation, because it would reduce the quality of private international law agreements that were given the force of law by legislation. The question of whether it was legitimate to do it by secondary legislation was considered after the consideration of evidence, both by the Constitution Committee of this House—and I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, here as a distinguished member of the Constitution Committee—and the Delegated Powers Committee of this House as well. Both considered, in detail, evidence put before by them by the Ministry of Justice and rejected the suggestion that secondary legislation was the appropriate way to deal with such treaties.
I did not find the reasons given by the noble and learned Lord convincing. But he, like his distinguished predecessor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, did not really engage on the issue of why to use secondary rather than primary legislation. He asserted that secondary legislation had been used in the past, and, like his predecessor, referred to the 1933 and 1920 Acts. What he was referring to was bringing into force the provisions on enforcement of judgments in those two Acts in relation to individual territories or countries. All that happens by that secondary legislation is that additional countries are added, whether they be Commonwealth countries for the 1920 Act, or non-Commonwealth countries for the 1933 Act. I would not have any objections whatever to something like that. But that is not the power taken in this Bill; it is the whole of the private international law agreement. It would not just be the addition of countries; it would be the whole Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933 in the examples that have been given. That will lead to this country having a worse network of private international law agreements than it has had previously. That is bad for this country, because one of the things we are incredibly good at is private international law. That is what makes English law so attractive to commercial institutions. I am disappointed that no real additional arguments have been advanced.
I accept the political reality here; this House has almost universally asked the other place to think again, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton, is right to point out that it had the opportunity to think again and decided to go ahead. We have to accept that in a case such as this.
In relation to the sunset clause, these agreements take a long time to negotiate and introduce—with the possible exception of us adhering to Lugano, because that may have to be done in a hurry, so I can see that there is a case there. I am interested that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton, has said that if one had Hague-Visby or Warsaw, that would not be covered by this Bill and would, therefore, have to be introduced by primary legislation. I am not sure, then, under what circumstances this is ever going to apply in substance, because the nature of these private international agreements is that they will have provisions about jurisdiction and enforcement as well as about substantive law—Hague-Visby and the Warsaw convention.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I add my welcome of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton, to his place in taking over this technical but difficult Bill, one that raises issues of principle.
I welcome the government amendments, which have the power to act as safeguards on the power reinserted into the Bill by the Commons amendments. I agree with the summary by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, of the Government’s amendments as sensible and constructive. But I share the disappointment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, that the Commons amendments reinstate the delegated power that this House so comprehensively rejected.
I also agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, that outlawing the power to create offences punishable by imprisonment is of particular importance. I welcome the fact that the principle of a sunset clause has been accepted, although, for all the reasons mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, it should be meaningful and not liable to be endlessly renewed. It is also important that the Government have introduced a requirement for consultation before regulations are made. On that, in particular, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the time he and the Bill team have spent with me and others discussing the government amendments to the Commons amendments and considering suggested changes.
For my part, I support the amendment on the sunset clause in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, for all the reasons he gave. I understand the Government’s concern to ensure that there is sufficient time to bring new private international law agreements into UK law, and I accept that there may possibly, on occasion, be a need for more than five years to achieve that. However, I simply cannot see the need for further extensions beyond 10 years. It is in the nature of these international agreements that they take a long time to be finalised. However, the point about the first five years is that there are a number of international agreements, notably the Lugano Convention 2007, to which the Government wish to accede, which may need to be brought into law in the reasonably short term, and there are others on the horizon that may need more than five years. The problem with allowing for extensions beyond 10 years—that is, more than one extension—is that such a long sunset period may involve permitting the Government to implement in the UK international agreements that are currently unforeseen and unforeseeable. It was partly to address that issue that this House took the view that primary legislation should be required before implementing such agreements in domestic law.
I appreciate that this issue is addressed, in part at least, by the requirement for consultation before regulations are made implementing further private international law agreements. That requirement is, indeed, a welcome safeguard. My amendment to government Amendment 4B is designed to ensure that such consultations are both objective and impartial and seen to be so. The shortcoming of the present proposal is that the choice of those to be consulted lies entirely, in England and Wales, with the Secretary of State and, in Scotland and Northern Ireland, with Scottish Ministers, the relevant Northern Ireland department or the Secretary of State acting with their consent. That means that the power to choose who is to be consulted lies entirely with the Executive.
Of course, we accept that many Ministers can be confidently relied on to exercise that power dispassionately, but that confidence cannot always be assumed, and it has not always been justified by Secretaries of State. The change in the role of the Lord Chancellor may also have had an impact. I understand the Government’s concern to ensure that there is flexibility in the choice of those to be consulted. It goes without saying that, for example, a convention concerned with family law matters may call for different experts to be consulted than would a convention concerned with commercial law or contractual matters. That is why my amendment does not seek to impose on the Secretary of State a list of those who must be consulted. It lies behind what the noble and learned Lord said about the Government’s reasons for not setting out such a list, but I and others are also concerned to ensure not only that the choice of those to be consulted is clearly objective, impartial and apolitical but that the organisation, management and follow-up of the consultations are thorough and meaningful.
Accordingly, I understood the noble and learned Lord to be offering, on behalf of the Government, assurances to the House in that connection. I invite him to confirm, first, that consultation on the implementation of a private international law agreement will generally be in public, and that the Government will announce their intention to consult and invite people to offer their views. Secondly, will he confirm that if the Government decide that such a consultation will not be in public they will publicly explain that decision and the reasons behind it? Thirdly, will he confirm that the Government will report on the outcome of such consultations, if not in a separate report, then, as he envisaged, in or in a document accompanying the Explanatory Memorandum that comes with any proposed regulations made under the powers in the Bill? Finally, I understood the Minister to be offering an undertaking, which I ask him to confirm, to ensure that the explanations in or accompanying such explanatory memoranda will be thorough and detailed, setting out whom the Government have consulted and a fair and balanced summary of the views expressed in any such consultation.
Such assurances and undertakings, if confirmed in the terms I have set out, would offer reassurance to those of us who are concerned that all such consultations will be the genuine safeguards we need them to be. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
The following Members in the Chamber have indicated that they wish to speak: the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Berkeley. I therefore call the noble Lord, Lord Pannick.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I echo the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks, in welcoming the Advocate-General for Scotland, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, to his post. I thank him and the Minister in the Commons, Alex Chalk, and their officials for taking the time to discuss with me and many other Members of this House our concerns, the House’s concerns and the concerns of the Constitution Committee about the delegated powers in the Bill and how those concerns can be accommodated by amendments. The noble and learned Lord has taken a very welcome constructive approach to these issues and I thank him sincerely for that. He has tabled amendments that go a significant way, in my view, to meeting those concerns.
Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks, I would have liked, ideally, to see greater restrictions on the use of delegated powers in this context, but the theme tune that often—not always, but often—accompanies Lords’ consideration of Commons amendments is the Rolling Stones song “You Can’t Always Get What You Want”, and since we will not get exactly what we want today, the next best thing is for the Minister to assure noble Lords of the Government’s intentions in this context. Again, he has very helpfully gone a long way to do that this afternoon. I ask him to confirm my understanding on three topics that are raised by paragraph 1A, on consultation, as introduced by government Amendment 4B.
The first of these topics is the purpose of the consultation. There is a mandatory obligation to consult. It is not a discretion; there is a duty to consult. The amendment does not expressly say what the purpose is, but does the Minister agree that it is implicit that one of the purposes of the consultation will be to assist the Secretary of State in deciding whether it is appropriate to implement a particular international agreement by regulations, or whether primary legislation is needed?
Can the Minister confirm that the Government recognise that some international agreements, even when they are in the scope of this Bill, as explained by the Minister, may require changes that are so significant that it would not be appropriate to implement the international agreement other than by primary legislation? I suppose, also, the consultation might assist on whether the international agreement would alter substantive law, albeit incidentally, which I understood the Minister to accept would not be an appropriate subject for delegated legislation. That is the first matter: the purpose of consultation.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to be able to participate in this debate. I join other noble Lords in welcoming the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart. I am grateful for the time he spent with me and the Commons Minister Alex Chalk MP discussing what I am about to talk about. I also congratulate my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton on his birthday today.
My interest is in something called the Luxembourg Rail Protocol, which we have all agreed is an item of private international law. The protocol is sponsored, along with the Cape Town convention, by the organisation UNIDROIT—I hope I have the right pronunciation. The UK is a full member of this organisation. The purpose of this rail protocol is very similar to a successful one that has existed for the air sector for many years. It is to do with moveable equipment: the financing, recognition, protection and enforcement of creditor rights in relation to equipment that can move. I spoke briefly about this in Committee on the Trade Bill, which I shall return to, but obviously, if investors want to financially support equipment that can be moved anywhere around the world, they want to have some comfort that they know where it is and will get their due money back or whatever.
I recall, from my experience in the railway industry about 20 or 30 years ago, that there was a time when rail wagons got as far as Italy and sometimes never came back. It is not like that today, but it might be like that in other parts of the world. It is really important for UK businesses—not only those that operate or own the relevant bits of equipment but also the export business that will come. I am advised that this needs to be done before the end of the year to provide continuity.
There has been quite a lot of debate here—and in our discussions with Ministers—as to whether this needs primary or secondary legislation. Other noble Lords with much greater experience than I have been discussing it this afternoon. I originally put down an amendment in Committee on the Trade Bill, and the Minister, the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, said he was very supportive of fitting the Luxembourg Rail Protocol into UK law, but thought that the Trade Bill was not really the right place for it. He said it would be much better if it were done as a statutory instrument under the scope of this Bill, assuming that the text of this Bill allows it to happen. I know that there have been planned discussions between Ministers here and Ministers in the Department for Transport, because obviously they will have to promote some secondary legislation, but the important thing now is for the Minister, when he comes to wind up, to give the strongest assurance that the Government are empowered under this Bill—or Act, as it will be—to adopt the Luxembourg Rail Protocol through secondary legislation, and that he will do all he can to encourage the Department for Transport to get this moving so that we have a statutory instrument by the end of the year. I know there is a big queue of legislation, but it would be really good if that could happen. Given that so many Ministers have said to me that they want this to happen and that it is good for businesses—I have not heard anyone saying that it should not happen—I hope that the Minister will be able to give me the strongest assurance that he can.
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
Does anybody else in the Chamber wish to speak? I call the noble Lord, Lord Mance.
Lord Mance (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as a practitioner in the field of private international law and as joint chair of the Lord Chancellor’s advisory committee on private international law, to which reference has been made. I do not, of course, speak in that capacity and, as I mentioned on a previous occasion, that committee was not consulted about this Bill before its original introduction, although we have been very happy to be involved subsequently in relation to machinery under and related to the Bill.
I too welcome the Minister to his place and possibly, in succession to his predecessor the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, to a co-chairing of that committee with me. I would of course welcome that very much. I particularly welcome his measured and very careful consideration of the issues raised by the Bill. Described as “technical”, it has happily and rightly also been described as “important”. It is promoted as part of the United Kingdom’s preparation for the post-Brexit era—I will come back to that. It will certainly introduce into the UK’s legal systems three identified and very valuable Hague conventions, which have been mentioned, including the choice of court convention of 2005. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, said, what has been controversial is the provision for the introduction by delegated legislative regulations of any number of further private international law measures which might be agreed at international level during an indefinite future.
I hope that I shall not be thought ungrateful in what follows for the mercies which have been granted. Certainly, the amendment relating to offences and the removal of the delegated power to create criminal offences punishable by imprisonment is highly welcome. So too is the Government’s agreement to limit the operation of Clause 2 to an operative period of five years. However, that is renewable, as has been pointed out, so that is not as large a change as the House wished —and I think would still wish—to see. The five-year period is capable of being extended by regulations and, moreover, more than once. In that respect, I support what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, said.
If the Bill is addressing the post-Brexit era, let us truly hope that that at least will be well and truly past within 10 years. In any event, we should be under no illusion that any great volume of instruments is likely to require attention under the Bill. Again, I echo a point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, made. We know that the Government have, for better or worse, decided, if permitted by the European Union, to sign up to membership of the Lugano Convention 2007—that paler image of the present Brussels regime, which, as I previously remarked, is well accepted and understood, and popular in the City in particular. The signing up to the Lugano Convention 2007 will, as I have also pointed out, largely undo as regards EU states the potential benefits of signing up to the Hague choice of court convention 2005. That is because Lugano trumps the choice of court convention under the internal terms providing for their priority.
Apart from that, the 2019 Hague convention is a possibility which has been mentioned. It relates to recognition of judgments and one day, but certainly not soon, it may come into play as a possibility. At the moment it has no subscriptions of any significance at all. Then there is the Singapore mediation convention, previously much loved by government speakers here and in another place—but I am glad to see that, I think realistically, it was not mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart. Its significance in promoting the enforcement of agreements reached as a result of mediation is certainly commendable but hardly earth shattering, those agreements being in any case enforceable at common law.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is indeed a privilege to follow the magisterial and extensive exposition of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mance, whose depth of experience and knowledge I defer to. He referred to the Bill as an intruder, which was an interesting description.
The Second Reading took place on 17 March, just at the beginning of lockdown. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, outlined the wide scope of the issues raised by the Bill. He said:
“Without private international law agreements, UK businesses, individuals and families would struggle to resolve the challenges they face when dealing with cross-border legal disputes.”—[Official Report, 17/3/20; col. 1439.]
The Minister echoed that opening today but I was surprised when he suggested that the area of law was narrow. As we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, it may encompass disappearing railway carriages in Italy, which has an Agatha Christie ring about it.
The new clause inserted by the other place reflects that width. The Westminster Government or a devolved Government may, by regulation, implement any international agreement so far as it relates to private international law. Further, the appropriate national authority may, by regulation, apply any agreement between the different jurisdictions within the United Kingdom or give effect to any arrangements between the UK Government and the British Overseas Territories, the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands. The emphasis throughout is on any future agreement of whatever nature that involves private international law anywhere in the world or internally within the United Kingdom.
It would appear that the Government have listened to the many voices suggesting that these clauses are excessively wide. Consequently, in response, the Minister today introduced the outline of a sunset clause, limited in the first instance to five years. He said that the urgent need is “ to update the framework” lost by our leaving the EU. The principle that there should be a temporal limit to the exercise of these wide powers in the uncertainties of the present time is clearly a good one. Unfortunately, the Government have decided that, like the British Empire, the sun shall never set upon these provisions. That is the effect of granting power to extend the operative period, not just for a further period of five years but, under proposed new subsection (3D), to renew the power to extend the period indefinitely. It just keeps rolling along. That makes a mockery of a sunset clause; consequently, I am delighted to support the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer.
As I said at earlier stages of the Bill, our hugely unsatisfactory procedures for passing secondary legislation by resolution, whether affirmative or negative, may be tempered in the interests of democracy by consultation with interested parties. Amendment 4 pays lip service to that concept but, in effect, gives power to the Minister to choose whomsoever he thinks appropriate to consult. The wording is loose, such that although there is a duty to consult if the Minister thinks subjectively that there is nobody appropriate—as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said—he does not have to exercise that choice; or, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mance, said a moment ago, he could walk out into the street and consult someone.
The purpose of the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames is to bring some objectivity to the exercise. The Minister may be surprised to know that the shelf life of a Minister in this and the previous Government tends to be no more than two years, and that Secretaries of State come and go through the various offices of state without necessarily knowing anything at all about their work. As WS Gilbert put it over 100 years ago, the way to advancement may well be to polish up the brasses on the big front door of No. 10.
Consequently, it is only sensible to have the guiding hand of the head of the judiciary in the various jurisdictions. No doubt the Sir Humphreys of this world can suggest that the Secretary of State rounds up the usual suspects, but that is no substitute for the Lord Chief Justice and his peers, who have a lifetime of experience of the legal world and the whole of the judiciary to draw on for advice as to who the suspects should be. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, it is inconceivable that they should not be consulted in any event.
I support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Marks and, in particular, his call for a full and transparent report on the fruits of the consultation.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, I begin by thanking noble Lords for their thoughtful and erudite contributions. I thank them also for their courteous and warm words of welcome to me at the Dispatch Box. I echo the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, in a phrase that I think will resonate with the entire House and with which none of us would disagree: our imperative is the preservation of this country’s good name and its standing in private international law matters.
The matters raised in the course of our discussions overlapped to some extent but I will, if I may, do my best to treat the contributions to the debate in the order in which they were made. First, I shall address the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, in relation to Amendment 1C, which omits some text from my Amendment 1A, the effect of which would be to allow the sunset period—which my amendment allows to be extended for five years by affirmative statutory instrument—to be extended only once.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
May I express the gratitude of the whole House for the care with which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton, dealt with every single issue that was raised? That I disagree with some of the answers is not the same as saying that he did not deal with them. For a Bill like this, it was an absolute model of going through every issue and putting the Government’s argument; I am incredibly grateful for that. There is nobody more disdainful than me when questions are not answered but, my goodness, the noble and learned Lord did a very good job and the whole House is grateful for that.
I will focus on my amendment, which concerns not being able to extend and extend the provision. My reading of what the noble and learned Lord said is that the sunset clause was intended in part to deal with the objections raised by this House. As he knows, the reason for those objections is that we do not consider secondary legislation appropriate. He replied, in effect, that there are good reasons for it—Lugano, primarily. As I read it, he is saying that unless there are good reasons, the sun will set on this Bill. If that is the right approach and what he is indeed saying, my view is that the Lugano provisions that currently apply—we may be only four or five weeks away from wanting them to come into force—mean that it is very unlikely that future circumstances will arise that would justify using secondary legislation. I hope that is what he means.
The noble and learned Lord has acknowledged the reasons why this House did not want the secondary power. In those circumstances, mindful of the need to get the three conventions in Clause 1 on to the statute book 1, I will not be moving my amendment—but only on the basis that I earnestly expect that the Government will not need one, let alone two extensions to the sunset clause. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment standing in my name.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 2 and 3.
“(2) Regulations under section (Implementation of other agreements on private international law) may make provision binding the Crown.
(3) The reference to the Crown in subsection (2) does not include—
(a) Her Majesty in Her private capacity,
(b) Her Majesty in right of the Duchy of Lancaster, or
(c) the Duke of Cornwall.”
“(2) Her Majesty may by Order in Council provide for section (Implementation of other agreements on private international law) (including Schedule (Regulations under section (Implementation of other agreements on private international law))) and section 2(2) and (3) to extend, with or without modifications, to the Isle of Man.”
Lord Stewart of Dirleton
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 4, and do propose Amendments 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D and 4E as amendments thereto—
“SCHEDULE
Regulations under section (Implementation of other agreements on private international law)
Restrictions on power to make regulations
1 (1) Regulations under section (Implementation of other agreements on private international law) may not include—
(a) provision that confers power to legislate by means of regulations, orders, rules or other subordinate instrument (other than rules of procedure for courts or tribunals);
(b) provision that creates an offence for which an individual who has reached the age of 18 (or, in relation to Scotland or Northern Ireland, 21) is capable of being sentenced to imprisonment for a term of more than two years (ignoring any enactment prohibiting or restricting the imprisonment of individuals who have no previous convictions).
(2) Sub-paragraph (1)(a) does not prevent the modification of a power to legislate conferred otherwise than under section (Implementation of other agreements on private international law), or the extension of any such power to purposes of a similar kind to those for which it was conferred.
(3) A power to give practice directions or other directions regarding matters of administration is not a power to legislate for the purposes of sub- paragraph (1)(a).
Regulations to be made by statutory instrument or statutory rule
2 The power to make regulations under section (Implementation of other agreements on private international law)—
(a) is exercisable by statutory instrument, in the case of regulations made by the Secretary of State;
(b) is exercisable by statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (S.I. 1979/1573 (N.I. 12)), in the case of regulations made by a Northern Ireland department.
Parliamentary or assembly procedure
3 (1) This paragraph applies to a statutory instrument containing regulations made by the Secretary of State under section (Implementation of other agreements on private international law).
(2) If the instrument contains (whether alone or with other provision)—
(a) provision made for the purpose of implementing or applying, in relation to the United Kingdom or a particular part of the United Kingdom, any relevant international agreement that has not previously been the subject of any such provision (whether made by regulations under section (Implementation of other agreements on private international law) or otherwise),
(b) provision made for the purpose of giving effect, in relation to the United Kingdom or a particular part of the United Kingdom, to any relevant arrangements that relate to a particular territory and have not previously been the subject of any such provision (whether made by regulations under that section or otherwise),
(c) provision that creates or extends, or increases the penalty for, a criminal offence, or
(d) provision that amends primary legislation,
it may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before each House of Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.
(3) In this Schedule “relevant arrangements” means arrangements of the kind mentioned in section (Implementation of other agreements on private international law) (3).
(4) If sub-paragraph (2) does not apply to the instrument, it is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
4 (1) This paragraph applies to regulations made by the Scottish Ministers under section (Implementation of other agreements on private international law).
(2) The regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure (see section 29 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010) (asp 10)) if they contain (whether alone or with other provision)—
(a) provision made for the purpose of implementing or applying, in relation to Scotland, any relevant international agreement that has not previously been the subject of any such provision (whether made by regulations under section (Implementation of other agreements on private international law) or otherwise),
(b) provision made for the purpose of giving effect, in relation to Scotland, to any relevant arrangements that relate to a particular territory and have not previously been the subject of any such provision (whether made by regulations under that section or otherwise),
(c) provision that creates or extends, or increases the penalty for, a criminal offence, or
(d) provision that amends primary legislation.
(3) If sub-paragraph (2) does not apply to the regulations, they are subject to the negative procedure (see section 28 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010).
5 (1) A Northern Ireland department may not make regulations under section (Implementation of other agreements on private international law) that contain (whether alone or with other provision)—
(a) provision made for the purpose of implementing or applying, in relation to Northern Ireland, any relevant international agreement that has not previously been the subject of any such provision (whether made by regulations under section (Implementation of other agreements on private international law) or otherwise),
(b) provision made for the purpose of giving effect, in relation to Northern Ireland, to any relevant arrangements that relate to a particular territory and have not previously been the subject of any such provision (whether made by regulations under that section or otherwise),
(c) provision that creates or extends, or increases the penalty for, a criminal offence, or
(d) provision that amends primary legislation,
unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before the Northern Ireland Assembly and approved by a resolution of the Assembly.
(2) Regulations under section (Implementation of other agreements on private international law) made by a Northern Ireland department are subject to negative resolution, within the meaning of section 41(6) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954, if a draft of the regulations was not required to be laid before the Northern Ireland Assembly and approved by a resolution of the Assembly.
(3) Section 41(3) of that Act applies for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) in relation to the laying of a draft as it applies in relation to the laying of a statutory document under an enactment.
Interpretation
6 In this Schedule—
“amend” includes repeal or revoke;
“primary legislation” means any provision of—
(a) an Act of Parliament,
(b) an Act of the Scottish Parliament,
(c) an Act or Measure of Senedd Cymru, or
(d) Northern Ireland legislation;
“relevant arrangements” has the meaning given in paragraph 3(3); “relevant international agreement” has the same meaning as in section (Implementation of other agreements on private international
law).”
(b) and insert “punishable by imprisonment.”
“Consultation
1A Before the Secretary of State makes regulations under section (Implementation of other agreements on private international law) the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate.”
(e) provision made under section (Implementation of other agreements on private international law) (3C),”
(e) provision made under section (Implementation of other agreements on private international law) (3C).”
(e) provision made under section (Implementation of other agreements on private international law) (3C),”
Lord Stewart of Dirleton
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 5.
Law Enforcement and Security (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
Viscount Younger of Leckie
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 22 October be approved.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, these regulations relate only to the niche areas of explosives precursors and firearms. First, the provisions on explosives precursors have no impact on business. They will affect only a small number of members of the public based in Great Britain who also wish to acquire, import, possess or use explosives precursors in Northern Ireland. These are hobbyists who wish to make use of certain substances in both Great Britain and Northern Ireland, largely for leisure pursuits such as fuelling model cars or planes. Secondly, the provisions on firearms impact only on members of the public based in Great Britain who wish to travel to EU countries with their legally owned firearm.
These provisions make no changes to the legal requirements in the application process for the civilian possession of firearms in Northern Ireland or Great Britain, or to the movement of legally owned firearms between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. They do not have any effect on businesses.
I will set out the background as to why this SI is required. Last year, in preparation for the UK’s departure from the EU on 31 January 2020, the Law Enforcement and Security (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 were laid by the Home Office. These regulations covered a wide range of security-related topics. Their purpose was to ensure that a number of existing regulatory regimes continued to operate in substantially the same manner as before exit day.
Your Lordships will be aware that the Northern Ireland protocol was agreed in October 2019. It was designed as a vehicle for implementing the UK’s exit from the EU in a way that worked for Northern Ireland—particularly and importantly as a means of maintaining the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, the gains of the peace process and the delicate balance within the community. It sets out arrangements necessary to address the unique circumstances on the island of Ireland, to maintain the conditions necessary for continued north-south co-operation, to avoid a hard land border and to protect the 1998 agreement in all its dimensions. Above all, it seeks to preserve Northern Ireland’s place within the UK.
The Law Enforcement and Security (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 are needed in order to implement niche aspects of the protocol. They cover only explosives precursors and firearms and ensure that Northern Ireland continues to implement EU law on these two matters, as required by the protocol. They represent the necessary legislative building blocks to ensure readiness at the end of the transition period.
I turn first to the provisions on explosives precursors. The changes made by these regulations will ensure that domestic law does not contradict the EU regulations to which the Northern Ireland explosives precursors licensing regime will continue to be aligned. In Great Britain, the Home Office issues licences to members of the public to acquire, import, possess or use explosives precursors. This allows them to use these substances for specific hobbies such as propelling a model car or plane. These licences are currently recognised in Northern Ireland.
As a result of these regulations, the licences issued by the Home Office will no longer be valid in Northern Ireland. If a member of the public with a licence issued by the Home Office wishes to acquire, import, possess or use explosives precursors in Northern Ireland, they will require a separate licence, issued by the Northern Ireland Office. I understand that the Home Office intends to write to current Great Britain-based licence holders to make them aware of this change. Public guidance on the www.GOV.UK website will also be updated.
I turn now to explaining the changes brought about by these regulations in relation to firearms. Firearms are largely a devolved matter, responsibility for which sits with the Northern Ireland Department of Justice. Given that the UK Government’s priority is to ensure readiness for the end of the transition period, this matter has been included in the regulations. Northern Ireland Office officials have worked closely with officials from the Northern Ireland Department of Justice on the development of the regulations. The Northern Ireland Justice Minister has consented to the devolved aspects being legislated for at Westminster.
The regulations will ensure that Northern Ireland remains aligned with the EU weapons directive, which sets minimum standards for civilian firearms acquisition and possession. The specific impact of the regulations is that Northern Ireland will continue to issue and recognise the European firearms pass—a form of passport allowing lawful travel with a legal firearm across the EU and Northern Ireland. At the end of the transition period, Great Britain will no longer issue or be able to use the European firearms pass. The Home Office has engaged with relevant stakeholders across the UK, making it clear that residents of Great Britain will no longer be able to use or apply for the European firearms pass to travel with their legal firearm. Residents of Northern Ireland will, however, still be able to request a European firearms pass and use it to take a lawfully owned firearm to an EU country, including Ireland, from 1 January 2021.
The Law Enforcement and Security (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 do not introduce any new concept or policy. I therefore trust that the House will view them as uncontroversial. They are required in order to implement the protocol in the already highly regulated areas of explosives precursors and firearms. They are a technical consequence of EU exit and of the protocol, and their introduction will contribute to the UK’s readiness for the end of the transition period. I beg to move.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for introducing this legislation. I was initially thrown by the language. I shudder to think how much time I spent trying to figure out exactly what an explosives precursor was. Basically, it is a chemical compound that can be used in explosives.
Given that, in the history of Northern Ireland, virtually all terrorists seem, at times, to have resorted to home-made explosives, these regulations seem extremely sensible and I can see no real objection to them. However, it would be good to know how the fertiliser bomb fits into the regulations. Are such chemicals trigger mechanisms or accelerants? A little more detail would be helpful, if the noble Viscount has it. If not, perhaps he would write to me.
The noble Viscount may already have answered my next question—what do you do about weapons such as target rifles, which can be carried around? These weapons are potentially lethal, even if they are not the most efficient way of hurting someone. They fire a projectile at great pace and with great accuracy over a long distance.
I am trying to extract a little more information, which, having listened to what the noble Viscount said, is not quite fair. Nevertheless, how can we make sure that it will be possible to travel with such a weapon between Great Britain and the continent or Ireland? Are there any legal barriers or other stages that have to be gone through if you are competing across the whole of Great Britain and in Europe, for instance, and not just in Ireland? It would be interesting to know that, because it will affect people, especially at the elite end of that sport. The same can be said of sporting guns—shotguns et cetera—that are used for shooting game. How do they fit in, and what hurdles does one have to jump through? I do not dispute the fact that there should be some but it would be nice to hear what they are.
Perhaps I might be allowed to put my toe into slightly more controversial water. Would these weapons be affected if, for instance, the amendments that we passed to the internal market Bill were kept, or would the situation change if we went back to the original Bill? It might be interesting to hear that when the noble Viscount sums up. With that caveat, I give moderate approval to the regulations.
Lord Loomba (CB) [V]
My Lords, we now have a plethora of legislation on which the protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland has an effect. Today’s regulations are some of the most important ones covered by the protocol, in that they govern the marketing and use of explosive precursors, and control the acquisition and possession of civil firearms.
Previously, when we were a member of the European Union, it was far more straightforward to gain a licence to circulate explosive precursors or firearms between the various European countries, as there was a need to apply in only one country. I understand that it is necessary for someone residing in Great Britain to obtain a separate licence for Northern Ireland, but now, as we take back control, it is becoming more complex for people to understand what is and is not permitted, and how to go about ensuring that they stay within the parameters of the law.
With these regulations, we find that the existing EU regulations regarding explosive precursors and firearms have been amended ahead of the end of the transition period, only for them to become outdated before they come into force due to the later protocol agreement between the UK and the EU. Thus, we have legislation before us today which needs amending once more to ensure that the correct laws apply to Northern Ireland and, crucially, to avoid a so-called hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland.
It is possible that an individual or business will have a licence for the mainland but not realise that things have changed regarding the circulation of explosive precursors or civil firearms between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. Although in the past, one licence was sufficient for the movement of these firearms from one part of the UK to another, now it is not. So, not fully realising the extent of the change, a person might transport items unaware of the conditions that now prevail. In such an act of inadvertence, what would the outcome be and how would people be treated?
Also, it is not clear from the regulations how the governance and issuing of licences relating to either side will be covered so that there are no loopholes and no way in which individuals will be able to carry out nefarious acts due to one licensing authority issuing a licence while another does not. How will both authorities ensure consistency in the issuing of licences and maintain good communication to reassure the public and maintain public safety?
The amendments to the regulations serve only to make the law inaccessible and incomprehensible to ordinary people. It is undeniable that at some point in the future we will need to amend them once more as they become outdated due to some event or another, or due to a change in direction. Does the Minister agree that it would have been better to start afresh with new legislation on these vital rules governing explosive precursors and firearms, instead of having a mish-mash of regulations such as these, which omit provisions of the lens regulations in Northern Ireland but will be in force for the rest of the UK?
Lord Empey (UUP) [V]
My Lords, I want to ask the Minister a few practical questions before dealing with some of the points that he made in his introduction.
Firearms are of course used for sport, which is quite a significant industry both in Great Britain and in Northern Ireland, and indeed in the Irish Republic. They are also used, for instance, in the Olympics and the Commonwealth Games. What impact would these measures have on the movement of weapons for sport and recreation, such as shooting parties? Would there be an implication for people in possession of personal protection weapons, given that the legal position vis-à-vis Great Britain changes under these regulations?
I want to draw attention to some of the remarks that the Minister made in his introduction. He referred to the requirement to ensure that there was no border on the island of Ireland and said that this was necessary to protect the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. Of course, nobody wants a trade border on the island of Ireland, but nor do we want a border in the Irish Sea. However, that is exactly what we have not only with these but with other regulations.
Earlier today, I drew the attention of the House to the common rules for exports regulations, which were considered in Grand Committee on 10 November. The noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, announced that that law would be implemented in Northern Ireland by the European Commission, thereby establishing that a foreign power would exercise Executive authority in Northern Ireland, despite the fact that we are supposed to have taken back control and are supposed to be maintaining the union. I remind the House that a border in the Irish Sea is anathema to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement just as much as a border on the island of Ireland. However, that seems to have been largely set aside and ignored, not only in this but in other legislation. In case noble Lords think that it is just me who sees that as the situation, perhaps I may refer the House to the Library note that accompanies these regulations. Under the heading “What would the 2020 regulations do?”, there is a section on firearms that says:
“The European Commission has stated that the ‘movements of firearms between Northern Ireland and the EU are not considered as imports or exports’. This is because Northern Ireland is generally treated as an EU member state under the Protocol.”
That comes from our own Library.
The issue is twofold. There are the practical questions that I put to the Minister, but there is a wider issue of what these regulations and the protocol are doing. The protocol is a disaster for the union; it divides the union between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Since 2 October last year, the Government have maintained complete denial of the implications of what they are proposing, and these are the downstream consequences of that. When our own Library is printing that in black and white, it gets the point across that what we are seeing here is not a mere technical point. Every one of these regulations—and this pattern is repeated in a number of them—illustrates a significant constitutional and economic change. The economic centre of gravity of Northern Ireland moves from the rest of the United Kingdom to the European Union.
This also means that the European Union can amend regulations and produce new ones. As citizens in Northern Ireland, we will have no say or influence over what those might be, because we have no representation. The Minister might address the question of what somebody is supposed to do. The principle being established in these regulations is that the European Union will make law for us and we have no alternative but to implement it. In pretending that they have not made changes to the constitution, the Government are therefore certainly doing grave damage to the Belfast agreement, which makes it clear that there can be no change in the status of Northern Ireland without the consent of its people. When a Minister of the Crown stands up and tells a Grand Committee on 10 November that the European Commission will exercise those powers in Northern Ireland, that can mean only one thing to any sensible person: that our status has changed. Will the Minister address those points, as well as the practical ones that I made at the beginning of my remarks?
Lord Bradshaw (LD) [V]
My Lords, I agree with what has been said by my noble friend Lord Addington. I realise that there are all sorts of complications, to which the noble Lord, Lord Empey, has referred, which flow from the protocol and the decision to exit the European Union. Those problems are on the Government’s head; this Parliament decided to leave the European Union. In so doing, there will be all sorts of problems that they have to sort out. However, the specific matters under consideration today appear to be fairly peripheral and I do not need to detain the House any longer.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP) [V]
My Lords, this legislation is intended to reflect the different regulatory regimes for explosive precursors and acquiring firearms in Northern Ireland and Great Britain from 1 January. As the Minister said, it makes changes on the basis of the list of legislation in annexe 2 of the Northern Ireland protocol, which ties Northern Ireland to EU rules. It is another example of laws being applied to Northern Ireland after 1 January. Although these regulations are, as the Minister described, “niche” and “technical”, it is legislation and they are being applied to Northern Ireland without any of its elected representatives at Stormont or Westminster having any say or input. This is clearly contrary to the most basic concepts of democracy and undermines the political agreements reached over many years in Northern Ireland.
I have listened recently to many eloquent, sincere and passionate speeches about the need to protect the Belfast agreement and the peace process in Northern Ireland, but the agreement is three-stranded. It is about Northern Ireland’s internal arrangements, about north-south arrangements on the island of Ireland, and about the east-west arrangements between Northern Ireland, the Irish Republic and the rest of the United Kingdom. The emphasis is on north-south borders, but it seems that anything goes as far as the one between Northern Ireland and Great Britain is concerned. That is not acceptable; it is not the basis of the Belfast agreement. I urge noble Lords to read carefully that agreement, not a synopsis of it, and to not reinforce what they think is in it. There must be consent of both unionists and nationalists, which is very important. No matter how technical law may be, it is still legislation and it should be made in the democratically elected bodies—devolved matters at Stormont and reserved ones at Westminster—not in Brussels, to which no one in Northern Ireland sends any elected representatives.
The Government’s message on this specific statutory instrument is that these changes will simply reflect the legal position of the protocol, and there is no significant divergence between Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the EU on 1 January 2021. This may well be the case but there is, of course, as in all these situations, the prospect that this will not be a standstill position. The potential for differing standards risks adding complexity and cost for suppliers, gun holders and licensing bodies. In his response, will the Minister set out how these regulations will add to or change, for instance, the workload of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and businesses involved in firearms licensing, and set out clearly, in detail, what consultation there has been with the police and the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Office?
Has any assessment been made of how the loss of recognition for Great Britain tier 2 explosive precursor licences in Northern Ireland will affect trade with the rest of the United Kingdom? Has any work been done to assess whether the removal of this recognition will add cost and delay to supply chains operating on a UK-wide basis? Will the Home Office retain any authority for, or functional role in, approving some explosive licences for Northern Ireland? How will the changes be communicated to those affected? Finally, is there scope to pursue mutual recognition for Great Britain licences, as part of the joint committee negotiations, and indeed to agree overarching mutual recognition agreements between the UK and the European Union?
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, these regulations have been prepared by the Northern Ireland Office and laid before Parliament. They will ensure that Northern Ireland will continue to implement EU law required by the protocol to the withdrawal agreement on Ireland/Northern Ireland relating to explosive precursors and firearms enforcement. These amendments are being made to address deficiencies resulting from EU exit. In relation to explosive precursors, the regulatory regime continues to operate in substantially the same manner as before exit day. The regulation ensures that the UK has a functioning statute book on exit day. This ends the supremacy of EU law in domestic law and preserves laws made in the UK to implement EU obligations.
The purpose of this instrument is to ensure that the UK has a proper law to control firearms and explosives, and I support it. We must never forget the deaths and harm caused in Northern Ireland many years ago. This SI will ensure that such attacks never take place again. Will it also deal with terrorists in the UK or those coming from abroad?
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
“Uncontroversial” and “niche”, the Minister said. I do not think so—more like unclear and opaque. Like my noble friend Lord Addington, I confess that having studied the Explanatory Memorandum for these regulations I am not very much the wiser. I thought the control of firearms and explosives was a devolved matter but since the European firearms directive and the precursors regulation are listed in annexe 2 of the protocol, they will continue to apply in Northern Ireland as at present.
Further, paragraph 7.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum says that the protocol requires continuing compliance with
“EU law in and in relation to Northern Ireland.”
The result is that licences issued in Great Britain will not be recognised in Northern Ireland, although presumably the European firearms pass will be recognised in Great Britain. This gives rise to a number of questions and I seek clarification.
First, from the end of the transition period, who will control the licensing and regulation of explosives and firearms in Northern Ireland? Is it the Northern Ireland Office or its officials? Who will issue the European firearms pass? Secondly, how is that control to be exercised? Will it be by the Northern Ireland Executive or by legislation in the Northern Ireland Assembly? The noble Lord, Lord Empey, referred to the European Commission having a role. Is that right? If so, how is its control to be exercised? Thirdly, if changes to the European firearms directive or the precursors regulation are made in Europe—where, as the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, pointed out, we do not have a presence or a role in legislating—would these amended or rewritten regulations apply under the protocol in Northern Ireland? If so, from what point? The noble Lord, Lord Empey, regards that possibility as a breach of the Belfast agreement and the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, agrees. Who am I to disagree? Fourthly, paragraph 7.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum refers to a licensing regime under the precursors regulations
“allowing for explosives precursors to be acquired, imported, possessed or used by the public”.
Does this licensing regime exist? Will it exist? If so, how will it operate after the end of the transition period? Fifthly, if licences are issued to manufacturers in Great Britain, under British legislation, to manufacture explosives in Great Britain, will Northern Ireland allow them to be imported? It is clear that these extremely abstruse regulations give rise to points of principle and I hope that the Minister can enlighten us on these issues.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I rather agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, that this is not an easy regulation to deal with but it is an important one because the order shows that EU law on firearms and explosive precursors will continue to apply in Northern Ireland after the transition period. The Opposition support this as it is required by the Northern Ireland protocol, but I have a question for the Minister: after transition, will there be any greater level of divergence between Great Britain and Northern Ireland once British law no longer reflects the EU directive? I would be grateful for a comment on that.
In more general terms, this debate has been interesting. By the way, it is good to see the noble Lord, Lord Dodds. I have not been in a debate with him since he has become a Member of the House. He and the noble Lord, Lord Empey, both made some interesting points, looking back on the rather unhappy history of firearms in Northern Ireland. We must bear in mind that there are and were personal protection weapons—something that never existed in Britain but did in Northern Ireland—and that the police force in Northern Ireland carry arms. Whatever the technicalities of this statutory instrument, it is important that post-transition discussions should continue with the European Union on firearms in particular, because of the possible supply of illegal firearms into Northern Ireland. The European Scrutiny Committee raised issues such as this, including on sharing information between the EU and Northern Ireland about organised crime across the Irish border. When we talk about discussions and consultations with the EU, we particularly mean discussions with the Irish Government too. After 1 January, there will be no European arrest warrant and no guarantee that we will have data sharing as we had previously. It is so important for there to be proper collaboration between the Governments in the north and south of the island of Ireland.
I take the point made by the noble Lords, Lord Dodds of Duncairn and Lord Empey, about strand three of the Good Friday agreement. I jointly chaired the talks with the Irish Government that led to the recognition of strand three and its inclusion in the Good Friday agreement document. It deals with east-west relations and is a matter of particular importance to the unionist community in Northern Ireland, in the way that the nationalist community regard strand two—relations between Northern and southern Ireland—as equally important. We must not forget that the protocol and everything surrounding it, including the detail in this statutory instrument, affect how people perceive what is technically called strand three but what we would refer to as east-west relations between Britain and Ireland.
While we must and do support this, there are issues that the Minster needs to address. The European firearms issue is a significant one to pass and we must see how that fits with the post-transition regime. This statutory instrument is complicated but it illustrates the complexity of what will happen in Northern Ireland after 1 January. I look forward to what the Minister has to say about the important issues raised by your Lordships.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I was going to start by saying I was pleased that the order had been broadly welcomed by the House today. While I think it has, I recognise many of the comments that have been made. The noble Lord, Lord Murphy, pointed out, I think accurately, that while it is to be welcomed, there are complications. Perhaps I should not be too surprised, given all the issues that run alongside and are focused on Northern Ireland. Many questions were raised and I suspect I will be writing quite a detailed letter to all Peers who have taken part in this debate. I will do my best to have a stab at answering some of them at the Dispatch Box today.
This order is reasonably straightforward. I recognise the comments made but I would not go as far as agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, who described them, I believe, as peripheral.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Loomba, that the preceding regulations were laid by the Home Office in February 2019. They contain provisions on a wide range of security-related matters in preparation for the UK’s departure from the EU, which was then due to take place in March 2019. The protocol was agreed in October 2019 and contains detail in annexe 2 on areas where EU law would continue to apply in Northern Ireland. The regulations before us today are representative of the Government fulfilling their obligations under the protocol in these niche areas relating to explosive precursors. I hope that helps to answer the noble Lord’s question about whether the regulations might have been rethought or started from scratch.
Picking up on some points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on any changes to the UKIM Bill—on which I will touch later—I reassure him and other noble Lords that there are no changes I can mention today. But what I will do is take account of the issues that were raised; I will be sure to check Hansard and write a comprehensive letter answering the detailed questions.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked some questions about shooting sports. The noble Lord, Lord Loomba, raised this regarding licences, and the noble Lord, Lord Empey, alluded to it as well. I shall add to what I said earlier. Residents of Great Britain wishing to travel to EU countries to participate in shooting sports with their legal firearm will need to comply with the licensing requirements of all countries they will be in. The Home Office has written to shooting associations to make them aware of this. The EFP will continue to be valid for travel between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Those travelling from the Republic of Ireland through Northern Ireland to Great Britain with a legally-owned firearm will not be able to rely on the EFP in Great Britain and will have to comply with the guidance set out, as I mentioned in my opening speech, on GOV.UK. A question was raised earlier about the licence in the UK. To reiterate, it is recognised in Northern Ireland.
I listened carefully to the points raised about the protocol by the noble Lord, Lord Empey—I think a letter is in order for the noble Lord. For the moment, the protocol does not create, nor does it include any provision for creating, any kind of international border in the Irish Sea between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That is the answer I give today, but I also pick up on the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy. Again, I owe it to him and the noble Lord, Lord Empey, to write in more detail about that.
To round up, I remind the House—as if the House needed reminding—that the threat from Northern Ireland-related terrorism remains severe. However, this SI makes no changes to the checks and balances already in place to regulate the possession of explosive precursors and firearms in both Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Perhaps this helps to answer a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Addington.
I was particularly pleased to hear the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and I welcome him to the House—I have not had a chance to do that. I should set out in more detail answers to the points he has raised, but for the moment, I reassure the noble Lord that these regulations have very little impact on business. They relate to very few members of the public, as I said at the beginning. The implications for businesses, trade and the Police Service of Northern Ireland, in terms of resources and costs, are minimal. But let me put some meat on the bones of that answer in a letter to him.
The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, raised a question concerning the Home Office. The Home Office will continue to issue licences in Great Britain; the NIO will continue to issue licences in Northern Ireland. The NIO can expect to receive a small number of further applications.
I know there were some other questions, in particular from the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and I would wish to address these. They came fast and furious from him today. For the moment, though, I say that the changes in this SI will affect only the small number of Great Britain-based licence holders who wish to acquire, import, possess or use explosive precursors in Northern Ireland. The SI has no impact on current Northern Ireland-based licence holders. I know that the noble Lord’s questions went wider than this, and that is why I need to add to the letter that I have pledged to write.
Customs Safety, Security and Economic Operators Registration and Identification (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Agnew of Oulton
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 21 October be approved.
Relevant document: 32nd Report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office and the Treasury (Lord Agnew of Oulton) (Con)
My Lords, we are here to talk about a statutory instrument that is part of the Government’s package to prepare for the end of the transition period. The instrument relates to safety and security declarations as well as the process for registering for an economic operators registration and identification number, or EORI number. The instrument supports businesses’ preparations for the end of the transition period and corrects a deficiency in retained EU law. Noble Lords will be aware that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee reported the regulations as an instrument of interest in its 32nd report, published on 29 October.
First, I shall set out the context of the amendment that we wish to introduce for managing the safety and security risk of goods entering and leaving the UK. The UK subscribes to the World Customs Organization’s SAFE framework of standards, which sets out minimum requirements for participating customs administrations to regulate, monitor and secure the international supply chain. Customs authorities are required to collect and risk assess data on every consignment of imported and exported goods. The UK does this through safety and security declarations, which goods carriers are required to submit. These declarations are currently implemented through the Union customs code and are retained in law in the UK after the end of the transition period by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
While part of the EU, the UK required safety and security declarations only for goods leaving or entering the EU. From the end of the transition period, the default position is that carriers will be required to complete safety and security declarations for goods moved into and out of Great Britain where those goods are moving to or from the EU as well as the rest of the world. This SI deals with a temporary waiver for safety and security requirements for imports. The Government are introducing additional secondary legislation—laid this Monday, 16 November—to introduce contingency powers relating to safety and security requirements for exports, should they be needed.
In June, the Government announced the “staging-in” approach to controls at the border after the end of the transition period. As part of this approach, the Government are introducing this SI to waive safety and security entry summary declarations for six months on goods from the EU from 1 January 2021. The temporary waiver is necessary to address the adverse impact of Covid on businesses’ ability to prepare for new safety and security requirements. During the waiver period, there will be no requirement for entry summary declarations for goods imported into GB from territories where the UK does not currently require such declarations. Declarations will be required only from 1 July 2021. The waiver introduced by this instrument applies only to imports on which the UK does not currently receive declarations. Border Force will continue to undertake intelligence-led risk assessments of goods movements into this country from the EU, as it does now. Entry summary declarations will continue to be required for goods imported from the rest of the world. As a result, there is no increased security risk to the UK from this approach in the short term.
Secondly, the instrument amends a list of locations currently in the retained legislation that are granted shorter timing requirements for the submission of safety and security declarations for maritime movements. Safety and security declarations are required to be submitted within certain time limits before arrival or departure. These time limits vary by mode of transport.
Within the retained legislation, drafted with the geography of the EU in mind, there is a list of territories for which safety and security declarations can be submitted within a shorter time limit for movements by sea. This is to account for the practicalities of these shorter journeys, where the default time limits are unnecessarily onerous and challenging for carriers to meet. This list currently includes places such as Morocco, with very lengthy timings for journeys to Great Britain. Given the length of journeys from these places to Great Britain, there is no need for these movements to be offered the shorter time limits.
Conversely, this list currently does not include some of our closest neighbours and trading partners. For these journeys, which include channel crossings and goods moved to and from the Atlantic coast of Spain and Portugal, the default timing requirements are impractical for these well-established trade routes. This instrument updates the territory list in the retained legislation, removing territories that border the EU and no longer need the shorter timing requirement and adding to the list those territories that now require this consideration. This change will prevent industry being unnecessarily burdened for the shortest crossings and helps to update retained legislation to reflect our new status as an independent customs regime.
Thirdly, the instrument updates the governance of the economic operators registration identification in retained law. An EORI is a unique registration number given to businesses to interact with customs authorities, so that HMRC can identify them effectively. EORIs are necessary when applying for customs simplifications or facilitations, when making customs declarations or in any other interactions with the customs authority. All existing EORIs issued by the UK, known as UK EORIs, will continue to remain valid for use in Great Britain after 31 December 2020 and will continue to be prefixed with the letters “GB”. From 1 January 2021, individuals or businesses established in Great Britain or other territories outside the EU who want to trade with the EU and do not already have a UK EORI will need to obtain one. Persons that are not established in Great Britain but wish to lodge a declaration or request a customs decision in Great Britain will also require a UK EORI.
This instrument ensures that Great Britain has a functioning EORI system by replacing references and terminology in the retained EU law that will no longer apply to Great Britain. It will also maintain a registration requirement on those where such a requirement is set down in national law. This instrument does not impose any additional requirements to those already imposed under EU law.
The safety and security aspects of this instrument do not apply to movements of goods between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, or Northern Ireland and the rest of the world. Under the Northern Ireland protocol, goods moved between Northern Ireland and the EU will not be subject to safety and security requirements. Goods moved between Northern Ireland and the rest of the world will be subject to safety and security requirements. The EORI aspects of this instrument will not apply to traders in Northern Ireland, who will continue to register under the UCC.
By introducing a temporary entry summary declarations waiver and amending the declaration submission deadlines, this instrument strikes the right balance between giving traders time to prepare for new arrangements with the EU while still maintaining the safety and security of the UK. It also makes technical amendments to allow businesses that will require an EORI to continue to register as they currently do. I beg to move.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his clear explanation of these measures, which I support. I welcome the decision to suspend declarations for at least the first six months, from January to July 2021, to help business by reducing their administration burdens, particularly for roll-on roll-off freight. I understand that there is a proposal to phase in restrictions over the first six months in three stages. Can my noble friend help the House to understand how ready businesses are and whether they are aware of the different time limits that will apply as we move forward with our new system? I also welcome the leeway that is being given to businesses.
Perhaps I may ask my noble friend a few questions. First, how many new customs officers are expected to be required as we move forward with the new system? How many have we already in place, and are we looking to recruit further over the coming months?
On agriculture and agri-foods and the safety and security checks that may be associated with them, what controls or liaison might there be with other countries if issues need to be addressed in terms of the safety of imports?
Will the Minister expand a little on the impact of the Northern Ireland protocol on these measures? If, as is currently possible, there are requirements for traders between Northern Ireland and Great Britain to make customs declarations, what are the arrangements to prepare Northern Ireland businesses for this? What can my noble friend say to help the House understand the implications of the current perception that has been given to Northern Ireland businesses that such declarations are not needed? I recognise that nothing will be required for the first six months, so clearly there is time, but what are the Government’s plans in that regard?
Overall, I welcome the leeway being given and the phasing in of the measures that would be required for entry and export summary declarations. Clearly, there will be, as the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee outlined, some significant one-off costs initially and additional administrative burdens at some point, but I believe that my noble friend has indicated that the Government do not expect that to be too onerous. Can he give some clarification of what is expected and how this has been received by different sectors? If he does not have that information now, perhaps he can write to me. Overall, I welcome these regulations.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to support these regulations. Like my noble friend Lady Altmann, I have a couple of questions. In particular, mindful of the fact that the waiver is coming into effect at quite a late stage in the day, and in response to questions from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in preparing its report on the regulations before us today, HMRC replied:
“The NI Protocol requires HMG to implement the Union Customs Code in NI. As a result of this, some movements between GB and NI will attract a Safety & Security requirement, but the full extent of this is the subject of ongoing negotiations between the UK and the EU. Traders will be able to access help from the new Trader Support Service in NI to support them meeting their requirements.”
I want to ask in particular when the Trader Support Service will be up and running. Reference has been made twice in proceedings today to how businesses in Northern Ireland can rely on the Trader Support Service. We on the EU Environment Sub-Committee took evidence on the importance of unfettered movement between Northern Ireland and Great Britain under the Northern Ireland protocol, and it is essential that businesses have the best guidance and support that they can get. I therefore hope that my noble friend Lord Agnew will be able to explain to us today what state the Trader Support Service will be in to give them the best possible advice.
Mindful of the fact that the negotiations are still ongoing, I am rather amused by the adverts that the Government have put out. I know they are meant to be helpful and I think they will be in the long run, but they are inviting businesses to log on to a website to prepare for the new arrangements, and it is incredibly frustrating for them because they do not yet know what those arrangements will be. What is the lead time between the negotiations ending and knowing what the new arrangements will be? It was a source of some disappointment to us on the EU Environment Sub-Committee that, until quite recently, there had been no formal discussions between the Northern Ireland Assembly, businesses, the Westminster Parliament, and, I presume, HMRC. Can the Minister confirm today that that is no longer the case?
Like my noble friend Baroness Altmann, I note that there will be additional burdens and one-off costs. However, paragraph 7 of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee report states that
“it will be a new legal obligation and an additional cost to submitting a customs declaration for import and export purposes”—
and that was the response from HMRC to inquiries from that committee. I understood that there are not meant to be any significant checks so I am slightly surprised to learn that there will be a new legal obligation leading to the additional costs and burdens of completing a customs declaration. Does the Minister have any idea how long it would take to fill in such a customs declaration?
I hark back to the days when I was first elected as a Member of the European Parliament in 1989. For the first three years, we were not in the single market, so for import and export all businesses had to complete about 20 pages or more of customs declarations. As the local MEP, on occasion I was phoned up and asked to intervene—through the good offices of government departments—to make sure that these customs declarations could be completed and dispatched to enable the goods to move. Agri-foods are perishable goods, and it could ruin a whole load if there was a delay of longer than the—I think—four hours pre-arrival for one form of declaration and two hours pre-arrival for both. If these time limits were to be exceeded, it could pose serious problems for the transporters and the logistics for these perishable goods.
I am interested to learn how my noble friend will respond to these few remarks in connection with the regulation he has presented today.
Baroness Wheatcroft (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for presenting these regulations in such a straightforward manner. In principle, I welcome them. A six-month delay in imposing new and costly obligations on business at this time is clearly a sensible step. I hope that it will help delay Kent turning from the garden of England into the toilet of England, as some fear it will be, as lorries queue up outside the ports. Does the Minister expect those delays to be imminent on the other side of the channel because these agreements are not reciprocal but are being waived only by the UK? We cannot expect the EU to reciprocate.
It seems utterly mad to propose imposing new burdens on our businesses at this stage. It is welcome that HMRC is prepared to spell out that these regulations will be costly and troublesome to business when they come into practice. Already our country has lost a fortune because of Covid. The automobile industry alone reckons that Covid has cost it £27.5 billion so far in lost sales and production. There is no doubt that Brexit will add to those costs when we finally come to the end of the transition period.
Therefore, rather than waiving these regulations for six months, will the Minister consider extending the transition period across the board? That would be a sensible move for the UK and the EU. It might allow time to rethink the way in which businesses are classified. I understand the need for traders to have a registration and identification number but, despite the imminence of our final departure from the EU, many still have not secured one.
Perhaps they struggle with the requirement first to classify their operations in line with the Government’s official classifications. There are numerous, different and, in some cases, somewhat obscure categories. Manufacturing of consumer electronics is a sensibly broad and easy to understand category but do we really need businesses to shoehorn themselves into such narrow classifications as “producing oleaginous fruits” or “manufacturing of knitted or crocheted hosiery”? Those categories seem unnecessarily narrow. Will the Minister undertake to consider simplifying classifications to help those applying for EORIs?
Lord Naseby (Con) [V]
My Lords, I particularly welcome this SI, which is almost certainly one of the most important instruments for our country as Brexit looms. It comes in the time and climate of lockdown, which is extremely difficult for anybody doing business. Perhaps I may highlight what my noble friend Lady McIntosh said about Northern Ireland. I was a junior Minister there in 1979 for a couple of years. I will not repeat her questions because they are absolutely crucial and do not need repeating.
Given our debate on the Internal Market Bill about affirmative resolutions, I am pleased that there is an affirmative resolution in this key area. Paragraph 2.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum clearly explains the purpose and paragraph 2.4 explains that the Union customs code requires pre-arrival and pre-departure collection and the risk assessment of data on goods by customs authorities.
I come to this debate from the point of view of having been the Member of Parliament for Northampton South; there is a large number of hauliers in Northampton because it is a transport hub. They are not happy folk at the moment but they are experienced hauliers. They and I realise that there is to be a temporary waiver for ENS declarations until 30 June, which, it is stated, will particularly help those hauliers who transport goods only in the EU. Is there an estimate of how many hauliers are in that category? It seems likely that they represent the vast majority. Nevertheless, the procedure offered in the six-month waiver is substantial and welcome.
Picking up on what my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft said, I wonder whether it would be wise to do a review after at least three months. Six months will go by very quickly in what will still be difficult period for our country. Can the Minister reflect on that? These poor hauliers will move from a system of 24 hours for the preloading of containers and four hours pre-arrival to just two hours. Is this workable? Has it been tested yet? I imagine the Minister will know the answer to that. If it has not been tested, when will it be? All too often we have seen across many areas of public sector operations that the IT is not robust enough to handle challenges. Has the IT been rigorously tested? Is it robust enough to cope with a huge number of hauliers registering on the two-hour basis for both short-term material and containers? I can see a situation in which the system crashes from too many people trying to log on at the same time. This is absolutely vital.
Consultation is so important. Paragraph 10.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum refers to HMRC sponsoring the Joint Customs Consultative Committee. That is good, but how many times has it actually met? Were hauliers always represented and what came of its recent meetings? Does contact now rest only with the “virtual reading room” referred to in that paragraph?
I have talked to some of my former constituents in Northampton. They remain deeply concerned. It is not just the Northern Ireland dimension; no one knows whether there is going to be a deal. I am not accusing the Minister of being responsible for that, but they are different scenarios. Against that background, we are asking an important part of our trade, industry and welfare somehow to operate almost instantly, albeit we have this six-month waiver. As the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee states in paragraph 8 of its 32nd report,
“HMRC expects significant one-off costs”.
Is the Minister in a position to indicate the scale of those costs and what they are likely to be? Are they software or staff costs, for example?
I can see that my noble friend the Minister faces a huge challenge. I thank him for what he has done so far and what he will need to do in the weeks ahead. Against the background of what my two colleagues and I have raised, I look forward to his response with great interest.
Baroness Kramer (LD) [V]
My Lords, my colleagues and I do not object to this SI. Given how little prepared this country is to cope with imports from the EU into the UK, the six-month delay in requiring ENS declarations is inevitable. How likely are the Government to hit the July target and the staging posts in between? On the continent, all countries’ customs organisations have completed their preparations, and they too have experienced Covid.
To what extent does the Government’s expectation that SNS declarations will not apply to goods transported from the GB to Northern Ireland rely on breaking international law? It would be helpful to understand.
I would also like the Minister to help me understand some rather more granular issues, in particular the impact of post-transition customs barriers on the flexibility or loss of flexibility for hauliers in determining their route when crossing the Channel. I particularly have in mind the accompanied roll-on, roll-off traffic which handles most of the perishable and critical just-in-time cargo. For example, car factories in the UK order parts in the morning from EU suppliers that are to be put into the production line in the UK that afternoon and vice versa. The Explanatory Memorandum accepts that it is the norm for drivers on the Continent to decide whether they will use the Calais-Dover ferry or Eurotunnel only as they approach the entrance at Coquelles or Calais. Does the requirement for declarations to be filed even just two hours pre arrival allow flexibility for such decision-making and a change of route to continue in the same way as now? It has been very important in managing issues around congestion through industrial action or, indeed, a change in destination delivery.
Reading the Government website for ro-ro traffic from the UK to the EU, I cannot work out how much flexibility will exist in that direction. Again, drivers decide between the Dover-Calais ferry or Eurotunnel only after leaving the M20. I can see from the website that the process of getting export clearance has multiple steps in which the exporter files details, including the vehicle registration number, often known only at loading, along with customs duty tariffs and presumably rules of origin, also often known only at loading. HMRC then notifies the exporter if more documentation is required or gives permission to progress to port. How flexible is this side of the regime? What happens if the haulier wishes to combine loads at the last minute? Is the entry paperwork different going into France, Belgium and Holland? I believe that it is. Also, have the EU states had time to adapt to the new UK systems? Given that some of them are still a work in progress, it seems quite tough to expect someone else to integrate with systems we have not completed.
Large companies have the resources to cope with these changes, expensive though they are, but the Minister will be aware that 150,000 exporters to the EU have never experienced a customs regime and many of them have been unable to prepare for the change, especially as they are dealing with Covid and because they do not know exactly what the systems are. The NAO notes that the Government’s latest reasonable worst-case planning assumption of September 2020 is that 40% to 70% of laden lorries may not be ready for border controls. It has also made clear that the customs intermediary market, which most small exporters rely on and will have to use, is inadequate, despite some recent investment by the Government.
Many of the Government’s new IT systems, while welcome, are either unfinished or are still being tested, leaving businesses with only a tiny window to understand what is needed to adapt to them and then to implement the adaptation. Will the Minister update us on the readiness status of NCTS, which is the new computerised transit system, GBS&S, the safety and security system, and GVMS—the Goods Vehicle Movement Service. Where are we on the migration from CHIEF, Customs Handling of Import and Export Freight, which at least is understood, to the Customs Declaration Service, which appears to be a major headache? Indeed, why has the CDS not been delayed, given the trouble it is causing? Further, while some ports are prepared, others are not. Can he comment on BBC reports that Felixstowe is already in chaos with unacceptable delays because of pre-Brexit stockpiling and Covid?
Lastly, I ask the Minister about the Economic Operator Identification and Registration System. As the amendments in this SI make clear, this scheme is a nightmare, and the SI appears to admit to another layer of complication. The Government have been frequently asked to devise and negotiate a proportionate version for small exporters. In the Explanatory Memorandum, the Government proudly declare that no specific action is proposed to minimise regulatory burdens on small businesses. Why have they chosen not to do this?
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing this statutory instrument and to other noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. I also express my thanks to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its important comments on this instrument.
The importance of getting customs processes right cannot be overstated. As we all know, we have left the EU and will soon leave the 12-month transition period. It is still possible that there will be a deal that facilitates trade in goods, but we cannot know whether the noble Lord, Lord Frost, and his team will succeed. Had the Government chosen to pursue a different course during the Brexit process, it is possible that we could have avoided the need for a new customs regime to be designed and implemented in record time. However, we are where we are, and it is in everyone’s interests—those of businesses and consumers alike—that Ministers get this right.
This instrument introduces a temporary waiver on the entry summary declarations. It also amends requirements in relation to the registration of businesses to ensure there is no major change to the UK’s powers at the end of the transition period. On this matter, the measures before us supersede a previous set of regulations. In relation to the first change, the Government present this policy as a favour to businesses, allowing them more time to prepare for our movement to new procedures, particularly in the light of the Covid-19 pandemic. While businesses will undoubtedly welcome the degree of flexibility, I hope the Minister will forgive me for being sceptical about his justification.
The Government set out the bulk of their customs policy proposals earlier this year, promising an array of new IT systems and the recruitment of 50,000 new officials by the end of the year. In recent months, we have seen a number of media reports, supplemented by National Audit Office analysis, suggesting that things were not progressing as hoped. On the IT side, could the Minister give us an estimate, in percentage terms, of our readiness? Is there any link between the ENS postponement and the Government’s ability to process the data? On recruitment, the Government have repeatedly refused Labour’s requests for information on numbers. Can the Minister confirm today how many of the 50,000 have now been recruited? Of this number, how many have received the necessary training to operate on the ground from January? I am happy for the noble Lord to write if he does not have the information to hand.
The changes to the timing of entry and exit declarations appear, at face value, a sensible step. Over the past four years, the road haulage industry has voiced concerns that the Government have not fully got to grips with the challenge hauliers will face beyond the transition period. I appreciate that Ministers have engaged with industry, but there have sometimes been concerns that such engagement has been half-hearted. With many ports already facing capacity issues, coupled with the well-documented steps being taken in Kent, we need to take any and all steps that will keep vehicles moving and ferries departing on time. I understand the justification for the two-hour deadline but would like to ask the Minister whether this will be kept under review and, if any changes are required, how they will be delivered.
I turn now to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s exchange with the department on the lack of impact assessment alongside these regulations. HMRC may be correct that this measure does not require an impact assessment due to its short-term nature. However, the Minister and I have had several exchanges on the quality of Explanatory Memoranda in recent months. Does he accept that, even if a formal assessment was not deemed necessary, the inclusion of relevant facts and figures, including the likely costs to businesses within and after the ENS waiver, was desirable? If he does, will he feed that back to his officials?
Finally, I will make a brief point that goes slightly beyond this instrument. The SI does what it can on the matter of imports but excludes exports for obvious reasons. While I appreciate that the Minister cannot control the protocols put in place by others, I hope he can provide some reassurance that this other, rather large piece of the trade jig-saw is being dealt with through the relevant channels.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, I thank the House for this debate. I will seek to address the questions that have been asked. If I do not give enough detail, I ask noble Lords to feel free to write to me because this is an extremely complicated area and I certainly do not pretend to be across every detail.
I shall start with my noble friend Lady Altmann, who asked about the number of stages of requirements. There are simply two stages, one from 1 January and one from 1 July. It may be that my noble friend has something else in mind, so if she wants to seek clarification, I ask her to write to me. HMRC is standing up approximately 7,000 new customs officers for this process, around 6,000 of whom are already in place. The bulk of the others are either in training or under offer, so I am reasonably confident that we will have enough. I get a weekly report on that information.
A number of noble Lords asked about the Northern Ireland protocol. It is a very complicated international agreement, made more so by the fact that we do not have everything nailed down yet. I share the frustration of many noble Lords who wish to see certainty. However, the Trader Support Service has been established to support traders in Northern Ireland and has already started sending out bulletins to traders in Northern Ireland who have registered. As of last week, 2,800 Northern Ireland businesses had registered and at least 2,000 GB businesses are looking to trade with Northern Ireland. That figure is changing daily and going up quite quickly. They will link into the computer system that will operate in Northern Ireland, the Customs Declaration Service, which will operate only in Northern Ireland initially because it is capable of managing a dual-tariff system. I will talk more about systems later on.
My noble friend Lady Wheatcroft asked about delays on the other side of the channel. She is right that it is not something we can have a great deal of control of, but we are engaging substantially with all the EU countries that trade with us and we see from surveys that awareness is going up weekly. However, this is of course made more complicated by Covid.
The noble Baroness asked why we could not provide longer-term waivers in this SI. The practical limit is that under the international customs rules one cannot make these things permanent, but we believe that the six-month delay will give businesses a chance to adjust. The noble Baroness also asked about the number of businesses that have registered for an EORI number: it is a bit over 260,000 and they are still coming in.
The noble Baroness expressed concern about complexity. It is absolutely our intention and aspiration to operate the most efficient border in the world by 2025, as we have stated. We are not able to do that straightaway, and I fully accept that there will be complexity and arcane rules that we would like to remove now but cannot necessarily remove in the next few weeks or months. However, we are absolutely committed to improving the system.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh also asked about the Trader Support Service. I assure her that it is standing up at a rapid rate. It is led by Fujitsu, a large computer company that has been working with HMRC on other systems for a number of years. One of its consortium members is the software company Descartes, which is going to link to CDS. I am in very regular contact with the HMRC teams on the implementation of that work.
Businesses have been able to sign up since 28 September and, as I mentioned, those that sign up now receive bulletins. However, we are concerned that not enough Northern Irish traders have registered. We continue to communicate as assertively as we can with trade bodies and hauliers in Northern Ireland. The noble Baroness asked about one-off costs. We expect that importers will face some increase in costs as a result of the declaration requirements, but they are very variable. We do not know how importers will choose to manage the declaration, which is often just one part of a wider customs process. Because of this uncertainty, the estimate on the admin burden is not currently available. As noble Lords will know, the negotiations with the EU on an FTA are ongoing. That is why we cannot be crystal clear for traders. As I have said, it is frustrating, but I have personally pushed HMRC to get out all the decisions that it can as quickly as possible, to remove the uncertainty that traders face.
My noble friend Lord Naseby asks whether trade associations and hauliers were consulted on the changes to the timing of the notification of the ENSs. It is worth clarifying that this change was requested by stakeholders. It gives flexibility to hauliers and carriers to pick the route nearer to the time of departure. They do not have to submit the information on that timescale; they can put it in earlier if they know what route they are taking. We consulted with 40 trade associations and business representatives on this, and that is why we have made these changes. My noble friend also asked about communication with hauliers, referring to his old constituency. We have created 40 advice and information pop-up sites across GB. In the last week or two, 7,000 hauliers have visited them, as they collect information and increase their level of familiarisation.
Many noble Lords asked about IT readiness. There are a lot of systems, so I will not go through each one in detail. The main one, CHIEF, the existing system, is tried and tested, and has been upgraded to take the higher volume of transactions. Regarding congestion, particularly around the short straits, we have created a facility, “Check an HGV”, which will enable hauliers to answer a simple questionnaire before they go into Kent, to ensure that their paperwork is in order. That has been in beta testing with a number of hauliers over the last few weeks. Noble Lords have mentioned costs. We have provided support of £80 million to the intermediaries sector—customs intermediaries, freight co-ordinators and so on—to uprate their businesses. That money is still going out. Not all of it has been claimed by grants, and this week we widened the criteria to give more flexibility. Noble Lords will also be aware of the port infrastructure fund which closed on 31 October, and which again was well received by the port sector. It will probably be oversubscribed, but it will provide substantial capital to enhance the sector’s facilities.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, asked a number of questions, some of which I hope I have answered. She asked particularly about small business support. We have made efforts to support the small business sector. HMRC has introduced a number of support mechanisms around such things as duty handling, where we have provided an accelerated system for the deferral of duty. That process is under way, but I absolutely accept that this is going to be a period of change and a lot of learning for all parts of the sector.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked thoughtful questions, as normal. He asked whether this is a response to Covid or a matter of lack of readiness on the part of the Government. We have listened very carefully to carriers, who have been emphatic that the challenges raised by Covid have required that we make this particular easement. Businesses specialising in cross-border trade have been significantly impacted by the pandemic. This disruption has prevented them preparing the introduction of customs controls at the end of the transition period, and it is really in response to those challenges that we announced the staging in. The introduction of a temporary waiver for entry summary declarations was a necessary measure to address the adverse impact of Covid while balancing the safety and security needs of the country.
The noble Lord asked about the employment of 50,000 customs agents. There may be a misunderstanding of terminology on my part, but I think the number he refers to relates to the customs intermediaries industry, not to civil servants, Border Force or suchlike. That figure was a bit of a finger in the air, to be honest: one simply extrapolated the number of customs forms from the volume increase. The reality is that the grants we have given to the sector—a moment ago I mentioned around £80 million—have been available to increase capacity, not just through hiring more people but covering IT training and innovation, basically. Our intelligence suggests that the sector is ready for the big increase in transaction numbers from January. As I mentioned a moment ago, we have just widened the criteria of the grants facility to give a wider range of eligibility.
The sector is varied, as I mentioned. It includes customs brokers, freight forwarders and fast-parcel operators, and the increase in capacity goes beyond simple increases in the numbers of staff. The Government continue to work closely with industry stakeholders to ensure that they have the capacity required. We will continue carefully to monitor preparations, bearing in mind that there will be a big jump in January and then another jump in July. Therefore, we will keep a careful eye on capacity.
The noble Lord asked about the timing requirements. I hope I dealt with that in an earlier answer, but there is a basic requirement, because Border Force needs time to collect and risk-assess data, with the practical considerations about what information the industry is able to provide and when without being overly burdensome. Of course, this varies by mode of transport, and the shorter timing requirement that this SI extends to the territories list reflects the reality for short sea movements, such as those from Calais to Dover. The change offers a more practical requirement for the submission of these declarations for businesses involved in maritime trade on historic, busy and significant trading routes. We will continue to assess feedback from the industry on how the customs system works for them and keep the requirements under review.
The noble Lord asked about the cost of the impact of the S&S requirements. As I mentioned earlier, we expect there to be some additional costs, but we have not been able to quantify them.
The noble Lord asked whether we can reassure the House that trade requirements are being considered more widely beyond the question of imports. My noble friend Lord Naseby asked a similar question. We continue to work closely with industry to ensure that it is engaging with the new requirements and can take the necessary steps to prepare. We are using a public information campaign. I accept that for some people that might sound irritating but, to a certain extent, it needs to be irritating for people to take notice of it. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is having regular Zoom conferences with stakeholders to hear their issues at first hand, as indeed, am I. I hope that addresses the questions. I think I will be back here again on future SIs and I am sure will be subjected to ongoing scrutiny. If noble Lords want to write to me on any particular issues, they should feel free to do so.
To sum up, the Government are introducing this SI as an important part of the process of updating retained legislation to support our status as an independent customs regime. By providing extra time for businesses affected by Covid to prepare to meet their safety and security requirements, we are listening to businesses and supporting them at this challenging time.